Putting an End to the “Party of Principle”
This is an interesting opinion piece from Carl Milsted Jr. from over on Free Market News...
America needs a real libertarian party – one which gets freedom-lovers elected to partisan offices. Unfortunately, the existing Libertarian Party was set up for different purposes: to educate the public about a very narrow and radical brand of libertarianism, to use elections as publicity stunts to this end, and to remain pure until the day that society collapses under excess government, whereupon the voters will be desperate enough to vote for anything new – including radical libertarianism.Over time, many LP members – myself included – have decided on a different purpose for the LP: to move public policy in a libertarian direction by electing libertarians to public office. This new mission was even added to the bylaws. Unfortunately, this new mission has been sabotaged by the remaining relics of the old mission: a restrictive membership pledge, an overly radical platform and statement of principles, and purist party members intent on keeping the party on its original track.
This LP’s divided purpose leads to legendary infighting within, and countless wasted hours and dollars expended on hopeless campaigns. It is long past time for the LP to fully make the transition to the new mission, or change its mind and go back to its original mission. In its current mixed state, the LP is harmful to the libertarian cause.
After the LP’s dismal showing in the 2004 elections, I called together a meeting of LP activists from Buncombe County for a long term strategy meeting. We considered several options, including:
1. Keep on going the way we have been.
2. Put out a resolution distancing the local party from the national platform so our candidates could have a chance.
3. Launch a reform effort to turn the LP into a real political party.
4. Start a new, moderate, libertarian party.
5. Give up on third party politics.
The overwhelming consensus was to go with Option 3, and thus the Libertarian Reform Caucus was born. At the time I was 40% in favor of this option and 60% in favor of Option 4, but decided to go with the consensus and threw all my weight behind the Caucus. For the next year and a half I burned through most of my spare time building the reformthelp.org web site, and many others put in a great deal of time (and some treasure) promoting the Caucus, writing platform proposals, and other tasks.
As a result of these efforts, the Caucus was a major force at the 2006 LP National Convention in Portland. We had advertised in Reason, Liberty, and LP News; we had mailed the registered delegates; we had a table at the convention; and many of our members traveled to Portland for their first national convention. In addition, I had wheedled my way onto the bylaws committee in order to get the membership oath on the agenda and to protect the platform retention process.
Come Saturday, the delegates voted to keep the Oath. It was somewhere close to a 50-50 vote, but we needed 2/3 to make the change. The designs of the Founders prevailed, and I heard many a “no” from activists I had worked with over the years. Time for Option 4 in my mind, and I removed my delegate badge and left the floor.
Later that day I got the word: most of the old platform planks failed the retention vote. The “Portland Purge” had begun.
The worst case scenario had happened. The reform forces had won enough to anger the old guard, but the reforms were insufficient to turn the LP into a real political party. Nonetheless, I was sucked back in and tried to use the political capital gained in order to finish the job. I put together a proposal to various LNC members for a new hypertext program, that could entice new members and voters with a menu of sensible proposals, in a way that does not commit individual candidates to a particular course of action. There was interest at first, but the idea went nowhere.
Then, when I got home, I saw the press release: “Libertarian Party Moves Forward as ‘Party of Principle’ at 2006 National Convention.” Staff had opted to downplay what had happened, referring to it as “a matter of housecleaning.” I was sorely miffed. Here was a chance to rebrand the party: “New and Improved Libertarian Party – Now with Common Sense!” They even had a new logo to go along with a rebranding effort.
Of course, I have no right to be mad at the LPHQ staff. They were following the true will of the convention. Many delegates did vote to remove old planks as a matter of housecleaning. The platform had grown rather ugly after the 2004 reformatting. To rebrand the party without a true mandate would have been out of line.
Thus, the waffling continues and the party withers. This must end. The pragmatic libertarians need to either finish the job in 2008 or get out and let the purists have their protest organization. The alternative is wasted time, effort and acrimony.
To this end I call for pragmatists to up the ante. It is not enough to fix the platform and the pledge; we must give staff an unequivocal mandate for a major rebranding effort. It is time to change the slogan. It is time to put an end to “The Party of Principle.”
For the past few years I have been lambasted by purists and called “unprincipled.” Very well. I accept the label, nay, wield it as a badge of honor. I am unprincipled. I do not shoehorn all my ethical and legal thinking into a single axiom. I reject the need to follow the Zero Aggression Principle to its ultimately ridiculous conclusions. I boldly proclaim that:
> Replacing an elected republic with warring “protection services” is woefully imprudent;
> Standing aside for genocide is contrary to the ideals of liberty;
> Defaulting on the national debt is a recipe of economic disaster;
> Defaulting on Social Security obligations is robbing the older generations;
> Selling the remaining wilderness to be raped by corporations is robbing future generations;
> Cutting government in random order without regard to other considerations is the height of incompetence.I have had it with this monochrome principle. The Good is a nonlinear multidimensional function. Deal with it!
I am not a libertarian in order to promote a simplistic, impractical and inhumane philosophy. I am a libertarian because I love liberty, because the government has grown way too large, because too many people rot in jail without need, and too many others live in fear of unjust fines and lawsuits.
Exactly how I come to these conclusions is irrelevant. Different libertarians come to similar conclusions from different angles, from different principles. Building the party around one narrow principle results in a tiny party, sending a message to the country that there are very few who truly love liberty. The cause is harmed by the existence of such a party.
A political party is either a diverse coalition of somewhat similar interests, or it is a joke. A party of principle is a joke, and it’s the statists who are doing the laughing.
So I call on libertarian pragmatists to go for it in 2008. Finish fixing the platform, get rid of the membership pledge, and change the slogan.
Some would council for a more timid approach; they rightfully point out that a call to change the slogan would inflame the purists. So be it! If the pragmatists cannot beat the purists up front in a fair contest, they should lose. It is better to lose than to linger. There is always Option 4.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Carl Milsted has so many bad ideas and wrong theories, he’s almost as hard to keep up with as Eric Dondero. Of course, Dondero is just an obnoxious idiot. Milsted on the other hand, is a professor with intricately crafted wrong theories that more closely resemble those of the Global Warming extremists.
No need to refute all of his points. A little mocking of a few of them will do.
http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-hereby-reject-cult-of-omnipotent.html
May 20th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
This man speaks the truth. The party I want to be a part of would stand for:
1. Lower marginal tax rates; a simplified tax code; tax rates that made sense, did not hinder revenues, and caused the least possible harm to economic growth while paying for necessary government services.
2. Drastically reduced spending: Sensible Social Security reform; market-based solutions for education and healthcare; abolition of pork; and a significantly scaled-back military with a modest, sensible, and defensive (not imperialist) foreign policy.
3. Free trade and immigration open to all peaceable individuals.
4. Inviolate civil liberties; anti-racism; pro-gay; pro-choice; pro-woman.
The Libertarian Party PRESENTS itself as the party of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Then, as people join, they find out it is actually a party of economic regressivism, social nihlism, racist militia nuts, and conspiracy-nut survivalist freaks. IF THE REFORM MOVEMENT cannot take over, then a new party should be formed. The closest thing to the party I would like to be a part of is the Minnesota Independence Party. Perhaps reformist libertarians should work on establishing state chapters of the Independence Party?
May 20th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Wes,
My 600 bucks a year to the LP (on average) has left and now that support will be going to something else. Being a principled guy and all, I just couldnt keep supporting a political party that does not even officially recognize me as a valid member, since I dont agree with the oath. (and now that I know what it means.)
In the end, I decided that the word libertarian itself was damaged goods, and that I didn’t want to spend my limited time on it.
Dont get me wrong, it’s kinda academic to me. My next MRI on the 22nd tells what my future holds, so my decision is more personal than others. I had to ask myself if I was on my deathbed, would I feel proud or satisfied spending those years fighting over the oath and the word “libertarian”?
Just not worth it.
May 20th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Timothy West,
I don’t consider it very important whether or not the LP keeps or changes the pledge. I do think the Libertarian Party should support bold principles, principles as bold as those of Republican Ron Paul.
While I may disagree with many of your past and present ideas and methods, I sure can respect your bold support and strong efforts at promoting your ideas.
I wish you the best in your fight against cancer.
—Wes Benedict
May 20th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
In the Libertarians’ third of a century since their confab in that Denver Living room they have been brilliant as some things and almost total ‘Unbrilliant’ at other endevors.
The Libs are wonderful at high jacking public domain icons for FREE mass communications. [Did I mention FREE?]
With one blaring exception [examined below] the Liberty Bell, Statue of Liberty and FORMER DEMOCRATIC PARTY PITCH MAN THOMAS JEFFERSON have all been culled from the history books and hyped to the public for fairly successful connection to the LP.
Most citizens, and even secondary school students, I get around to talking politics with recognize the Liberty Bell, the Lady in the Harbor, and TJ as LP symbols. Also the ‘World’s Smallest Political Test’ is widely recognized out right and recognized as an LP devise.
Even the #&%$@#$%# Democrats switched from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson in the last 35 years, basically ‘waving a white flag of surrender’ to a party a mere faction of its chronological seniority.
If only the other minor and micro and independent efforts had even a clue. Almost every one is hung up on the Stars and Stripes, Capitol Dome, Eagles and Eagle Heads. We call it ‘standing out by blending in’!
What the Libs can’t do is get serious about elections. Folks we have supported [and even advised] in and beyond California have informed us [in whispered tones] that they are just filling their party obligations by appearing on the General Election ticket as a paper candidate. Time after time the Libertarian chair is empty at the candidates forum——even when broad casted.
This slops over to the top of the ticket. Can any one but a third party fan [atic] spout the name of even one LP presidential hope ful short of “Ronald Paul”? As unfair as it is, elections are popularity contests. Even Professor Paul pales in comparison to John B. Anderson, Perot, Jesse Ventura or Nader.
A celebriety beats an unknown party loyalist any time. The average voter just does not care how wonderful an ideolog Harry Browne or any one else was or is! Take this to its illogical extreme. California’s Peace and Freedom Party [a so called one state national partisan effort——-huh?] ends up with an out of state convicted federal felon year after year.
One 230 year old artifact that the LP has yet to capitalize on is the 1 7 7 6 L I B E R T Y F L A G. What’s that?
Per Library of Congress archives: “Fort Moultrie Flag, rectangular, a royal blue field with
a crescent moon in the ‘north west’ quadrant & capitol block letters L I B E R T Y centered
in the lower third of the body.”
In 1776, Rebel Colonial Colonel William Moultrie commanded the defenses of Charleston,
South Carolina. He ordered and supervised the construction of a fortification on (then)
‘Sulivans Island’. This facility was located at the entrance of Charleston harbor and would
later bear Colonel Moultrie’s name. Later yet, it would the site of the failed infantry charge
by the all black Union Civil War Unit as depicted in the major motion picture ‘Glory’.
On June 28th, 1776, British Naval and German Hussein ‘shock troop’ units attacked the
peoples’ army. While the colonial elites argued over commas and semi colons in
Philadelphia more average, every day patriots repulsed the globe’s premiere sea and land
combat units.
The primitive installation was mostly constructed of palmetto trees* and sand berms. The
Royalist – Loyalist take over attempt ended in a crushing defeat. This populist victory
helped to keep the English out of South Carolina until 1780. Until General Washington’s
December 1776 victories in New Jersey, this stubborn resistance was the high light of the
colonial effort for independence.”
* official flag emblem and state foliage of South Carolina….
Andy Jackson silently toils for the Democratic Party on the twenty dollar bill and ‘Honest
Abe’ represents the GOP on every penny—- Jefferson is a more ubiquitous emblem—-originally for the Dems and, more of late, for the Libertarians.
But during the last decade
the populist Citizens For A Better Veterans Home in California has also been bothered
about the lack of using the Fort Moultrie Flag as an official third party banner——-especially for the LP.
As early as 1776 there existed this free, no cost, uncopyrighted, no fee, public domain
completely unexploited by True Independents [“Decline To State”] and all third party types [again, especially the Libs].
The Fort Moultrie icon even has the word ‘Liberty’ prominently displayed.
So much than
the circle of stars or the ‘Don’t Tred On Me’ snake banner, the Fort Moultrie emblem is
tailor made for non Dems and non GOP fighting for the nation and against the two party
duopoly.
And here it is, over half a decade into the 21st Century and over 230 years since that
historic battle in Dixie, and this lost opportunity just stares back, unblinkingly, from the
long, long wall of American History. Many ‘Third Party” activists sign off their
correspondence with ‘for Liberty’. Maybe we/ they should wave the LIBERTY flag also!
Could someone please explain this gross dioctomy to us?
Doctor Paul Wayne Snyder [PhD], John Dennis Coffey, Mary “Tish” Firmiss, Philip
Sawyer, Ivann Greene, Harry Martin, Jane Wagner and over a hundred other anti
establishment patriots and veterans’ advocates have been fighting the corrupt elites of the
sullied ‘Veterans Industry’ since May 1998.
Citizens For A Better Veterans Home sincerely
promotes the use of the Fort Moultrie Flag, the 21st Century Peace Symbol [the three
bladed wind powered electric energy generator], Direct Democracy guru California
Governor Hiram ‘Bull Moose’ Johnson, his 1912 running mate President Teddy Roosevelt,
Theodore Bear stuff toys, and the before mentioned Bull Moose as icons for the 21st
Century American Populist /Progressive /Reform /Radical Center /Moderate movement.
In fighting the multi Trillion dollar Global Corporate Empire, we every day folk need
easily identifiable historic symbols [how ever imperfect] to spread news of the resistance.
Citizens For A Better Veterans Home welcomes correspondence, comments [& even
criticism] from other liberty loving residents of this once great nation.
Feel free to log on
www.calvets.blogspot.com. Feel free to call at 619.420.0209 or 619.852.1481 or voice /fax
760.253.2371. [Call ahead for fax transmissions.] Feel free to mail at 263 Eucalyptus Court,
Chula Vista, CAlifornia 91910-3030,
May 20th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Carl, agreed. The culmination of the reform movement will be for the lp to realize its destiny by allying with the gp, not the cp. There are the rest of the votes to be added to The Libertarian Vote, needed to possibly actually win some elections. If a Progressive Alliance candidate is nominated in 2008, that will be proof positive the reform movement has succeeded.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:07 am
“globalist_elitist Says:
May 20th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
This man speaks the truth. The party I want to be a part of would stand for”
“The closest thing to the party I would like to be a part of is the Minnesota Independence Party. Perhaps reformist libertarians should work on establishing state chapters of the Independence Party?”
Good, why don’t you do the Libertarian Party a favor and leave?
May 21st, 2007 at 1:26 am
I’m so disgusted with the pointless infighting and the intolerance of the purists in the party. I give up. You guys are a punchline and so is this party. I’m moving back to Costa Rica where the Libertarian Movement Party is populated by emotionally developed adults who actually figured out how to obtain and retain political power and then use it to improve their nation. All the LP-USA does is drive people away from the legitimate aspects of libertarian politics. You guys have actually managed to make freedom as unappealing as the idea of sharing a cab with any of you.
May 21st, 2007 at 2:57 am
How would I be doing the LP a favor by leaving? What damage do I cause them? If the IP became a presence in my state, I would join. If it became a national party, I would support it. As it is, the LP is the closest thing I have. And if you want to blame someone for me identifying with the LP, you should blame the outreach people who falsely portray the party to be or fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.
But you should just join up with your fellow racists in the CP anyway. You’d be more at home there.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:50 am
“globalist_elitist Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 2:57 am
How would I be doing the LP a favor by leaving? What damage do I cause them?”
Because you are not really a libertarian. You are a Federal Reserve supporting economic fasicst that holds libertine and leftist social views. You are neither a hardcore minarchist or an anarchist, therefore you are not a libertarian and you have no place in the Libertarian Party. If I were at LP National I’d send you your dues back.
You are sort of like Eric Dondero. People like you and Dondy give off the wrong impression of what a Libertarian is.
Why don’t you go form a Federal Reserve supporting, nanny state seat belt law supporting, eminent domain supporting, government school system supporting, politically correct Affirmative Action supporting, minimum wage supporting, phony “free” (actually managed) trade (NAFTA, etc…) supporting, welfare for immigrants supporting, United Nations supporting, North American Union supporting, party. Oh wait a minute, these parties already exsist. They are called Democrats and Republicans!
“But you should just join up with your fellow racists in the CP anyway. You’d be more at home there.”
Don’t you remember the long debates I was just in recently with CP members Cody and Trent over laws against drugs, prostitution, and gambling?
By the way, your “racist” witch hunt tactic is getting old. How about coming up with a new smear tactic?
May 21st, 2007 at 4:12 am
—-I’m so disgusted with the pointless infighting and the intolerance—-
If you think you see pointless infighting and intolerance as a member of the LP, try actually working for a Libertarian Party… then the pointless infighting and intolerance reaches pathetically high levels.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:34 am
Check out the Libertarian Purity Test. I don’t think that one has to have a perfect score of 160 to be a Libertarian, however, there should certainly be a cut off point.
If anyone here takes the quiz try to anwser the questions honestly, to the best of your ability, otherwise the quiz is meaningless.
At the top of the page it defines privitization not as so called “public-private” partnerships, but rather as paying for services voluntarily in a free market.
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
May 21st, 2007 at 6:28 am
I share zero views with Dondero. You are he both hate immigrants, NAFTA, etc., so I would say you’re more on the same page.
I do not support welfare for immigrants. Nor do I support the welfare of trade protectionism or immigration controls, which benefits lazy white losers with no skills (i.e. you) who don’t want to compete in the global economy. I saw we deport all of the unskilled, uneducated, disinterested, native-born degenerate losers who wake up mad because they have to work as janitors, burger jockeys, and cart wranglers, and replace them with foreign-born laborers who are happy to do any job they can get in order to move up in life. And yeah, I want to pay them a minimum wage. You want even more restirctive wage controls through the “managed competition” of immigration and trade controls. You are the welfare statist, my friend.
I scored a 43 on you ridiculous test. Even Part II is far too radical to be practical. I believe in government fairy tales and YOU BELIEVE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. You should be forcibly institutionalized because you are a danger to yourself and others. That’s not very libertarian of me, is it?
May 21st, 2007 at 7:31 am
f you think you see pointless infighting and intolerance as a member of the LP, try actually working for a Libertarian Party… then the pointless infighting and intolerance reaches pathetically high levels.
yep. i’ve received death threats to myself and my wife, a specific threat to our animals to throw poisoned meat over our fence, (followed a few weeks later by 2 of our dogs suddenly suffering from repeated siezures where they were in perfect health. – a specific threat to me to give me a “old fashioned pounding if I dare show my face in Denver” and about 20 wishes that my cancer kills me in horrible pain. These are always from weirdos I’ve never met. Shane and the gang at HQ were always good to me. Bill Redpath and Seehausen were too. It’s always the nobody’s – the ones where the LP is their church and their version of liberty is their God substitute that are the problem children.
I passed all he problem emails to the FBI tip line, with full headers. Something might become of it.
In the end it was my concern that I was not represented in the party officially , even though I was supporting it to the tune of 600+ bucks a year. Plus the fact that I just didnt want my time to be filled with acrimony and bickering over what
is really pointless stuff in the grand scheme of things.
The word “libertarian” just isn’t worth it. it’s already too damaged politically to save, IMO. Better to start out fresh.
May 21st, 2007 at 8:16 am
Tim – It’s because they want the party to stay small. These “purists” are the losers who couldn’t get girls in high school, never fit in, and have had unsucessful professional lives. If the party every expands, they’ll be exposed for the losers they are – they’ll lose their little Revenge of the Nerds political debating society. I do not agree with you on a lot of stuff, but I would welcome a libertarian like you into my party. Dangerous radicals like Andy ARE the party, but my party’s tent would not be big enough for them (or Dondero).
May 21st, 2007 at 8:20 am
I was a “cart wrangler” to help pay for college. Lets just say it was 8 hours of working your ass off in the heat, snow and rain…but I would’ve rather done that than laid on my ass. Don’t diss people who are “cart wranglers” – I did that shit for 3 years and actually donated a small (but every little bit counts) amount to the LP. Working poor people are libertarians too. Never forget that.
I paid for college outta my own pocket…I did not ask for any state assistance. I had a job you’d call “low skill”, “for redneck losers”....but I paid for my college from it and felt damn good.
May 21st, 2007 at 8:55 am
Chuck – That’s great! I too was a cart wrangler when I was in high school. That was all my skills allowed me to do. You used your cart-wrangling wages to pay yourself through college. Awesome! Now you have better skills. I’m not dissing the “working poor” unless they want to become the “working wealthy” without upgrading their skills; i.e. by depressing global competition and forcing ME to pay them higher wages than they’re worth.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:00 am
Back to the original subject at hand. The reformthelp.org web site has a list of potential new slogans that are just starting to be voted on/debated.
http://reformthelp.org/bylaws/new/slogans.php
May 21st, 2007 at 9:12 am
“globalist_elitist Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 6:28 am
I share zero views with Dondero. You are he both hate immigrants, NAFTA, etc., so I would say you’re more on the same page.”
Dondero only hates Muslim immigrants. I’ve never seen Dondero comment on NAFTA.
I didn’t say that you share the same views as Dondero. I meant that you were similiar to Dondero in that you both POSE as “Libertarians” but NEITHER of you are really libertarians. You are both LINO’s (Libertarian In Name Only). Dondero is more of a libertine neo-conservative warmonger. You are more of a libertine leftist wannbe globalist.
“I do not support welfare for immigrants. Nor do I support the welfare of trade protectionism or immigration controls, which benefits lazy white losers with no skills (i.e. you) who don’t want to compete in the global economy. I saw we deport all of the unskilled, uneducated, disinterested, native-born degenerate losers who wake up mad because they have to work as janitors, burger jockeys, and cart wranglers, and replace them with foreign-born laborers who are happy to do any job they can get in order to move up in life. And yeah, I want to pay them a minimum wage. You want even more restirctive wage controls through the “managed competition” of immigration and trade controls. You are the welfare statist, my friend.”
How can I be a welfare statist when I favor ABOLISHING ALL TAXATION? I support a SYSTEMATIC DISMANTLING OF GOVERNMENT. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. I’m a philosophical anarchist who only supports hardcore minarchy as the next best thing.
And yes, as an iterim solution I favor Proposition 187 – the California ballot initiative that would have denied welfare to illegal aliens – and I think that it should be passed in every state. I remember you calling this “racist” so this indicates that you support welfare for immigrants.
“I scored a 43 on you ridiculous test. Even Part II is far too radical to be practical. I believe in government fairy tales and YOU BELIEVE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. You should be forcibly institutionalized because you are a danger to yourself and others. That’s not very libertarian of me, is it?”
BAAAAHAHAHAHAHA
! A score of 43 is NOT EVEN REMOTELY LIBERTARIAN! GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY YOU STATIST! OK, I shouldn’t laugh too hard, at least you anwsered the questions honestly. But freakin’ 43, that’s NOT Libertarian. You’ve got SOME NERVE calling yourself a “libertarian” and attacking people the way you do when you only scored a 43 on that test. You are in the WRONG party. Please leave. And stop calling yourself a “libertarian.” With a score of 43 it sounds like you do not even fall inside the libertarian quadrant.
As for 9/11 being an inside job, this is NOT a definitional libertarian issue. I do think that there is more than enough evidence to say that it was an inside job, and I would say that it is very libertarian to QUESTION government and be SKEPTICAL of anything they say, but whether or not one thinks that 9/11 was an inside job does not define whether or not one is a libertarian.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:21 am
“Dangerous radicals like Andy ARE the party, ”
Dangerous radical. I take this as a compliment! Thanks!
Like I said above, I favor a systematic dismantling of government. I recognize that government is too big and too entrenched in our society to eliminate it over night. I want to start moving in the direction of less government and more freedom.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:41 am
And this nonsense is why I hardly ever have anything to do with the Libertarian Party.
My own score on that test, btw, was 155. I think Lysander Spooner and I could have some great chats – if he were still alive, of course.
These days, William H. Grigg, Wally Conger, and Brad Spangler make a lot of sense to me. Guess they are just not practical for some of you, eh?
Hell, Tom Knapp makes more sense, and he called that Portland compromise out for what it was.
I don’t have quick answers to every problem but I know whose side I stand on – the purists, the radicals, people who hate The State. And I know WHY I am on that side.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:24 am
Andy – I took the test again and only got a 37. The test isn’t accurate. But regardless, it says of a 37 score: “Your libertarian credentials are obvious.” SO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE TEST AN IDIOT? If so, we agree. The author of the test says that I AM a libertarian. It is a big-tent test. But I don’t want to be in the tent with wild-eyed radicals who hate America, hate capitalism, and curse Adam Smith’s name. You have Milton Friedman for Part I of the test (which I answered yes for every question except #s 5 & 20). He is a true scholar and a great economist. Then for Part II of the test, which takes things far too radical (I answered yes only to #s 33, 46, 50) they have AYN RAND - a dime novelist wannabe philosopher, non-economist hack. Then for Part IV, the coup de grace, Murray Rothbard, the racist idiot who could not hold Friedman’s jock strap, let alone Adam Smith’s.
So fine, Andy. You win. I will never call myself a Libertarian again, and I will never pay dues to any Libertarian organization. Happy? What you really want me to do is to stop expressing myself. That I won’t do.
But I want to know: Why does the author of the test say my “libertarian credentials are obvious” if they’re not?
Andy – You are dangerous in the sense of being mentally unstable. You are delusional and paranoid. You are Tim McVeigh waiting to explode. I wouldn’t protest if you were sent to Gitmo.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:27 am
GE writes:
“Dangerous radicals like Andy ARE the party, but my party’s tent would not be big enough for them (or Dondero).”
I don’t know of a single Andy radical conspiracy active in the MILP
Then again, I spend my time working with elected officials and serious candidates. I don’t spend my time with Libertarians who don’t produce anything worthwhile. So while I’m sure that there are whackjobs in the MILP, I’ve positioned myself to never have to deal with them.
Outside of the internet, and perhaps a county party here and there, the radicals are not the LP.
It’s amazing the difference you’ll see by going from the internet world to the real world.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:29 am
William H. Grigg is a Constitutionalist.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:30 am
Carl – Your site sucks, man. I forgot my password and there’s no “forgot your password” link, at least not that I can find.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:01 am
Globalist_elitist: an email to the webmaster is the way to get a fresh password. I never got around to making an automated password generator.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:18 am
G-E,
I scored a 33. about a year ago, I scored right where you are now. 2 or 3 years ago I was up in the low 70’s. In 2000, when I ran for office, I was in the 130’s IIRC. Been a while. I used to be a hardcore dude, but I found too many instances of where market forces did not apply or could not be applied – an more than a few instances where government spending and programs actually increased liberty in our society more than they cost. MUCH more. I ‘ve listed some examples before:
the original GI bill – made it possible for millions of ww2 servicemen otherwise too poor to afford college, like my dad. as a direct result of his degree, he made 10X the mount of money he made before the war. The GI Bill resulted in millions of families jumping into the middle class and led directly to the 1950’s boom.
Public Libraries. – Jefferson loved em. So did Thomas Paine. And Ben Franklin.
Public Schools. – because people thought children should be educated instead of working in cotton mills at age 5. Parents would sell their children to the mills.
They were never able to read or write.
I believe in the the concept of positive liberty, even though it can more easily be abused. Such is not the fault of the principle, but the people who exercise it ( just like the ZAP people insisting that everything in libertarianism must be derived from it. )
Every philosophical point can be abused or nullified of all value by it’s proponents as well as it’s detractors.
Extremism in any form undermines itself. I gotta go.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:24 am
“Then again, I spend my time working with elected officials and serious candidates. I don’t spend my time with Libertarians who don’t produce anything worthwhile. So while I’m sure that there are whackjobs in the MILP, I’ve positioned myself to never have to deal with them.”
How in the hell can you sit there and say that I’ve never produced anything worthwhile? I’m one of the better Libertarian activist out there. Here’s a short list of things I’ve done…
I’ve called in to several talk radio shows and mentioned the Libertarian Party on the air.
I set up a deal to get the Libertarian Party national coverage in USA Today.
I helped get an article for the Libertarian Party in a small local newspaper.
I’ve been on TV twice promoting the Libertarian Party.
I’ve collected thousands of signatures for Libertarian candidates and issues.
I’ve registered a bunch of people to vote as Libertarians.
I’ve gotten some people to join the Libertarian Party as dues paying members, and gotten others to vote for Libertarian Party candidates.
I’ve handed out thousands of Libertarian flyers and pamphlets.
I’ve donated money to the Libertarian Party and to Libertarian Party candidates.
And yes, I’ve posted thousands of messages about the Libertarian Party on the internet, and not just on libertarian or minor party sites.
I’m far from being an “arm-chair” warrior.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:27 am
Thankfully, many of these posters have zero influence on the LP. They aren’t party leaders, NatCom members, or influential in local groups.
Nolan expected his creation to use the political soap box to popularize libertarian policy positions and the moral and efficacious strength of
indiviudal liberty. For a while, it did so, and “libertarianism” pushed its way into the consciousness of a segment of the thinking public. However,
getting 1-2% of the vote led to burnout for some and frustration for others who unrealistically expected five decades of collectivist education to stream off the voters in the face of our brillant portrayal of freedom.
So, primarily focusing on education went by the wayside in order to promote winning and practical politics. But those who go in for such victories, will do far better aligning themselves with one of the major parties. Those candidates still in the LP tend to be posers and ego-boosters. Maybe it is time to split into one organization that wants to
spread libertarian ideas in their community through thoughtful debate,
discussion, and outreach. And another organization that wants to cherry pick good incremental ideas, find third party sacrificial candidates to run,
build political nuts and bolts cadre, and distance themselves from the libertarians” who remain convinced that libertarian principles need to be defended even while very few Americans join the defense.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Andy,
I apologize, you are a hard worker. I lumped you into a group, and when people do that, they tend to make mistakes.
However, there are many people who are put off by your conspiracy beliefs to the point that they will not be involved. I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but I understand that it’s not proven fact, and not reality. That’s the key difference between normal folks and the nutjob folks. They will argue that the 9/11 was an inside job (or whatever) and that they know it to be as true as the law of gravity. When you have unpopular political views, it’s hard enough without giving your opponents more ammunition, and giving supporters a reason to distance themselves from you.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Here’s the thing: Dr. Milsted has it wrong from the second paragraph, as soon as he posits winning elections as a “purpose” of the LP.
“Winning elections” is not a purpose. It’s a goal, the achievement of which is supposed to advance the purpose.
The purpose of the Libertarian Party is “to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles.”
Dr. Milsted may not think that is the appropriate purpose of a political party. For that matter, I may not think so, either. Nonetheless, that is the purpose of the Libertarian Party. If you don’t believe me, read the bylaws for yourself.
The purpose mentioned above is followed by the word “by,” and that is followed by a list of various activities which the party is to engage in to achieve its purpose.
Listed goal #1: “[F]unctioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements …” This goal has arguably been achieved in spades, and it has contributed to the purpose (giving voice to, etc.).
Listed goal #2: “[M]oving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office …” The LP has made some progress on this goal—not nearly enough, but some.
Listed goal #3: “[C]hartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth and activities …” The Libertarian Party has, or at least had (I’ve heard that some have become defunct, but don’t know it for a fact) affiliate parties in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Most of us would freely admit that the “supporting their growth and activities” part of the goal has been achieved unevenly over the years.
Listed goal #4: “[N]ominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office …” This would presumably really be a subsidiary goal of #2. The LP has engaged in various support activities for its candidates, from “candidate training” seminars to ballot access assistance, over the years. Whether the goal has been routinely satisfactorily achieved is a matter of opinion.
List goal #5: “[E]ntering into public information activities.” Once again, how well this goal has been achieved is a matter of opinion, and that opinion has varied over time and between individuals.
BUT … let’s get back to listed goal #2.
The only reason to have that goal is to use it to fulfill the PURPOSE of the party.
Dr. Milsted frequently attempts to smuggle in the subsidiary goal as the purpose, because if he can do so, he doesn’t have to discuss the purpose … something he doesn’t want to do, since the purpose is at odds with many of his stated goals.
The purpose of the party is to “implement and give voice to the principles” of the following:
If you read the above to prohibit (for example) coercive taxation, you’re reading it right. Dr. Milsted doesn’t have to like that, but that’s the way it is.
“Winning elections” is a laudable goal—but unless winning elections “implements and gives voice to” the above, it does not support the purpose of the Libertarian Party.
Dr. Milsted wants the party to have a different purpose than it does, among other reasons because he disagrees with many of the implications of its current purpose …
... but his way of advocating that is dishonest: Instead of hitting the issue head on, he chooses to pretend that the party already has a different purpose than it does, and hope that nobody calls him on it until can present the transformation of the party as a fait accompli and let the broken rules fall under their own weight.
Oddly enough, I agree with Dr. Milsted on a number of things.
For one thing, I believe that the Libertarian Party should rethink its purpose early and often, whether it chooses to change that purpose or not after doing so.
For another, I believe that the Libertarian Party should seriously consider whether or not the various subsidiary goals listed in its bylaws are compatible with and/or advance the purpose. To take it a step further, I believe that the LP is in a three-way, not two-way (as per Milsted) bind. It’s trying to use “educational” tactics and a reformist strategy to support a revolutionary purpose.
Dr. Milsted would ultimately like to see the purpose of the party changed, and its tactics and strategy brought into supportive line with that purpose. He shouldn’t be ashamed to say so.
On one point, he is right: We are never going to achieve the goal in question by “winning elections,” nor will we “win elections” routinely and ubiquitously if we approach elections as “the” way of achieving the stated purpose. Translation: In the current system, American majorities aren’t going to vote for the agenda outlined in the Statement of Principles, nor for a platform which is correctly derived from that Statement of Principles, nor for candidates who unabashedly advocate said Statement and said platform.
The LP needs to change its purpose, or change its tactics and strategies for achieving that purpose, or change the system. Maybe some combination of the three. Dr. Milsted (surreptitiously) advocates changing the purpose. I’m torn between changing the tactics and strategies or changing the system. The difference between Dr. Milsted and I is that I don’t try to pretend that the purpose is something other than what it is. That pretense has been going around for some time, and like all pretenses, it serves only to confuse the issues.
May 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Tom: moving the country in a libertarian direction by electing Libertarians to public office is the mission statement of the party. I believe it was adopted in the early 1990s. This purpose is at odds with the older purpose of the party. Nothing surreptitious in my approach. I’m the one airing the dirty laundry.
When I was on the Strategic Planning Team, the phrase “move public policy in a libertarian direction by electing Libertarians to public office” was referred to repeatedly as the mission statement of the party. NO ONE disputed this. I wasn’t at the convention that adopted the mission statement, but by the time I got active at the national level this was uncontroversial.
That said, I don’t think the convention that adopted the newer mission statement was completely behind it; many were in denial of the ramifications. Both purposes are still on the books, and thus the LP is a house divided.
In my essay above, I advocate either going all the way and embracing the mission statement, or going back and embracing purism.
That said, I also want the purists to be fully aware of the ramifications of going back. They won’t have the pragmatists as a source of funding and volunteer efforts. They will have to carry on on their own. Using campaigns as a megaphone for ideology will likely prove to be even more inefficient. A radical wing of a successful political party can use said party as a megaphone even though said wing would not be in control of such a party. A party consisting only of a radical wing will get little notice.
Such an organization would be better off organized as something other than a political party.
May 21st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Carl,
You write:
“Tom: moving the country in a libertarian direction by electing Libertarians to public office is the mission statement of the party. I believe it was adopted in the early 1990s. This purpose is at odds with the older purpose of the party.”
As the bylaws appear now, they set out electing libertarians to public office as ONE of several SUBSIDIARY goals serving a separate over-arching purpose. If a national convention has changed the bylaws, you should let LPHQ know to update the web site.
Neither the LNC nor the Strategic Planning Team are empowered to change the purpose of the party—although either one of them would certainly have been free to emphasize one particular goal pursuant to that purpose for tactical or strategic reasons. If a national convention adopted a “mission statement” without inserting it into the bylaws, then that would similarly have been a transient tactical or strategic motion. In order to change the purpose of the party, a national convention would have to replace the language in Article 3. I admit that that language is somewhat interpretable, but only to a degree. The two possible interpretations are:
– One purpose, several subsidiary strategies for achieving the purpose; or
– Several purposes.
There’s no reasonable interpretation under which one could cherry-pick “winning elections” as the sole purpose of the party. You can’t get there from here. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.
As far as the “purists” losing the “pragmatists” as a source of funding and volunteer efforts … well, let’s just say that, based on my admittedly anecdotal research, I’ll put the “purist” record of both financially supporting the party AND winning elections up against the “pragmatist” record six days a week and twice on Sunday. Neither record is especially distinguished, but I have yet to find any unique quality of fire under the “reformer” smoke.
The LRC got its platform reform, so why not quit belly-aching, get out there and prove that that was what was stopping “pragmatists” from winning elections, and then come back and say “see, told you so?”
May 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Mr. Knapp,
The amount of effort that was spent on the Reform Movement and platform changes could have instead been used to elect more libertarians to local office.
We know how to win local races. We can use the same formula and get the same results everytime. It’s not a question of what our platform is, what the bylaws state, what the LNC is doing, what the county next door is doing, but rather a question of wanting it.
There are people who want to play “Fantasy Role Playing Political Party” and we need to recognize them for that. They love to go over every meaning in the bylaws, platform, and find some unintentional flaw to make a huge deal over (usually involving threats of quitting or actual quitting).
If we want to change politics, we have to go out into the world of politics. Attend your council meetings, speak out issues that resonate with voters, meet and form bonds with like-minded politicians, civic groups, and influential neighbors. You will likely be ASKED to run for office by the establishment if you don’t make a fool of yourself. You will have the support of the mainstream and the local LP resources to get elected.
This can be done over and over again until we have a strong base of locally elected Libertarians. Or we can argue about pledges, playforms, and bylaws.
There are people who are overweight and say they want to lose weight. They are told what they need to do lose weight (eat healthy and excercise) but they do not do it. They don’t want to “lose weight” but rather they want to “weight less”. That is a huge difference. There are too many Libertarians out there that want to weigh less but don’t want to do what it takes to lose weight.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Tom Gellhaus Says:
“And this nonsense is why I hardly ever have anything to do with the Libertarian Party.”
Hey, Tom – and others – join your fellow radicals to help shine that light of freedom into all the dark corners of the Party
http://www.lpradicals.org/
May 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Took the Purity Test: got 35.
I probably would have scored higher if the test had had a “maybe/it depends” option, because quite a few of the questions were overly broad or vague. In quite a few cases I would have voted “yes” in
mostapplications of the question, but the few applications that either didn’t fit or which I didn’t have enough information about to make an informed judgment forced me into the “No” category.And if there had been a “Not only No, but HELL NO” option, I would have exercised it on pretty much every question from 51 on.
Oh, and Wes? In your article, there’s one point which is deliberately misleading on your part. Reformer complaints about the World’s Smallest Quiz are not about the quiz itself, but how it’s been misused by the purists. The purists will tell a 60/60 scorer on the quiz, “Congratulations! You’re a Libertarian! Come join our party!” Once they join, though, they get hammered by the exact same people for not being 100/100 believers. By and large we like the WSQ- we just feel purists should stop being dishonest about how they use it.
Finally: I pretty much agree with everything Milsted said in his original essay.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Scored 43 on the purity test. Becoming less pure over time…
May 21st, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Oh, and Tom K: can you name any means of implementing libertarian change which does NOT require electing Libertarians to office? We’ve already proven that the most either Democrats or Republicans will give to liberty is lip service. It’s not enough to “influence the debate” or “educate the people to the issues.” The only way things will change for the better is if Libertarians get elected.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Kris,
“Oh, and Tom K: can you name any means of implementing libertarian change which does NOT require electing Libertarians to office?”
Absolutely:
1) Enacting good laws by voter referendum and preventing the passage of bad laws by same.
For example, see some of the eminent domain restrictions which were passed by popular vote in several states last year. Those initiatives were driven by a former national director of the LP (Paul Jacob) with substantial funding from a former LNC member (Howie Rich). I do not know how much, and in what states, the LP was involved as an organization in securing passage of these measures (here in Missouri everything, including LP involvement, went to hell in a handbasket because there were competing petitions and groups and because the Secretary of State and the State Auditor colluded to keep the measures off the ballot by deliberately flubbing the required ” impact statement”), but I do know that there was some party involvement in some states.
2) Bringing together coalitions that can successfully lobby or pressure sitting politicians to do the right thing or to not do the wrong thing.
For example, here in St. Louis County, Missouri, the LP has had a very high profile on the issue of smoking bans. Our chair and other party activists, and the party as an organization were recognized as being instrumental in building coalitions to beat a proposed countywide smoking ban when it came before the county council, with beating the re-election bids of a majority of alderpersons in a city that passed a local ban, and with beating the re-election bid of one of the foremost promoters of such a ban in another area city. We didn’t elect a single Libertarian to office in that area during that cycle, but we have the ear of the officials who DID get elected with our help, as well as numerous business owners who came looking for a coalition and found that the LP was willing to help them build it.
3) Swinging enough of the vote in elections not to just “influence the debate,” but to force the candidates of other parties in a libertarian direction in both rhetoric AND action if they want to be elected or re-elected.
Those three things aside, your question is irrelevant to the point. If you want to argue that winning elections SHOULD be the purpose of the Libertarian Party, feel free. If you want to argue that winning elections IS the purpose of the Libertarian Party, then that’s a question of fact, and the fact is that you’re just flat wrong. The party has a process for defining its purpose, it has defined that purpose using that process, and it has defined winning elections not as its purpose, but as a subsidiary goal to its purpose. Deal with it.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I am not a purist. I helped recruit a record number of candidates for 2006 and probably a record number of state party donors here in Texas. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with most of the “Reform the LP” stuff. Not being a Reformer, and not being a Purist, I guess puts me in a different category.
I guess I’d have to call myself an Impure Unreformed Libertarian. I like that.
May 21st, 2007 at 8:38 pm
“Start a new, moderate, libertarian party.”
Oooh! Oooh! I have a name suggestion! Statist Lite.
May 21st, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I’m glad that there is a party out there that actually takes the non-aggression principle seriously. Perhaps some of the LP’s positions are indeed “unworkable”, but they are what many of us actually believe and we like having an organization where everyone else shares our opinions. No one is required to join the LP —there are plenty of alternatives out there. Those who want the Republican party know where to find it, and I think they agree with the idea that principles are stupid so they should be a fine home.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Took the Libertarian Purity Test. Scored 93, which is plenty hard core by most any standards. Yet, I certainly wouldn’t drum out someone from the Libertarian Party for a score in the thirties. I’ve worked at our state legislature, and I’m dead certain that the most common score on the Purity Test among our state’s legislature would be 0. Yes, zero. Part of the political problem that the LP has faced is that they kick out people. If someone is shedding their statist views even a little bit, I say welcome, and let’s try to move you even more into our column over time.
If we must use something like the Purity Test as an entrance exam, the cutoff for acceptance should be 1 or higher.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I think leaving the name libertarian with libertarians is a better idea.
I think I have reached the level where calling myself one is no longer accurate, which, besides the numerous threats and such, is the reason I left.
What to do now?
May 21st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
it also occurred to me that I was spending around 600 bucks a year on a organization that doesn’t even see me as a proper member in the first place, since I dont agree with the oath. That’s not cricket, is it?
May 21st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I’m one of the impure libertarian crowd. I think the non-aggression principle is very important and I take it seriously, but I think it is incomplete.
It doesn’t have any concept of retaliating at an appropriate level to someone else’s initiation of force. It doesn’t help out much in quagmire situations like Israel where it doesn’t matter any more who initiated force.
Most importantly, though, I learned in school that after solving a math or Physics problem I should check that the answer makes sense. Sometimes the principles are sound, but one’s use of them has gone off track. The same with libertarian principles—one needs to step back and ask, does my position on this or that political issue make sense? It’s good to one’s answers against other measures besides the non-aggression principle: Is my solution cruel to anyone? Does it lead to a civil society? Is it practical? Am I blowing the problem out of proportion?
May 21st, 2007 at 10:23 pm
The Assistant Director in Texas won’t sign the pledge, yet he is probably the second most active Libertarian Party member in Texas. I hired him. I don’t care whether or not he signs the pledge nor would most Libertarian Party activists in Texas.
People like Timothy West and Kris Overstreet are mis-characterizing most Libertarian Party members as intolerant purists. I’d characterize the majority of the Libertarian Party of Texas Executive Committee as non-purists. Many of them support the War in Iraq and the Fair Tax (I don’t support either). The four or five I’d think of as purists are quite tolerant of people who want to be candidates yet who aren’t purists.
The Extremist Reformers lose so much credibility with me because they mis-represent reality so much. Reformers are such intolerant extremists and distorters (bordering on deserving to be called liars).
At the 2006 Texas State Convention, most of the candidates were nearly unanimously elected. Kris is definitely distorting the reality of the Libertarian Party in Texas, although he might be speaking from a position of ignorance because he lives in BFE East Texas and didn’t attend our state convention or the National Convention.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Mr Milsted seems to believe that having reformists run the Party would make it more inclusive.
The experience of Nevada belies that assumption.
Reformists in Nevada took over the party. They formed a “caucus” that would
only support reformist candidates, and try to block all others with “none of the above”. Since they were from Las Vegas, the most populous county, and conventions typically attract 15 people, that was doable.
The amended by laws to make it harder to run for office if not a member of their caucus. They even tried to sue the State to keep a sitting Board of Equalization member from running as a tax reform candidate because he was not a member. (failed)
They were definitely not purists about their reform positions. One member violated the caucus own own reformist platform because if the reform passed, he was worried it might be harder for him to get a job!
The experience in Nevada would indicate that if elected to office, reformists here would be just more politicians. They would not follow due process and would waffle on positions if it effected their own pocketbook.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Wes,
you’re gonna have to find a new whipping boy. I’m gone. I hang here because I like third party news. I’ll comment when I have something to say, but I’m no longer in the LP, so stop haranguing me. I’m of no consequence to the LP any longer.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Wes- did I say anything whatever about the 2006 Texas state convention?
No. No, I didn’t.
No, I wasn’t at the convention- because it was the same weekend as an event which, last year, accounted for one-seventh of my total gross annual income. About all I could do was what I did- print and ship copies of the platform committee report for distribution at the convention.
As for not caring about the pledge: if you don’t care about the pledge, why keep it? Why not eliminate it as a requirement- and our bylaws DO require it- for membership? Otherwise, by tolerating people who don’t or won’t take the pledge in positions of authority, you’re encouraging hypocrisy within the Party of Principle.
Finally, Wes, I have never claimed that purists make up a majority of the party. I have said they control the party, and in many cases- most cases, in my experience- they do. Tell me, which of us is bordering on deserving to be called a liar?
Tom K: I deny point (3) in your list entirely- it’s been proven, repeatedly, that despite any pressure Libertarians can bring to bear, the Democrats and Republicans will not make any significant move towards liberty. In electoral politics, there is absolutely no substitute for outright victory.
As for the other points, I would point out that neither initiatives nor lobbying are activities which require a political party. There is only one purpose for which a political party is indispensable- electing people to public office. If initiatives, lobbying, or “education” are more important to LP members than electing candidates, then let’s turn the party into a PAC and quit pretending to be a political party at all.
Metzger: Actually, no, there are NOT any alternatives. Warts and all, the Libertarian Party is at this time the only significant political party which calls for the reduction of government size and power- and MEANS it. The Republicans and Constitutionalists lie- the Republicans out of greed, the Constitutionalists out of desire for a theocracy- and the Democrats and Greens don’t even bother to pretend. The LP is a Hobson’s choice- “take it or stay home and shut up.” So long as there is any hope that the LP will be effective- and that hope is vanishingly small right now- I will fight to make it both more effective as a political party and more accepting to those who don’t follow in lockstep with our most radical members.
When that hope vanishes, though, so will I- most likely to help with the founding of a new political party, because none of the other existing ones is acceptable to me. The Republicans would only be acceptable if the Goldwaterites come back from the grave and take control… and I just don’t see that happening at all.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:33 pm
I support a big tent Libertarian Party. I’d vote to nominate almost anyone who generally supports lower taxes and personal freedoms to run as a Libertarian Party candidate. If the following individuals lived in Texas and were the only ones seeking to be candidates for US Congress or the Texas legislature, I’d vote to nominate them: Timothy West, Kris Overstreet, Libertree, Knappster, Andy, Global Elitist, Eric Dondero, myself, Susan Hogarth, Tom Bryant, Roscoe, Chuck, Carl Milsted, and most of the rest of you goofs!
If any of you Reformers are getting badgered by purists, or if any of you purists are getting badgered by reformists, come to Texas and run for office! Win if you can. If not, do your best!
I guess that makes me a proud Unreformed Impurist.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:02 am
No doubt the winner of the “Reformist/Purist/Impure/Unreformed” debate will drastically change politics in the United States. History books will refer to this debate as the world-changing event that it is. I think all of us should immediately form caucuses, create websites, and spend hours and hours on blogs. The statists will have no choice but to surrender and hand over government to us!
No wonder the LP is a political joke sigh
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 am
Jim,
You write:
“Part of the political problem that the LP has faced is that they kick out people.”
Actually, not only does the LP not “kick out” people, it doesn’t even have any mechanism FOR kicking out people. If you sign the pledge, you’re an LP member. Period. You can’t be expelled, because there’s no process for doing so.
Any number of people (Eric Dondero, for example) have complained of being “purged” from the LP. Their complaints have precisely zero basis in fact.
Not liking the direction or composition of the party and deciding to leave is not being “purged” or “kicked out.” Neither is being invited to leave by people who would rather you did, but who have no power to force you to.
Kris,
You write:
“As for the other points, I would point out that neither initiatives nor lobbying are activities which require a political party. There is only one purpose for which a political party is indispensable- electing people to public office.”
It does not follow from the fact that there is only one purpose to which a political party is indespensable that there is only one purpose to which a political party is suited.
Furthermore, once again … getting people elected to office is not an ultimate purpose in any case. It is a means to accomplishing a purpose. If the Libertarian Party could elect a congressional majority and a president—but only by nominating people who were in complete disagreement with our public policy recommendations—doing so would not accrue to the fulfillment of our purpose and would be an exercise in futility.
There’s certainly room for disagreement as to what the Libertarian Party’s public policy goals should be, but “electing candidates to office” for no purpose except to elect people to office would be an exercise in idiocy.
“If initiatives, lobbying, or ‘education’ are more important to LP members than electing candidates, then let’s turn the party into a PAC and quit pretending to be a political party at all.”
I’m not sure where you come up with the “more important” thing. My point has not been that initiatives, lobbying, or “education” are “more important” than electing candidates to office. My point has been that electing people to the office is not the “purpose” of the Libertarian Party—or, for that matter, any other political party. It is a means, not an end.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 am
And, for the record— – I have supported, and worked for, “pragmatic” candidates.
– I support a “big tent” party that welcomes anyone who wants less government and more freedom.
In my experience, some of the “reformers” like to put up a strawman and then burn it. That strawman is that “the purists” demand that “anarchy next week” be the platform of the LP.
To put a finer point on it, the difference I find between many “purists” and many “reformers” is that the “purists” applaud a “good start” or a “move in the right direction” ...
... while the “reformers” tend to be obsessed with a bunch bull-sessioning over the question of how much of whose freedom they can horse-trade for that “good start” or “move in the right direction”—even though they have nothing of the sort to trade unless the “purists” get it for them first.
Apparently such pseudo-Machiavellian plotting makes the reformers feel like they’re “serious” and “mainstream”—but, truth be told, if the “purists” are engaged in the political equivalent of masturbation, then the “reformers” are engaged in the political equivalent of looking at racy pictures and thinking about how great it would be to masturbate.
Neither of the above stereotypes, of course, is universal. But if I had a nickel for every “pragmatic reform to win elections” held out as “absolutely necessary” by some dumbass who has never won, or even seriously contested, an election to any public office, or cracked a copy of Campaigns and Elections magazine, or walked a precinct, or worked a polling place, or for that matter done anything but mouth off, I’d easily have enough to fund a serious candidate’s run for the state legislature.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 am
Kudos to Mr. Knapp and Mr. Benedict for calling the reformers out. It has been such an enormous waste of time and energy dealing with people who sign a pledge they don’t agree with and join a political party that has a platform they disagree with.
I’ve been out of the LP for nearly a year and have come to believe the party has imploded because of the infighting of the various factions and the total lack of an understanding of libertarianism within the ranks. I don’t think those working in the LP realize how much baggage the label “libertarian” carries at this time.
I don’t even wish to be associated with the most highly visible “libertarians” – including Milsted, Boortz, and the creepy folks at LPHQ. Real political pragmatists seize opportunities instead of alienating not only the base but a majority of the public as well on important issues.
I think I can safely say that more people (right and left) agree with “purist” libertarian ideas when the “L” word is never mentioned. I attribute this in large part to the LP’s failure to articulate a clear message.
But, Wes sums up the reformers well:
“The Extremist Reformers lose so much credibility with me because they mis-represent reality so much. Reformers are such intolerant extremists and distorters (bordering on deserving to be called liars).”
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 am
knapp,
Neither is being invited to leave by people who would rather you did, but who have no power to force you to.
i was directly told by my state chair in 2002 that not only was I not welcome to run for office in WV as a LP member, but that she, as State Chair, would block all attempts by me to run as a libertarian in the state by denying nomination by the party in any future election. My offense is that I didn’t agree with her position on children’s immunizations.
When Richard Kerr ran the WVLP, he asked me for one thing when I showed up to run in 2000 – my up to date party card. Thats the way it should be.
So it happens. It happened to me, in any case.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:53 am
I’ve run for office four times. Every single time my opponents spent time trying to educate the voters why their positions on the issues were right. I also spent time educating the voters why my positions on the issues were right. Kris Overstreet, post links to your recent radio ads on this blog and then explain to us how you weren’t educating voters in those ads.
I’m quite confident that candidates working to educate voters is not unique to Austin, Texas.
For the record, I’ve lived in Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Martinsburg West Virginia, Hickory North Carolina, California, Georgia, Oregon, Michigan, plus spent nearly 5 months in New York in hotels (mostly in the W Hotel back in the good old days).
Kris Overstreet, the Libertarian Party of Texas doesn’t have a pledge requirement. I assume your Polk County (BFE East) Texas LP doesn’t have a pledge requirement either (actually, I think it’s prohibited by state law). We Texans can’t blame a pledge for anything other than perhaps that a few folks who stumble upon the lp.org website might not make it into our database because of the National LP pledge. I admit that does happen sometime because I once in a blue moon get a call from an anti-pledger extremist who you would probably support who tells me he won’t sign the pledge because he reserves the right to overthrow the government by armed violent revolutionary force. Fine. That’s what the rabid anti-pledge people who contact me support. But that shows that many anti-pledge people are just as radical and way out kooky as those who support the pledge.
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me a pledge or give me not a pledge. I’ll be a Libertarian either way. And I’ll replace the consequent quitters one every half-hour.
Anybody want to quit the LP? Fine. I’ll choose your replacement.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:05 am
“I admit that does happen sometime because I once in a blue moon get a call from an anti-pledger extremist who you would probably support who tells me he won’t sign the pledge because he reserves the right to overthrow the government by armed violent revolutionary force. Fine.”
The pledge talks about not INITIATING force. Since the government is INITIATING force against us, fighting a violent revolution against the government would be an act of self defense. Therefore, one can support the concept of a violent revolution and still sign the pledge.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:11 am
“However, there are many people who are put off by your conspiracy beliefs to the point that they will not be involved. I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but I understand that it’s not proven fact, and not reality. That’s the key difference between normal folks and the nutjob folks. They will argue that the 9/11 was an inside job (or whatever) and that they know it to be as true as the law of gravity. When you have unpopular political views, it’s hard enough without giving your opponents more ammunition, and giving supporters a reason to distance themselves from you.”
Some may be put off – people who want to bury their heads in the sand and who are afraid to question “authority” – but others are actually drawn to it. Many people believe that the government lies to us about a bunch of stuff. So there are a lot of people out there who are skeptical about the official government story about 9/11. I think that you seriously underestimate the size of the 9/11 Truth Movement, a movement which is much larger than the Libertarian Party and is also growing at a far more rapid pace than the Libertarian Party.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:26 am
Timothy West,
Having originated from Louisiana myself, mocking people based on state of birth leaves only West Virginians where I can make fun of people with any ounce of credibility.
So a Libertarian or two or three or four didn’t like your campaign in West Virginia? That’s your basis for eternal disgust with the LP? Could you not find like 6 people in West Virginia to show up to a convention to nominate you?
From what I hear, there basically is for all practical purposes no functioning LP in West Virginia right now. I’d guess that means there wasn’t a real big LP in the past there to oppose your campaign.
If, in fact, there were two or three or ten people who opposed your campaign as a Libertarian, I guess you’re admitting you couldn’t rally 11 folks to support you.
If two or three or ten people had such a devastating impact on your campaign, perhaps some of you should learn a lesson from this. Perhaps it would be beneficial for two or three of you to join the R’s or D’s and sabatoge their efforts. Do to the Republicans and Democrats what you claim a few individuals so effectively do to hurt the Libertarian Party. I support you in that effort.
You guys lionize the impact of the rare purist. Howz’ about using them same tacticts against the other parties.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 am
I’m not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I’m more apt to agree with Republican Ron Paul that years of bad foreign policy in the Middle East plus incredible luck on the part of some terrorists resulted in the 9/11 catastrophe.
Nevertheless, if the Andy posting here is the same Andy who collected thousands of signatures for the 2004 Libertarian Party of Texas petition drive, then I can vouch for him that he is a hard working activist in addition to being a blog posting philosopher—like the rest of us.
Andy, by coincidence, I now live about 100 yards from that Sun Harvest in Austin where you collected so many signatures. Ironically, Sun Harvest was recently bought out by Whole Foods whose CEO is Libertarian John Mackey, and Whole Foods quit allowing petitioning in front of its stores several years ago. Can’t necessarily blame them, but in any case, we don’t have to petition in Texas anytime soon.
—Wes
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 am
In 2000, we had more candidates for office than the Republican party did.
It’s not that she “didnt like my campaign” – she misused and abused the power of her office by applying personal litmus tests.
and please, I’m no longer “one of you guys”. I’ve renounced the oath and Shane has my goodbye letter. I’m no longer a libertarian, not even a reformed one.
But I like TPW and I’ll be staying around.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:59 am
Timothy,
If what you say is true, then darn that West Virginia “she-abuser” and kudos from me to West Virginia Libertarians (no offense Louisiana) for having more Libertarian Party candidates than the Republicans.
I won’t make any sexist remarks here.
Still, Professor Milsted and the Reformists Extremists’ strategies are wrong—elaborate as global warming and stubborn as 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but wrong.
And if not wrong, then y’all are a bunch of incompetent whimps for getting tripped up by a few inherently disorganized anarchist unherdable cats.
Timothy, I attempted to post a link to the dueling banjos video several months ago in response to something I can’t remember. Apparently, this blog won’t allow links to the dueling banjos. In any case, whatever your political persuasion, I guaran-damn-tee you that if you google dueling banjos and watch the video, you’ll better appreciate Timothy West, as I have.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 am
“Wes Benedict Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 am
I’m not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I’m more apt to agree with Republican Ron Paul that years of bad foreign policy in the Middle East plus incredible luck on the part of some terrorists resulted in the 9/11 catastrophe.”
This is what I originally thought about 9/11 for the first month or so, until I started looking into it more deeply. Whichever the case may be – in that if one thinks that 9/11 was an inside job or if one thinks that it was simply a result of blowback from years of bad US foreign policy – it still puts one on the right side of the issue against the war and the domestic police state. I think that Ron suspects that there are holes in the official government story about 9/11, but he’s afraid to talk about it and so he’s just going with the bad foreign policy side of the equation.
“Nevertheless, if the Andy posting here is the same Andy who collected thousands of signatures for the 2004 Libertarian Party of Texas petition drive, then I can vouch for him that he is a hard working activist in addition to being a blog posting philosopher—like the rest of us.”
Yep, it’s me. Texas sure is one of the more difficult states for ballot access. The number of signatures required there isn’t too bad in comparison to the population, but the fact that they don’t give you much time to gather them and the fact that they’ve got some other stupid BS laws make it more difficult than necessary (such as the primary screen out where people who voted in the primaries can’t sign a petition to put a party or candidate on the ballot).
“Andy, by coincidence, I now live about 100 yards from that Sun Harvest in Austin where you collected so many signatures. Ironically, Sun Harvest was recently bought out by Whole Foods whose CEO is Libertarian John Mackey, and Whole Foods quit allowing petitioning in front of its stores several years ago. Can’t necessarily blame them, but in any case, we don’t have to petition in Texas anytime soon.”
I’m REALLY sorry to hear this. Sun Harvest was one of a tiny handful of stores that would let us collect petition signatures without harrassing us and threatening us with arrest (in fact, I only know of two others in the entire Austin area). This is a REALLY BAD development. One of the things that was bad about Texas is it was one of the WORST states for petitioners being able to get access to locations to collect signatures. Even the colleges in Texas were horrible as petitioners were being threatened with arrest. This happened at the University of Texas in Austin and I heard that a bunch of other colleges in Texas were pulling the same stunt. This should have been grounds for a massive law suit.
I know that the LP doesn’t have to petition for ballot access in Texas for 2008, but what if the Texas LP has to do this for 2010 or at some other point in the future? What if some other minor party or indepedent candidate wants to try to get on the ballot in Texas? I know that Texas is not an initiative & referendum state at the state wide level, but they do have initiative & referendum at the local level, so what if somebody wants to do a city or county initiative or referendum?
I know that John Mackey is supposed to be a libertarian, so I’m suprised that he’d do something like this. Does he realize how difficult it is to get on the ballot? Does he realize that he is in a unique position to help with the cause of ballot access? Having access to the right locations can MAKE or BREAK a ballot access drive.
There are a few states in this country where there have been law suits about this where the petitioners have won, and/or there are laws on the books which are (generally) enforced that protect the rights of people to go to places where the public has access to collect petition signatures. California and a small handful of other states have this. However, many states don’t have this and it makes getting on the ballot in those states MUCH harder.
One thing that I find hypocritical about a lot of these places that harrass petition signatures gathers – includes all or almost all corporate stores – is that they are subsidized by the tax payers. This alone should blow any arguement against petitioners being there out of the water.
Wes, do you know John Mackey, or do you know anybody who knows John Mackey? Somebody needs to get in touch with him and let him know the gravity of the situation. Perhaps we could get him to change his mind.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:14 am
Andy writes:
“Some may be put off – people who want to bury their heads in the sand and who are afraid to question “authority” – but others are actually drawn to it. Many people believe that the government lies to us about a bunch of stuff. So there are a lot of people out there who are skeptical about the official government story about 9/11.”
I’ll take it as a given that the government lies. I’ll assume the government lied about 9/11. That does not support the 9/11 Truthers argument that 9/11 was an inside job. Making that jump requires you to be illogical, and rational people see that plain as day.
The proper approach would be to say “The official investigation failed to address the following…I want another investigation to fill in those details”
The 9/11 Truthers have started with a conclusion, and they reject the government’s report because it doesn’t conform to the conclusion. Experts who say the towers fell because of the plane crash and not because of planted explosives are rejected because they did not reach the pre-determined conclusion. Etc etc.
“I think that you seriously underestimate the size of the 9/11 Truth Movement, a movement which is much larger than the Libertarian Party and is also growing at a far more rapid pace than the Libertarian Party.”
I haven’t commented on the size of the movement, so that’s another pretty amazing jump. I really don’t care about the size of a movement, but rather the quality and value.
Do you even know the size of the 9/11 movement? Does it publish numbers? Does it raise money and file reports? How do you go about determining the size of the movement?
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:21 am
Regarding the 9/11 Truthers and the size of the LP:
I’m sure that there are more believers in UFOs and alient aductions than there are LP members. But catering to their craziness is not going to add value to the LP. We’ll have more members and hopefully more money, but when we’re running candidates on “Anti-Anal-Probing” platforms and having a specific by-law forbidding aliens from holding positions on the LNC no one is going to take us seriously.
Same could be said about the Kennedy assassination. Same could be said about the “fake moon landing” crowd.
I find conspiracy theories interesting and entertaining, just like Greek mythology, but they all lack factual evidence to back them up – that’s why they are conspiracy theories. When people start actually believing them to the point of making it a major issue in their life, that’s when you know those people have a screw loose.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“I’ll take it as a given that the government lies. I’ll assume the government lied about 9/11. That does not support the 9/11 Truthers argument that 9/11 was an inside job. Making that jump requires you to be illogical, and rational people see that plain as day.”
I’d say that the illogical is to believe Muslims caused World Trade Center Building 7 – a 47 story steel structure building that was on the opposite side of the WTC complex from the Twin Towers – collapsed into its own footprints even though it wasn’t hit by an airplane.
I’d say that it is illogical to believe that Muslims made NORAD stand down.
I’d say that it is illogical to believe that a record number of put options being purchased on the airlines that were alleged to have been hijacked on 9/11 having been purchased through a CIA connected bank was just a coincidence.
I’d say that it is illogical to believe that elements within the government could not and would not have carried out the 9/11 attack, especially when there is a mountain of evidence that points to that being the case.
“The 9/11 Truthers have started with a conclusion, and they reject the government’s report because it doesn’t conform to the conclusion. Experts who say the towers fell because of the plane crash and not because of planted explosives are rejected because they did not reach the pre-determined conclusion. Etc etc.”
This is a completely false statement. I did NOT start out with the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job, and I do not know anyone else who started out with this conclusion either. I CAME to this conclusion AFTER studying the evidence. This is what people do when they INVESTIGATE crimes.
You’ve clearly got a bias against 9/11 Truth Seekers and you are showing it here with your uninformed statements.
“I haven’t commented on the size of the movement, so that’s another pretty amazing jump. I really don’t care about the size of a movement, but rather the quality and value.”
Here is what you said above.
“However, there are many people who are put off by your conspiracy beliefs to the point that they will not be involved. I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but I understand that it’s not proven fact, and not reality. That’s the key difference between normal folks and the nutjob folks. They will argue that the 9/11 was an inside job (or whatever) and that they know it to be as true as the law of gravity. When you have unpopular political views, it’s hard enough without giving your opponents more ammunition, and giving supporters a reason to distance themselves from you.”
You said that there are many people who are “put off by my conspiracy beliefs” while at the SAME TIME neglecting the fact that there are many people who are interested in what you call “my conspiracy beliefs.”
Now, between these two groups of people, which ones are more likely to support a minor party, particularly a minor party that is “anti-government” like the Libertarian Party, people who believe the official government story – which itself IS a conspiracy – or people who doubt the official government story? Give me the person who questions what the government says over the person who believes everything the government says any day. In fact, I’d say that most of the people who buy into what the government says and deride those who question government are big government supporting assholes who will never support the Libertarian Party anyway, so the heck with them!
“Do you even know the size of the 9/11 movement? Does it publish numbers? Does it raise money and file reports? How do you go about determining the size of the movement?”
Of course there is no exact way to know the number of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Do you know the exact number of people who support legalizing marijuana? Do you know the exact number of people who oppose the war in Iraq? Do you know the exact number of people who think that taxes are too high?
While there is no way to know the exact number of people who believe that the government is lying about 9/11, there are several things that one can check to see that the numbers are pretty big.
See how many 9/11 Truth videos are posted to Google and YouTube and check how many views they’ve had.
Check those services that tell you how many hits websites get and see how many hits there have been to 9/11 Truth websites.
There have been polling companies that have taken polls about 9/11. I know that one poll that was published said that 36% of the people don’t believe the government’s story about 9/11. When actor Charlie Sheen went public with his belief that 9/11 was an inside job there was a poll on one of the major media sites – I think that it was CNN - where 84% were on Charlie Sheen’s side.
There have been numerous 9/11 Truth conventions and protests around the country. Last summer I attended the 9/11 And The Neo-Con Agenda Conference in Los Angeles. There were over 1,200 people in attendance. Contrast with the Libertarian Party’s National Convention in Portland that happened shortly after this that only had like 200 people in attendance. Some 9/11 protests have had crowds of over 1,000 people. There have been 9/11 Truth protests all over the country, and many happen on the same day (such as 9/11 or the 11th day of any month). I attended a 9/11 Truth protest in Boulder, Colorado on 9/11 in 2005 and there were probably around 200 people there. When is the last time you saw large crowds of Libertarian Party members out protesting anything?
Prominent people such as physics professor Steven Jones, former Air Force fighter pilot & former head of the STAR WARS program Bob Bowman, former economist for George W. Bush’s first administration Morgan Renyolds, former member of the Treasury Department during the Reagan administration and economist (also a member of the Mises Institute and frequent contributer to LewRockwell.com) Paul Craig Roberts, to name just a few, have come out and called 9/11 an inside job. Also, celebreties such as Charlie Sheen and Rosie O’Donnell are calling 9/11 an inside job.
I travel around the country and I’m running into more and more people who think that 9/11 was an inside job.
So yeah, I’d say that the 9/11 Truth Movement is pretty big, and it is getting bigger all of the time.
“I’m sure that there are more believers in UFOs and alient aductions than there are LP members