A month from this coming Wednesday,over Memorial Day weekend, St. Louis, Missouri will host the Libertarian Party's 2010 national convention.
The order of business for that convention includes the election of a new Libertarian National Committee: Officers (chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer) and five at-large representatives. Regional representatives will also be selected through caucuses of the states composing the regions.
I am supporting and/or endorsing some candidates for some positions, and will probably write an "omnibus" article on those recommendations between now and the convention. This article, however, is dedicated to one candidate, and it is most manifestly not an endorsement.
My case against Wayne Allyn Root for chair is simple and consists of two claims which I invite my fellow delegates to investigate. Those two claims are as follows:
1) Wayne Allyn Root is a liar
When I say that Root lies, I don't mean that he tells inconsequential little "white lies" -- pretending that the Major League Baseball franchise of whatever city he's speaking in is his favorite or whatever. He tells big, ballsy whoppers for his own political benefit ... and he tries to cover his tracks to keep the truth from coming out.
I've specifically and irrefutably documented one of those lies. I've presented the lie itself on video, and I've presented both the still-existing evidence that it's a lie, and contemporaneous references to the parts of the evidence that he memory-holed to cover the lie up. Click here for that evidence.
Having caught Root lying once, I have to wonder what else he might be lying about. I take every statement he makes with a grain of salt. And you should too.
That includes his ... well, equivocal is the nicest way of putting it ... statements regarding his intention to seek or not to seek the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential nomination. Click here for more on his conflicting utterances.
2) Wayne Allyn Root's record as a CEO is dubious at best
Don't trust me on this. Trust Wayne Allyn Root himself.
As CEO of W Technologies, inc., formerly Global Sports & Entertainment Inc., formerly GWIN Inc., formerly IMSCO Inc., formerly IMSCO Technologies Inc., formerly Winning Edge International, Inc., Root signed that company's filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Here are some high points from the company's last SEC filing, a form 15-12G ("Securities registration termination") dated October 28th, 2009:
Accumulated deficit: $29,394,197
Stockholder equity: -$936,202
From Note 2 ("Going Concern"): "The Company has no established ongoing source of revenues sufficient to cover its operating costs and allow it to continue as a going concern."
From Note 5 ("Current Portion Long-Term Debt"): "In September of 2006 the Company entered into a $655,000 short term loan with a private investor. ... As of July 31, 2009 the outstanding balance on the note was $538,520. This note is in default. ... On September 26, 2007 the Company amended the existing Laurus Master Fund, Ltd note .... As of July 31, 2009 the outstanding balance on the note was $146,728, and is in default. ... During the year ended July 31, 2007 the Company received two loans from J. Wright totalling $60,000 .... As of July 31, 2009 the outstanding balance on the note was $55,000 and is in default."
The Libertarian Party has been walking a financial tightrope for nearly a decade now.
The chair of the Libertarian National Committee is the party's Chief Executive Officer.
Is this the kind of record we're looking for in a CEO? I hope it isn't.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Bleg: C4SS April fundraiser
As I've mentioned here fairly frequently, I work with the Center for a Stateless Society as its "senior news analyst."
The "senior" part means that I've been with C4SS for longer than some of the other "news analysts." The "news analyst" part means that I contribute two op-ed columns a week, for which I am compensated.
So, this is not a disinterested bleg. But I think it's a justified one. More on why after I flash the fundraiser graphic:
Two reasons (of many) why C4SS deserves your support:
- Most libertarian think tanks and policy institutes are either avowedly minarchist, or soft-pedal any anarchist tendencies, or at best keep the anarchist stuff to a minimum in their mix of offerings. C4SS is unabashedly anarchist. We put the "delenda est" in "Carthago delenda est" -- substitute any state you like for Carthage. That's a niche in the libertarian ideological eco-system that needs to be filled. We're filling it.
- In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard warned the libertarian movement against "right opportunism" and "left sectarianism." One possibility he apparently didn't anticipate was that the movement would come under the sway of a curious "right sectarianism" -- a sort of reactionary fetishism. Kevin Carson (who also works with C4SS) has described one symptom of this sectarianism as "vulgar libertarianism." I've described another symptom as "bourgeois libertarianism."
To put a finer point on it, a large segment of the libertarian movement has effectively self-ghettoized itself into a niche on the political "right" in various ways, rejecting the movement's original position on, and rich history in, the political "left."
If the reactions of these ... hell, I'm tempted to call them "self-hating libertarians," but let's be polite and just go with "right libertarians" ... to C4SS is any indication, we're beginning to break down the ghetto walls.
We're articulating the "libertarian class theory" of Comte and Dunoyer; the insights of Molinari on non-state provision of "public goods;" the bankruptcy of the notion that a state-regulated, mixed industrial economy ("capitalism") is compatible with free markets.
And so on and so forth.
The howls from within the ghetto are increasing in volume, if not in coherence. Only time will tell whether the ghetto residents choose to exit the ghetto at our end (where we're busting a hole in the wall to help them escape), or at the other end (where the boxcars are waiting).
Or heck, maybe they'll convince us to come into the ghetto. I doubt it, but hey, you never know.
Either way, busting that hole in the wall is a worthy endeavor, and I hope you'll help keep us in sledgehammers, so to speak.
The "senior" part means that I've been with C4SS for longer than some of the other "news analysts." The "news analyst" part means that I contribute two op-ed columns a week, for which I am compensated.
So, this is not a disinterested bleg. But I think it's a justified one. More on why after I flash the fundraiser graphic:
Two reasons (of many) why C4SS deserves your support:
- Most libertarian think tanks and policy institutes are either avowedly minarchist, or soft-pedal any anarchist tendencies, or at best keep the anarchist stuff to a minimum in their mix of offerings. C4SS is unabashedly anarchist. We put the "delenda est" in "Carthago delenda est" -- substitute any state you like for Carthage. That's a niche in the libertarian ideological eco-system that needs to be filled. We're filling it.
- In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard warned the libertarian movement against "right opportunism" and "left sectarianism." One possibility he apparently didn't anticipate was that the movement would come under the sway of a curious "right sectarianism" -- a sort of reactionary fetishism. Kevin Carson (who also works with C4SS) has described one symptom of this sectarianism as "vulgar libertarianism." I've described another symptom as "bourgeois libertarianism."
To put a finer point on it, a large segment of the libertarian movement has effectively self-ghettoized itself into a niche on the political "right" in various ways, rejecting the movement's original position on, and rich history in, the political "left."
If the reactions of these ... hell, I'm tempted to call them "self-hating libertarians," but let's be polite and just go with "right libertarians" ... to C4SS is any indication, we're beginning to break down the ghetto walls.
We're articulating the "libertarian class theory" of Comte and Dunoyer; the insights of Molinari on non-state provision of "public goods;" the bankruptcy of the notion that a state-regulated, mixed industrial economy ("capitalism") is compatible with free markets.
And so on and so forth.
The howls from within the ghetto are increasing in volume, if not in coherence. Only time will tell whether the ghetto residents choose to exit the ghetto at our end (where we're busting a hole in the wall to help them escape), or at the other end (where the boxcars are waiting).
Or heck, maybe they'll convince us to come into the ghetto. I doubt it, but hey, you never know.
Either way, busting that hole in the wall is a worthy endeavor, and I hope you'll help keep us in sledgehammers, so to speak.
Monday, April 26, 2010
National Review plays catch-up
Kevin Williamson in the May 3rd edition of National Review:
My description of the GOP's approach circa 2005:
Properly understood, there were no Reagan tax cuts. In 1980 federal spending was $590 billion and in 1989 it was $1.14 trillion; you don't get Reagan tax cuts without Tip O'Neill spending cuts. Looked at from the proper perspective, we haven't really had any tax cuts to speak of -- we've had tax deferrals. ... a poorly applied supply-side analysis has infantilized Republicans when it comes to the budget. They love to cut taxes but cannot bring themselves to cut spending: It's eat dessert first and leave the spinach on the table.
My description of the GOP's approach circa 2005:
I'm going to pretend to give you a tax cut, while actually simply deferring huge tax increases, so that you can hope you die before your grandchildren have to dig out of the hole I'm leaving them in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)