Or, maybe, they want to tilt the tent poles to shade those on the side nearest the Demopublicans, at the expense of us nearest the pure corner. The problem with that strategy that I see, in addition to pissing off the core libertarians, is the opportunity to have the whole tent collapse.

What Mr. Knapp does not mention is that he left too little time when he left the organization to make it possible to meet the bylaws deadline for 2008’s convention and the announcement thereof. Pondering this difficulty, in April, we announced two conventions. The convention in Denver takes place before the Memorial Day Weekend deadline has passed. It is an informal convention. The formal, rules-burdened, online convention is in October, on or about the 24th of October, at 10 p.m. Mr. Knapp would have been welcome to read about this event at the Yahoo group where discussions were taking place while he fiddled around with permissions on the bostontea.us site, after several times threatening to end the site entirely. The event in October has the option of validating the choices we take in Denver this weekend, or not. Like all membership organizations, it won’t be any good unless it is very nearly out of control.

For my own part, I don’t particularly appreciate his self-centered ideas on how to involve other people in a new organization he can’t be bothered to organize and lead himself.

As to this idiotic idea he has that Bob Barr would be a “smaller government” candidate of any kind, I fully intend to fight tooth and nail any endorsement of any such ridiculous war mongering hateful cretin. Were Barr interested in a smaller government, he would not have insisted on a “revenue neutral” national sales tax to replace the income tax. The Ron Paul proposal for an end to the personal income tax, replaced with nothing, is the gold standard on that issue.

Finally, I think the idea of online only is unworkable. What has made the Ron Paul campaign so energizing is hundreds of Meet Up groups actually having many thousands of meetings, so far. They have discussions online, but they meet in person. Clearly, Mr. Knapp’s team’s failure to put together a working national committee after over a year of only meeting online is symptomatic of an organization that could not continue the way it was.

I shall enjoy most thoroughly the process of over-ruling him, and all the other procedural ninnies, during the course of this year’s conventions. The bylaws dependent personality is always found using the “exclusive we.”

Thus, their proposals, “We should avoid violating rule seventeen B by having those of you on the national committee agree to three motions which you’ll need to draft and which I’ll review closely….” The exclusive “we” is that group which the author never intends to lift a finger to help, but whose efforts he’s determined to damn to the flames of perdition, frequently and vehemently.

Finally, what about a modern day “Tea Party”? I wonder what the world would be like if, each 15th of April, the liberty enthusiasts of the world met outside their local post offices, in disguises, of course, and identified those trucks headed to the city where the IRS was collecting payments. And did…whatever came to mind.

I’m not sure that the LP is ineffectual. It is certainly gaining
some attention now that major party candidates like Mike Gravel
and Bob Barr are attracted to it. However, I think what we saw in
2006 in Portland shows that the LP needs to be “kept honest.” I
see the Boston Tea Party as a watchdog for the LP, staying firmly
to the tip of the Nolan Chart, and giving the radical, hard core,
dedicated anarcho-capitalist LP members a place to go if the Reform Caucus is successful in pursuit of its determination to taint everything libertarian with the “we don’t wish to offend” brush.

Like any good student of history, I’m aware that politics tends to
move toward the available center. People compromise. It is in
their nature to cooperate, which is what free markets are all about.
And, in cooperating, they seek common ground.

So, our role as the Boston Tea Party is to hold down the extreme. We should push further out into the territory of less government, less restriction, more liberty, greater security for private property, and more free markets. If the Democrats and Republicans try to compromise with the LP, they’ll find us even more radical and difficult.

So, how are we doing so far?

Here’s where the Boston Tea Party stands right now. We have the
following officer core:
Chair—Jim Davidson
Vice-Chair—Tom Stevens
Secretary—Michelle Luetge
At-Large—Michael W. Reid, Jr.
At-Large—Alex Fitzsimmons
At-Large—Rocco Fama

and we have affiliates in NY, NJ, PA & now TN. I would like to
add Colorado to that set. I also have contacts in Kansas, in
Wyoming, and in Texas. I might be able to add Missouri. Dr. Tom
says he may be able to get a team in Louisiana if all goes well.
Joe Black and Bo Shaffer in Colorado contacted me about forming an affiliate there.

We actually have some people seeking to run as candidates who would finance our ballot access work in several states.

You write:

“How many people belong(ed) to this New York affiliate?”

At the time that the New York affiliate applied for recognition, it claimed five members.

“The fact that their bylaws allow business over the Internet is not reflective of ‘great innovation’ ... it’s reflective of the fact that they HAVE to do it that way, because they’re not substantial enough to meet otherwise. Because they’re a blog.”

On this, I can speak from authority—because I’ve formed political groups which meet in meatspace before, and because I wrote the bylaws. You’re just flat wrong. The bylaws were written to allow and encourage doing business over the Internet for one very simple reason: So that people could be involved without having to commit to expensive travel propositions.

In point of fact, the Libertarian National Committee and a number of state LP committees do much, maybe even most, of their business online or via teleconference, and that’s a GOOD IDEA. Why allow $50 tanks of gas or a $200 plane tickets to make participation more difficult? The main difference is that the BTP was set up to do that from the beginning in the normal course of things rather than incorporating that way of doing things into a pre-existing method. This may have something to do with the fact that it was formed in 2006 rather than in 1848 or 1971.

Then again, it may go further back than that. The colonial Committees of Correspondence were called that for a reason—rather than gathering nationally, they gathered locally and then conducted their mutual national business in written communications carried by post riders. The nice thing about a PC is that it doesn’t shit on the floor or demand oats before it takes your message where you want it to go.

“The obvious test of credibility for a political party is whether it’s actually participated in any politics (other than the internal politics of itself and the LP). Let me propose another test… how many members of the BTP are not also on the National Committee? I’m betting zero, or close to it.”

You’d lose that bet.

Since I am not the BTP’s secretary, I can’t give you an official membership report.

Since the BTP’s site happens to still reside on web space that I own (it will presumably be transferred somewhere else at some point), however, I can attest with positivity that the BTP’s national committee constitutes less than 20% of its currently registered national membership.

Presumably its actual membership is somewhat higher than that as there were nearly 300 members, more than 200 of whom I had personally verified as real human beings, at the time that the old site consploded and its registration database was lost. I don’t know how many of those members haven’t dropped by the site since that happened but still consider themselves affiliated with the BTP … but hell, the national CHAIR only re-registered at the site a couple of weeks ago.

“This ‘meeting’ takes place at a restaurant across the street from the LP National Convention.”

And the Democratic Party’s national convention will take place in Denver, too. Does that mean the Democratic Party is an internal caucus of the LP?

“I hate to make presumptions about the size and strength of their ‘Colorado affiliate’ (cough)...

You don’t have to—they don’t HAVE a Colorado affiliate, although they hope to organize one.

“but can you honestly say that one single person there won’t be someone who traveled there to be an LP convention delegate also?”

To the best of my knowledge, the BTP’s chair is not an LP convention delegate (he’s from Missouri, and I didn’t notice him on the state LP’s delegate or alternate list). As to the other national committee members, I don’t know whether they are delegates or not.

“Secondly, to my knowledge, the only ‘candidates’ discussed or invited to speak are those individuals running for the LP nomination. They’re not selecting a “nominee” (do they even have ballot access in a single state?)... they’re deciding whether or not to endorse the LP nominee.”

I suspect that they may do the latter, but they have clearly indicated their intent to do the former. As far as ballot access goes, IF they decide to run a slate they can almost certainly achieve ballot access in at least one state (Florida), and they claim to be considering an effort to achieve it in Tennessee and Louisiana as well. Richard Winger would be the guy to ask what their chances are in those states.

“Not talking to you specifically, Knapp. Just speaking in broader terms about anyone who says, ‘If the LP doesn’t do X, I’m leaving!’.”

Okay, so you’re describing a class of people. If that class exists, surely you can name at least ONE MEMBER of said class, right?

More love for radicals from the ‘big tent’ caucus.

If Barr gets the nomination, there will probably be plenty of radicals and non-radicals refusing to vote for him, prefering instead to write-in “Ron Paul” during the general. I know many libertarians in real life, and most of them believe the government is a necessary evil—yet I don’t know even one who is interesting in voting for Barr.

I hope no one actually walks out, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Barr is very unpopular amongst real world libertarians, it appears to me.

As for the Boston Tea Party, I am unfond of its platform.

Cheers,
Alex Peak

– No, it’s not a “blog.” It is an organization. Its site does have blogging capabilities. So does the LP’s. Does that mean the LP is “a blog?”
– I’ve not been involved with the BTP during period in which the three new state affiliates were formed, but I know that the New York affiliate was having physical meetings when I was still involved.
– Yes, the umbrella BTP was intentionally designed with the idea that most of its official proceedings would occur online, not “face-to-face.” Its bylaws specify that the BTP’s national committee “may, and in the usual course things shall, conduct its business via Internet.”

How many people belong(ed) to this New York affiliate? Were their “meetings” a couple of buddies hanging out at Starbucks, or something more legitimate (i.e. 3 or 4 guys hanging out at Starbucks)? The fact that their bylaws allow business over the Internet is not reflective of “great innovation”... it’s reflective of the fact that they HAVE to do it that way, because they’re not substantial enough to meet otherwise. Because they’re a blog.

The obvious test of credibility for a political party is whether it’s actually participated in any politics (other than the internal politics of itself and the LP). Let me propose another test… how many members of the BTP are not also on the National Committee? I’m betting zero, or close to it.

– A “caucus within the LP” would not be holding a meeting for the purpose of nominating a presidential ticket to compete with the LP’s. Since the BTP has scheduled a meeting with precisely that purpose on its agenda, it follows that the BTP is not a “caucus within the LP.”

Bullshit. This “meeting” takes place at a restaurant across the street from the LP National Convention. I hate to make presumptions about the size and strength of their “Colorado affiliate” (cough)... but can you honestly say that one single person there won’t be someone who traveled there to be an LP convention delegate also?

Secondly, to my knowledge, the only “candidates” discussed or invited to speak are those individuals running for the LP nomination. They’re not selecting a “nominee” (do they even have ballot access in a single state?)... they’re deciding whether or not to endorse the LP nominee.

It’s funny how hardliners harp on Bob Barr’s PAC donations, or on the “angry Republican” wing of the LP in general… when the BTP itself is a handful of LP members attending LP conventions, endorsing LP candidates, and drifting back to the LP altogether when they get bored with it. It’s “bad” to maintain ties with another party, to sometimes be more productive in advocating for a particular issue. However, it’s “great” to maintain ties with multiple parties when that makes you makes you even LESS productive in advocating for anything. Because, really, being completely unproductive in the functional definition of “principled” that many hardliners run with.

– Who are you begging to “walk away?” So far as I know, the only person commenting on this thread who is, or ever has been, a BTP member is me and as stated I ceased active association with the organization some time ago. I may attend its meeting in Denver to see what’s going on, but I won’t be following it down any non-LP electoral path.

Not talking to you specifically, Knapp. Just speaking in broader terms about anyone who says, “If the LP doesn’t do X, I’m leaving!”. When a moderate or pragmatist says that, he or she always has an option in the form of the two larger parties. When a radical says that, they’re not serious because they have no other options (other than just being a free-floating independent with no affiliation). I think it would be nice if that side did have an option too.

There’s no gentle way to put this: You don’t know what you’re talking about.

– No, it’s not a “blog.” It is an organization. Its site does have blogging capabilities. So does the LP’s. Does that mean the LP is “a blog?”
– I’ve not been involved with the BTP during period in which the three new state affiliates were formed, but I know that the New York affiliate was having physical meetings when I was still involved.
– Yes, the umbrella BTP was intentionally designed with the idea that most of its official proceedings would occur online, not “face-to-face.” Its bylaws specify that the BTP’s national committee “may, and in the usual course things shall, conduct its business via Internet.”
– A “caucus within the LP” would not be holding a meeting for the purpose of nominating a presidential ticket to compete with the LP’s. Since the BTP has scheduled a meeting with precisely that purpose on its agenda, it follows that the BTP is not a “caucus within the LP.”
– Who are you begging to “walk away?” So far as I know, the only person commenting on this thread who is, or ever has been, a BTP member is me and as stated I ceased active association with the organization some time ago. I may attend its meeting in Denver to see what’s going on, but I won’t be following it down any non-LP electoral path.

Since the BTP is off the bylaws tracks anyway, it could shuck its platform and instead adopt Guns and Dope Party Position Paper #23 as it’s new platform.

Then it could endorse the Guns and Dope Party’s presidential slate, which consists of everyone writing in their own name.

Of course, I’m a Guns and Dope Party deviationist—instead of writing myself in for President, I’m running as the G&D candidate for VP and declining to vote for myself.

Yrs mst sncrly,
Hon. Rev. Thomas L. Knapp, Litterarum Doctor

Good questions. I don’t have any answers for you, but good questions.