Bret Cahil writes;
   To get an idea of the corruption, consider that the
   Republicans had a better option than having the U. S.
   Supreme Court stop the vote counts.

   Harris could have sent it to the Florida GOP
   legislature and everything would have been nice and
   legal and constitutional and W. Bush would have
   become president.

   And the Democrats couldn't say a thing.

   Instead, the 5 GOP cabal justices actually WANTED
   to look like they would do anything to get retirement
   money from Scaife.  Indeed, they act like the more
   outrageous their decisions, the more dough.

   That does't look like corruption to me, looks like stupidity.

   What's wrong with an accurate vote count?

   What was the big rush?

   I already told you. The winner gets the power and that's all that matters.

   The Democratic Party establishment folk are too busy
   winning torts to be interested in winning campaigns.

   If Gore wanted to be president, he wouldn't have given
   two concession speechs, both times without a
   decisive vote count.

   The USSC never ordered the idiot to concede, only
   that there would be no accurate vote count.

   Maybe Gore was privy to information that you weren't
   He would certainly come off better by conceding gracioiusly
   than be carried off like a child having a tantrum. He knew
   whose turn it was.

   The Dems may be dopey, decadent and even
   hypocritical, but they aren't organized like a swat
   team.

   The Dems have no monopoly on dimwits, but maybe it's relative:
   to a bunch of dopey decadent hypocrits even a half-ass organized
   party may seem like a swat team. :-)

   Finally, the Dems aren't out to strip juries of power
   with tort reform.

   I attended a FIJA meeting a few months back and spoke to about a
   dozen people. There were a couple of Dem's, mostly libertarians and
   believe or not a couple (man & wife) from the Constitution Party.

   The very same ones who want to take power from
   juries obviously will be the first to strip all citrizens of
   any power to decide anything.

   You got that right, but you are 40 years late.

   Dave Terry


   Bret Cahill



   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   progressive-libertarians-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 01-08-12 14:12:44 EDT, Dave Terry writes:

  --- In progressive-libertarians@y..., BretCahill@a... wrote:

< > What am I saying? They want GOP cabal justices to decide all
< > elections.

<     Give me a break. Are you seriously inferring that if the
<   situation were reversed, Democratic cabal justices wouldn't
<   do exactly the same?

To get an idea of the corruption, consider that the
Republicans had a better option than having the U. S.
Supreme Court stop the vote counts.

Harris could have sent it to the Florida GOP
legislature and everything would have been nice and
legal and constitutional and W. Bush would have
become president.

And the Democrats couldn't say a thing.

Instead, the 5 GOP cabal justices actually WANTED
to look like they would do anything to get retirement
money from Scaife.  Indeed, they act like the more
outrageous their decisions, the more dough.

Moreover, of the four moderates on the court, only two
are Democrat appointees.

Finally, look at the Dems on the Fla. Court.

They didn't decide in favor of Gore.  They merely
decided in favor of a recount.

The GOP cabal on the U. S. Supreme Court decided
in favor of W. Bush.

What's wrong with an accurate vote count?

What was the big rush?

<     To the winner goes the spoils and to the upper management
<   of both major parties the only thing that counts is winning.

The Democratic Party establishment folk are too busy
winning torts to be interested in winning campaigns.

If Gore wanted to be president, he wouldn't have given
two concession speechs, both times without a
decisive vote count.

The USSC never ordered the idiot to concede, only
that there would be no accurate vote count.

The Dems may be dopey, decadent and even
hypocritical, but they aren't organized like a swat
team.

Finally, the Dems aren't out to strip juries of power
with tort reform.

The very same ones who want to take power from
juries obviously will be the first to strip all citrizens of
any power to decide anything.


Bret Cahill

--- In progressive-libertarians@y..., BretCahill@a... wrote:
> What am I saying? They want GOP cabal justices to decide all
> elections.

     Give me a break. Are you seriously inferring that if the
   situation were reversed, Democratic cabal justices wouldn't
   do exactly the same?

     To the winner goes the spoils and to the upper management
   of both major parties the only thing that counts is winning.

   Dave Terry

I recently completed a novel entitled DISCIPLINE.  The book deals
with the connections between Taoism and other ancient eastern
doctrines, quantum physics, time-travel, modern philosophies of
science and free market economics.  My work is heavily influenced by
F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Richard Dawkins, Alan Watts,
David Deutsch and Hugh Everett, Sir Karl Popper, C.G. Jung and Gary
Zukav.

My discussion group is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Discipline_Group

My website is www.ahlgren.net.

You can download a free, pre-publication copy of the manuscript at
these sites.  If you are interested, please join us.  If this email
is intrusive, please accept my apology.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to seeing you.

Paco Ahlgren

All Ya'll,
I find Cato far more entertaining than Heritage for example.  At least Cato
tries to follow a libertarian line rather than being an excuse mill for the
inherent contradictions of the GOP.  I guess if there is to be an effort to
skim the cream off the GOP in order to build a better DP we could do worse
than Cato fans.  I think driving a wedge between the social conservative
factions and the more libertarian oriented pubs makes for great fun and
more democrat officials.
Mark

At 05:42 PM 7/30/01 -0000, you wrote:
>In a message dated 01-07-28 13:26:04 EDT, weaselaw@a... writes:
>
>< In a message dated 7/28/01 2:20:04 AM, BretCahill@a... writes:
>
>< << Cato is just another GOP front. >>
>
>< Hogwash. For one example, they published my book on jury
>nullification -
>< hardly a GOP issue.
>
>Good point. Those who actually run the GOP want to
>strip all juries of all power and have everything
>decided by GOP cabal federal judges. What am I
>saying? They want GOP cabal justices to decide all
>elections.
>
>Ashcroft might pay some lip service to guns being an
>individual right to humor ignorant whites, but on things
>that matter most to most Americans, the GOP is
>much more paternalistic than the Democratic Party.
>
>You can really see the quandry this has gotten W.
>Bush and the other elites who run the GOP on stem
>cell research.
>
>The GOP elites really want federal funding of stem
>cell research bad. The social conservative RRR base
>of the party is adamantly against it.
>
>The social liberals in the Democratic Party are having
>a field day with GOP elitists pondering the catch of
>their bottom fishing.
>
>< They have done several things that have tweaked the
>< right.
>
>The right is so rife with contradictions, it's impossible
>for them not to tweak themselves, or, in the example
>above, not to have great fault lines.
>
>This was always true but it's really becoming apparent
>to voters with the internet.
>
>All this is happening when changing demographics --
>more minorities and an aging population -- favor the
>Dems.
>
>< Not everyone who fails to share Bret's obsession is part of a "GOP
>front."
>
>True, but they certainly aren't going to be Democrats.
>Current members of the Democratic Party
>establishment who oppose free speech on anything
>more significant than nekked nazi issues will soon be
>joining Al Gore, Robert Reich and Ira Glasser.
>
>Out of the Party.
>
>
>Bret Cahill
>
>
>"I can't figger it out. I've been working so hard at being
>a civil libertarian for a quarter of a century and things
>just keep getting worse. Send some more money so I
>can spend the next quarter century working hard at not
>figgering it out."
>
>-- ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>progressive-libertarians-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Mark Ludwig
Poultry Reaserch Labratory
University of Wisconsin - Madison
mpludwig@...
608-262-1730

Hi gang!

I will be running for Minnesota state legislative 9a
in 2002 as an Independence Party candidate. My
platform cleary has a progressive-libertarian side to
it, in fact I got a large part of it from the DFC.

If you are in Minnesota, especially in the Moorhead
area and want to get involved please send me an email.

http://voteforbrown.homestead.com/index.html

=====
Edward T.J. Brown
Moorhead, Minnesota
http://www.geocities.com/edwardtjbrown/index.html

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

In a message dated 01-07-28 13:26:04 EDT, weaselaw@a... writes:

< In a message dated 7/28/01 2:20:04 AM, BretCahill@a... writes:

< << Cato is just another GOP front. >>

< Hogwash. For one example, they published my book on jury
nullification -
< hardly a GOP issue.

Good point. Those who actually run the GOP want to
strip all juries of all power and have everything
decided by GOP cabal federal judges. What am I
saying? They want GOP cabal justices to decide all
elections.

Ashcroft might pay some lip service to guns being an
individual right to humor ignorant whites, but on things
that matter most to most Americans, the GOP is
much more paternalistic than the Democratic Party.

You can really see the quandry this has gotten W.
Bush and the other elites who run the GOP on stem
cell research.

The GOP elites really want federal funding of stem
cell research bad. The social conservative RRR base
of the party is adamantly against it.

The social liberals in the Democratic Party are having
a field day with GOP elitists pondering the catch of
their bottom fishing.

< They have done several things that have tweaked the
< right.

The right is so rife with contradictions, it's impossible
for them not to tweak themselves, or, in the example
above, not to have great fault lines.

This was always true but it's really becoming apparent
to voters with the internet.

All this is happening when changing demographics --
more minorities and an aging population -- favor the
Dems.

< Not everyone who fails to share Bret's obsession is part of a "GOP
front."

True, but they certainly aren't going to be Democrats.
Current members of the Democratic Party
establishment who oppose free speech on anything
more significant than nekked nazi issues will soon be
joining Al Gore, Robert Reich and Ira Glasser.

Out of the Party.


Bret Cahill


"I can't figger it out. I've been working so hard at being
a civil libertarian for a quarter of a century and things
just keep getting worse. Send some more money so I
can spend the next quarter century working hard at not
figgering it out."

-- ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser

From: BretCahill@... [mailto:BretCahill@...]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:56 PM

Anyone who thinks they  (Cato)  really care about free
markets need only pop them with the simple question:

Does free speech precede each and every free trade?



I'm not sure I understand - what exactly do you mean by that question?  What
are you trying to say?

DWS



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have noticed that the present economy isn't going very well. It
seems that there downsizings (layoffs) everywhere. There are rumors
afloat that my factory may close by December.My brother's factory is
slowing down greatly. My wife has been cut back to four eight-hour
workdays a week.I've seen several plants close in this area that were
previously thought to be invincible.
I wonder how libertarianism will sell its message during days such as
these. Will things get worse before it gets better? If there is
massive unemployment will the government flee to more socialism
instead of less?

Tired on having a hand full of extremist stealing your freedoms.  You
can do something about it.  Until now you had to join our group at
Listbot but now Screaming Freedom has added a signup page
on Yahoo groups.  Now you can join with the thousands of republicans,
libertarians, natural law, second amendment, Christian conservatives
ad other constitutionalist in fighting against those who want to take
our
freedoms.  For more information
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/screamingfreedom

Rusty

Here's one of my most effective letters.  I figured if it
got out it would do more good than bad.  Even so, I
cringed when the ruble crashed and Yeltsin resigned.

Later, however, when Greenspan expressed wonder
that this was the best economy he had seen in his
entire life, I felt it may have been worth it.

But I cringed again when Galbraith published _Name
Dropping_.  I'm afraid to even open that book.

This casual informal style, which Clinton and a few
others found so charming in a sea of suits, drove
uptight Al Gore absolutely crazy.

I do not recommend my style to others.  I'm not even
all that sure of it myself.

June 1, 1998

M. K. Albright
Secretary of State
2201 C St., NW
Washington, DC 20520

      Re:  The Russian Farce

Dear Secretary Albright:

The founders of this country were applied political
scientists.  They introduced the most liberal, most
egalitarian, most prosperous nation on earth.  They
got results.

Not long after they died, a long string of economists
appeared all over the world who never seemed to get
*any* worthwhile results.  Some made money.  Many
were famous.  Most published books.  None ever got
any results.

Just compare the current performance of the U. S:
and Russian economies.  The U. S. economy is
under a *political* influence similar to that provided by
the original founders.  In contrast, the Russian
economy is under the influence of economists.  Not
too surprisingly, the economists can't explain either
economy.

It would be hard enough for a culturally different
country to imitate America's success even if they
were talking to real political philosophers.  It is a sick
joke to expect the Russians to glean anything useful
from our shallow economic dolts.

If the Russians really want all the advantages of
democratic freedom including a good economy, they
ought to do what the founders of this country did:
read Enlightenment era political scientists.  Get that
new guy a Russian translation of _Spirit of Laws_.  I
can't guarantee anything, but at least it would be a
step in the right direction.

This Russian "capitalism" mess is starting to remind
me of the political analog of burning Moscow before
Napoleon arrived.  I get exhausted just hearing about
it.


Yours,



Bret Cahill

I have decided to put DFC_talk back on moderated status.  I'm also
going to begin diverting posts to the progressive libertarian list,
when I believe that a post is inappropriate for DFC_talk.  I have
begun this already.

You may begin seeing posts your "off-topic" posts to DFC_talk come
through on progressive-libertarian instead.  The
progressive-libertarian list will remain unmoderated.  If your post is
really just a philosophical discussion that could be taking place on
any other libertarian oriented list, please save me some time and post
directly to
progressive-libertarians@yahoogroups.com

I'm still mulling over some long-term and/or permanent changes to the
DFC_talk list; if and when I make up my mind regarding them, I will
post additional information.

Scott Kroyer
List Manager

Another thing to consider is [that] it is impossible to
establish a libertarian institution and have it continue
to promote liberty.

Once you think you have your hands firmly on
liberty, then you don't, and you don't understand the
nature of liberty either.


Bret Cahill


"Liberal institutions straightway cease being liberal
the moment they are soundly established: once this
is attained no more grievous and more through
enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."

-- Nietzsche

In a message dated 01-06-08 18:48:39 EDT, Simon, David writes:

. . .

< I have read that there were something on
< the order of 150,000 firearm-related deaths in the past x number of
years in
< the US.  During the same time period in the countries of England,
France,
< Germany, Denmark, Spain, Holland, Italy, Denmark, and Australia
combined -
< which all together have a population about equal to that of the US -
  there
< were aprox. 150 firearms related deaths.  Assuming that stat is
correct (I
< haven't double-checked it, but it sounds about right)

You BETTER get it right.  NRA types will dispute ANY
statistic from ANY authority.

What am I saying?  They will dispute self evident
truths, or, more recently, dodge them like they were
bullets.

< , what could explain
< that enormous difference in gun related deaths during an equal time
period
< in an equal population of industrialized countries?

The number of guns already in their populations back
before x years ago?

You are comparing two different situations.

< The only difference I
< can see is that in the US we have very limited gun control laws
while in the
< other countries they have intense - almost draconian - such laws.
You can
< talk about inalienable rights as much as you like,

Hello?

What did you think a libertarian caucus does?

< but the conclusion is the
< same:  The more guns, the more gun-related deaths.

But what politically acceptable gun control now would
really help anyone out in the immediate future?  A
house to house search isn't possible and I hope never
will be possible.  Even Brady, which I thought might
have been a little effective at saving lives, has yet to
produce any results.

As you yourself admitted, the high tax economy of
the 1990s reduced violent crime including gun violence
more than any other factor.

Even if all you want to do is reduce gun deaths, even
if you didn't care about the economy or other violence
or other unnatural deaths would seem more effective
to keep the focus on economic issues than to mess
around with gun control.

Even the inner city folks most vulnerable to gun
violence are much more concerned about economic
issues than gun violence.

<  Isn't there a point at
< which we must balance the right to possess guns with the harm
associated
< with such possession?

How do you know we aren't already there?  Maybe we
even erred on the side of too much gun control . . .

<  Isn't that a part of what it means to be a
< libertarian (small L) Democrat as opposed to a Libertarian?

Certainly not.

One thing everyone here can agree upon:  we need to
be reducing governmental paternalism and increasing
individual rights in the Democratic Party.


Bret Cahill

Hello

I have built a new yahoo club for progressive-libertarians that live
in Minnesota.  I hope that it will be a spring board to a progressive-
libertarian political party in MN.

If you want to get involved and help get the party going drop me an
email.

Edward TJ Brown
edwardtjbrown@...

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Edward TJ Brown wrote:

   Todd:
> >Should you decide to run, I would suggest obtaining from the
> >applicable local agency a detailed map of your election district,
as well as maps of every precinct or ward within that district. If
> >you're going to run as either an indepenedent or 3rd party
candidate, I would also obtain copies of the results of the last
several elections, and any other public record you need to determine
where independent and 3rd party voters are most concentrated in your
> >district, as well as where they are least concentrated. Armed with
that information, you could more easily focus your door-to-door
efforts on just those neighborhoods that are *neither* Democratic nor
> >Republican strongholds.

   Edward:
> Where do you feel that I would get information on thet last voting
> election?


   Mike:
   (In case Todd didn't see your question): In order to obtain that
information (number of voters registered in each party; map of the
election district, etc.), contact the Board of Elections.


Mike O'Mara

Where do you feel that I would get information on thet last voting election?


>From: "Todd Altman" <singletax@...>
>Reply-To: progressive-libertarians@yahoogroups.com
>To: progressive-libertarians@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [PL] Re: Running for office
>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:03:20 -0000
>
>Should you decide to run, I would suggest obtaining from the
>applicable local agency a detailed map of your election district, as
>well as maps of every precinct or ward within that district. If
>you're going to run as either an indepenedent or 3rd party candidate,
>I would also obtain copies of the results of the last several
>elections, and any other public record you need to determine where
>independent and 3rd party voters are most concentrated in your
>district, as well as where they are least concentrated. Armed with
>that information, you could more easily focus your door-to-door
>efforts on just those neighborhoods that are *neither* Democratic nor
>Republican strongholds.
>
>Todd
>
>--- In progressive-libertarians@y..., "Edward T.J. Brown "
><libertyliberty_79@h...> wrote:
> > Well as I am involved in MSUM NORML most people do have some
>inkling
> > that I will run for office.
> >
> > I am also thinking about starting out at the State House level,
>even
> > though I have not been on City Council.
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>progressive-libertarians-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Hello

If I run I will not run as a "freak show". Although being gay and Jewish
might come up in the local press.

It should be noted that 9A is only the city of Moorhead.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

In a message dated 3/27/01 9:36:42 AM, libertyliberty_79@... writes:

<< Well as I am involved in MSUM NORML most people do have some inkling
that I will run for office.

I am also thinking about starting out at the State House level, even
though I have not been on City Council.
  >>

If you can wait a few years, Dan's advice about becoming a participant in the
political process  without running first would be best. You can gain respect
and name recognition while building your own knowledge of how to campaign as
well as personal contacts.

If you do run a campaign, try not to run a "freak show" and avoid ad hominem,
divisive tactics. Earn respect for providing a political alternative with a
principled dedicated effort.

Town Council would be better to run for first because it is much easier to
gain free publicity and trust at a local level. After the people in one town
at least know you, then at least you will have that  name recognition base
amongst all the other towns that don't know you yet.

Unless of course you are burning to speak out against the WOD. If that's so,
key into the hypocrisy of the WOD, how its all about the money for the police
via forfeiture and for the lawyers via court costs. A medical problem has
been turned into a criminal pocket to line the pockets of special interests.
From the foundations that own stock in legal drug companies to the
corrections officer.

Chris Toto

Should you decide to run, I would suggest obtaining from the
applicable local agency a detailed map of your election district, as
well as maps of every precinct or ward within that district. If
you're going to run as either an indepenedent or 3rd party candidate,
I would also obtain copies of the results of the last several
elections, and any other public record you need to determine where
independent and 3rd party voters are most concentrated in your
district, as well as where they are least concentrated. Armed with
that information, you could more easily focus your door-to-door
efforts on just those neighborhoods that are *neither* Democratic nor
Republican strongholds.

Todd

--- In progressive-libertarians@y..., "Edward T.J. Brown "
<libertyliberty_79@h...> wrote:
> Well as I am involved in MSUM NORML most people do have some
inkling
> that I will run for office.
>
> I am also thinking about starting out at the State House level,
even
> though I have not been on City Council.

Well as I am involved in MSUM NORML most people do have some inkling
that I will run for office.

I am also thinking about starting out at the State House level, even
though I have not been on City Council.

On 10 Mar 2001,,  Edward T.J. Brown wrote:

> My name is Edward T.J. Brown.  I am a student at MSU -
> Moorhead and have given serious thought to running for
> state office in two years.
>
> I am glad that I found this list and their are  very
> few progressive- libertarian groups around and was
> wondering if people could suggest some other
> sites/books/reading materials.

I think one can usually get one's message across
better without running for office, so I would run only
to win. If you want to actually *hold* office, I would
recommend the following:

1. Do not bill yourself as running for office until
you have to. Contrary to a common belief, being a
candidate reduces your credibility rather than
increasing it, because people in general will view you
as someone "on the make," and because other people
vying for office are reluctant to accept the
leadership of a potential rival.

2. Figure out what you want to promote and take it to
current incumbents. If you cannot find anyone to
support your views now, you will be very ineffective,
and very much alone, holding office. Start with things
municipal incumbents can adopt if possible, rather
than looking for things that require state support.

3. Once you have found issues that some incumbent or
other will support, start promoting those issues to
constituencies who might also support you. All the
while, stay away from talk of running for office.

4. Get involved in other people's elections and get a
good sense of what it really takes to win. Find
someone who is significantly better than average, but
don't hold out for absolute purity. There are re-
election campaigns, anti-incumbency campaigns, and
open-seat campaigns. They are very different from each
other. Try to get involved in all three.

5. Meanwhile, go to community meetings. Meet people
beforehand and afterward, both so they come to
appreciate your presence and so you know who is who,
but avoid center stage. It is not time for your debut,
and right now you are after the respect of the opinion
makers, not the adulation of the followers.

6. Get involved in one of the two major parties, and
take up minor responsibilities, such as being a voting-
precinct committee member. Indoctrinate your fellow
committee members while helping them become more
effective. Look for opportunities to hold higher party
offices, like municipal chair, etc., but avoid faction
fights. If a faction fight is raging, try to see the
value in people from both sides and be as diplomatic
as possible, and you will be highly regarded.

7. Build a solid, non-political career. Starting your
own business is ideal. You will not be earning money
in politics for a good while, and you will probably
find that you can have more time, money and freedom
from political strings if you do *not* run for office
in the future, but instead become a leader who
strongly influences other elected officials.

8. If you do decide to run for office, start with a
local office, such as municipal council or controller.
There is much good one can do at the municipal level,
and it puts you in a better position to seek higher
office. There are rare occasions where people
springboard to higher office, but the methodical, step-
by-step approach is vastly more reliable.

9. While holding office, continue to be a team player
and look for other team players. Reason patiently with
your colleagues and introduce measures when they
actually have a good chance of passing. Don't
grandstand for the sake of making yourself look good
or making your opponents look bad, and don't put much
faith in colleagues who do this. Such colleagues
usually become so dependent on the media that they
learn to substitute what "sounds good" for what is
actually right.

10. If possible, don't give up your other means of
livelihood. At all costs, avoid falling into a
situation where you need to advance politically or be
re-elected. Once you depend on others, your ability to
maintain your integrity is jeopardized.


Dan Sullivan <pimann@...>

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Edward T.J. Brown wrote:

   Edward:
> My name is Edward T.J. Brown.  I am a student at MSU - Moorhead and
> have given serious thought to running for state office in two years.
>
> I am glad that I found this list and their are  very few progressive-
> libertarian groups around and was wondering if people could suggest
> some other sites/books/reading materials.


   Mike:
   There is a list of progressive libertarian links at the Freedom Links
website: <www.progress.org/freedom>.

   In case you do decide to run for state office, you've probably heard
that it's good to focus on about three issues in the campaign.  Have
you considered which issues those would be?


Mike O'Mara

My name is Edward T.J. Brown.  I am a student at MSU - Moorhead and
have given serious thought to running for state office in two years.

I am glad that I found this list and their are  very few progressive-
libertarian groups around and was wondering if people could suggest
some other sites/books/reading materials.

Hello

Sorry it took me so long to reply. My mail for this goes to a hotmail
account and it took my awhile to realise that I had to turn off the
text from HTML.

The libertarian group that I involved in at MSUM is for libertarians,
classical liberals, progressive-libertarians, free market liberals,
objectivist, and members of the Libertarian Party.  We are not
offical because we have yet to find a faculty member willing to sign
onto the project.

"Friends of Democracy" deals with third political parties, electoral
reform, voter information, and debate and discussio.

Regards
Edward TJ Brown

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Edward T.J. Brown wrote:

   Edward:
> I am involved with a local chapter of NORML, Friends of Democracy
> (my own creation) and even a local libertarian type group.


   Mike:
   Please tell us about Friends of Democracy, and about the local
libertarian type group you mentioned.


Mike O'Mara

To Ed et All in Minnesota,

here is possibly an issue that progressive libertarians might want to
discuss. Why  was Jesse Ventura rejected by the MNLP?

here in NJ the NJLP's gubernatorial candidate has just hired Doug Friedline
to manage Mark Edgerton's campaign.

We asked Doug why the MNLP shunned Mark and if possibly if Jesse would do a
Press opportunity with Mark here in NJ, etc.

Doug said that Jesse scored a "100" on the Advocates Smallest Political Quiz
but the MNLP didn't want Jesse because he supported some "Light Rail"
construction project.

As a "progressive libertarian," er, Georgist libertarian, I see no mandatory
conflict in principle.

The Light Rail could have been built simply like any automobile right of way
in accordance with libertarian principles as long as the rolling stock
owner/operators were all private and they all bid via competitive auction for
exclusive time-space scheduling use, as a market priced user-fee.

No major difference from building automobile roads or protecting every i
ndividual's freedom to travel on common, equal access rights of way. The only
minor difference is that such a light rail right of way would free up people
from being forced to choose the Detroit-Wolfsburg-Kobe choice, the $20,000 to
60,000 capital investment alternative that the present state subsidized
infrastructure mandates.

Is Ventura a "progressive libertarian?"

Could we entice him back to the LP? Or to the DFC?

Comments?

Chris T.

In a message dated 2/1/01 1:09:58 AM, libertyliberty_79@... writes:

>Well I was invited to join this egroups (yahoo?) and I was hoping to
>engage in some intelligent discussion on progressvism and
>libertarianism.  Sadly, this list is almost as quiet as the DFC
>egroups list.
>
>I live in Moorhead MN and I guess I would consider myself to be
>a "libertarian-Democract".  I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 because
>frankly Gore and Bush were worthless loones.
>
>I am involved with a local chapter of NORML, Friends of Democracy (my
>own creation) and even a local libertarian type group. If you are in
>Moorhead in Fargo ND and want to chat some time give me a email.
>

Hi Ed,

Chris here from the neo-colonial fiefdom of NJ.

What progressive libertarian issue would you like to talk about?

What issues would others like to talk about?

CHris T.

Well I was invited to join this egroups (yahoo?) and I was hoping to
engage in some intelligent discussion on progressvism and
libertarianism.  Sadly, this list is almost as quiet as the DFC
egroups list.

I live in Moorhead MN and I guess I would consider myself to be
a "libertarian-Democract".  I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 because
frankly Gore and Bush were worthless loones.

I am involved with a local chapter of NORML, Friends of Democracy (my
own creation) and even a local libertarian type group. If you are in
Moorhead in Fargo ND and want to chat some time give me a email.

Hello Die-hards!

It's good to see that some of you are already on board with this new
list.  I haven't got much to discuss, but I'm glad that there is some
interest in forking the more general discussions to a second list.

Scott Kroyer