Len: “Tell that to someone like Ron Paul. With term limits in place, he wouldn’t still be in congress.”

And neither would Dennis Hastert, Nancy Pelosi, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott, Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, …

There’s a lot more bad ones profiting from unlimited incumbency right now than there are good ones. And more importantly there’s a lot more bad policies being protected by the stifling status quo in Mordor-on-the-Potomac than there are good policies. The point of term limits is throw the bums out and prevent new entrants from accumulating and institutionalizing that kind of entrenched power.

Stuart,

This story is actually about a year old. For reasons that I’m not clear on, editorandpublisher.com reprinted a verbatim copy of the story on Judge Hellerstein’s ruling back on September 29, 2005. The government’s appeal stalled the eventual release of the new material but some of the newly released photos and videos were included in this Australian news report from February 2006.

The Libertarian Guy,

Why do you think it is important for people talking about this man-eating monstrosity to do so calmly? The circumstances do not call for calmness. Activists are “unhinged” about it because it’s really fucking awful, and it’s getting worse every day.

(Before you waste your time repeating it, yeah, I know that all wars everywhere are like this, or worse. That’s an argument for being stridently opposed to all wars, not an argument for moderating your tone about this one.)

Me: “So in the meantime, you suggest dissembling my views in the name of political expediency?”

Nick: “No, I’m suggesting that you realize turning roads into toll roads and legalizing heroin are not accomplishable political goals at this moment in time. I support some pretty radical ideas too, including one of the two you mentioned, but you won’t hear me start to talk about them until we actually have the average voter’s attention and trust. Let’s first show them that legalizing marijuana won’t cause the social structure of America to collapse.”

But Nick, how is what you’re suggesting here different from the way I characterized it? You’re recommending that libertarian candidates conceal their real views from voters in order to curry political favor. Isn’t that dissembling?

Nick,

Here’s a hypothetical. Suppose I believe that all drug laws should be completely repealed (so I believe in legalizing heroin), but I want to run a Sensible Moderate campaign so I’ve focused on legalizing marijuana and I haven’t said one mumbling word about repealing all drug laws or legalizing “hard drugs” in particular.

It’s not crazy to think that my opponent, or perhaps some other concerned citizen, won’t be too dense to put two and two together. One thing that often happens in controversial campaigns is that the advocate gets asked to clarify just how far she’d go. So suppose that at the debate my opponent asks me point-blank whether I’m for legalize heroin, too.

Now I see only three options for my answer. I could:

1. Admit that I do support legalizing heroin, thus committing “political suicide” and abandoning my Sensible Moderate approach;
2. Lie about my views to avoid 1; or
3. Evade the question or obfuscate the issue to avoid both 1 and 2.

What do you suggest I do?

Nick Wilson: Good for you, but it’s impossible to ignore that advocating it as official party policy in the realities of the current environment is political suicide. When you can get a plurality of people to at least consider the idea, then go for it.

So in the meantime, you suggest dissembling my views in the name of political expediency?

Right now, lets focus on the fights we even have a somewhat remote chance of winning on: ….

I don’t think that single-minded focus on “winnable” goals is always the wisest strategy for social change, but anyway you’re changing the subject here. It may be perfectly sensible to pick carefully the battles that I invest time and resources in. But I object to concealing or misrepresenting my views on the “unwinnable” issues I’m not pushing on right now, to pander to the majority’s prejudices. That’s different, and dishonest.

“I think Nick is saying that media and opponents can no longer play the “libertarians want to legalize heroin and turn all roads into toll roads” card, ’cause a lot of that stuff has been removed from the national platform.”

But I DO want to legalize heroin and turn all roads into toll roads….

DAP,

I do indeed think that there is something unreasonable about Ghate’s position. Several things, actually, but the most important one is the complete disregard for considerations of proportionality. There are limits on the amount of violence you can inflict in retaliation against aggression, and how much violence against innocent bystanders you can blame on the initial aggressor. Living in a relatively advanced society does not entitle you to the strategy and tactics of Genghis Khan.

To test your own leanings, consider a hypothetical example. Suppose that the Israeli military determined that the most efficient way to retaliate against Hizbollah was to firebomb southern Lebanon until everything moving was dead. Would you consider this a morally legitimate response to the killing or capture of a handful of Israeli soldiers and the indiscriminate firing of inaccurate rockets? Would all of the blame for the tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths rest solely on Hizbollah?

DAP,

Are you referring to Onkar Ghate’s article, “Innocents in War?” If so, it seems to directly contradict your earlier claim that you do NOT approve of employing any means necessary, whatever the level of violence inflicted on innocent third parties, to assassinate dictators and terrorists.

Ghate explicitly argues that there is no moral limit to the level of violence that a “free nation” can use against a “terrorist state” in a just war. Thus: “The moral [sic] principle is: the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves.” Ghate goes on to argue that even deliberate targeting of civilians (as at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden) is justifiable.

I think this position is absolutely barbarous. But whether reasonable or not, it would entail a “Yes” rather than a “No” to my question above, unless there is some subtly I’ve missed.

DAP,

Can you give me a ballpark figure for the number of innocent bystanders who can be killed in the process of getting to the dictator or terrorist before the violence exceeds the limits of proportionality? One? Two? Twelve? Forty? Seven hundred?

jeffrey smith,

If you don’t like dead babies “posed” for press photography, then I would suggest that the best way for the Israeli military to avoid this problem would be not to fucking kill children.

DAP,

Do you approve of the assassination of dictators and terrorists by any means necessary, no matter what the level of violence inflicted on innocent third parties in the process of carrying out the assassination?

“Through interviews with U.S. Congressmen, as well the former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo proves conclusively that there is no law requiring citizens to pay a direct tax on their labor.”

Jesus. Who cares?

If there were such a law, would that make it one iota more acceptable for the government to take those taxes at gunpoint?