BH) 1) personal secession, 2) immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, 3) policing of pollution by dispersed cumulative polluters, 4) right of the accused to subpoena witnesses, 5) privatization of all streets and pipes, 6) legalized child prostitution, and 7) private WMD (BHTK) Of the 7 items on your list, 0 of them figure prominently in any “purist” presidential campaign. They’re being discussed vis a vis presidential politics at the instigation of, and almost entirely by. the same “reformers” who claim that discussing them damages the party. (TK
Yes, Tom, it was in fact *precisely my point* that our 3 candidates (self-)promoted as "radical" -- Ruwart, Kubby, and Smith -- are deafeningly silent on these 6 very real pieces of platform language that here on Earth *radicals* -- not moderates -- are proposing that the LP include in Denver in its 2008 platform. Thank you for suggesting that these three campaigns score a collective *0 for 18* on defending the most controversial parts of the platform they claim to want to "restore", but my case is in fact not quite that strong. As I told you above, Kubby is arguably on record about two of the issues, one of which (pollution) he even brought up unprompted in his show with Alex Peak. And as I suggested earlier, Ruwart is on record for 3 of the 6, but as far as I know you're right that she's not trying to defend that record at all.
The only controversy of these 7 that we reformers can take credit for creating is the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to subpoena witnesses. I've been on a one-man crusade to confront zero-aggression absolutists with this issue ever since I was on the 2005 LPCA Platform Committee. It's a cool issue -- a big glowing chunk of kryptonite that makes radicals trip over their capes trying to run away. Radicals, and their 2004 platform, claim to support the entire Bill of Rights, but trying to get them on the record on this issue is like pulling teeth. Susan Hogarth even banned my post that tried to ask about it on the LPradicals forum. This is an area of libertarian theory for which these allegedly "principled/radical" candidates apparently just don't want people to know where they stand.
I'm not at all suggesting that any of these candidates emphasize any of these seven issues. I just want to know where they stand. If you think you know, then quote them. For each of these three candidates, I'll donate $25 to their Liberty Decides account for each issue on which you (or anyone else) can quote their campaign web site taking a clear written stand. I'll also count quotes from any past publication of theirs if its something that their campaign site says accurately reflects their current positions.
I'm just trying to find out about the current libertarian principles of the candidates who have taken a strong stand on what the LP Platform should say. (I suspect you'll agree that Phillies' waffling about the merits of the 2004 platform arguably don't meet this standard.) By contrast, it's very likely that you're preparing another eleventh-hour fact-filled hit piece on Root (and maybe Barr) about their past positions and past associations, just as you did with Gary Nolan a week before the 2004 convention. I want to go on record now as pre-emptively defending you if you confine yourself to verifiable facts. But please dispense with this notion that it's OK for our "principled/pure/radical" candidates to hide their positions from the delegates if those positions are too embarrassingly radical to figure "prominently" in their campaign strategy. Why should the delegates vote for a "principled/pure/radical" candidate who won't stand up to the reformers who criticize their precious 2004 platform as extremist? Don't any of these candidates have the "spine" that Susan Hogarth says the LP needs?
