Comments on: Surprise! Bob Barr Inclusion Request Denied By Judge http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/16/surprise-bob-barr-inclusion-request-denied-by-judge/1501/ For Liberty, One Individual At A Time Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:44:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Recent Links Tagged With "maven" - JabberTags http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/16/surprise-bob-barr-inclusion-request-denied-by-judge/1501/comment-page-1/#comment-1286 Recent Links Tagged With "maven" - JabberTags Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:34:21 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/?p=1501#comment-1286 [...] public links >> maven Surprise! Bob Barr Inclusion Request Denied By Judge Saved by samicbc on Sun 28-9-2008 King of the Delta Blues Saved by laursxokh on Thu 25-9-2008 [...] [...] public links >> maven Surprise! Bob Barr Inclusion Request Denied By Judge Saved by samicbc on Sun 28-9-2008 King of the Delta Blues Saved by laursxokh on Thu 25-9-2008 [...]

]]> By: RBurnett http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/16/surprise-bob-barr-inclusion-request-denied-by-judge/1501/comment-page-1/#comment-974 RBurnett Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:19:15 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/?p=1501#comment-974 This is all quite amusing. Notice: A Libertarain Party candidate, whose party platform eschews government interference in almost every matter, goes to a government institution, one of its courts, to demand, what, Justice? Is not Warren's Saddleback a private instution, a chirch, whose pastor and members can invite anyone they want--to include a so-called heavily moderated discussion by the two major party candidates? By what right, excatly, by what definition of Justice, can Barr and co. insist tat he gets the so-called equla time? The right to speak? He has that--put up against the right that Warren and co have to deny that right as private citizens and a private institution. The Bill only says that government cannot restrict free speech, assembly, the establishment of religion and the redress of grievances--not any private instution. And did Obama and McCain do something illegal or against Justice when they agreed to appear together at Warren's church? The reasoning of the judge in this case, as presented above in Gallagher's article, is weak at best--the logistical argument. But if one looks at the span of American history, you will find that third parties have generally not gotten the so-called Justice of their place in debates or on the ballot--and this has been going on at least since Jefferson's time. The presence of a third party in Congress or the State houses has been a rarity since then, especailly since the Civil War. And when there has been a third party candidate who has gotten a real following, say such as George Wallace or Ross Perot, there has been nothing else except that personality--no third party candidates for Congress or any State houses, despite the large showing not only in the polls but also in the election. This is another way to say that the LP, for all of its thrity years of activity, is quite irrelevant, only able to hope to make or break one of the two major party candidates with its half of one percent of the votes. This is not a political party as it cannot get any bona fide LP member into a partisan seat, meaning a State house of Congressional seat where the party label is known--a libertarian like Ron Paul doesn't count as he is in Congress as a Republican. Indeed, the logistical argument is actually stronger than you will admit--if Barr can be included by some court decision, then we must also include all the rest--Nade, McKinney, Baldwin and the many more other candidates, even to include Ron Paul and perhaps the other Republican and Democratic candidates that dropped out--that had their campaigns suspended but not ended. But this is Warren's church--and if Justice is defined by libertarians as in part to keep the government out of the people's lives, then it is up to Warren and his people to allow or not allow Barr in--and not the right of any government court. But the amusing thing is that the LP appealed to the government to violate that principle of its Justice. On reflection, this either means that the LP is really stupid when it comes to what it means by its own idea of Justice or that the LP is just as likely to do what is necesary to get the thing done as any other party or candidate, meaning that it will respect its own idea of justice, when it is convenient. This is all quite amusing.
Notice: A Libertarain Party candidate, whose party platform eschews government interference in almost every matter, goes to a government institution, one of its courts, to demand, what, Justice?
Is not Warren’s Saddleback a private instution, a chirch, whose pastor and members can invite anyone they want–to include a so-called heavily moderated discussion by the two major party candidates? By what right, excatly, by what definition of Justice, can Barr and co. insist tat he gets the so-called equla time? The right to speak? He has that–put up against the right that Warren and co have to deny that right as private citizens and a private institution. The Bill only says that government cannot restrict free speech, assembly, the establishment of religion and the redress of grievances–not any private instution. And did Obama and McCain do something illegal or against Justice when they agreed to appear together at Warren’s church?
The reasoning of the judge in this case, as presented above in Gallagher’s article, is weak at best–the logistical argument. But if one looks at the span of American history, you will find that third parties have generally not gotten the so-called Justice of their place in debates or on the ballot–and this has been going on at least since Jefferson’s time. The presence of a third party in Congress or the State houses has been a rarity since then, especailly since the Civil War. And when there has been a third party candidate who has gotten a real following, say such as George Wallace or Ross Perot, there has been nothing else except that personality–no third party candidates for Congress or any State houses, despite the large showing not only in the polls but also in the election. This is another way to say that the LP, for all of its thrity years of activity, is quite irrelevant, only able to hope to make or break one of the two major party candidates with its half of one percent of the votes. This is not a political party as it cannot get any bona fide LP member into a partisan seat, meaning a State house of Congressional seat where the party label is known–a libertarian like Ron Paul doesn’t count as he is in Congress as a Republican.
Indeed, the logistical argument is actually stronger than you will admit–if Barr can be included by some court decision, then we must also include all the rest–Nade, McKinney, Baldwin and the many more other candidates, even to include Ron Paul and perhaps the other Republican and Democratic candidates that dropped out–that had their campaigns suspended but not ended.
But this is Warren’s church–and if Justice is defined by libertarians as in part to keep the government out of the people’s lives, then it is up to Warren and his people to allow or not allow Barr in–and not the right of any government court.
But the amusing thing is that the LP appealed to the government to violate that principle of its Justice.
On reflection, this either means that the LP is really stupid when it comes to what it means by its own idea of Justice or that the LP is just as likely to do what is necesary to get the thing done as any other party or candidate, meaning that it will respect its own idea of justice, when it is convenient.

]]> By: Mike Miller http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/16/surprise-bob-barr-inclusion-request-denied-by-judge/1501/comment-page-1/#comment-972 Mike Miller Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:15:36 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/?p=1501#comment-972 "Imagine if the Judge happened to be libertarian leaning." Imagine if the judge happened to be justice-leaning... “Imagine if the Judge happened to be libertarian leaning.”

Imagine if the judge happened to be justice-leaning…

]]>