Sun 7 May 2006
If you want to be bored to tears, I highly recommend you visit Loretta Nall’s web site and start reading. It doesn’t take too long to figure out what she is about, but sometimes the numbers tell it best. For example, if you read her 8,709 word (22 page) platform, you might think it a little lopsided – and you would be right. Here is how it breaks down.
| Issue | Word Count | % of Platform |
|---|---|---|
| Drug Policy | 2054 | 26.64% |
| Prison Reform | 1044 | 13.54% |
| Education | 1027 | 13.32% |
| Immigration | 785 | 10.18% |
| Patriot and Real Id Acts | 606 | 7.86% |
| Gay Rights | 475 | 6.16% |
| Initiative and Referendum | 383 | 4.97% |
| Ballot access reform | 358 | 4.64% |
| Gambling | 293 | 3.80% |
| Taxation | 257 | 3.33% |
| Religion and Government | 237 | 3.07% |
| Bio Diesel | 192 | 2.49% |
A quick analysis shows Ms. Nall isn’t even very Libertarian. For example, she advocates legalized gambling and a lottery. Presumably she wants the government to run the lottery. Her reason for wanting to legalize gambling is, “Alabama is missing out on tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue.” Sorry, but I think Alabama has enough tax revenue – perhaps she should start thinking about scaling back spending rather than increasing revenue.
And, to end fuel dependence, she say, “As Governor of Alabama I will encourage research, growth and development in this area.” That could mean tax credits, or it could mean an expensive new government program – in any case, what it does mean is that she wants government judgment is going to replace the creativity of the free market.
Please don’t misunderstand my criticisms. Much of Ms. Nall’s platform is very libertarian, but there is nothing there that is worthy of the rabid defense she receives and there is nothing there worthy of campaign donations (which is probably why she had to resort to “flashing”). Overall, the whole thing is rather poorly written and uninspiring.
But, just reading the platform won’t tell you that Ms. Nall doesn’t wear panties—that bit of information can be found under her list of articles. However, you will learn the following:
Or, if you are like me and prefer to live in a place where you can pee off the back porch without your neighbor spotting you then Alabama offers that in abundance.
Oddly, I’ve never considered that criteria when buying property.
So in addition to flashing for cash, a visit to the Nall web site tells us that she doesn’t wear panties and pees off the back porch
After my previous posting, Mark Bodenhausen added the comment, “The demographics of the house and senate members here [Alabama] in no way represent the REAL demographics of the state.” He may be right, but I don’t think if you poll the voters in Alabama, many of them will have Drug Policy and Prison Reform as their top two issues.
Of the 12 issues in Ms. Nall’s platform, I don’t think most people would give a second thought to any but Education and Taxation (although Immigration has recently been significant, it comes and goes).
Overall, this campaign seems to be about Ms. Nall’s personal problems and has little to do with making life better for the people of Alabama (unless they share Ms. Nall’s problems).
I have to stand by my original statement, Ms. Nall, and her campaign, is an embarrassment to the Libertarian Party.
May 7th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
“Much of Ms. Nall’s platform is very libertarian, but there is nothing there that is worthy of the rabid defense she receives and there is nothing there worthy of campaign donations (which is probably why she had to resort to ‘flashing’).”
The attack against which a “rabid defense” was mounted was not an attack on her platform.
Nor has she made any secret of the fact that the “flashing” is intended to boost campaign donations — it’s not about anything else (and you apparently still haven’t taken the hint that the “boobs” which donors are “flashed” with are not her mammaries).
It’s not unreasonable to expect that a large portion of Nall’s platform would be devoted to drug policy. That subject has been the central issue to which she has addressed herself in the past.
As far as whether or not her gambling plank is “very libertarian,” you offered no evidence to suggest that it isn’t. Nor, for that matter, did you offer any evidence for the suggestions, explicit and implied, that any other part of her platform is “not very libertarian” ( to “encourage” research, development and growth of alternative energy could be as simple as ending taxpayer subsidies, to and protective monopoly laws for, the petroleum industry).
“I have to stand by my original statement, Ms. Nall, and her campaign, is an embarrassment to the Libertarian Party.”
Loretta Nall and her campaign might be an embarrassment to some members of the Libertarian Party. It is, however, not an embarrassment to those of us over here in the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party.
May 7th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Loretta is NOT in favor of government sponsored gambling of ANY kind. Loretta has repeatedly and clearly said NO to a state run gambling, and YES to allow people spend their money as they wish. If private interests wish to risk their investment in something like a lottery or casino, let them. The last election focused attention on then-governor Seigelman’s proposed state-run lottery for education. Digging into the hundreds of pages of legislation revealed that payoffs and percentages were OK if each man, woman, and child in the state were to spend at least $10 a week on tickets, otherwise the system would go broke. No Jackpot payoff was ever guaranteed to be paid. The LPA was unanimously opposed to this scheme. We don’t want government to be our nanny, and we don’t want it to be our bookie, either.
You say that most people wouldn’t give a second thought to her platform. Given that the top five issues in Alabama politics today are casino gambling, gay marriage, immigration, education, and taxation, her platform is not too far off from the mainstream. Please try to compare what the other candidates find is important, you’ll see that the lists are similar.
The two issues at the top of the list are issues of passion for her. Her decrim/MMJ stance is supported by 76% of respondents in a University of South Alabama poll. I can’t think of another issue that better defines who the Libertarians are. Her arrest and years long persecution by County drug task force agents are well documented, and incredibly enough draws positive press.
I’m a little surprised at the second issue, but a growing number fo people are having second thoughts about the prisons in this state. Remember that the Feds had to step in and tell Alabama’s AG that tying someone to a hitching post for 12 hours a day without food, water or bathroom breaks is cruel and unusual punishment. Judges here took it upon themselves to up a jury verdict of life without to the death penalty until it was challenged. The Tutweiler Prison study showed that 26% of all women incarcerated were there for simple possession only. Sadly, even if Loretta’s reforms go though the prisons in this state will only go from 180% of capacity to 125% of capacity, still too high. Worse than overcrowding is the fact that 15% of those employed by the state for the job of guarding them have been deployed to Iraq because of National Guard commitments.
Nowhere does Loretta propose tax credits or a government program for her bio-diesel proposal. Her focus has been on making the state more friendly to the industry, the onerous paperwork requirements that the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) places on small businesses is staggering. Those nice iron handrails on your house sure aren’t made here. Even though Birmingham at one time was a steel city, draconian regulations for clean air, water and soil have made an application even for a small furnace for a local ironworks too expensive to consider. Off-shore drilling? Forget it. Want to open a pig farm? Good luck. Every government agency at every level wants to exercise their authority and expertise when it comes to designing and building YOUR industrial plant. Streamlining the application process and making Alabama more industry-friendly is desparately needed.
I don’t understand why you would believe that anything she has proposed would grow the role of government in this state. Nothing on her website or what I’ve heard her say leads me to this conclusion, yet you seem to be looking under rocks to search for her statist streak.
It isn’t there.
m
May 8th, 2006 at 12:29 am
But we don’t need “alternative” energy sources.
The oil “addiction” myth is just a bugaboo. Am I endangered by my food “addiction” because it makes me dependent on the Publix supermarket chain?
Probably not, as long as I refrain from using military force to coerce them into changing the colors of those grotesque green and white employee uniforms, stop be carrying raw milk because of my lactose intolerence, and demolishing their stores and kill their customers in the process.
What we need is to stop pissing off the people who sell us the oil by meddling in their affairs and stationing troops in their countries.
They’re just as dependent on us buying the oil as we are. I think that’s what Bastiat meant.
We just need to let them piss from whichever of their porches they please, and stop pissing on them.
If alternative fuels become economicaly viable in a free market, those who would profit would develop them.
If no one does, it means we should blithely continue to be “addicted” to petroleum imports; the nature of government mandates that these matters not be brought under it’s purview, as clearly there they do not belong.
As one withn the audacity to presume to define the term “Libertarian”
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=195
I suggest that while the intent may not be “unlibertarian”, the perspective needs to focus on a more abstract level.
We are all to some extent, victims of the “public” school system, one of which purpose is to habituate superficiality of thought.
You have to ask; if not Nall then who? Not me, so who am I to criticize?
Would I vote for her? Sure, Robert’s Rules of Voting say: in a three way race between a Rep, a Dem and Anybody Else, go with A.E.
—The Bikemessenger
May 8th, 2006 at 3:22 am
Drug Policy 2054 26.64%
Prison Reform 1044 13.54%
Education 1027 13.32%
Immigration 785 10.18%
Patriot and Real Id Acts 606 7.86%
Gay Rights 475 6.16%
Let’s see, why would a Libertarian care about Drug Policy…hmmm…maybe because the fuckin’ State has incarcerated hundreds of thousands of people for victimless crimes who have the crazy idea that they own their own fuckin’ bodies? But hey, whats private property to you Mr Ad-mini-state-0r (sic). Prison reform? Don’t be ridiculous, I tie my prisoners up everyday and sometimes I beat 14 year old kids to death, because I’m not a fuckin’ libertarian! Education, what a stupid thing to concentrate on, especially since a current National Geographic says Americans could’t find their arse with a compass and a map! Fuck education, those home schoolers are all homos! And Immigration, for god’s sake! Bloody hell, I think that Dems and Reps have handled this SO FUCKIN’well, don’t you? How absurd a Libo would want to pay attention! As for trashing der fatherland…oops…the homeland (hum the bars!), why would a contender for office even care at the death of Liberty in the USA? They’d have to be one of those Libertarian weirdos, not like the trogs who write on this site! Are you paid by the GOP ? What a tosser.
May 8th, 2006 at 5:51 am
—–
“But we don’t need ‘alternative’ energy sources.”
—–
Who is this alleged “we” and through what process was it decided what “we” “need?”
—–
If alternative fuels become economicaly viable in a free market, those who would profit would develop them.
—–
A pre-condition for alternative fuels becoming economically viable in a free market is … a free market FOR THEM TO BECOME VIABLE IN. No such free market exists at this time nor, in the case of energy, has any such market existed for at least a century.
Some of the subsidies and protections may be “balanced out” to some weird degree by regulations (i.e. the government absolves nuclear reactor operators of liability if their reactors blow up, but it’s damn near impossible to get a license FOR a reactor), but balancing interventions probably doesn’t produce the same results as a free market would.
—–
I suggest that while the intent may not be “unlibertarian”, the perspective needs to focus on a more abstract level.
—–
She’s running for governor of Alabama, not defending her doctoral thesis.
Tom Knapp
May 8th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Mr. Knapp: You seem to have the same reading comprehension problem as Ms. Nall. You say:
As far as whether or not her gambling plank is “very libertarian,” you offered no evidence to suggest that it isn’t.
Yes, I offered evidence to prove it isn’t — I quote Ms. Nall’s own words, “Alabama is missing out on tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue because our citizens are forced to travel to other states if they wish to engage in casino gambling or buy a lottery ticket.”
Elsewhere she complains about a budget surplus and now she has devised a scheme to bring “tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue” to the state.
May 8th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Knapp says: “and you apparently still haven’t taken the hint that the “boobs” which donors are “flashed” with are not her mammaries”
Are you telling us that the Nall campaign is deliberately misleading people to believe that they will see Ms. Nall’s breasts if they donate $50, but instead you will show them some other “boobs?”
I didn’t think it was possible for my opinion of the campaign to sink any lower, but it just did. In some circles, that sort of behavior is referred to as “fraud.”
May 8th, 2006 at 8:04 am
For someone who continually complains about everyone elses “intellectual prowess” I’m surprised it took you this long and this much hand-holding to finally figure out what Ms. Nall’s “flash for cash” campaign was really about.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:46 am
“Are you telling us that the Nall campaign is deliberately misleading people to believe that they will see Ms. Nall’s breasts if they donate $50, but instead you will show them some other ‘boobs?’”
Absolutely not. The Nall campaign has never told anyone that donors will see Loretta Nall’s, or anyone else’s, breasts.
As far as whether or not Nall’s plank on gambling is un-libertarian, many libertarians advocate the use of voluntary taxes — such as “contract insurance,” or, whaddayaknow, proceeds from a state-operated lottery, to finance government. The question that would determine whether or not Nall’s gambling plank is libertarian — and the question you haven’t asked or answsered — is whether or not she would propose banning competition with state gambling/fundraising enterprises.
Tom Knapp
May 8th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Administrator:
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Loretta’s television interview (http://www.lorettanall.com/TalkBackWAKA.wmv) clearly indicates that she supports a free-market approach to gambling. As a governor, she cannot get rid of all taxation (though she makes a case for most of it in the same interview), the money could stay in Alabama instead of going to Mississippi, Tennessee and Georgia.
It seems that all you wish to do is trash a Libertarian campaign that is actually getting significant media attention. Perhaps you should look in the mirror to see where the real embarrassment to the Libertarian Party is.
May 8th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
I heard Nall on the radio this morning. She did a fine job, even in handling neo-con crazy callers. She represented the LP well, in my opinion, both ideologically and politically.
May 9th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
May 8th, 2006 at 5:51 am
—–
‘Who is this alleged “we” and through what process was it decided what “we” “need?”’
The “we” is all of the people living and purchasing energy in the United States.
I don’t presume to decide what we do need,but I do consider it valid to speculate as to what the above-referenced “we” DON’T need. Sorry for not being clear; what I meant was we don’t need government manipulation in favor of alternative fuels.
What “we” do need would of course, in the free market paradigm, manifests as the cumulative effect of each of us acting in our own self-interest as we (i.e., each of us) percieve it.
Statists, of course may disagree with the projected result and use it as an excuse for coercive intervention.
Presumably, the distinction between a Statist and a Libertarian is that the Libertarian may agree with the Statist’s projections, but understands that utopian interventionism will of necessity, bring prohibitive consequences; although those consequences may be undiscernable.
I meant that by implication, but thanks for asking, as I pride myself in avoiding that common metaphysical error.
Your nuclear reactor analogy is not valid, as only the free market can achieve the balance to which you refer. Arbitrary decisions, the only alternative to the free market, may have mutually subversive, or cancelling (as in your example) effects, but the term “balance” seems impertinent in the abscence of normal organic, interdependencies.
“She’s running for governor of Alabama, not defending her doctoral thesis.”
I don’t mean to be critical. I’m only trying to put the issues in perspective.
Personally, I don’t even have a High School diploma to defend.
And besides, I did say I’d vote for her if I were eligible, didn’t I?
Thank You,
—The Bikemessenger
May 9th, 2006 at 1:38 am
But let’s not get into this:
http://www.thehumorarchives.com/humor/0000713.html
May 9th, 2006 at 3:06 am
“I don’t mean to be critical.”
“we now have a Libertarian candidate for governor there who has elevated “white trash” to an art form.”
“Judging from her response on this blog, I find her intellectual prowess to be somewhat lacking.”
“If you want to be bored to tears, I highly recommend you visit Loretta Nall’s web site”
“Overall, the whole thing is rather poorly written and uninspiring.”
“Ms. Nall, and her campaign, is an embarrassment to the Libertarian Party.”
You don’t want to be critical! I’m interested in reading what you have to say when you do intend to be critical.
Personally I find Ms. Nall’s campaign to be an inspiration, her wit to be sharp, her writing to be clear and refreshing, and her efforts overall to be a net gain for the Libertarian Party.
I find your opinions about Ms. Nall and her campaign to be without merit, lacking in substance, rambling, and contributing to a net loss for the Libertarian Party.
If you didn’t want to beat a dead horse, then you shouldn’t have dragged the corpse into the yard.
May 9th, 2006 at 10:40 am
[…] Is it any wonder Libertarians never win anything? An attractive candidate with a background and life story that people can relate to enters a political race and winds up being attacked by her own party for not being ideologically “pure.” Unlike virginity, libertarianism can have degrees or shades. Even if Libertarians don’t agree with Loretta Nall or every issue, it’s certainly an exaggeration to say that “Ms. Nall, and her campaign, is an embarrassment to the Libertarian Party.”–Small Government Blog […]
May 9th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
[…] As near as we can tell, they covered her Technorati position, several of her websites, and this more critical view of her campaign. […]