Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Libertarian Endorses Bush

Discussion in 'Legal' started by riverdog, Oct 27, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. riverdog

    riverdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,826
    Libertarian Pioneer Endorses Bush Dr. John Hospers a "Former presidential candidate says too much at stake not to support 'W' "
     
  2. riverdog

    riverdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,826
     
  3. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    I was reading someplace that the authenticity of this statement is in question. I have no specifics, other than source documents were requested on freerepublic, and they never came.

    Take my statement with a grain of salt, but try to find out the source of this if you can.
     
  4. riverdog

    riverdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,826
    WorldNetDaily's source I guess someone could challenge the bidinotto blog, but it seems to me that Dr. John Hospers would be crying foul if it was a hoax.
     
  5. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    here is what was said over at TCF. Looks like I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who..... well.... heresay is heresay:

     
  6. riverdog

    riverdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,826
    I find it very interesting that the Libertarian Party is ignoring the John Hospers letter issue. Not even a mention in passing on their website. Ignore it and it will go away?
     
  7. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    I find it interesting that worldnetdaily does not get any independent verification - they quote only the letter it’s self. Also, the blog you mentioned, the bidinotto blog, received the letter from a "mutual friend" and not from Hospers himself. I also note that this letter appears to have been posted several days before it appears on the bidinotto blog on yet another website dated 10-23-04 and there is no source, or explanation how it got there.
    This letter is mentioned on Freerepublic, but that original post was on 10-25-04.

    Where did the original come from? Who got it first?



    original letter?
     
  8. riverdog

    riverdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,826
    Good questions, but it would be very easy for the Dr. John Hospers or the LP to refute the letter and call it a hoax. They have not chosen to do so.
     
  9. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    But there is the crux. They have not denied it, and yet they have not confirmed either, and there is no real chain of evidence leading this to Hospers. I wonder why he would choose to release his endorsement, not to a newspaper, or through normal channels, but instead somehow slip it to someone at "Eddie's rants and raves" for distribution.

    Of course, this could be my tinfoil hat talking. ;)
     
  10. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,040
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    The Libertarians rebut here,

    http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/index.php?paged=3

    and do not challenge the validity of the letter.


    Summary:

    Hospers point: As libertarians, our duty is to promote liberty, not necessarily the Libertarian party, especially when doing so sabotages our goal.

    Spangler's point: Voting for a DNC/GOP candidate sells out your birthright, the only long term way to achieve Liberty is via the party, even if Bush wins, we continue the incrementalism towards loss of Liberty.

    My Editorial Opinion:

    Advantage: Hosper, who makes a clear point responsive to reality.


    Spangler doesn't deal with the reality that Badnarick will not win, or propose a realist plan to deal with the aftermath, offering instead the heady theoretical pablum and moonbattery that inspired me to resign the big L party.
     
  11. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    Just found this on badnarik.org - I cant draw any conclusion - just putting this out there:



    REPORT on DISCUSSIONs with Dr. Hospers.

    I spoke with John from 9pm to 4:30 a.m. the night Oct. 25th-26th, 2004. He was on the phone speaking to a Libertarian from East Coast as I knocked on his Hollywood Hills Door. Only a young nephew is now living with John Hospers.

    He can’t answer all the emails and phone calls. But he said tells all who inquire, that he did indeed author the letter. But he told me: Bush is better than Kerry, because Islamic [murdering] extremists are the greatest threat to Liberty. Hospers was bsolutely “fixated†on “Islamic extremists intent on killing
    every non-Islamic person in the world".
    This “threat trumps all other concerns".
    I attempted to reason with Dr. Hospers from several angles of logic, but logic
    seemed not to work. “Only Bush perceives
    the great danger†was his reply.

    After more than 8 hours of two way discussion, I concluded, that Dr. Hospers, has been isolated too long! He was unaware that David Cobb and Michael Badnarik had been arrested, unaware of several of the Patriot Act provisions, and numberous other factoids that most Libertarians knew for fact. He was not sure that Badnarik had been arrested at St. Louis, but was for the sake of arguement willing to take my word for it, without conceding it as a fact, known to be true.

    My Conclusion:

    Dr. John Hospers, is not in the same mental level of sharpness, he was even 3 years ago when I did a Tv interview for a documentary on the Libertarian Party with him at the 2001 San Jose Ca. State Convention. Randy Debber is more the author of the “Hospers†“Open Letter", than Dr. John Hospers, even though John
    is quick to claim “credit†for it, while acknowledging “it probably won’t change many minds, least of all Libertarians".
    Lastly, Dr. Hospers is now of somewhat fragil physical condition. He is certainly in a state of decline, but still wanting to not be forgotten… to have some impact … to save us all from
    murdering Islamic extremists. Many elderly become obsessed with “security†as they become less able to care for themselves.

    Therefore, even though a very aged Dr. Hospers accepts credit for the “Open Letter", I conclude Randy Debber used his knowledge of Dr. Hospers current condition and proclivities, and worries to put Dr. Hospers name on a document, that Debber coached out of Hospers. Dr. Hospers did indeed write his concerns in the letter, and will acknowledge that Dr. John Hospers considers Cheney the real brains, and Bush a bad debater and “not too bright", but still feels that “Kerry will not stop the Islamic Extremist intend on murder every non-islamic even in America".

    He finally stated, that he did NOT think his “open Letter†would do much to bring Bush votes, but felt impelled to do it, when asked by a certain, Randy Debber. Finally, by way of long discussion, Prof Hospers let out that Debber had written the final draft, and Randy Debber had sent the email, because supposedly John is not computer savy [according also to what Mr. Debber emailed].

    I indicated that since Kerry will sweep California, his letter will do no go whatsoEver since all CA electorial votes in the Electorial college will go to Kerry, even if Every BADNARIK supporter defected to Bush. Dr. Hospers agreed and acknowedged that, but stated he hoped it would reach Libertarians on “independant†voters in battleground states. Dr. john Hospers in the course of 8 hours stated, that the Libertarian Party was not even a blimp on the political radar screen as far as Presidential things go. then why bother to write a Open letter? John “hoped†it might do some good, while acknowledging, again, he probably did not change any votes.

    For a man whose life was centered around rational thought, I felt I was talking only to a shadow of that mental giant. Logic, reason, were absent. The clich’es of logic and reason were there, but not the actual substance.

    So I conclude, the Letter IS a FAKE, in that without Randy Debber, it would never have been. John Hospers has his own PC and is still capable of using it, and still answers some email, but DEBBER is the one who SENT the “open Letter".

    Randy Debber, whom I have never met, and never heard of until I tracked down the Email author is in my view, the author of the John Hospers “OPEN LETTERâ€

    John will stand there and tell you it is his, but I think what John Hospers wants most, is not to be forgotten, while he is still alive. He talks about Islamic Extremists, yes. But I think if he had met Mr. BADNARIK, and been invited to any discussion, Randy Debber would not have been able to get this aging elder philosopher to put his name on this letter. There is more to say, in detail, but this is my conclusion after more 8 hours of discussion.

    What Randy Debbers motive was or is in thi, I can only speculate, and that I won’t do.

    William “B.J.†Wagener
     
  12. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,040
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    When you don't like the message, impugn the messenger. :scrutiny:
     
  13. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    Yup, thats what it looks like. Besides its human nature.
     
  14. mattf7184

    mattf7184 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    479
    Location:
    South FL
    His letter seemed very well thought out for a crazy old man :rolleyes:

    At least one Libertarian gets it...
     
  15. cropcirclewalker

    cropcirclewalker member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    In the Woods close to Arkansas
    Trouble is......

    getting Libertarians to agree on something is like trying to herd cats.

    As much as I respect his memory, if Tom Jefferson himself was to tell me to vote for Bush, I would politely decline.

    We have to be responsible for our own decisions. Hospers didn't say anything that I haven't heard before.
     
  16. Felonious Monk

    Felonious Monk Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    680
    Location:
    Lilium Inter Spinas
    See sigline.

    Well done, Dr. Hospers!
    Crazy like a fox!
    Stupid like...Dubya!

    FM
     
  17. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    When are the Republicans going to start stemming that tide?

    Checking the most recent Economic Report of the President, I see the following:
    1992:
    1.3 trillion total federal budget, 298 billion defense
    2000:
    1.7 trillion total, 294 billion defense

    That's 400 billion more in socialist boondoggles in 8 years of Clinton.

    2001:
    1.8 trillion total, 305 billion defense
    2004 (projected, meaning it will be higher):
    2.3 trillion total, 455 billion defense

    That's 150 billion more for defense, 350 billion more for socialist boondoggles in 4 years. Given the historical rate at which they exceed spending projections, it's virtually certain that the 350 billion number will swell to over 400 billion, or twice the growth rate we saw under Clinton and gridlock.

    How about total government spending as a percent of GDP? That's an important number as well. After all, it would be insane for me to spend as much as $50,000 on a security system for my house, but it would be similarly nutty for Bill Gates to spend that little.

    Anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject knows that government spending in the US has been around 15 to 20% of GDP since WWII.

    In 1992, total federal spending was 22.1% of GDP. By 2000, it was down to 18.4%.

    To quote Gomer Pyle, well gooooolleee! The GOP Congress didn't want that Clinton feller spending money, and they actually cut govt spending as a percent of what we've got to spend.

    What have they done under W?

    2001: 18.6%
    2002: 19.4%
    2003: 19.9%
    2004: 20.2% (estimate, meaning it will be higher, if you'll recall the prescription drug boondoggle)

    Any way you measure it, gridlock results in less government growth than one party rule. I have no reason to believe the Dems will take Congress, so I actually see some things getting better under Kerry.

    For example, if Kerry decided that his authority as commander in chief of the military was superior to the civil authority (altering our very form of government), and he used it to toss a citizen in a military brig on secret evidence, to be charged or let out when John Kerry got good and ready to charge him or let him out, I think some of the Republicans might just decide that he had crossed a line, something they didn't seem to care much about when Bush did it.

    If Kerry decided that a government takeover of a large part of our medical system was in order, some R's might just decide to block that idea. Not much protest when W enacted the largest expansion of socialized medicine in my lifetime.

    If Kerry started going around saying that massively increasing federal spending and involvement in government schools was the cure to educational ills, there might just be a protest from the Republican congress. What have we seen under one party rule? Well, checking back in the Economic Report of the President again, here's an interesting item:

    Education, training, employment, and social services. You might have already known that these things are federal responsibilities, since it says right in Article 1, Section 8 that, uh, everything affects interstate commerce so the feds have authority over everything. Anyway, back in 2000, we spent $53.7 billion on those things. This was drastically insufficient, so in 2003, we spent $82.6 billion. It's projected to keep right on skyrocketing.

    At what point is enough enough?
     
  18. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    The Iraqi Interim Constitution

    A shaky foundation for freedom...


    http://news.findlaw.com/usatoday/docs/iraq/30804interimconst.html

    Yo yo yo, in da Arab street. What is that doing in there, anyway?

    And speaking of things that don't necessarily belong in a Constutition:

    That's not going to be a source of mischief.

    Well, it's better punctuated than our Second, but otherwise I don't think it's quite as good.

    Here's a quick quiz: which part of this did NOT make it into Article 1, Section 8 of our own Constitution?

    Here's a hint: it started with a W.
     
  19. Harry Tuttle

    Harry Tuttle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,093
    Why This Libertarian Is Voting to Re-elect George W. Bush
    By J. Neil Schulman









    "If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong."
    -- Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long



    I've called myself a libertarian since January 10, 1971, when my mother, a diehard New York Sunday Times crossword-doer, said to me, "Hey your favorite author's picture is in the Times Magazine."



    I rushed over and sure enough there was Robert A. Heinlein's picture illustrating an article entitled "The New Right Credo--Libertarianism" by Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto, Jr., and I said to myself, "So that's what the set-up in Heinlein's short story 'Coventry' is all about." I already agreed with the libertarian philosophy. I just needed a label for it.

    Ten months later, in my first semester of college, I started a campus libertarian group. A few months later I began writing for libertarian publications. I've never stopped being a libertarian activist or writer over the subsequent 33 years.

    I was one of the first to join the Libertarian Party in New York when it was organized in 1973, and I was one of the first to quit the Libertarian Party and oppose all participation in politics in 1974. I was a non-voter from 1975 to 1990, registering to vote in 1991 after years of political abstinence on the proposition that if voting was participating in State violence, and I could carry a gun to use in violent self-defense if necessary, then I could cast a ballot in self-defense if necessary.

    From 1990 forwards I've registered either Libertarian or Republican, depending on whether there was anyone in Republican primaries I needed to vote for (or against), and I've cast my votes either for Libertarian or Republican candidates, except in the 1992 presidential election in which I voted for Ross Perot.

    In the 2004 presidential election I will not be voting for the Libertarian Party candidate, Michael Badnarik. I will be voting to re-elect the Republican Party candidate, President George W. Bush.



    I regard both Michael Badnarik and George W. Bush as decent men. I had the pleasure of interviewing Michael Badnarik on Cybercity Radio, August 28, 2004, and you can listen to that interview here: http://cybercityradio.com/cc082804.wma

    The Badnarik interview is in Hour Two of that show.

    Nevertheless, there are two reasons I will be casting my ballot for George W. Bush and not for Michael Badnarik. The first reason is simple reality: Michael Badnarik's prospect for being elected president is effectively zero. The second reason is that George W. Bush is qualified to exercise the executive authority of the presidency and Michael Badnarik isn't.

    I realize that most libertarians vote for president not with the intent of electing a man suitable to execute that authority, but as an act of symbolic protest against a government we have considered malevolent and intrusive into our private lives.

    When I believed in symbolic protests I refrained from voting entirely, investing my energy in efforts such as the 1976 Vote for Nobody campaign. If publicity was the goal, CounterCampaign '76 was far more cost-efficient in spreading libertarian philosophy than the Libertarian Party. For less than $300 invested we achieved national exposure for our print and radio ads, as opposed to the tens of thousands of dollars the Libertarian Party spent for equivalent exposure that year.



    When I became a voter I gave up casting my ballot symbolically in any race in which I believed my ballot stood any chance whatsoever in effecting a preferable outcome. Purists have told me for years that "the lesser of two evils is still evil." I have learned to counter that argument with one taught to me by libertarian author Brad Linaweaver: "the lesser of two evils is less evil."

    Let me make a better argument than even Brad Linaweaver's clever response to this libertarian duckspeak.

    Good and evil do not exist as Platonic ideals. The tendency of idealists to reject the good alternative, because it is not perfect, is destructive of the achievable good. To the extent that libertarians adopt the Platonic ideal of absolute recognition of all our individual rights, rejecting any good that does not meet this standard even if it's the best existing choice, libertarianism reduces itself to just one more of the many utopian cults that have appeared and disappeared throughout history.

    I have many ideological and policy disagreements with George W. Bush. I find his "compassionate conservatism" far too compromising with the institutionalized socialism in our public policy. I vastly prefer the libertarian conservatism of Barry Goldwater or even the National Review conservatism of Ronald Reagan.

    But while I find George W. Bush not libertarian enough in his domestic agenda, I find him a strong defender of American values of freedom against the most serious threat against our civilization since the Cold War: organized Islamic crusaders who are willing to engage in systematic attacks on innocent civilians and private property in a hegemonic attempt to prevent free markets from carrying futuristic cultures into their fanatically preservationist societies. The War on Terror is a real war. It's a war against those who wish to make their past our future. It's a war against those who, in a competition between our culture and theirs, have decided to use violence, terror, and brain-numbing propaganda to prevent people – particularly their own people -- from freely choosing our culture over their own.



    George W. Bush has correctly concluded that this war can't be won by even the most draconian assaults on our personal liberties in an attempt to create an impregnable "Fortress America," and he has instead decided to remove the war from New York City and Washington DC back to the region that spawned and supports the Islamic crusaders. In the long run, the only way to win is to go on the offensive, because no static territorial defense is ever perfect or permanent.

    The only serious opposition candidate to George W. Bush is not Michael Badnarik but John F. Kerry, a man whose entire career has been devoted -- in every possible variant -- to eliminating the independence of the United States of America in favor of the global hegemony of the United Nations, two-thirds of which are one-party-rule dictatorships, theocracies, or kleptocracies.

    If John F. Kerry is elected, he will work relentlessly to further damage the independence of the United States with submission to international courts, drawing their power over us from treaties that give foreign totalitarians power to control every aspect of our lives.

    Consequently, the most important difference between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry is that George W. Bush will not compromise with those international voices for compromise and appeasement with Islamic terrorists in the defense of American values of free trade and free expression … and John. F. Kerry has spent his life doing so and can be counted on to continue doing so.

    Any American libertarians who don't think they would be made less free by the United States submitting to the World Court and the Kyoto Treaty are not worth arguing with.



    That's not enough? George W. Bush has shown himself to be a man of his word. Contrary to spin, Bush didn't lie about Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The 500 tons of yellowcake uranium and 1.8 tons of refined uranium that Saddam was holding onto showed that he was ready to resume a nuclear-weapons' program as soon as he'd bribed enough UN officials to get sanctions lifted. I'm happy that George W. Bush was farsighted enough to spoil Saddam Hussein's desires to upgrade from paying homicide bombers to blow up school buses in Israel to paying a nuclear homicide bomber to blow up Times Square.

    And the last time I checked my notebook on libertarian morality, it's not imperialism when you remove a totalitarian dictator and turn the country over to its people. It's liberation. George W. Bush is the liberator of Afghanistan from the Taliban and Iraq from Saddam Hussein. That also should be enough reason for libertarians to give him another four years.

    In his twenty years in the Senate, John F. Kerry never met a gun-control bill he didn't eagerly support. George W. Bush, in his first term as governor of Texas, legalized civilian carrying of concealed firearms … and as president not a single law harmful to gun owners has received his signature.

    And whatever you think of George W. Bush's economic policies, is there anyone who's looked at John F. Kerry's voting record as a United States Senator who believes he will give us less government controls – less taxes and regulations -- than George W. Bush?

    Libertarians may continue to cast their vote symbolically, by voting for a candidate with no chance of winning. Or, if you're a conscientious objector to politics, you can continue not to vote at all. Admittedly, George W. Bush is not a libertarian by any absolute standard, and if you're afraid that registering to vote will just put you above the radar, you can continue trying to slip between the cracks, if that's your idea of freedom.



    But if you think the President of the United States just might have power that could affect your life sometime in the next four years – if you take the State seriously as a threat to your freedom -- you might want to consider shooting off a ballot on November 2nd and voting for the president likely to injure you less.

    George W. Bush is vastly more protective of libertarian values than the other guy who might be elected to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years.

    President Bush is not the best of all libertarian candidates in some theoretical contest where actually having to be president doesn't count, but compared to John F. Kerry, George W. Bush is without question the more libertarian of the two presidents we will end up with.

    That's why I'll be voting for him, and I urge you to do so as well.

    J. Neil Schulman


    October 21, 2004



    J. Neil Schulman's novels have twice won the Prometheus Award for libertarian science fiction, and one of his Los Angeles Times opinion articles was awarded the James Madison Award from the Second Amendment Foundation. On Saturday's he's the West Coast Co-Host of Cybercity Radio (http://www.cybercityradio.com). His full bio is at http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/jnsbio.html and his personal website is at http://www.jneilschulman.com/.
     
  20. davec

    davec Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Bayonne, NJ
    Why this libertarian isn't voting for George Bush: He doesn't share any of my values.
     
  21. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Nor is anyone who believes either of those have any chance at ratification. Scare me with something real.

    McCain Feingold.

    See the shaky foundation above.

    Yes, that would be me. I've posted the numbers above. Clinton and gridlock resulted in LESS THAN HALF the government growth rate we've seen under one party rule by the GOP.

    The GOP Congress seems completely incapable of saying NO to W, and he's lost his veto pen when they get out of control. We need somebody up there who is willing to say no to somebody else, and we get that only with gridlock.

    By the way, if you got your Economic Report of the President, you know that GOP spending projections continue to skyrocket. It's not just me saying they'll grow the government faster than Clinton did. Their own projections show it.
     
  22. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    How could I neglect this item on this board?

    The biggest harm W has done to us in the area of firearms is this: when they try to renew the mean looking weapons ban, they'll be able to say Hey, even George W. Bush thinks this is a good idea. His voters seem to agree with him in huge numbers.
     
  23. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    About those tax cuts...

    The only thing worse than a politician who taxes and spends is one who spends and spends, leaving the unpleasant task of taxing to someone else.

    Did you know that federal debt has ranged from 32% to 122% of GDP since WWII?

    It fell from 64% of GDP in 1992 to 58% of GDP in 2000. Gridlock at work.

    2003: 62%
    2004: 65%
    2005: 68%

    Those last two are estimates, so you know what we can really expect...unless maybe someone up there finds some reasons to block some things... hmmm...
     
  24. Igloodude

    Igloodude Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    733
    Location:
    southern NH
    Zrex, can you tell me where on badnarik.org that post was, and/or PM me a link to it? I can't find it anywhere on the that website.
     
  25. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    Igloodude:

    Its on the following page, in the comments down towards the bottom of the page - I believe it is comment #41.

    Source for confirmation?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page