House backs pot decriminalization

[dalebert]

Kelly persuaded me to come in and make some calls for the Guinta campaign. I did it because we were trying to create a shift toward liberty in the Manchester GOP and the idea was to get involved in Republican activism with the group in general and earn their trust and what not. I felt a certain obligation because I had already attended one meeting and we needed to attend three. Unfortunately, it was right in the middle of my revelation about politics and I had no desire whatsoever to support Guinta. There was no denying in my mind that many people were supporting him because he's a Republican and the Democrats must surely be worse, and nothing more.

I can't describe how uncomfortable I was with that one visit to his campaign office. I explained up front that I had a limited time (I already knew Kelly was really pushy so I had to be pro-active) and I called all the numbers they gave urging volunteers to show up for sign waves for Guinta. Once I was done with that list, I left, and that was a very clear turning point for me. I knew I couldn't honor my obligation to become a voting member of the Manchester GOP. It was a big lie and it made me extremely uncomfortable. I felt like puking. I knew that was the last effort I would ever make to promote any politician.

[d_goddard]

don't trust a politician

Collectivist crap.
Ever chatted with an "A"-Rep?

"Don't trust athletes; I never had a girlfriend that wasn't stolen by an athlete"

[FTL_Ian]

I'm looking forward to the coming ride--it's gonna be a blast.

Great post, ancap!   

[J’raxis 270145]

Hey, wasn't this the guy that was supposed to be our buddy. F*@kin' fascists.

Guinta was sold to freestaters because he's such a tax-fighter. (His campaign as a whole was based on being anti-tax and anti-crime, if I recall). I don't think anything was even said about the remainder of his positions. I know that I certainly didn't do enough research into any of this, and I have a feeling that a lot of people who backed him made a similar mistake.

The lesson to take from this, for in-the-system activists, is that candidates need to be looked at as a whole before we decide to support them. The "80/20" rule—support someone who's good on 80% of the libertarian issues—is probably still valid here. (What's at issue is that Guinta is starting to look like "50/50" or perhaps "20/80.") There's one corollary I'd like to add: On that 20%, if they're going to work against us, we shouldn't support them, either. The point is to find 80% of things that you can both agree on, and not act at all on the differences—agree to disagree.

This whole thing is of increasing relevance as we go into a state representative election and we begin to look at candidates, especially since so many of us are working within the Republican party, and that seems to be the place where you most often find these "good on taxes, horrible on social freedom" types.

[Dave Ridley]

Uh...is anyone here even claiming that there was another mayoral candidate on the list who would have been less bad than Guinta?

[d_goddard]

As my letter to Guinta makes clear, it ain't about His Mayorness.
He has higher political aspirations (Governor) and I personally will work against him on that. Even if I have to back a candidate I only agree with 80% of the time -- if that candidate has the brains to quietly disagree on that 20%, not actively campaign against freedom from the bully pulpit and in the media.

[AntonLee]

god I don't even want to buy a house I want to buy a billboard on 95

[lildog]

Good God people, one (or even several) mistakes and you're all ready to put a stake in Guinta.

Maybe its just my way of thinking but even if a politician screws up as Guinta did here, unless they screw up big time I always fear that if we vote them out we'll end up with someone much worse.  Several here have said Frank was less bad then the person they voted out.... so why go back to someone even worse?  Sure if someone comes along even better then by all means support them but don't sink a ship without knowing what the other option is first.  It may be far worse.

[J’raxis 270145]

It is quickly becoming a pattern of mistakes that makes Guinta appear very much more a mainstream Republican than a liberty-friendly one.

Police-statist Giuliani's major claim to fame is that, as New York City mayor, he "cleaned up crime" in the city (e.g., by arresting the homeless), and Manchester's "tough on crime" mayor endorsed him, which implies he endorses that, which made me very wary of supporting him. Guinta hasn't yet done anything like that, yet, but it's something to watch for.

And now there's this pro–drug war bullying... not exactly an improvement to his "liberty-friendly" appearance.

I'm still keeping an open mind, of course, and we'll have to see what the alternatives are in the gubernatorial election, or the 2009 mayoral election if he stays mayor. I think it's the gubernatorial election results that define the threshold for party ballot access in New Hampshire, so maybe I'll vote for the LP candidate, if there is one.

[mackler]

Give the kids an inch and they'll take a mile. Using marijuana will just lead to more dangerious drugs,

Like Ritalin?

[ancapagency]

Uh...is anyone here even claiming that there was another mayoral candidate on the list who would have been less bad than Guinta?

Are we required to back a dog in every fight? 

Again, the problem is we will be known by the company we keep.  We are trying to do two things towards achieving "Liberty in Our Lifetime"--1) Attract Liberty-Lovers who agree with us to NH, and 2) Persuade those who don't understand the value of Liberty (or what it really is) that they should work with us towards this goal.  We have to convince people that our word is good--that we have real principles that we follow and uphold, and that we are NOT merely yet another political group jockying for position and telling people what they want to hear just so we can get our people in power.  And that we keep our word, and that when we endorse someone, that person is the right person to vote for.

I know, everyone who enjoys playing the political game out there and preaches including anyone who claims to agree with even part of one of our issues (if not our principles) is going to start frothing at the mouth and calling me "a damned dirty purist!" (sorry, just enjoying a little hyperbole, this morning).  And I promise you, I'm not.  If I was a purist, I'd refuse to work with any of you--because none of you are as good a Libertarian as me.       In fact, I am willing (as at least a few of you know) to work with you folks with whom I don't completely agree.  I review legislation for the NHLA, I even showed up at the State House the other day for the first time to wear the stickers and pass out the Gold Standard (which I whole-heartedly endorse) and so forth--despite being a "non-political."  I endorse Joel Winters and the other reps who are with us, even though they still do some things I don't agree with. 

But there is a big difference between people like Joel and those like Guinta.  I know that if Joel says he's going to do something, he'll do it.  I know that if I ask him to support something, and he disagrees with me, he'll give me a straight answer that he won't.  He won't weasel around and give me a non-committal answer, while trying to make me think he might support what I want him to when he has no intention of doing so.  Obviously, that is not the case with Guinta and others of his ilk. 

I recognize that there will be some measure of "practical politics" that is conducted under the umbrella of the NHLA and the other assorted organizations the members of the Porcupine Community are involved with.  And I understand that the Republican Liberty Caucus and so forth are our allies in a lot of issues and campaigns.  But there must also be some care taken to ensure that we aren't just assuming that because someone comes to the right meetings, and says a few nice things to us, and pays attention to us, and makes us feel like we are "a valuable part of their campaign" and so forth, that they aren't blindly endorsed   and supported by Porcupines--because if not, we will be used and discarded when we are of no more use, and our reputations will be destroyed--we will be seen as just another bunch of political junkies who say nice things, but ultimately can't be trusted.

Now, the NHLA operates in such a way that I think they are to a great extent insulated from this problem.  The principles are there, and all reps are graded against those principles--which, so long as the principles are not compromised (and I'm not suggesting they will be), means they will be trusted on their judgment.  "We endorse Rep Joe Snuffy because he's consistently been rated "B" on our report card--he votes with us 80% of the time, and that's pretty damn good at this time. The other candidate is pretty obviously an "F" and thus is so bad we need to keep them out..."  Thus, it's plain that we have our disagreements with Joe Snuffy, but we agree that he is significantly better than the opposition, and the exact areas of our disagreement and amount thereof is available for review by concerned parties.  And it is also plain that should the race be between an "A" rated rep and one who is rated "B," we will back the "A-rater."

Backing someone like Guinta, for something as amorphous as some claims that he is against taxes to some extent, doesn't even come close to this sort of discernment.  And it sets us up for this scenario next time around: "Hey, aren't you those guys who worked for Guinta?  You said he was a good guy, and that he was in favor of freedom and such, and then he did [insert anti-freedom action of choice here].  Why should I trust you guys?  You screwed me last time!"

I don't expect every Porcupine (including myself) to keep lily-white hands all the time.  I do expect us all to stand on our principles, and to keep our word, and to be open and honest about the people we bring to the group and ask the group to endorse.  I do expect us all to do our research before backing any politicians, and to honestly and openly rate them.  And to make it clear to those politicians we endorse that we expect them to live up to our agreements with them, and that there are consequences for their failure to do so.  And one of the things they need to do is to be open and honest with us when we ask them questions--tell them it is better to openly disagree with us on an issue than it is to lie or weasel. 

The politicians need to see us a a credible threat if they don't toe the line.  They need to be taught that if they pull crap like this on us, that their political career is over.  I know, easier said than done.  But we've got to start somewhere, and we need to be consistent and implacable.  I don't hold anything against those of the Porcupines who did work for Guinta--I honestly don't.  But they need to admit (to themselves--I'm not looking for any sort of public abasement or anything here) they were fooled, and learn from the experience.  They should  take a good, hard look at Guinta, do some background research, and start looking around for things to do to toss him out next election and replace him with someone who is significantly better.  Or, if that's not possible, at least "Do no more harm" and don't back anyone in the next election if there's no one available who is significantly better.

[ancapagency]

don't trust a politician

Collectivist crap.
Ever chatted with an "A"-Rep?

"Don't trust athletes; I never had a girlfriend that wasn't stolen by an athlete"

How about a more accurate analogy:  "Don't trust cops; every time someone arrested me when I had committed no force or fraud against anyone, it was a cop."

Or perhaps: "Don't trust cops; every time someone planted evidence on me so they could arrest me, it was a cop."

And so on.

Look, two points:  First, a statement like "don't trust politicians" is not equivalent to "everyone who is engaged in political action is a criminal bastard who should be shot and buried in the back 40" or even "everyone who holds an elected position...ditto."  We should, IMO, be very distrustful of politicians--people who have spent their lives in or trying to get elected offices.  Joel Winters, for example, is not a politician--he's a person who is politically active (for the right reasons) and has managed to get elected.  And he has proven he is a man of his word, and that he is trustworthy even if we don't agree with him on everything.  If some politician approaches us, we should not blindly trust his word.  We don't know this guy; we don't know if he can be trusted; we don't know if he really does agree with us, or if he's just trying to get us to spend our money and time on him.  So, we don't trust him until we have a reason to do so--either he proves himself to us, or people we know we can trust endorse him.  Nothing collectivist about that--just good sense.

Second, yes, generalizations are frequently specifically untrue, and are genuinely wrong when applied to most groups.  However, certain generalizations, when applied to self-selecting groups, are in fact generally true.  For example, I challenge you to argue rationally with the following generalizations:

*  "Porcupines believe in Freedom and Individual Liberty."

Yes, I suppose that there could possibly be a specific case of an individual who is a member of the FSP, and yet doesn't believe in Freedom and Individual Liberty.  But that would kind of defeat the purpose of joining the FSP, wouldn't it?

*  "Porcupines are in favor of ending the evil and counter-productive War on Drugs."

Again, I suppose there could be some Porcupines who are in favor of the Drug War, but as a general statement, it is generally true.

* "Porcupines are good folks, and believe in keeping their word.  If they promise you something, they'll deliver.  If they sell you something, they won't screw you over on the deal.  If you hire one, they'll do the job you hired them for.  If you loan one money, they'll repay it..."

Yes, even this one is, for the most part, true.  Sadly, there have been the odd exception, now and then.  But they were just that--exceptions.  And we should all be working to make the above statement as close to specifically true as possible.  And there's nothing collectivist about that.  We are a self-selecting group, and the above are supposed to be a big part of the reason for joining the group in the first place.

Now then, with reference to other self-selecting groups, specifically politicians, they are a member of the group PRECISELY BECAUSE they think they should be in charge of others.  Yes, there are the exceptions, but again they are just that--exceptions.  All other things being equal, and not knowing anything about a politician other than the fact that they are one, we should not trust them until adequate evidence to the contrary is available.

[Ron Helwig]

I'm in this for the long haul. I don't expect to get anywhere close to a libertopia in under 20 years.

We need to let the politicos know that we are a force to be reckoned with. If that means ending the political career of a politician and replacing them temporarily with someone a little worse, I'm fine with that. We'll end the replacement's political career as well. This is something I believe we need to do if we are going to get them to understand that we aren't going away.

I think ending GoonTard's political career, even if it means temporarily putting in a worse mayor/governor, will go a long way towards showing our strength and making freedom's enemies quake in their designer shoes.

I am suggesting we adopt the elimination of GoonTard's political career as a goal.

[d_goddard]

I'm in this for the long haul.

Me too, but I still can't make it through ancapagency's posts. 

You have great points, man... when you can make 'em succinct, I might read more of 'em.

[dalebert]

Me too, but I still can't make it through ancapagency's posts. 

He's not as bad as Stefan Molyneux.