LPCO Board Set to Vote on Stanley's Removal
- Thread starter labgrade
- Start date
After reading that, I don't blame them a bit.
Rick Stanley has a lot of gumption to do what he did in Denver.
That does not excuse his implicit support of an email advocating murder for political purposes or emails that have overtly reacist content.
If what they are saying is true, they should kick his ass to the curb.
Rick Stanley has a lot of gumption to do what he did in Denver.
That does not excuse his implicit support of an email advocating murder for political purposes or emails that have overtly reacist content.
If what they are saying is true, they should kick his ass to the curb.
Maybe it's just me......I find the charges rather hypocritical. They attack him for the heinous crime of forwarding emails, albeit of questionable content? He's violating the rules of the party, yet later they post the party platfom:
I was always under the impression that the LP supported the most amount of freedom...guess the LPCO is only interested in freedom of speech according to their own rules.
Then the adovcating of a flag law.....so the LPCO is going to remove someone from their ranks for supporting a law which hinders free speech, by censuring them for the crime of......free speech. So in effect the party is supporting a punishment for free speech on someone who supports punishment for free speech.
And people wonder why I don't support the LP...
I was always under the impression that the LP supported the most amount of freedom...guess the LPCO is only interested in freedom of speech according to their own rules.
Then the adovcating of a flag law.....so the LPCO is going to remove someone from their ranks for supporting a law which hinders free speech, by censuring them for the crime of......free speech. So in effect the party is supporting a punishment for free speech on someone who supports punishment for free speech.
And people wonder why I don't support the LP...
The racist content was regarding illegal immigration. I challenge you to find a single person who advocates closing the borders and has never written anything that could be considered racist.
About the advocation of murder, it certainly is serious and deserves careful consideration. However, he did not write it, and it does not say anything not implied in a variety of other articles and books. If the reader treats it as a licence to kill rather than an intellectual exercise designed to figure out whether it would be effective and whether there are in fact alternatives, that's the reader's problem, not Stanley's or the LP's.
It's not reasonable to think that Stanley is advocating the killing of random government agents. He wants to be one.
About the advocation of murder, it certainly is serious and deserves careful consideration. However, he did not write it, and it does not say anything not implied in a variety of other articles and books. If the reader treats it as a licence to kill rather than an intellectual exercise designed to figure out whether it would be effective and whether there are in fact alternatives, that's the reader's problem, not Stanley's or the LP's.
It's not reasonable to think that Stanley is advocating the killing of random government agents. He wants to be one.
Christopher II
New member
Okay, first off -
- The LPCO can censure it's membership for anything it wants without it being a violation of the right to free speech. The LPCO is a strictly private organization, not a government.
- Assassanation Politics, or AP, has been a subject of much discussion in the libertarian community lately. In short, AP is the advocacy of killing anti-freedom politicans. Most of the debate on AP has centered around the possible conflict with the non-agression principle. The debate of such a subject should not necessaraly be grounds for censure.
- Rick Stanley has a rep in the liberty community as being a rabble-rouser and a loudmouth. It is entirely possible that he is doing the movement more harm than good. The emails that he forwarded were pretty stupid, and a Senate canidate should have more sense than to attach his name to that crap. Libertarians have enough trouble convincing the rest of the world that they are not (all) crazed potheads or arch-conservative reactionaries.
Stanley is getting busted for terminal stupid.
- Chris
- The LPCO can censure it's membership for anything it wants without it being a violation of the right to free speech. The LPCO is a strictly private organization, not a government.
- Assassanation Politics, or AP, has been a subject of much discussion in the libertarian community lately. In short, AP is the advocacy of killing anti-freedom politicans. Most of the debate on AP has centered around the possible conflict with the non-agression principle. The debate of such a subject should not necessaraly be grounds for censure.
- Rick Stanley has a rep in the liberty community as being a rabble-rouser and a loudmouth. It is entirely possible that he is doing the movement more harm than good. The emails that he forwarded were pretty stupid, and a Senate canidate should have more sense than to attach his name to that crap. Libertarians have enough trouble convincing the rest of the world that they are not (all) crazed potheads or arch-conservative reactionaries.
Stanley is getting busted for terminal stupid.
- Chris
If the LPCO decides that Stanley isn't up to their standards of an acceptable political candidate, they have every right to dump him. It has nothing to do with the freedom of speech. Assuming the complaint is truthful, I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of him. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong, the LP does not want to be seen advocating killing, simply because it really turns off a lot of potential voters.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
The LP is not interfering with his freedom of speech in any way.
However, the Libertarian Party is the party of principle.
There are beliefs that you cannot hold and be a libertarian of either the upper or lower case.
However, the Libertarian Party is the party of principle.
There are beliefs that you cannot hold and be a libertarian of either the upper or lower case.
I never said that the LP violated his rights to free speech, since they did not. Nor did I state that they did not have the authority to censure him, since I did not. I merely said it was rather surprising that the party which supposedly stands for that right turns out not to have the stomach for it when the speech is something that they don't agree with.
One thing you can say about the other two parties...at least their members have a 'right to dissent'...
One thing you can say about the other two parties...at least their members have a 'right to dissent'...
"One thing you can say about the other two parties...at least their members have a 'right to dissent'..."
That's crap, Hard_Case. You "dissent" with the "other" parties & they'll cut you off at the knees, cut any further election monies, curtail you from any important/decision-making commitees, bring out a new & up-coming someone to replace you .... yada.
Perhaps the Libs are just more up-front about their displeasure with said dissenters.
Nobody likes someone breaking with party ties.
Stanley, in public, stepped on his pecker & the libs have to disassociate themselves from him or be viewed as guilty by association.
The 'Pubs/Dems'll do it just because you (may) didn't do what the party leadership says to do.
That's crap, Hard_Case. You "dissent" with the "other" parties & they'll cut you off at the knees, cut any further election monies, curtail you from any important/decision-making commitees, bring out a new & up-coming someone to replace you .... yada.
Perhaps the Libs are just more up-front about their displeasure with said dissenters.
Nobody likes someone breaking with party ties.
Stanley, in public, stepped on his pecker & the libs have to disassociate themselves from him or be viewed as guilty by association.
The 'Pubs/Dems'll do it just because you (may) didn't do what the party leadership says to do.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Stanley has the right to say whatever he pleases and he has the right to advocate whatever positions he pleases.
However, there are stances that are simply inconsistent with being a Libertarian and the Libertarian Party has the right...and the responsibly to enforce maintenance of their principles.
However, there are stances that are simply inconsistent with being a Libertarian and the Libertarian Party has the right...and the responsibly to enforce maintenance of their principles.
Here's what's really going on:
Rick Stanley set up his own EMail mailing list with a listserver. It's called the "Stanley Scoop". He then went and added a bunch of various pro-freedom folks to it, myself included. Not the first time I've found myself on a new pro-freedom or RKBA mailing list...not 100% kosher net manners but not all that bad. I stayed on it because I admire the stance he took in Denver - I looked over the relevent CO constitutional bits and it's my opinion Rick did NOT break the law that day, and he should come out totally clean in the appeal.
But then Rick did something nobody else does. He took *every* piece of outgoing mail he sends, and he shot it straight to that mailing list.
This was idiocy of the first degree.
First, it means that nobody can send him information that won't immediately go blasting out to God knows how many people when he replies.
Second, if somebody sent some racist or criminal tripe his way and he sent a non-commital "well ya, something to think about" or whatever, it was going to get sent out to a whole pile of people with his apparantly supportive comments attached.
Third, it means that the vast majority of what he sends is useless. I scan the titles of his crap, but generally don't read more than 1 in 10 or 20 posts of his. Worst signal-to-noise-ratio in all of "freedom internet broadcasting", by a big margin.
Fourth, he keeps nothing "close to the vest". Secrecy is sometimes necessary for any political activist; there's stuff I can't put online here or anywhere else and believe me, if you knew what I was holding back, you'd all agree with that 100%.
I can't begin to outline how collosally stupid all this is, and I'm not at all surprised that it's bitten him in the butt.
That said, the problem here is neither racism nor advocacy of violence, it's simply the worst case of Internet cluelessness in politics I've *ever* seen.
Which is why I'm sending this thread to him, and to the LPCO folks if I can. If we can get it through his thick skull that this is NOT how you use an EMail list, we can maybe salvage this situation. It's worth doing so, because he's RIGHT on the Denver open carry issue.
Rick Stanley set up his own EMail mailing list with a listserver. It's called the "Stanley Scoop". He then went and added a bunch of various pro-freedom folks to it, myself included. Not the first time I've found myself on a new pro-freedom or RKBA mailing list...not 100% kosher net manners but not all that bad. I stayed on it because I admire the stance he took in Denver - I looked over the relevent CO constitutional bits and it's my opinion Rick did NOT break the law that day, and he should come out totally clean in the appeal.
But then Rick did something nobody else does. He took *every* piece of outgoing mail he sends, and he shot it straight to that mailing list.
This was idiocy of the first degree.
First, it means that nobody can send him information that won't immediately go blasting out to God knows how many people when he replies.
Second, if somebody sent some racist or criminal tripe his way and he sent a non-commital "well ya, something to think about" or whatever, it was going to get sent out to a whole pile of people with his apparantly supportive comments attached.
Third, it means that the vast majority of what he sends is useless. I scan the titles of his crap, but generally don't read more than 1 in 10 or 20 posts of his. Worst signal-to-noise-ratio in all of "freedom internet broadcasting", by a big margin.
Fourth, he keeps nothing "close to the vest". Secrecy is sometimes necessary for any political activist; there's stuff I can't put online here or anywhere else and believe me, if you knew what I was holding back, you'd all agree with that 100%.
I can't begin to outline how collosally stupid all this is, and I'm not at all surprised that it's bitten him in the butt.
That said, the problem here is neither racism nor advocacy of violence, it's simply the worst case of Internet cluelessness in politics I've *ever* seen.
Which is why I'm sending this thread to him, and to the LPCO folks if I can. If we can get it through his thick skull that this is NOT how you use an EMail list, we can maybe salvage this situation. It's worth doing so, because he's RIGHT on the Denver open carry issue.
Compare the voting records of Congressional Republicans to the actuall Republican platform document, and you'll find a hell of a lot of dissent. You have Republicans who support welfare, gun control, etc.....and funny how you see very few of them get sacked. Haven't heard the Repub party vote on the ouster of McCain, have we?
Perhaps they're just more nit-pickety and anal.
Never said there wasn't politics invovled.
And there is that great a difference between 'do what the leadership tells you or you're out' and 'toe the party line %110
or your out'? Right. And when was the last time you heard the Pubs/Dems remove someone from their rolls for the crimes of email forwarding, spamming, or supporting a single law?
If Republocrats can get away with more, it's simply because their party has far looser principles (if they have any at all). The whole idea of the LP is to run candidates who support very specific principles. Unless the LP wants to become another wishywashy Republocrat clone party, the must ensure that their candidates support their founding principles.
Whether or not Stanley should be booted, I don't know. But I wholeheartedly agree that unsatisfactory candidates should be booted.
Whether or not Stanley should be booted, I don't know. But I wholeheartedly agree that unsatisfactory candidates should be booted.
Jim,
You said:
Second, if somebody sent some racist or criminal tripe his way and he sent a non-commital "well ya, something to think about" or whatever, it was going to get sent out to a whole pile of people with his apparantly supportive comments attached.
and yet the report said (emphasis mine):
Stanley added his own comments before sending out the e-mail August 7 to his "Stanley Scoop," the "official newswire" of his campaign: "Thank you very much for your comments. I will forward and when the day comes, and it will, America will be be prepared for the traitors day in the people's court."
is this what the original email said? the emboldened part would suggest to me that he agrees with it.
You said:
Second, if somebody sent some racist or criminal tripe his way and he sent a non-commital "well ya, something to think about" or whatever, it was going to get sent out to a whole pile of people with his apparantly supportive comments attached.
and yet the report said (emphasis mine):
Stanley added his own comments before sending out the e-mail August 7 to his "Stanley Scoop," the "official newswire" of his campaign: "Thank you very much for your comments. I will forward and when the day comes, and it will, America will be be prepared for the traitors day in the people's court."
is this what the original email said? the emboldened part would suggest to me that he agrees with it.
Assassination Politics!?
This is the first I have heard of assassination politics in connection with the LP, and am more than a little suprised. Assassination as a political tool seems about as un-libertarian as you can get. IN thier platform the LP states that they are opposed to the use of force, except in self defense. The Use of force and threats of force are one of their main arguments against the IRS.
The LP is about Freedom not anarchy. It is about Rights and Responsibilities not total and complete hedonism.
I would think that anyone in the LP promoting assassination politics is either very confused about what the LP standts for and needs to reread the LP Platform or is an agent provocituer.
If Stanely was promoting this then I don't disagree with the LP withdrawing their support for him. That said Stanley is free to say or believe whatever he likes per the 1st Amendment, but I and the LP don't have to agree with what he says.
This is the first I have heard of assassination politics in connection with the LP, and am more than a little suprised. Assassination as a political tool seems about as un-libertarian as you can get. IN thier platform the LP states that they are opposed to the use of force, except in self defense. The Use of force and threats of force are one of their main arguments against the IRS.
The LP is about Freedom not anarchy. It is about Rights and Responsibilities not total and complete hedonism.
I would think that anyone in the LP promoting assassination politics is either very confused about what the LP standts for and needs to reread the LP Platform or is an agent provocituer.
If Stanely was promoting this then I don't disagree with the LP withdrawing their support for him. That said Stanley is free to say or believe whatever he likes per the 1st Amendment, but I and the LP don't have to agree with what he says.
Christopher II
New member
Seeker -
You've truly never heard of AP? Well, I direct your attention to the back issues of The Libertarian Enterprise. Much discussion has been wrought there.
I'm not a particular fan of AP myself, both in a moral sense and in a "it-stands-not-a-chance-in-hell-of-working" sense.
- Chris
You've truly never heard of AP? Well, I direct your attention to the back issues of The Libertarian Enterprise. Much discussion has been wrought there.
I'm not a particular fan of AP myself, both in a moral sense and in a "it-stands-not-a-chance-in-hell-of-working" sense.
- Chris
In order to accept the AP system you have to agree that state regulation is force or violence. The standard argument is, "how much force would you need to to use to keep the government from collecting income tax?" From that an APster reaches the conclusion that when virtually no private citizen has the force necessary to protect assets from the government, any and all force is justified.
The libertarian AP system presumably only accepts bids on known rights violators (which basically means anyone who has initiated force). The anarchistic version can accept guesses for anyone, but reasonable AP administrators would still only accept guesses for known bad(tm) people. Economics would presumably favor the well-run AP servers and drive the others out of existence.
Even though I think it could be legitimately run in a libertarian society, it was of course first described by Jim "fed-stalker" Bell, and nobody's going to claim he is a libertarian.
The libertarian AP system presumably only accepts bids on known rights violators (which basically means anyone who has initiated force). The anarchistic version can accept guesses for anyone, but reasonable AP administrators would still only accept guesses for known bad(tm) people. Economics would presumably favor the well-run AP servers and drive the others out of existence.
Even though I think it could be legitimately run in a libertarian society, it was of course first described by Jim "fed-stalker" Bell, and nobody's going to claim he is a libertarian.
Not until now! I guess I am a square libertarian I read the Advocate, Libertarian Clips and visit the lp.org semi-regular, but The Libertarian Enterprise was new to me.
I followed your link and did a search on assassination politcs and got Cognitrive Dissonence
thanks buddy, now my brain hurts!On AP:
Carl Watner
Interesting concept.
Jim Bell
So if 1/1000 of the populaton decided that politician X or citizen Y needed to die and was willing to pay a dollar for it and the offending persons death is successfully predicted, in effect hasn't one person in a thousand forced their views on others (those that supported politician X or citizen Y), denying them, permenemtly, their choosen represenative?
Also couldn't the media indirectly select who got "Selected" against via their selection of what is "News" and the spin they put on it?
So if 1/1000 of the populaton decided that politician X or citizen Y needed to die and was willing to pay a dollar for it and the offending persons death is successfully predicted, in effect hasn't one person in a thousand forced their views on others (those that supported politician X or citizen Y), denying them, permenemtly, their choosen represenative?
Maybe. If almost 300k people want to see person X dead, person X has a real problem, AP or not. 300k might not even be the right magnitude of a payoff to offset the risk, depending on who person X is.
Republican or Democratic platforms get forced on just about everyone. What percentage of people voted for your current state and federal representatives in the last election?
Maybe. If almost 300k people want to see person X dead, person X has a real problem, AP or not. 300k might not even be the right magnitude of a payoff to offset the risk, depending on who person X is.
Republican or Democratic platforms get forced on just about everyone. What percentage of people voted for your current state and federal representatives in the last election?