LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE SPITS IN FACE OF TALK SHOW HOST ON THE AIR

The evening started innocently enough for Brian Whitman, Sunday evening talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles.

He had on his show four minor candidates running for governor of California. Three were on the phone and the fourth, Libertarian candidate Gary Copeland, was in studio.

The conversation eventually turned to illegal immigration. Copeland did not like Whitman's position and called him a racist. Although Whitman kept trying to answer, Copeland kept talking over him and would not let him speak.

Just as Whitman puts callers in "timeout" on his show when they won't let him have his say, he told the engineer to cut off Copeland's microphone. Copeland became incensed and started packing his things to leave the studio.

Then, in great FReeper tradition, Whitman told Copeland not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. He also called Copeland a lunatic.

Then the rain came. Copeland walked over to Whitman and spit in his face. Whitman couldn't believe it. Two others on the KABC staff couldn't believe it.

Whitman had the station call the police and is considering filing assault charges.

Poor Copeland. He may no longer be the Libertarian candidate for governor. An official high ranking representative of the party called in to Whitman and told him that Copeland would be receiving no more backing and they were going to see what they could do to take him off the ballot.

Now that was classic talk radio. The unbelievable happened. A candidate for governor actually showed himself to be a bigger jackass than Gray Davis. Davis has spit on the law but never on Whitman, at least not yet. Brian, get him in studio.

It's not hard to believe that a self-described libertarian would resort to that disingenuous anti-American canard.

I see that I have not misread your hostility. You continue to dismiss my honest attempts to communicate with insults like "disingenuous" and "anti-American".

There is nothing "disingenuous" or "anti-American" about my comments: Either the "War on Drugs" is Constitutionally proper and Federal agencies are acting within their Constitutionally granted authority, or no Constitutional Amendment was required for Prohibition.

Our "representatives" may indeed have been answering to the popular will in enacting these laws, but regardless of that, they have exceeded their Constitutional Authority, and these laws are for that reason illegitimate. The Constitution, in case you have forgotten, was supposedly designed to allow majority rule, conditioned and limited by protection of minority rights. It is for this reason not properly interpreted as a carte blanche for the supposed "will of the majority", whether expressed by the enactments of "representatives" or not.

In my humble opinion, a defense of the principles of Freedom which is critical of the current anti-Constitutional miasma is fiercely American. It is those who defend tyranny in the name of "majority will" who are anti-American. No offense intended.

1. It's hard to believe that a supposed conservative would resort to this standard liberal canard:

2, I see that I have not misread your hostility. You continue to dismiss my honest attempts to communicate with insults like "disingenuous" and "anti-American".

And I see that I have not misread your hostility. Or hypocrisy.

Bologna. Baseless, of course.

Sophistry is the foundation of Libertarian doctrine. When their dogmas fall apart in real world applications, Libertarians simply become angry with reality. Its what True Believers do.

Guess again. Human Action is predicated on dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs. Without a perceived need to improve some aspect of our individual situations, none of us would act. The dissatisfaction, in other words, precedes action. It also need not imply anger: If I am hungry, I will eat, but that does not mean that I am angry about it.

As to "dogmas fall[ing] apart", you have yet to demonstrate any point at which the "dogma" of individual liberty and personal responsibility fails in real world application.

Granted, the outcomes are not perfect, but nothing in this world is. A common logical error is to (perhaps unconsciously) apply a double standard to new ideas (or any other deviation from a norm), insisting that the new idea meet a standard that the status quo cannot meet either. The point is to compare the status quo objectively to the new ideas to see if improvement is possible. This is actually quite difficult: Even Einstein, whose Relativity Theory laid the foundation for modern Physics, was unable to relinquish certain traditional physical concepts, and was thus unable to participate in the quantum-theoretical revolution which followed on the heels of his own breakthroughs.

In embracing libertarian doctrine (perhaps better named as The Freedom Philosophy), I have had to struggle for years with the (often unwelcome) implications of the ideas contained therein. You may regard me as a "True Believer", but in this you are sadly mistaken.

And I see that I have not misread your hostility. Or hypocrisy.

If my comments have offended you in any way, I apologize. But it is you who have consistently expressed hostility, and declined to present reasoned argument to support your own viewpoint.

You accuse me of hypocrisy. Very well, on what basis? Just saying that I am a hypocrite will not convince me or anyone else.

Bologna. Baseless, of course.

Again, you dismiss without rebuttal. My conclusion is that you have no rebuttal to deliver.

Once again, I assert that there is an obvious conflict between the current Federal "War on Drugs" (prosecuted without Constitutional support), and the prior perceived need to enact a Constitutional Amendment before the feds could presume to prohibit the production, sale, transportation or use of alcohol.

Human Action is predicated on dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs.

3/10 of 1% of the vote in the last presidential election suggests considerable dissatisfaction with Libertarianism.

As to "dogmas fall[ing] apart", you have yet to demonstrate any point at which the "dogma" of individual liberty and personal responsibility fails in real world application.

As previously pointed out, an absolute right of contract would allow for indentured servitude and other forms of slavery forbidden by our 13th Amendment

3/10 of 1% of the vote in the last presidential election suggests considerable dissatisfaction with Libertarianism.

Illogical. A libertarian regime is not the current state of affairs. It has also not been widely recognized as a desirable new state of affairs. Hence, little motivation among voters to act for change in that direction.

When the proposition was first presented that the earth is round, and not the center of the universe, it was met with vehement scorn, and its proponents were widely regarded as heretics. But they were right!

As previously pointed out . . .

And rebutted. A rebuttal to which you have not responded in any substantive manner. Here's more:

The term "indenture" refers to "A contract binding one party into the service of another for a specified term." This dictionary definition makes no reference to such a contract being involuntary. The XIII Amendment specifically prohibits involuntary servitude, and the two terms, indentured and involuntary are not synonymous. To elaborate, when one enlists into military service, one is entering into a state of indentured servitude according to the definition above. Surely you would not insist that, in the absense of a draft, this is involuntary servitude or slavery?

Thank you for the excellent citation, and for opening a gigantic can of worms. For future reference, you can make the URLs you present into active links with HTML tags, like this: Joel Proyect v. United States of America

Now to substance. Yes, the courts have ruled consistently (in recent years) in favor of the modern expansive interpretation of our Constitution. They have in effect nullified almost any restrictions on Federal power via a grossly expanded interpretation of the so-called "commerce" clause in Article I, Section 8. A proper reading of that clause, interpreted in light of the Founders' own writings, is that the intent was to prevent the several State Governments from erecting, between the States, any of the various barriers to trade that were common at the time. The intent was emphatically not to empower the Federal Government to regulate any private activity which might, by some feverish stretch of imagination, affect interstate commerce in some way.

You may choose to dismiss this as "groundless", or just "my" opinion, but there is overwhelming Constitutional scholarship to support my assertion. After all, what is the point in writing a document to explicitly define and restrict the powers of a central government, while including language which frees that government of nearly all restrictions?

That the courts presently rule otherwise is, in my opinion and among other things, a symptom of (and fallout from) the infamous attempt by FDR to "pack the court" when the Supremes balked, on Constitutional grounds, at accepting his socialist "New Deal".

The XIII Amendment specifically prohibits involuntary servitude, and the two terms, indentured and involuntary are not synonymous.

Fertilizer.

Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, after observing that the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles of amendment of the constitution were all addressed to the grievances of the negro race, and were designed to remedy them, continued as follows: "We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. Undoubtedly, while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor, system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void." -- United States Supreme Court, 169 U.S. 649 UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Main Entry: 1slave
Pronunciation: 'slAv
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclave, from Old French or Medieval Latin; Old French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe
Date: 14th century
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another

"...If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor, system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void."

Note the learned justice's use of the words, "If" and "shall develop". Clearly, while Justice Miller saw danger there, he did not equate the two situations cited to actual slavery. I understand that there was a serious problem, particularly with the Chinese coolies, who often discovered (belatedly) that either the terms were such that they could not possibly pay the debt they had incurred, or perhaps that their women were being forced into prostitution in order to pay the debt. In my book (and that of most other libertarians), such an arrangement, even though "voluntarily" entered into, constitutes fraud on the part of the other parties. A fraudulent contract is an invalid contract.

So I say again, the two terms, indentured and involuntary, are not synonymous.

So I say again, the two terms, indentured and involuntary, are not synonymous.

So I say again, sophistry is the foundation of Libertarian doctrine.

The 13th Amendment reads:
'Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
'Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'
The meaning of this is as clear as language can make it. The things denounced are slavery and involuntary servitude, and Congress is given power to enforce that denunciation. All understand by these terms a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to another. While the inciting cause of the Amendment was the emancipation of the colored race, yet it is not an attempt to commit that race to the care of the nation. It is the denunciation of a condition, and not a decla- [203 U.S. 1, 17] ration in favor of a particular people. It reaches every race and every individual, and if in any respect it commits one race to the nation, it commits every race and every individual thereof. Slavery or involuntary servitude of the Chinese, of the Italian, of the Anglo-Saxon, are as much within its compass as slavery or involuntary servitude of the African. Of this Amendment it was said by Mr. Justice Miller in Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 69, 21 L. ed. 406: 'Its two short sections seem hardly to admit of construction.' And again: 'To withdraw the mind from the contemplation of this grand yet simple declaration of the personal freedom of all the human race within the jurisdiction of this government . . . requires an effort, to say the least of it.'
A reference to the definitions in the dictionaries of words whose meaning is so thoroughly understood by all seems an affectation, yet in Webster slavery is defined as 'the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another,' and a slave is said to be 'a person who is held in bondage to another.' Even the secondary meaning given recognizes the fact of subjection, as 'one who has lost the power of resistance; one who surrenders himself to any power whatever; as a slave to passion, to lust, to strong drink, to ambition,' and servitude is by the same authority declared to be 'the state of voluntary or compulsory subjection to a master.'
U.S. Supreme Court, HODGES v. U. S., 203 U.S. 1 (1906)

So I say again, sophistry is the foundation of Libertarian doctrine.

Why is it, no offense intended, that you repeatedly ignore the substance of my comments and resort to insult or dismissal?

It is not sophistry to use clear language to explain a real distinction. My previously suggested example of military service (perfectly honorable) involves a person voluntarily making himself subject to the often arbitrary commands of his superiors. Once he has entered the contract, he must serve and obey for a specified term, subject to severe punishment for disobedience. This is clearly an indenture, but I doubt that either of us would regard it as slavery or involuntary servitude, because it is not involuntary, and the soldier may not, for example, be compelled to provide sexual services or to remain in service beyond the specified term. Furthermore, one possible punishment for failure to perform is dismissal from service, hardly the likely outcome for a slave.

This is not even a difficult point, except to the extent that your (apparently) visceral dislike of "Libertarian doctrine" (which you clearly misunderstand) predisposes you to disagree, as near as I can tell. Personally, I would prefer a more intelligent exchange, which I am fairly sure that you are capable of delivering.

I would also be interested to have you explain how I was previously "begging the question", as I still don't get it.

Why is it, no offense intended, that you repeatedly ignore the substance of my comments

What substance is that?

Slavery is slavery, regardless of whether fraud was involved in initiating it.

"The meaning of this is as clear as language can make it. The things denounced are slavery and involuntary servitude, and Congress is given power to enforce that denunciation. All understand by these terms a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to another."

Libertarian doctrine runs counter to the protections of our Constitution's 13th Amendment, and would permit slavery to be re-established under the guise of contract.

I would also be interested to have you explain how I was previously "begging the question", as I still don't get it.

Your "overwhelming" sources remain well hidden.

The Supreme Court has already anticipated Libertarianism's villainous sophistries.

"Peonage is a term descriptive of a condition which has existed in Spanish America, and especially in Mexico. The essence of the thing is compulsory service in payment of a debt. A peon is one who is compelled to work for his creditor until his debt is paid. And in this explicit and comprehensive enactment, Congress was not concerned with mere names or manner of description, or with a particular place or section of the country. It was concerned with a fact, wherever it might exist; with a condition, however named and wherever it might be established, maintained, or enforced."
"The fact that the debtor contracted to perform the labor which is sought to be compelled does not withdraw the attempted enforcement from the condemnation of the statute. The full intent of the constitutional provision could be defeated with obvious facility if, through the guise of contracts under which advances had been made, debtors could be held to compulsory service. It is the compulsion of the service that the statute inhibits, for when that occurs, the condition of servitude is created, which would be not less involuntary because of the original agreement to work out the indebtedness. The contract exposes the debtor to liability for the loss due to the breach, but not to enforced labor."
U.S. Supreme Court, BAILEY v. STATE OF ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219 (1911)

Slavery is slavery, regardless of whether fraud was involved in initiating it.

I'm not arguing that. Never have been. Like I said, we are clearly not communicating.

"...The things denounced are slavery and involuntary servitude..." [emphasis mine]

Why are you unable to acknowledge that "indentured" and "involuntary" are not synonyms? No habla Engles? Your assertion regarding "Libertarian doctrine" is simply false, revealing your gross misunderstanding of the subject.

Your "overwhelming" sources remain well hidden.

Is that all? Why didn't you just ask? I suggest that for openers, you refer to the writings of the Founders themselves. Start with the Federalist Papers. If you are unable to find substance in my previous comments, how about using a bit of logic? I hesitate to insult your intelligence by spelling it out for you.

I do see the point that you are trying to make here. If a debt is incurred, it must be paid, but the lender may not compel the borrower to discharge the debt specifically by working for the lender. I have no argument with that. But surely, if we are speaking of a contract for a particular service of some sort for which payment has been made, the payor is entitled to performance of that service. If the payee defaults, what remedy do you suggest for the payor?

That aside, can you not see your persistent use of terms like "villainous" as a clear indication of hostility?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.