Baldwin and Constitution Party: no libertarian principles
My problem with Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party is they lack libertarian principles.
Sure, they support the Constitution and anything that is unconstitutional, but as history shows, what is "unconstitutional" is open to interpretation and debate. Further, the Constitution allows for it to be modified. Thus anything that gets added to the Constitution, no matter how much it may curtail individual liberty, would be supported by Baldwin and the CP (because it's in the Constitution).
Following the Constitution is important, but what is more important is how the Constitution is interpreted, and how potential modifications are interpreted. In particular, what's critical is that the principles of liberty are in place and followed when the Constitution is interpreted and modified, and I have no confidence that that would be the case with Baldwin, or that voting for him is registering support for that critical idea.
The only vote that does that is a vote for a Libertarian Party candidate, even (cough) Bob Barr.
********************
***** UPDATE 1 *****
********************
Mt1034 makes an interesting point below - that if you listen to Baldwin he is distinctly libertarian. I know, and it doesn't matter. Below, I explain why. Well, this is what I wrote:
Yes I know Baldwin is distinctly libertarian, and it doesn't matter.
If Baldwin and Barr actually had a chance to win and become president, then their true libertarianism (and many other personal characteristics) would matter.
But since neither will win, and the main reason we're voting for them is to register a protest against the anti-liberty two-party system (per Dr. Paul's speech the other day), and the secondary reason is to register a vote in favor of individual liberty, what matters is which candidate symbolizes the message of liberty most effectively.
Honesty, integrity, whether they would appoint Ron Paul as head of the treasury, even true allegiance to libertarianism... is all irrelevant when actually winning is not even close to possible. So it all comes down to this:
A vote for whoever is the candidate of the LIBERTARIAN party, regardless of that individual's character, resume or credentials, sends the most forceful support for the LIBERTARIAN message.
In contrast, a vote for whoever is the candidate of the CONSTITUTION party, regardless of that individual's character, resume or credentials, sends the most forceful support for the FOLLOW-THE-CONSTITUTION message.
The follow-the-constitution message is important, but for reasons given in my opening post above, and reiterated by others below, it's not as important as the message of liberty.
If conveying the message of LIBERTY is our highest priority, we must vote for the candidate of the LIBERTARIAN party, no matter how much we would rather wring his neck.
********************
***** UPDATE 2 *****
********************
Rharaz notes below that the CP platform is not a blind support of everything in the Constitution. In my response, I explain why this is also irrelevant, and this is my point:
Remember, this is all symbolic. It's about which vote is more effective at conveying "I SUPPORT THE MESSAGE OF LIBERTY". Voting for which candidate is the clearest registration of "I SUPPORT LIBERTARIAN LEADERSHIP". That is what we want to convey with our votes, and voting for the candidate of the LIBERTARIAN Party will clearly accomplish this more effectively than voting for the candidate of the CONSTITUTION Party, irrespective of who they are.
Let me put it this way. If Baldwin and Barr were to switch parties today, I would be saying we should all be voting for Baldwin in November, simply because he would be the LP candidate (and thus voting for him would be the most effective means by which to promote the message of liberty).
********************
***** UPDATE 3 *****
********************
Chuck Baldwin is no Ron Paul!
I've made this point twice below, so I'll repeat it here:
In general, anyone who wants his or her vote to represent the message of liberty most powerfully must vote for the candidate of the Libertarian Party. I say "in general" because there can be exceptions. If by some miracle the GOP nominated Ron Paul as their candidate, then of course a vote for Ron Paul would be clearly a vote for liberty (because Ron Paul has established decades of bona fide libertarian credentials). But Chuck Baldwin just does not carry that kind of credential (and nor does Bob Barr). Not even close. So all they have to hang their hats on are their respective parties, and what they generally represent. So in this case, the strongest vote for the message of liberty is whoever happens to be the LP candidate, which this year means a vote for (cough) Bob Barr. Choke it down and welcome to the movement for liberty. We had to do it with Andrew Marrou in '92 too.
~
********************
***** UPDATE 4 *****
********************
9/27/08
I'm coming around to seeing the logic in the argument that the LP needs to learn to no nominate boneheads like Bob Barr by having even loyal libertarians not vote the LP candidate this year, but I still fail to see the point in voting for Chuck Baldwin. What message does that send, and to whom?
output
Minarchist- In case you missed this.....
"Many cuckoos are brood parasites who lay their eggs in the nests of other bird species which hatch them and rear them as their own offspring."
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
good one
I had a good laugh
http://www.votenader.org/...
http://www.flickr.com/pho...
Update 4 Barr's campaign is
Update 4
Barr's campaign is dead and he's proven time and again he doesn't have libertarian principles either. It comes down to who is the more libertarian of the two and to me, Baldwin excels. He matches Ron Paul's platform a LOT more than Barrf does and he'd definitely be more willing to listen to Ron Paul for guidance etc.
Constitution is grounded in firm principles
I believe, the only way the Constitution is 'open to different interpretation', is if the Supreme Court declares its a 'living' document, which of course, is not true at all.
Just because certain members of the executive, the congress, the senate and political parties act 'AS IF' it is a living document, still, does not make it so.
I have been taught and understood the Constitution is a basic, fundamental document whose philosophy goes hand in glove with our Declaration of Independence which states we are each individuals imbued with inalienable rights from our creator and each of our destinies must be protected and sovereign including the nation as a whole, in order to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
Therefore, it is what it is.
If it was not firm and sound, then how stable would that be for future generations?
Bob Barr
Bob Barr is a neocon. Can you not all see it? It's quite clear to me.
I guess He is voting for
I guess He is voting for Barr because He wants to do drugs .... I for one would rather have 20k more in my account than the freedom to smoke a doobie. As a matter of fact drug laws are so pathetic if I wanted to smoke a doobie which I don't id just go ahead and do it.
Minarchist, Say what You Mean and Mean
What you say! I amnot changing context here as you have so proclaimed. What is the context that you are asserting that I am changing? That Mr. Barr Voted in favor of the Patriot Act before as you even state He "allegedly" changed his postion? Are you now proclaiming that you don't even know for sure? Oh, excuse me while I use your own feeble words. Is that the context that I am changing? I cannot change the fact that Barr voted in favor of the Patriot Act no more than you can state you have an agenda to spread, yet you don't or can't just come outright with conviction of supporting someone who appears to be a Barr supporter. I willnot continue with this back and forth trash with you so, just be honest with your intent. Just say, Minarchist For Barr in 08 with proud conviction and stop your feeble attempts of turning the tables when even your own words get in your way. Well I am off to work now so....Have a good evening and remember what I said...Mean what you say and say what you mean. Show some conviction in your beliefs instead of being so illusive in your postings to those of us who don't get here as often as we would like. I have recently been able to visit for the last 2 days due to hurricane IKE. I'm Glad I have been called back to work tonght! Take Care ALL Revolutionaries!!!
I'll try to keep it simple
I do not dispute that Barr voted for the patriot act.
I'm am not saying that's relevant to nothing. It is relevant to a lot.
I am saying it is irrelevant to whether voting for Barr as LP nominee is a vote for liberty, because he has since that vote apparently converted to libertarianism and become the LP nominee. That's what matters in terms of whether a vote for Barr will mean the most powerful vote for liberty: it clearly will, regardless of whether his conversion was genuine.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
good show man.....
Good effort......(as i barf)
just because the constitution is open for AMMENDMENT, how can you come to the conclusion that CB or the CP would go along with it and thereby restrict liberty, just because the Constitution allows for change?
The CP nor CB believe the constitution is a "living document" even if it is ammendable. CB has a very good grasp on the constitution and the party would not be gullable enough to sign on to any ammendment that would constitute anyone losing any liberties. Actually, your liberties come from your creator.
CB2008
You are so full of sh*t!
You are so full of sh*t! You are essentially saying to vote for Barr, no matter what he stands for or what he's done, simply because he is the 'Libertarian' candidate. No, what matters isn't the party name, but the voting record, actions and principles of the candidate. I'd vote for Ron Paul even if he ran as a democrat, because I trust him and know what he stands for. Bob Barr voted for the most heinous attack on the Constitution in the history of the United States......the so-called "Patriot Act". He broke his word to Dr. Paul, and did not want to go on record as publicly endorsing the points in the 'we agree' thing, and is showing himself to be exactly what we said he was, a neocon plant.... which, incidentally, is also what you are. Give it up, Barr is done, and we don't "have to" do anything except remain true to our convictions, have some integrity, and quit choosing the 'lesser of three evils'. That's Ron Paul's point..... either don't vote at alll, or vote for someone with some integrity. Will Baldwin win, no. Will Barr win, no. What is important is for The Revolution to keep educating people, and to take a stand and say "ENOUGH!! We won't comprimise or fall for the bullshit any longer!" It's time to send a message, and supporting Bob Barr sure as hell doesn't send the right one. Doing that sends the message that we're gullible idiots.
Doc Holladay
Nashville, TN
http://www.myspace.com/do...
By George, you've got it!
You are essentially saying to vote for Barr, no matter what he stands for or what he's done, simply because he is the 'Libertarian' candidate.
Almost. What I'm saying is: in order to most powerfully support the message of liberty with your vote, vote for the LP nominee, no matter who it is, simply because he is the libertarian candidate, unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise.
Every presidential vote is some mix of generic support for that party's philosophy and support for the person himself. With the two major parties where each election the party philosophies seem to be merging more and more, it's almost all about the nominee and very little about the party or what it stands for (despite status quo claims that there are significant difference among Demopublicans).
With the minor parties it's the reverse. The nominees are often obscure, but the parties have distinct political philosophies, so the votes are much more about the party philosophies than the nominees themselves. There can be exceptions, Ross Perot was one, and Ron Paul another, of course. But how many minor party nominees can you name from 2004? 2000? 1996? See what I mean? Obscure. But, no matter who the LP candidate was, you know votes for him meant votes for liberty, and votes for the Green Party nominee (whoever it was) meant votes for making conserving the natural environment the highest government priority.
So, by and large, typical minor party candidates are relatively obscure, like Barr and Baldwin. They themselves, their character, their beliefs, even their voting records and what they say, are relatively irrelevant compared to the weight of their respective party philosophies that they represent, not only because they're obscure, but also because everyone knows they are not going to win. So the minor party philosophies are much more relevant (relative to the nominee), and this is particularly true with the LP, the party of principle, where it's all about the libertarian philosophy. The most important characteristic of the LP nominee, no matter who it is, is that he is the representative of the message of liberty. There is no debating this point. It's the way it is, and has been for over 35 years.
So, yeah, maybe in a pure Baldwin vs. Barr contest, with neither one associated with any party, Baldwin would be the choice most consistent with liberty. But given the relevant political contexts, with Barr the Libertarian nominee, and Baldwin the obscure CP nominee, it's no contest. Barr is the clear choice for liberty, not because of Barr, but simply because he is the LP nominee.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I was a card carrying Libertarian for years until I switched to Republican for Ron Paul to change the Republican party.
I WILL NOT vote for this piece of trash that has hijacked my beloved LP party. The point that Ron Paul is making is that if a party is screwed up then vote against them. Hence, the vote for third parties to make a show against the Demoncrats and Repukes. The same goes for the LP...our party brother has F'd up!!!!! We either say no or be complicit in the EVIL!!!! I will not be complicit in the evil...I will punish my beloved party for their mistake and hold them ACCOUNTABLE and hopefully they will learn from the mistake and resist in the future.
If we do not STAND UP and show our LP that we disagree then they are open to hijacking. Your points are NULL AND VOID. Do not back parties when they screw up...hold them accountable and make them pay! WE OWE THIS TO OUR PARTY!!!!! We must think long term for the LP...this isn't about one or two elections cycles...we will recover.
I will vote Chuck Baldwin and hope my LP party burns like the Phoenix and arises from its ashes wiser and smarter to begin again!
=======
Federal Reserve to the American People:
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."
No?
What I wrote was this:
in order to most powerfully support the message of liberty with your vote, vote for the LP nominee, no matter who it is, simply because he is the libertarian candidate, unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise.
What you're saying is that Bob Barr is so unLibertarian that the LP needs to be informed that when they nominate a nonLibertarian, even hardcore libertarians who normally support the LP candidate no matter who it is won't vote for him. Sounds like a very good reason to me.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
Minarchist, Please address the argument that is made above this
post by clinton.
thanks
Done
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
The libertarian party has
The libertarian party has been hijacked by neocons. This isn't me just saying it, it's been brought up here at the DP many times by many people, so save the effort of denying it. Maybe that's why you are so intent on supporting the "libertarian" party.......because from what I see, it's in shambles and has been infiltrated by the neocons.
Doc Holladay
Nashville, TN
http://www.myspace.com/do...
Got to give Chuck credit...
for openly opposing the New World Order.
I haven't made up my mind about him yet, but I respect him for that.
p.s. Didn't Barr support government intervening in the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation? If so, that's at least strike four for Bob!
Barr DOES NOT support the bailouts
http://www.bobbarr2008.co...
http://www.bobbarr2008.co...
http://www.bobbarr2008.co...
This could be an interesting survey.
Who do you think Ron Paul will vote for?
I'll go first. Chuck Baldwin, hands down!!!
I guess you can make yourself feel good...
and vote for a fake libertarian Bob Barr. I would vote for Nadar or McCinney before I would vote for Barr. He has no integrity what so ever
VOTE CHUCK BALDWIN
Vote Nader
for Liberty!
http://www.votenader.org/...
http://www.flickr.com/pho...
Are you serious?
How does Nader represent the message of liberty?
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
reply
Please stop embarrassing yourself, Ralph Nader has spent most of his life fighting tirelessly in the political trenches over many critical issues facing working class Americans. When he speaks he raises Constitutional talking points all the time as he did the other day while sitting with Ron Paul during an interview on CNN ... and that proves my point doesn't it, he was at Ron's news conference as well as the interview and your guy Bob Barr was nowhere to be found.
read his letter to Ron Paul supporters
right here~
http://www.votenader.org/...
the man since 1962 fought corruption corporate welfare warfare state
he is the only man left in the race that can truly effect change.
change change cahnge...
change change cahnge... thats what wee hear form those liberal idiots of the democratic party... FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!
Nader is an authoritarian
He may be more gentle than other rulers (he wants to grant us civil liberties), he still wants to steal our money (ie. taxation) and plan the economy.
not quite so
if you make 50000$ or less 0 tax to pay.
http://www.votenader.org/...
http://www.flickr.com/pho...
that is socialism...
that is socialism... everyone no matter how much you make should pay"0"!!! PERIOD! don't fall for the brainwashing!
So you'd rather have various
So you'd rather have various Blackwater-types defending us instead of a socialized military?
----------
Liberty for Dummies
----------
Democrats want to be your mommy.
Republicans want to be your daddy.
Libertarians want to treat you like an adult.
Vote Baldwin for the Constitution.
Conveying the message of liberty via a candidate who represents everything that opposes freedom is fraudulent. Just as the republicans try to pass off bogus Constitutional platitudes, your effort to push votes for Barr is a lie. You know, like "lipstick on a pig." ;-)
Voting for Bob Barr to convey liberty is impossible. Bob Barr may be a good guy, but he blew it with his vote in favor of the Patriot Act. We can't back down on holding our elected officials responsible for their betrayals of the Constitution. If it has to start with Bob Barr, well at least it starts. Consequences!!!
I will vote honesty over political slip-sliding any day. Sorry. But by not voting for Bob Barr, you are actually voting FOR liberty. Can't you see that?
Irrelevant
Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act before he converted to libertarianism. Whether his conversion since then is genuine is irrelevant since he won't actually win. What's important is that Barr has apparently converted, and that's what his nomination by the LIBERTARIAN Party means. So a vote for Barr works as a vote in support of the message for liberty, just as a vote for Baldwin would mean if the Baldwin was the LP candidate.
Heck, even if Obama, McCain or Nader was the LP candidate, a vote for one of those jokers would be a vote in support of the message of liberty. That's the main role of the LP and its candidates.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
Irrelevant that Barr voted for the Patriot Act ?
Would be like Ron Paul voting for the Patriot Act. It WouldNOT have happened. If it had then there would have not been "The R3VoLuTiOn" and we wouldn't even be here @ the Daily Paul reading this post now! I think that we should stop with the Party 1st (LP, GOP, Dem, etc...) platform. We The People Vote for the deserving Individual before any Party whatever that parties label is named.. I sort of like the label of a party that could be called," NARP"=
New American Revolution Party! :)P
Don't change the context
That Barr voted for the patriot act prior to his alleged conversion to libertarianism and his LP nomination is relevant to many considerations, but not to the one that is in question here: does a vote for the LP nominee (who happens to be Barr) send the most powerful message in support of the message of liberty, or does a vote for unknown Baldwin on the obscure Constitution Party ticket do that more powerfully?
Given the relative obscurity of both of these characters, their parties and what they represent carries a lot of weight in terms of what votes for them means, much more weight than even their voting records (especially voting records prior to claimed political conversions).
Think, people, think. What do you want your vote to mean? What will it mean? How should you vote to most powerfully represent your presumed support for the message of liberty?
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
Keyphrase brother
Keyphrase brother LP'er...'alleged conversion'. I have not doubt that he HASN'T converted in my opinion. See my post above as to why we should let our party burn like the phoenix and arise from the ashes...wiser and stronger.
=======
Federal Reserve to the American People:
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."
So if Ron Paul had won the
So if Ron Paul had won the republican nomination, you would still vote for Bob Barr simply because he is the libertarian nominee?
No, that would be an exception.
Ron Paul -- with decades of bona fide true libertarian credentials - would be an exception that Chuck Baldwin is most certainly not.
I already addressed this point below:
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
Just like Big T said below,
Just like Big T said below, your way of thinking is blind political loyalty.... Kind of what has gotten our country in the trouble it is in. I thought we were better than that.
No, it's not blind political loyalty
But it is recognizing, and not ignoring, what the political parties in general, and the LP and CP in particular, represent, and what voting for their candidates means.
That is, I'm not saying that in order to most powerfully support the message of liberty we always must vote for the LP nominee. As I've said, there are exceptions. Ron Paul might be the GOP nominee, for example, and I temporarily joined the GOP to vote for him in the primary.
But, the default condition, when exceptions do not apply, is that the LP represents the message of liberty. In this case Baldwin on the CP ticket does not represent a clear and powerful advocacy for the message of liberty that exceeds the default pro-liberty message of the LP, no matter how lousy or even unlibertarian the particular nominee of the LP might be.
That's not blind political loyalty. That's being realistic.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
Vote Baldwin for the Constitution.
Well at least you are not a neocon. I admire your loyalty to liberty. I just don't think a vote for Bob Barr, even if he is in the libertarian party, will result in what you are seeking....conveying the message of liberty. To me it rings false.
Good thread though.
One more point
Because the Libertarian Party is so clearly principled, a vote for its particular nominee in a given election ultimately does not get counted as a vote for the person, but a vote for the party and what it represents: the political prioritization of individual liberty above all else.
In each presidential elections in the last 25 years, what matters is not who was the LP nominee, but how many votes liberty got.
How many votes will liberty in 2008? Will it gets yours, or will you vote for Baldwin instead? That's ultimately how it's going to count.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
What you are saying is that
What you are saying is that a vote for Baldwin is not a vote for liberty. As a lifetime card carrying Libertarian...I disagree. Just because the Libertarian Party has the extended form of Liberty in its name does not mean it has the monopoly on the Liberty message. The Constitution by its very nature represents Liberty. So the Constitution Party bring the Constitution and our countries founding principles to light...and that is Liberty.
I will watch my beloved LP burn this season for its mistake like the Phoenix and hope that it will learn and grow stronger from this mistake.
I will support Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party and know in my heart that I am supporting Liberty. I do not care for a party to the point of rejecting Liberty. Bob Barr is a fake...imposter...I will support Liberty the best way I can...Chuck Baldwin.
=======
Federal Reserve to the American People:
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."
.
.
booosh thinks he's a
booosh thinks he's a conservative with the republican party.. we know for fact he is actually a liberal! so just because obamaination or boosh or mccain ran on the libertarian ticket they are libertarians?
No
Someone running on the LP ticket does mean they are actually a libertarian. We would never find out if they were actually libertarian until they became president (unless they already had a clear and established record as Ron Paul does - but that's extremely rare, and certainly Barr nor Baldwin have such records, not even close). We certainly don't know if Barr or Baldwin are actually libertarians, and we will probably never find out. The thing is, it doesn't matter, since we know they won't win.
But, what does matter is that someone, anyone, running on the Libertarian ticket means they are the representative for the message of liberty, simply by virtue of the fact that they were nominated by the LP. It could be Charlie the Tuna. It could be anyone. It's symbolic. Except in rare cases, their actual credentials don't matter. The only credential that matters is being the LP nominee, and that makes one the representative of the libertarian movement - the one you vote for in order to most powerfully express your support for the message of liberty. If that's what you want to do with your vote. If you want to waste your vote for something else, by all means, vote for Baldwin.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
sorry Min but I think your
sorry Min but I think your reaching on your reasoning there! imho.
Not really
Even if you take the most socialist (unlibertarian) in my list - Nader - and you assume that he claimed to have gone through a conversion to libertarianism similar to Bob Barr's, and consistently preached the virtues of individual liberty, no matter how much they contradict his socialist views of the past, and became the LP candidate... yes, voting for even Ralph Nader would be an effective vote in support of the message of liberty in that case. And whether Nader's conversion was genuine would be as irrelevant as is the genuineness of Barr's conversion. What matter is whether they consistently defend liberty after the alleged conversion, and so far as I know, Barr has done that.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
i see where your coming from
i see where your coming from but remeber George booosh ran on Ron Pauls platform in 2000.. what did we get.. a tiger can't change his stripes!
Irrelevant
That was relevant in the case of Bush because he had a chance to win, and of course he did win.
It's not relevant in the case of Barr or Baldwin because there is no way they will win. The only purpose of voting for them is symbolic (not to demean the importance of that - ultimately all votes are symbolic since no one vote is going to change the outcome of an election, except in the extremely rare case where it actually gets down to a one vote difference between the candidates).
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
I'm not a LP member,
and have no such "perceived attachment" to save the LP.
The LP to me, is only as good as the candidates it runs.
If the LP candidate is worth voting for, I'll vote for him/her.
If not, I won't. Simple as that.
I'm not into "symbolism" to glorify the LP.
The reality is...
The reality is that the LP "owns" the liberty brand in politics, whether you like it or not, whether you recognize it or not, whether you appreciate it or not. It has done so since 1971. Almost 40 years. That's meaningful. That's significant.
Regardless of what you think, a vote for the LP means a vote in support of the message of liberty, and a vote for just about any other candidate (again, someone like Ron Paul with clearly established libertarian credentials would be the rare exception, which Chuck Baldwin certainly is not) means you value something else politically at a higher priority than individual liberty. That's what it means, period.
In the case of Baldwin on the CP ticket, a vote for him instead of the LP nominee means you value following the Constitution more than the message of liberty. That is what your vote represents whether you think or feel that way or not (just like a vote for McCain means a vote for McCain rather than a vote against Obama - regardless of how the given voter thinks or feels).
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track