Bob Barr speaks at September 1 picnic hosted by Minnesotans for Limited Government

Bob Barr spoke September 1 at Langford Park at a picnic event hosted by Minnesotans for Limited Government (MNLG), of which I'm a member. Soon afterwards Ron Paul took the podium. Langford Park is in the St Anthony Park neighborhood of St Paul, Minnesota. This was the day before the Rally for the Republic.

My second liberty pole

Related Post:

• Grapes and liberty pole

Here I am meeting Bob Barr

"Ron Paul has done a tremendous job," says Barr in St Paul, Minnesota

The other day Bob Barr expressed his appreciation for what Ron Paul has accomplished and argued,

As the nominee for the Libertarian Party, I have the honor and the ability to do what Ron Paul cannot do. He is not the nominee. He was a great candidate on the Republican side and did a tremendous job getting these ideas out there, and he's continuing to do so, but the only way that we can go to the next level is through my candidacy with the Libertarian Party between now and November 4.

Barr spoke on September 1 at a dinner with the Minneapolis Bob Barr Meetup at Muffuletta in St Paul, not long after two speeches, one by him and another by Ron Paul, in Langford Park a few blocks away at a picnic hosted by Minnesotans for Limited Government (MNLG).

What a week! - RNC 2008 - part 1

Video by Melissa Hill
Song: Handlebars by Flobots

Dinner with Bob Barr in St. Paul, Minnesota

It's all set. Bob Barr is coming to have dinner with supporters on Monday at Muffuletta, in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood of St. Paul. He's planning to give a speech and answer questions afterwards.

Tomorrow is the Liberty Parade. I just finished painting the base to a 15-foot, pine liberty pole I made with a red liberty cap. I plan to raise it somewhere in Loring Park during the concert in the afternoon after the parade.



Meetup event - Dinner with Bob Barr

Dinner with Bob Barr in Minneapolis/St. Paul - Labor day, September 1

Bob Barr, candidate for President, is coming to town, and he'd like to meet with us for dinner. Please join us. This is your chance to hear him speak and answer your questions in person. This is not a $1000 per plate affair. We're just getting together to have dinner and talk with Bob Barr.

This event is scheduled for 5 pm, Monday, September 1, Labor Day evening. We'll chose a location once we have a better sense for the size audience we'll have. We just found out 2 days ago that he'd be available. Please let others know if you would.

Here's a link to the invitation, where you can sign up - Dinner with Bob Barr

Bob Barr is coming to Minnesota

I just got off the phone with Mike Ferguson, Midwest Regional Coordinator for Bob Barr 2008. According to Ferguson, Bob Barr is coming to the Twin Cities in late August or early September.

Update (Aug 26, 2008): Barr is coming on Aug 31 and will stay through Sep 1 at least, according to Ferguson, with whom I just spoke on the phone.

Article in Sunday Star Tribune by Jill Burcum

There's an article in the Sunday Star Tribune written by Jill Burcum, assistant managing editor, which appeared on the front page of the opinion section. She mentions Bob Barr and his 8% showing in Minnesota and Iowa in the recent Zogby poll.

This is no accident. The other day she interviewed me and four other people active in the liberty movement. Jill's initial focus was on the Ron Paul phenomenon, but she learned from us (and perhaps others) that the movement was more than just about one man.

The first half of the 4th-to-last paragraph reflects what I discussed with her. I pointed out how I came from a staunch Democratic Party background. I mentioned how I grew up in San Francisco in the 60s and felt strongly about our entering wars such as Vietnam, Haiti, and Iraq without constitutional process. I also strongly emphasized the importance of civil liberties in this election. So I think she was looking at her notes from her discussion with me for those sentences. I also mentioned to her how Barr was in this to win. I mentioned the Zogby poll, which surprised her (as it had me, when I had first heard about it). She asked me for info on it via email, which I sent her later.

The great thing about the whole conversation was the tone. It was friendly and relaxed. We put our trust in her, and I think she sensed that. You know there's a great deal of power in what editors can do with your statements. I was very pleased tonight to see what she had written.

Burcum's article is not online yet, that I can see. It'll probably appear at http://www.startribune.com/opinion later this morning sometime. The title is It's not the man--it's the movement.

Update (August 10, 2008): Here's the article.

Baby steps for Bob

Calling all Minnesotans

Remove your party blinders, and help restore civil liberties.

Baby steps for Bob -

• Baby step #1 - Walk around a lake. Think about things.
• Baby step #2 - Construct a pair of blinders. I did it for just a few bucks. I bought a mask and some black cardboard paper at a party supply store on Ford Parkway in St. Paul. Cut two 8" x 3" rectangles and fold them in half. Staple them at the loose ends with the elastic string of the mask inside. 2 staples each will do. Place the mask on top of your head and the elastic under your chin, positioning the two black cardboard blinders forward at eye level.
• Baby step #3 - Walk around the lake again, this time with the blinders on.
• Baby step #4 - At the end of your walk, symbolically take off your blinders
• Baby step #5 - Sign the nominating petition for Bob Barr

Adult step #1 - Join the Minneapolis Bob Barr Meetup.



Update (August 10, 2008): At Rejaw, I wrote -

Bob Barr is in this to win, but he can't do it without you.

Help us remove the party blinders from people.

I don't see a check on power. Obama fails on surveillance, McCain on torture.

If you cherish due process, habeas corpus, and privacy, then please consider doing something. Baby steps for Bob.

A college friend of mine wrote me via email, commenting on the two issues I brought up regarding the other two candidates. In response, I added -

I picked two issues of great importance, which I care deeply about, where each has done a 180 or at least a 90 degree turn.

Regarding McCain…

A college friend of mine, who read this, felt, if I understand him correctly, that McCain was just pandering to the Republican base, but would, once elected, come to the rescue and stop the torture.

My perspective is different. At a debate Nov 28, 2007, shown on two big-screens at a local hotel, McCain came out strongly against torture. I nearly broke my arms applauding. Later in February he dropped the ball, I believe. See this article from the San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate.

McCain supports Bush veto of bill banning harsh interrogation tactics
Doesn't want CIA limited to methods used by military
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, March 9, 2008

Regarding Obama...

Obama said he would filibuster a bill such as the recent FISA bill. Instead he voted for cloture. Here's a CATO podcast on the issue by Tim Lee.

Warrantless surveillance and torture, is this America? I don't see a check on power rising from either of the two parties, in contrast to the Watergate era.



Baby steps for Bob...

When you go to the Minnesota State Fair, please do stop by the Liberty Center and sign the petition. We need your help. It's close by. If you look at the map, you can see that it's about as far to walk from one end of the fairgrounds to the other as it is to walk to the Liberty Center. -

5 minutes by car

30 minutes by baby steps

Update (Aug 13, 2008):
The Liberty Parade

Maybe we could do this as part of the Liberty Parade!! It would fit in perfectly with the spirit of the parade. We'd wear party blinders and symbolically take them off when we arrive at Loring Park. What's funny is that the organizers of the parade are encouraging people to be creative and use cardboard paper. What a coincidence!

Cascade Creek

Yesterday at the Borders Bookstore in St. Paul, I saw an old map of Minneapolis from 1849. With the help of a magnifying glass, I discovered that Minnehaha Creek used to be known as Cascade Creek. The name means the same thing. I'm glad it changed.

Source: Map of the Territory of Minnesota Exhibiting the Route of the Expedition to the Red River of the North, in the Summer of 1849 By Captn John Pope, Corps Top Engrs. Drawn by P. S. Morawski.

Minnehapolis - "City of the Falls"

Years ago I researched the meaning of the name Minneapolis at the Minnesota Historical Society. Now thanks to Google Books you can see for yourself... The name Minneapolis comes from a combination of "minnehaha" meaning waterfall and "polis" meaning city.

Source #1

An interview with Daniel L. Payne, who at that time was working on the St. Anthony Express, was published shortly before the death of Payne a few years ago. In this interview Payne said that during a meeting called a the office of Col. John H. Stevens, to see if a better name than Albion could be found, Colonel Stevens suggested that Minnehaha be compounded with the Greek word polis in some way. [George D.] Bowman suggested dropping "ha" from the combination, making the name Minnehapolis. Payne advised dropping the other "ha", leaving Minnepolis. The conference ended by taking "hah" from Minnehaha and attaching polis. Minneapolis was the result. The combination of polis with Minnehaha was no doubt first suggested by Charles Hoag and seconded by Colonel Stevens; but the exact way in which the combination was made was probably as stated by Payne. Bowman advocated the name so persistently that it was finally adopted.

Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society, Volume X. Part 1. (1905), p. 262

Source #2

The name of a place is so important that the manner in which our city was christened ought to be known to everyone. In the beginning, not to be outdone by St. Paul and St. Anthony, the citizens on the west side of the river called their settlement "All Saints," and so it was known to travelers. Possibly it seemed to some of the residents that there was too much saintliness. At any rate discontent arose over this name, and various artful schemers tried to better it. "Albion," "Lowell" and other names were suggested in vain. Finally Charles Hoag, one of the crowd at the St. Anthony jewelry store club, wrote the editor of the Express the following letter:

Minnehapolis, opposite St. Anthony, Nov. 5, 1852.

Mr Bowman: We are accustomed on this side of the river to regard your paper as a sort of exponent of public sentiment and as a proper medium of public expression. My purpose in writing this letter is to suggest a remedy for the anomalous condition we occupy of dwelling in the place selected by the constituted authorities of Hennepin County, as the county seat, which yet bears no name unless the miserable misnomer "All Saints" shall be considered so thrust upon us that the unanimous determination of the inhabitants cannot throw it off. It is a name that is applicable to no more than two persons in the vicinity of the falls and of doubtful application even to them.

The name I propose is Minnehapolis—derived from Minnehaha, "laughing water," with the Greek affix "polis," a city, meaning "laughing water city" or "city of the falls." You perceive that I spell it with an "h" which is silent in the pronunciation.

The name has been favorably received by many of the inhabitants to whom it has been proposed, and unless a better can be suggested, it is hoped that his attempt to christen our place will not prove as abortive as those heretofore named. I am aware other names have been proposed such as Lowell, Brooklyn, Addiesville, etc., but until some one is decided upon we intend to call ourselves—Minnehapolis

...

From that time forward all other names were forgotten and Minneapolis, dropping its silent letter in spelling, became famous for its beautiful name as for its useful products.

Ernest Dudley Parsons (1913) The Story of Minneapolis, pp. 52-53 [bold emphasis added] (photo p. 173)

Source #3

You remember that John Stevens, "The Father of Minneapolis," came in 1849, and in two years a settlement began to grow about his house, for which, of course, people wanted a name. Goodhue, the editor of the first St. Paul paper, said that everything in Minnesota was named after a saint, and so, as the names were almost all used up they ought to call this one "All Saints." Though no one liked it then, the name stuck for quite a while, as a nickname will. Afterward they tried calling it Lowell, then Albion, and finally Charles Hoag thought of Minnehapolis, spelled with an "h," which name at once pleased everybody and has been the name ever since. We often hear people say "what's in a name?", but perhaps there is a good deal, for the little town began to grow and grew so fast that before many years it had outstripped all the older ones. As the fur trade grew less and the lumber and wheat trades greater, and after the railroads came, it wasn't important to be the head of navigation, and very much more important to have the great water power, which was a cause, of course, for the mills.

Hester McLean Pollock (1917) Our Minnesota, pp. 157-158.

Related posts:

• Minnehaha Falls
• Wayward as the Minnehaha

Zogby shows Minnesota support at 8% for Bob Barr

Bob Barr approaches double digits here in Minnesota. A recent Zogby poll breaks it down state-by-state. 8% of Minnesotans already support Barr. I was surprised and pleased. That's a number you can really do something with.

Will you help?

Liberty is a team effort.

Click here to check out
The Minneapolis Bob Barr Meetup!

An inkling of future mugwumpery

The other day I happened to find some notes I wrote in July 1994 where I use the word mugwump.

mugwump (good word to use to describe independent thinkers in parties, moving back and forth)

It was in the context of my writing on For A Truly General Form of Election for The Minnesota Libertarian.

Here's the context...

**** 12 jul 94 ****

Changing the Primary to a Runoff Election

Under this system, the primary election would select two candidates, regardless of party, to compete in the general election. One ballot would list candidates from all parties at the primary election; the top two vote-getters would go on to the general election. The major political parties would endorse only one candidate; that candidate would carry the party's label on the ballot. Others vying for the position would have to organize and attain a substantial number of signatures to get on the primary ballot. They would be listed on the ballot with some oparty designation other than DFL or IR.

This idea is proposed as a way to increase political participation. It could provide a direct connection between the work of the caucus and the results at the primary. Plus, candidates who do not win the major political party endorsement would have to organize political support just to get on the ballot. It could encourage greater primary election participation because of the wider range of candidates on the ballot.

It is also seen as a way to better define the role of a party member and make the work of party activists more meaningful. It would reward the work of the party activists who, after a deliberative process, would be able to place their candidate on the ballot with their party endorsement.

Opponents say the existing primary system works well as a check and balance with the parties' candidate endorsements. They fear that some of the advantages of our two-party system would be lost under the new arrangement. For instance, in this system the potential for two Democratic gubernatorial candidates running against one another in the general election is very real. (Only one could bear the DFL label; the other could not be DFL, even though his/her ideology and positions could be closely aligned with Democratic principles.) Presenting voters with two candidates of similar ideology distorts the reasons for having competitive elections in the first place. In this case, voters won't be given a real choice of plans and policies. They would have to choose a candidate based on differences in nuance instead of differences in values and policy positions.

Minority groups could have cause for concern in that run-off elections could lead to under-representation of minorities in public offices.

Another concern is that the new system would encourage intra-party dissension and the formation of new political parties as splinter groups form around candidates who lose the endorsement. The preponderance of many smaller, active parties could lead to a dysfunctional multi-party system where public officials are elected with only small pluralities. Contributing to this trend of a factional, multi-party system is the effect of allowing voters to vote for a candidate of one party for one party for one position and a candidate of another party for other positions.

Citizens League (1991) - The Party Caucus: An Inquiry, pp 26-27

[CRB: An idea that occured to me reading this is as follows:

The primary election would be as described above except for ...

• The primary would allow the candidates to throw their votes behind another candidate receiving a larger number of votes.


• The first two candidates to reach a tally of 1/3 of the votes each, or the two with the highest tally after a defined (short) period (including a presentation), become the two to compete in the general election, although write-ins should be allowed even in the general election.


• There shall be a public presentation of the pre-recorded arguments of each candidate, proportioned in time to the percentage of votes in the primary, before this post-primary tallying.


• There shall be a public presentation of the pre-recorded arguments of both general election candidates equally proportioned in time, or alternatively, if mutually consented to, a public debate between the two candidates before the general election.]

[CRB (14 jul 94): flowing vs. still party, standing, stagnant, fresh, stale, stirring

Title of article: 'GO ON, CREATE A STIR.' or 'LET'S CREATE A STIR'
- There shall be a public voting of all candidates in ascending order of tally, except for those receiving less than a given percentage of the vote, say one percent, with an equal time limit on all, say a quarter-minute, with no commentary.

General Primary Election vs. Closed Primary Elections

mugwump (good word to use to describe independent thinkers in parties, moving back and forth)]

[CRB: * 17 jul 94 * term to use: party 'incrustation' (see W 1974) and 'party gridlock' and 'party entrenchment'

'freeflowing' democratic electorate as a basis for the classical republican offices of one, few, and many

'freeflowing political conversation and party organization']


...


**** 21 jul 94 ****

a general primary for all the people and all the parties
biplurality election

let the people together choose two major candidates through fresh parties with equal status

rather than having to divisively choose them through stagnant parties with special status

A letter to a Democrat

No greater wrong, no grosser insult on humanity can well be conceived [than slavery]; nor can it be softened by the customary plea of the slave-holder's kindness. The first and most essential exercise of love towards a human being is, to respect his rights. It is idle to talk of kindness to a human being whose rights we habitually trample under foot. 'Be just before you are generous.' A human being is not to be loved as a horse or a dog, but as a being having rights; and his first grand right is that of free action; the right to use and expand his powers; to improve and obey his higher faculties; to seek his own and others' good; to better his lot; to make himself a home; to enjoy inviolate the relations of husband and parent; to live the life of a man.... Because a number of men invade the rights of a fellow-creature, and pronounce him des[t]itute of rights, his claims are not a whit touched by this. He is as much a man as before. Not a single gift of God on which his rights rest is taken away.

William Ellery Channing - The Duty of the Free States, 1842

... "Be just before you are generous." ...

I used to be a staunch Democrat. I understood liberalism to include the use of tax money to do good, provided that individual rights be not sacrificed at the altar of 'good' and that taxation and the government action taxation affords be constitutionally limited.

The line between liberalism and something quite different lies precisely where rights begin to be violated, and I mean the equal rights described in the Declaration of Independence.

There are countless infringements of these rights in MinnesotaCare, placing obstacles in the way of the pursuit of happiness in exchange for a politician's promise of happiness itself.

Of particular concern to me is the principle of medical privacy.

Permit me to quote from the official summary of Senate File 845 which passed at the end of this session:

Industry participants (group purchasers, employees, providers, state agencies and political subdivisions) are able to provide patient identifying data required by state law with or without patient consent, and may not be held liable for doing so.

Let us not go down the path of hubris and disaster, however clothed with parental benefaction.

Note: I wrote this and submitted it to e-Democracy's MinnesotaPolitics mailing list in the mid-1990s. Recently this issue has come to the fore in Senate File 3138 regarding government data warehousing of DNA fingerprints taken from the flailing feet of all babies born in Minnesota without parental consent. Both houses and both parties voted overwhelmingly to do this (3 voted against it total, I understand). Governor Pawlenty vetoed it, stopping the warehousing, but not the data collection, as I understand it.

Are there similar bi-partisan efforts brewing at the federal level?

Please consider Bob Barr and his veto pen.

The importance of medical privacy

I'm republishing a report on a health care town meeting in Rochester, Minnesota, May 7, 1994, which included this statement on medical privacy. Over the years I have frequently recounted Dr. Henderson's point,

The final speaker, Dr. Ed Henderson, retired from Mayo Clinic, and presently the executive director of the Zumbro Valley Medical Society and Emeritus Professor of Orthopedic Surgery in the Mayo Medical School, began with appreciation for being included at this event. He expressed his belief that physicians have been deliberately left out of the debate. The important facet of health care disregarded as a result has been the physician-patient relationship, the direct contact between doctor and patient that serves as a basis for care. The patient must see his doctor as his advocate, making sure that decisions are made that will ensure that patient will get the best treatment. Trust is critical. The confidentiality of their conversation is necessary for a proper diagnosis and treatment. I asked Dr. Henderson if he was aware of any organization taking a strong stand on the principle of medical privacy. He was aware of not one such group.

Shall we trust Clinton? Why not trust ourselves?

Casey Bowman, Minnesota Libertarian, June 1994, p. 7

Here's the rest of the report, which preceded the two paragraphs above,

Health Care Reform Meeting
by Casey Bowman

On May 7, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) sponsored their second Meeting on Health Care Reform. Before the meeting began, MN State Representative Gil Gutknecht, who chaired the host committee and introduced the speakers at this event, came up to us members of the LPM and talked with us in a manner of mutual respect. ALEC organizers gave us permission to put our "Project Health Choice" literature describing the National Libertarian Party health care proposal at the welcome desk. ALEC was true to its own words "empowering citizens in the health care debate."

The speakers in attendance were Congressman John Linder from Georgia, Wendell Cox of ALEC, Carl Parks from Citizens for a Sound Economy, Congressman Rod Grams, and Dr. Ed Henderson, Emeritus Professor of Surgery at the Mayo Medical School.

Congressman Linder attributed to Disraeli a sequence such as, "Bondage... Faith... Understanding... Courage... Liberty... Abundance... Complacency... Dependency... Bondage..." We need to learn from history and rebuild "understanding" before "dependency" sets in. Linder also warned that the Clinton plan intends to control entry into specialist practice.

The next speaker, Wendell Cox, warned against the coming rationing by waiting in line, by age, and/or by whom you know. He mentioned the "equality of poverty" experienced in the USSR, to which I might add it was an "equality of the graveyard" for millions.

Carl Parks, of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group founded ten years ago at George Mason University with 250,000 current members, started by explaining that the term "universal coverage" is fine rhetoric, but what it means for everyone is a system like that provided to the veterans in VA hospitals. Parks felt the government is currently pushing the Gulf War Syndrome under the rug because they do not want to spend the money correcting the problem.

The speakers pointed out that the debate in Congress is not fair and the vote will not be either. Medical Savings Accounts have strong bi-partisan support and would be in the fore if Clinton had not been elected. The problem is the committee power hierarchy. For example, Senator Dingell is chair of some important committee. In exchange for the votes of four southern oil state members, he promises his support on oil import fees. Let us hope that Congressman Linder, who serves on the Committee on Committees, will work on the reform of committees. If the Republicans fail to reform the inequality in Congress among those elected to the same office, the Libertarians must address this issue vociferously. It is crucial.

Many in attendance believed that the Clinton plan was only a temporary stop on the way to a single-payer plan. That is, the socialization of medical care will necessarily follow the socialization of health care insurance. Representative Gil Gutkneckt reported that our own state Senator Linda Berglin is advocating MinnCare as a temporary plan that will lead our state down the road to a single-payer system.

The final speaker, Dr. Ed Henderson...

This article was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian, June 1994, pp 5, 7. The author and the original publication are due attribution.

Letter to Jason Lewis (1995)

I wrote a letter to Jason Lewis on January 17, 1995. At the time, he was a talk show host on KSTP. Later he hosted a town hall meeting on health care for his radio show, which featured Twila Brase, the executive director of Citizens for Choice in Health Care, as it was known then.

This letter captures how I viewed the libertarian movement at the time, which differs from the views of the present-day anarchists Bob Barr defeated in Denver.

Thank you for your courageous work on behalf of liberty in Minnesota. Remember that "only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars." (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

...

There are three components of CCHC's effort, as I see it: 1) standing up for a free market in health care with equity in government law and taxes and against government usurpation, 2) acting as a clearing house for information to provide constructive criticism non-coercively to those in the market, and 3) suggest[ing] market-oriented changes in the tax-funded expenditure government makes in the name of the poor. The first two are obviously in consonance with libertarian principle (what are we libertarians but citizens for choice in everything innocent and good?), and the last being potentially but not necessarily in consonance with a transition away from dependence. I believe, as did our Libertarian gubernatorial hopeful Eric Olson, that gradualism is the humane way to wean those caught in dependence on government, so long as the direction towards independence is stubbornly maintained. I believe in shock therapy when it comes to opening up the free market with full equity in law and taxes. I do fear that the Republicans will carelessly be shockist in the former and gradualist in the latter, fomenting blind despair. As to my participation in CCHC, I plan to vote on the latter and abstain from votes on the former. (In my view, this is how libertarian senators should vote to stay true to principle and remain unblinded by power. As for how to wean from dependence, representatives could vote as their constituents instruct them with appropriate supermajority requirements to ensure that, while tax-funded benefits continue to be given, "gratitude" is not directed to any one Bismarckian party but to "the people" our representatives represent. I could go on ... but ... back to the point.)

CCHC needs membership fast to be effective this year. May I suggest the possibility of Twila Brase appearing on your show to get the good word out? Twila Brase has shown more leadership in organizing a grassroots effort opposing government control of health care in Minnesota than anyone else to my knowledge. The idea of asking you to talk with Twila on the air was actually made by someone else on the board who admires your work, to which another member expressed reservations about being associated with libertarians (I plan to lend him the Cato Institute publication Beyond Liberal and Conservative). Reminds me of the confusion sown against the Anabaptists a few centuries ago:

The King, I confesse, has reason to cry out upon the A[n]abaptists, because he knowes them to be enemies not of Government, but oppression in Government, and all those who intend to oppresse in any manner, ought, if they will be true to themselves to doe so too; for the Anabaptists are oppressions enemies, whoever be the oppressours.

Anonymous Leveller (1646) - The Compassionate Samaritane

Let us sow clarity.

All my best....

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here's the postscript to that letter. Sound familiar??

PS: Last week (when I finally ventured forth into the world of online services) I chanced upon a message in the CompuServe Libertarian Debate Section on the subject of GOP "Reform" from Steve Dasbach, chair of the LP, dated January 8. In response to an earlier statement in that forum that "the LP will never become a truly viable 3rd Party until it can attract and hold those who may only share 70% of the 'pure' Libertarian views," it read:

I fully share your opinion. In my view, the LP must become a Party where we all agree on the direction that the country needs to head (toward greater individual liberty) while holding a variety of views about how far and how fast we should move in that direction. In effect, we need to work together to implement the changes we all agree on, and worry about our differences when they actually become relevant.
Steve Dasbach
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee

I remember one night when you were to have him, or someone else from the LP National, on. I rushed out of the barber's chair to be in my car in the parking lot for it[,] only to be disappointed at the no-show. I hope you have an opportunity to try again, if you have not already.

A dozen years later, I repeated my point, to be libertarian is not to be an anarchist. Indeed anarchy is not even in the direction of greater individual liberty - Hey hipsters, liberty is the new left (2007)

It was bound to happen. Libertarian is the new left.


Decentralization defines this new spectrum. Decentralization and liberalization are our best defense against those who would take us down the road to serfdom. Isn't that the great lesson of the 20th century? Yes, yes, in so many ways, but ...

Wait! Just one question.

Looking at this diagram, wouldn't anarchy be on the left?

No, I'd say... it's somewhere on the right.

Constitutional law, grounded in the American Declaration of Independence, with its presumption of liberty, with its limited powers, with its mixed republic, with its elections and juries, with its federalism, with its measured taxation, would stand to the left. True progress comes from the respect each of us has for a certain sphere of innocence and independent action that attaches to every person in his or her individual life and social interactions. The rights in this sphere are equal, innumerable, and inalienable. They do not conflict. They are natural. They are neutral. Creative people thrive in this freedom and build the world without having to ask permission. The Declaration of Independence is far left. It calls for a revolution in our thinking, in our culture, of which we have barely scratched the surface. The Constitution, in its art, merely tries to measure up.

As for the rest of the spectrum, amid the legal anarchy, you might find semblances of law. Perfunctory law would lie somewhere in the middle, going through the motions. Zombie law would patrol on the right, dead yet walking, and arbitrary.

Liberty and anarchy are distinct and opposed, as are liberty and collectivism.

We can agree to move towards Liberty, but not Anarchy, nor Collectivism.


Speaking of anabaptists, was the Dallas Accord a modern-day Bocholt? Better for libertarians the civility of the Levellers, who wrote the nearest thing to a precursor of our Declaration of Independence, An arrow against all tyrants (Richard Overton, 1646), except perhaps for the Dutch "declaration of independence" (1581), which does need a better translation.

Note on CCHC:

CCHC recently waged a successful campaign to stop SF 3138, a bill passed overwhelmingly by both parties in the Minnesota legislature to warehouse DNA information from blood samples taken from babies born in Minnesota without parental consent. It's like taking each baby's fingerprints. Can you picture that? It's an invasion of medical privacy. Parents have the right to choose with whom they entrust such sensitive information. It's troubling to see government office-holders barging in to procure this valuable information, uninvited, and holding onto it. Governor Pawlenty vetoed the bill 11 days ago. From his letter announcing the veto, it sounds like Minnesota officers still will take each baby's DNA fingerprints without parental consent, only they will refrain from storing it in their warehouse. Do I understand that correctly?

CCHC's change of name since has been unfortunate. I'd argue against it vehemently if I were still a Director. Innocent denotation, but bad connotations.

On the classical republican theory of government

In classical republican theory, government was to be a mixture of forms: the one, the few, and the many, each balancing the two others. In our Constitution, this mixture may be found, for example, in the offices of the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We, the people, fill each office in democratic elections, but the natures of these offices differ, being leadership-oriented, principle-oriented, and poll-oriented, respectively. Ideally the House of Representatives ought to reflect closely the wishes of the people between elections. Thomas Jefferson spoke of two requirements for just lawmaking: majority will and respect for the equal natural rights of the minority. I believe that Representatives should, as delegates, reflect the will of their constituents and that Senators should, as trustees, focus on whether or not a bill respects the natural rights of all. As a little-d democrat little-r republican, I believe ... that the American people ought to be able to stand in the way of any legislation whatsoever, especially through what should be the most democratic branch of our republic, the House of Representatives. I also believe that small-l libertarians ... ought to be elected to the Senate so as to prevent oppressive legislation, standing up for those great general interests—the Declaration and the Constitution.

Casey Bowman (1994)

This is an example of the noise we in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota made in 1994 in the debate over health care. In my last post, I mentioned how noisy we had been. I wanted to give an example.

Here's a reprint of the full article -

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Health

[W]e both ... love [the people] with parental affection. But you love them as infants whom you are afraid to trust without nurses; and I as adults whom I freely leave to self-government.

Thomas Jefferson (1816)

by Casey Bowman

On July 6, members of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota attended a town hall meeting on health care legislation, hosted by Wes Minter and broadcast live on WCCO radio (830 AM). Responding to questions from the audience and callers were four panelists: Congressman Rod Grams, Senator Paul Wellstone, Dr. John Goodman (co-author of Patient Power), and Ms. Lois Quam (Clinton task force member).

Minter began the show by citing a quote in that morning's Wall St. Journal, made by Senator Jay Rockefeller on April 18: "We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the American people." Indeed, some big-D Democrats have now become little-a anti-democrats. In a defense of his statement in a letter to the Wall St. Journal, July 21, Rockefeller went on: "My point has been that the half-truths and hysteria turned out by special-interest groups may have confused the public on some of the details of reform...." So Rockefeller was not blaming the people, only special interest groups. "... [R]eprehensible are those who sow such confusion and uncertainty," he wrote.

A full response I dared not broach live on the Wes Minter Show, but I shall now. In classical republican theory, government was to be a mixture of forms: the one, the few, and the many, each balancing the two others. In our Constitution, this mixture may be found, for example, in the offices of the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We, the people, fill each office in democratic elections, but the natures of these offices differ, being leadership-oriented, principle-oriented, and poll-oriented, respectively. Ideally the House of Representatives ought to reflect closely the wishes of the people between elections. Thomas Jefferson spoke of two requirements for just lawmaking: majority will and respect for the equal natural rights of the minority. I believe that Representatives should, as delegates, reflect the will of their constituents and that Senators should, as trustees, focus on whether or not a bill respects the natural rights of all. As a little-d democrat little-r republican, I believe, in contrast to Rockefeller, that the American people ought to be able to stand in the way of any legislation whatsoever, especially through what should be the most democratic branch of our republic, the House of Representatives. I also believe that small-l libertarians (hopefully some big-L ones, too) ought to be elected to the Senate so as to prevent oppressive legislation, standing up for those great general interests—the Declaration and the Constitution.

Other Libertarian Party members were vocal. Charles Test read aloud a quote from the Minnesota State Department of Health, which had been cited in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that morning: "The emphasis in medical savings accounts on individual autonomy and personal economic gain ... is largely incompatible with the policy goals of universal health coverage and managed care." Reflecting on this, Test asked, "Aren't individual autonomy and personal economic gain basic principles that America was built upon?"

Later Test quoted the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment affirms that the Constitution must respect the natural rights touched on by the Declaration of Independence that we, as individuals, retain.

Wes Minter followed up on Test's note of the Ninth Amendment by asking him how the founders might view the current policy debate. Test said they are all probably rolling in their graves. Minter asked which founders we Libertarians revere, Franklin, Jefferson? Test continued with a full list of founders, on up to Dolly Madison.

LPM member Evan Williams asked Dr. Goodman if it were true that 5% of Canadians are waiting for some medical procedure. Dr. Goodman responded by saying that 177,000 persons there are waiting for important surgery. Adding those waiting for non-life-saving surgeries, the total becomes one million, which all agreed was indeed about 5%.

Sen. Wellstone, at one point, claimed that a single-payer system would give people more choice rather than less choice. In reaction to one such remark, there was tumult in the audience. I remember, as one of the restless natives, crying out something about how part of the health care system closed down in Canada for a period. Wes Minter clearly enjoyed the enthusiasm exhibited by his audience. Wellstone also demanded that insurance companies never be allowed to deny anyone coverage, a remark in sync with Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest surreal lament on a morning show comparing insurance companies to car dealers who charge different prices for different cars and so restrict our choices.

In a parting shot at Rockefeller's remarks on special interests, I shall quote from an article written by the secretary and treasurer of the Arizona chapter of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Mr. Richard Fisher ("Behind the Task-Force Veil", Liberty, July 1994):

In February 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed suit under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ... to force the Clinton administration to reveal the task force's composition. In November, the admin[i]stration was ordered to comply. The documents thus made public suggest a very different picture of the task force than the White House has presented....

Among the special interests represented were United Health Care Corporation, Chicago Health Maintenance Organization, Aetna, Travelers, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Wausau Insurance Company, National Capital Preferred Providers Organization, Harvard Community Health Plan, Kaiser Permanente, U.S. Health Care, EDS Health Care, PCS Health Systems, First Health, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Alliant Health Systems....

One corporation represented on the task force was MCI Communications—the likely primary vendor for the 250 million cards Clinton's plan would require. Potential contractors for other parts of the Clinton plan were also amply represented, including the Rand Corporation, Alpha Center, Telesis, Cooper & Lybrand, Price Waterhouse, and the Principal Financial Group....

It is plain that ... Lois Qualm, vice president of United Health Care Organization, [and others] have conflicts of interest in helping formulate federal health-care policy. Yet these officials and executives of major managed-care concerns played significant task-force roles without obtaining waivers for conflicts of interest, despite the requirements of the law. ...

Rather than admit to the prominent participation of special interests in the formulating its health-care proposals, the White House chose the path of secrecy and closed doors. In doing so, it trampled on the law.

This article was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian (State Fair edition) August 1994. The author and the original publication are due attribution.

Message to a Bob Barr Meetup to be

Now that Bob Barr has won the nomination of the Libertarian Party, let's get together and brainstorm on what we can do. Bob Barr is in this to win. This is not just about sending a signal as it was in the past. After leaving the Democratic Party in 1988, I was active in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota in 1994 and 1995. We got noisy and urged the Republicans then to adopt the message of liberty. The libertarian message swept them into office. We gave them a chance. They failed. And the Democratic Party surely hasn't learned from their defeat then. Same old, same old. It's all the same old. And they speak of change.... Now it's our turn. 2008 is a moment of decision for America. Will we move forward again with our dream of freedom? Will we live up to our Declaration of Independence or will we sink back into the quagmire of history? Will we appreciate how lucky we are to have such a Constitution and due process? And will we work it? Please come help.



Version 1.1