^I agree the party has been represented by a LOT of nutjobs over the years. It's unfortunate that a lot of the "Libertarian" candidates were actually not libertarian but used the party affiliation for ballot access.

Moreso than the party, I like the guy and his platform. And if it means campaigning to get his name on the ballot, so be it. I just hope he gets there and that enough people will stand up to actually vote for him versus the "my vote wont count for anything" attitude.

Mike Easly won with less than two million votes. There are 5.3 million registered, and an estimated 1.3 million unregistered potential voters.

I highly doubt he will win either, but I absolutely think it's possible for him to garner a double digit percentage of the vote and to shake up the party lines considerably.

7/13/2007 11:42:51 PM

does he have any intention on getting a haircut

7/14/2007 12:12:06 AM

Ha, no idea, but I'll ask him when I meet with him next

7/14/2007 12:48:28 AM

Quote :

"Noen: The real question is would YOU vote for him if he gets his hair cut?"

dont think they want WA voters trying to vote in NC elections. but, if I could? No. I won't vote for a Libertarian. I won't vote for a 3rd party. If I'm going to waste my vote, I'd rather just stay home altogether.

Quote :

"Opstand: you should know as well as anyone here that most of WA is a bunch of hillbilly rednecks that at times makes Johnston County look like the bastion of liberalism."

you got that right. if it wasnt for Seattle metro area, WA would be about as red-state as Idaho. too bad we didn't get a chance to go have a beer when you were here.

Quote :

"At one point I was a registered Libertarian but it seems like the more of them I meet in person the more the party core seems to be full of nuts."

once I started attending "Libertarian Precinct" meeings in Raleigh, it didnt take me long at all to realize these guys were fucking nuts.

Quote :

"Plus I've been pissed that so many of them have decided to side with Republicans in major elections instead of actually backing the party."

I quickly became aware that big-L Libertarians value so-called "property rights" and tax cuts more than the Bill of Rights or civil liberties. it was the focus on civil liberties that attracted me to the Libs in the first place

Quote :

"Noen:I agree the party has been represented by a LOT of nutjobs over the years. It's unfortunate that a lot of the "Libertarian" candidates were actually not libertarian but used the party affiliation for ballot access."

i find that hard to believe. the Libertarian Party has a huge umbrella. you get representation for the Michigan Militia types and the NAMBLA crowd all in one stop.

show me one person who ran for a significant office under the Libertarian Party banner who wasn't "libertarian". I'll bet i can show you that they were, and any issue that they supported that you think was "un-libertarian" is actually not part of the Libertarian Party platform.

the fact that the Party has been "represented by a LOT of nutjobs" is because the Party is FULL of nutjobs. The advice I would give your Duke professor friend? Drop Libertarians and run as an Independent.

I mean, hell... wtf can the Libertarians do in NC anyhow? they aren't even a recognized political party. LOL.





[Edited on July 14, 2007 at 2:16 AM. Reason : ]

7/14/2007 2:10:26 AM

i knew a dude back in the day by the same name, except he was a crack head

7/14/2007 2:29:52 AM

Maybe he should get tips from John Edwards.

[/hooksaw]

7/14/2007 2:41:15 AM

yeah he could actually USE a 1200 dollar haircut

7/14/2007 3:23:02 AM

^^

7/14/2007 4:15:04 AM

Haircuts are the nost important thing in a election

Quote :

"..turned off by the Libertarian party as a whole due to the " "it's my land, fuck off" attitude.""

Oh..so you won't mind if we come over and take your land and stuff away?

Quote :

"Libertarians value so-called "property rights" and tax cuts more than the Bill of Rights "

Funny, I was under the impression that one of the goals of the Bill of Rights was to protect property rights. And if you mean by tax cuts.. smaller gov't...I'm definietely there. Don't have to be a big "L" to support that!

7/14/2007 9:33:38 AM

He just means the almost zealout nature of a lot of people over land rights. And I agree with him.

property rights proponents get real stupid real fast.

And I'll also be the first to admit that I'm not a 100% Libertarian, as I don't think any sensible person is, in the same way no democrat and no republic holds 100% to their party platforms either. I differ in that I believe we do need a central government and I believe there are a few social programs that warrant government intervention to ensure the general welfare of our nation.

7/14/2007 1:18:47 PM

Quote :

"Oh..so you won't mind if we come over and take your land and stuff away?"

Way to blow this out of proportion. I was just using the land rights thing as an example. Take out the word "land" and substitute "guns", "income", etc and the point remains the same.

7/16/2007 1:36:27 PM

Quote :

"He just means the almost zealout nature of a lot of people over land rights....Way to blow this out of proportion....Take out the word "land" and substitute "guns", "income", etc and the point remains the same."

So someone is a zealot or a nutjob because they want to hang on to the land, guns and income they worked their ass off to get?

I'd wager that if someone took something of yours without your consent, you'd get a little zealous about it. Just because that someone is the State, doesn't mean it isn't immoral.

Property Rights are the basic element of being a free individual. If you cannot keep the fruits of your labor...you are a slave. If you are working until July (tax freedom month) for the gov't, and don't get pissed off over it for fear of appearing zealous...you are a sad case indeed.

[Edited on July 16, 2007 at 8:41 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2007 8:40:51 PM

Yes, you are a zealot if you advocate limitless rights to property, guns, and income.

If you drive on a highway, that would not be there without at least the threat of eminent domain (believe it or not, elected officials usually only condemn land as a last resort, when a property owner is demanding unreasonable compensation). Even the Michigan Citizens Militia types don't advocate abolishing eminent domain, only the limitations of it's use. It derives from police power. Reasonable people can differ on how much is permissable, while far less than 1% (your zealots) argue government shouldn't have that authority under any circumstance. The most "liberal" proponents on this issue argue that that determination of what is a "public purpose" should be made by elected officials accountable to the voters.

Do you believe individuals should be allowed to carry a bazooka or automatic weapon into an airport or the White House? If not, you recognize that there should be limits to gun rights as well.

Can you cite one effective government without some means of taxation? Perhaps you should advocate for a return to the Articles of Confederation.


Property rights are a basic element of being a free individual. However, like many other rights there are some limits. As multiple positive values and rights sometimes come into conflict with each other, it is impossible to maximize all of them without infringing on others. Individuals, particularly in a public position, should recognize the importance of property rights and most do. Responsible leaders must weigh other considerations as well.

[Edited on July 17, 2007 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

7/17/2007 10:01:18 AM

Quote :

"Individuals, particularly in a public position, should recognize the importance of property rights and most do. "

In the wake of decisions such as Kelo vs New London, I would have to disagree. The pendulum is swinging more to the side of abuse when it comes to gov't takings of property. Why pay a landowner a market rate for his land when you can just condemn it on some flimsy excuse and steal it for a song? Desperate local politicians are abusing eminent domain to stay in power.

Taking someone's land to build a road is a legitimate use provided you pay the landowner so he doesn't suffer a loss. Taking someone's land through condemnation and giving it to some developer so you can increase property tax receipts is immoral. But it's being done everyday.

With regards to taxation, It IS theft. And at the least -the gov't should steal as little as possible. The use of this tax money should be for running the legitimate and limited functions of gov't. It should not be used for feel-good programs and wealth redistribution.

Quote :

""public purpose" should be made by elected officials accountable to the voters."

There is a key difference between "public use" as used in the Bill of Rights and the newly created idea of "public purpose" that was handed down in the Kelo decision. Land should not be taken for "public purpose" such as increasing tax reciepts. Land should only be taken for public uses such as roads, dams, etc.

Trusting a public official's decisions based on the idea that they are accountable to voters is dangerous. Politicians do things that give themselves more power. Federal lawmakers have, over the years, removed more than half of Americans from any fed. income tax obligations. They have pushed the tax burden onto a smaller and smaller group of voters. This result definitely makes them more positively accountable to a wider group of voters, but it is still immoral and wrong.

7/17/2007 12:52:46 PM

The amendment should finally go to a public vote this fall, unless it's held over for next year's election as a political positioning tool

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/article/20070717/APN/707170793

And

Quote :

"Do you believe individuals should be allowed to carry a bazooka or automatic weapon into an airport or the White House? If not, you recognize that there should be limits to gun rights as well."

He's not saying you should be able to carry them anywhere, so much as IF you ALREADY own one, it shouldn't be able to be taken away from you without your choice, whether in a courtroom, or voting on the issue at the ballot.

Quote :

"The most "liberal" proponents on this issue argue that that determination of what is a "public purpose" should be made by elected officials accountable to the voters."

Public purpose should not include opening the doors for private development. I don't think any sensible person wants ALL eminent domain banned. I certainly have no problem with being invoked for public works programs (roads, dams, hospitals etc). And it has, it's been a growing problem nationwide with eminent domain laws. It's a sidestep for developers who don't want to pay for land, and a boon for politicians who want to further line their pockets.

Luckily this shouldnt be an issue in NC for much longer.

7/17/2007 6:53:49 PM

Just as a clarification, my last post was directed at Earthdogg's absolutist post, not at Noen or Munger.

7/17/2007 7:46:25 PM

This guy is a huge UNC fan.


Just like Edwards.

7/17/2007 8:04:06 PM

He lives in Raleigh, works at Duke and cheers for UNC. I'm okay with that.

Where did you get that from though?

7/18/2007 12:19:16 AM

One of his students.

7/18/2007 12:24:59 AM

the fact that he is a Duke professor, yet pulls for UNC, can only be viewed as a plus.

(i mean, does anyone think he should be a Wolfpack fan? i'd really think he was crazy, if he was.)

7/18/2007 12:42:21 AM

damn noen u say that like u are trying to keep it a secret or something

7/18/2007 2:15:15 AM

from Michael Munger's CV (linked at his Duke University page)

select grants:

Quote :

" * National Science Foundation (P.I., 1996-8; $4,500) * National Science Foundation (P.I., 1998-2000, $49,500) * National Science Foundation, PI (1999-2000, $64,500) * National Science Foundation, PI (2002-3, $14,500) * National Science Foundation, co-PI (2004-6, $160,000) * National Endowment for the Humanities (September 2005, co-PI, $600,000) "

so where are his libertarian ideals about taking public money for personal research interests? what makes him think I want MY tax money going to support HIS pet theories?

another thing to note is his employment history.

for the the past 20 years (since 1986) he has been a professor at various colleges and universities. half public, and half private. prior to that, he has had only exactly 11 months of *real-world employment* in his entire life.

do you know where his 11 months of real-world employment was?

Quote :

" * Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.: Staff Economist, 9/84 to 8/85."

his entire career has been furthering the cause of Libertarian economic and political philosophy, presumably to "get the government out of our wallets"... yet his entire career has been spent in the ivory towers of academia, writing clever papers and giving clever speeches, all the while collecting the government dole.

furthermore, his only brief amount of real-world employment, less than a year's worth, was at a federal government agency in Washington DC

this guy may be a smart feller and a good professor, but for him to think he is qualified to be the CEO of the State of North Carolina is, at best, a fucking joke. at worst, its a hypocritical scam.

I'm reducing my Popular Vote Prediction to 2%. haircut or not.

7/18/2007 2:44:44 AM

Do you expect him to live in a log cabin and shoot all the dirty communists that come by or something?


There is such a thing as working with the system to change it.

[/devilsadvocate]

7/18/2007 7:17:38 AM

Quote :

"but for him to think he is qualified to be the CEO of the State of North Carolina is, at best, a fucking joke. at worst, its a hypocritical scam. "

Mike Easley was the consumate political insider when he ran for gov. It might be refreshing to get someone who is a political outsider for a change.

As for the question of hypocrisy. I think they are valid. You should go to his web-site and put them to him. I would be interested in his response.

7/18/2007 11:00:52 AM

^^^Yep, if you question those grants, ask him about them.

He is amazingly responsive via email.

But I would say, I'd trust someone who's worked for the man, and spent a great deal of time learning about our political systems a great deal more than our prototypical politician (at least here in NC).

Most of our state offices aren't held by business capable people, they are held by Laywers. And a considerable number (Our president candidate edwards among them) were personal injury attorney's, basically the scum of our judicial system.

7/18/2007 7:50:36 PM

why you hating on personal injury lawyers?

my wife works in healthcare/hospitals as a nurse.

I know for a fact some serious fucking malpractice happens on a not-so irregular basis. people trust their lives to doctors and surgeons. and the MDs are getting $PAID. dont tell me they're not. i see them buying the $million-plus homes in the most desirable neighborhoods.

now most of them are good, caring, competent professionals. but a few of them are grossly negligent bastards who just want to make their next tee-time.

we need personal injury lawyers. theres nothing inherently wrong with that.

7/18/2007 8:15:52 PM