David Nolan proposes resolution for LNC consideration

As reported by George Phillies in IPR comments, Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan has proposed the following resolution to be considered at this weekend’s LNC meeting:

“WHEREAS the Libertarian Party can grow only by attracting new members and supporters, and

“WHEREAS libertarianism is a unique political philosophy, distinct from both contemporary liberalism and contemporary conservatism, and

“WHEREAS we need the support of both former liberals and former conservatives who have come to realize that libertarianism and the Libertarian Party offer a better path to achieving a just, humane and prosperous society

“The Libertarian National Committee hereby resolves that our party, its representatives and staff should always state clearly and unequivocally that we welcome individuals from across the political spectrum who now accept the libertarian principles of self-ownership and non-aggression.”

Although no particular person or incident is mentioned in the resolution, the speculation has been that it was, like the recently passed Florida LP resolution to boot Wayne Root off the LNC and LNCC, precipitated by statements Mr. Root made in an interview with a Las Vegas magazine, such as:

I’m kind of re-creating libertarianism. I’m just not going to follow the traditional roots. I’m a Ronald Reagan libertarian. Traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal.

At this time, it is not yet known whether this item will be on the meeting’s agenda.

One item which is definitely on the meeting agenda is the time and place of the 2012 national convention.

See also: Libertarians: Left, Right or Neither?

LP: Wherefore the urge to purge?

45 thoughts on “David Nolan proposes resolution for LNC consideration

  1. Tom Blanton

    This resolution might be fine for traditional libertarians, but for real men, er uh Reagan-Libertarians, I see a few problems.

    First, the resolution is too long. It takes 10 minutes to read the damn thing. I know it only has four sentences, but the last two are really long.

    Second, it gets into all that deep philosophical stuff in the last sentence – the stuff about self-ownership and non-aggression. Only pointy headed fancy pants intellectuals in their ivory towers know what all that junk is about.

    Third, there are too many liberal words:

    1. non-aggression – too faggy

    2. just – justice is for socialists

    3. humane – only bleeding-heart wimps care about this kind of crap

    The real problem with this resolution is that it might attract a bunch of radical far-left progressive socialists into the LP and scare off the good solid patriotic Reagan-Libertarians that really care about God, guns, gambling and tax cuts.

    If the LNC is serious about getting Wayne Root elected in 2012, they’ll forget all this nonsense and change that goofy LP logo. It’s time to get rid of that statue of liberty crap – a symbol of open border immigration – and replace it with a picture of Ronald Reagan. A picture of Mt. Rushmore with Reagan’s face added would be cool as shit.

    I’m not so sure the Raging Moderate Caucus of the LP will find this proposed resolution acceptable either. After all, most mainstream Americans would find this resolution extremely radical and threatening to their way of life.

    I’ll have more to say regarding the Root 2012 Campaign as soon as I get back from my presentation before the Ridicule Committee of the Mockery Caucus.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    This is great, David! Definitely a less hostile way to get the point across that Libertarians welcome all freedom-loving people.

  3. Sane LP Member

    We welcome “all freedom-loving people”, but if you say anything out of line, you will be punished, including flogging. Is that about it?

  4. Robert Capozzi

    tb: I’m not so sure the Raging Moderate Caucus of the LP will find this proposed resolution acceptable either.

    me: Hmm, you could ask a moderate. It’s acceptable, a vast improvement over the FL excomm resolution, IMO.

    I would prefer to lose the terms “self-ownership” and “non-aggression.” Too vague, in my book.

  5. Robert Capozzi

    dfn: …its representatives and staff should always state clearly and unequivocally that we welcome individuals from across the political spectrum …

    me: I’d note that this is impossible to police. And we surely don’t want to set up a Ministry of Propaganda to ensure compliance.

  6. Tom Blanton

    dfn: …its representatives and staff should always state clearly and unequivocally that we welcome individuals from across the political spectrum …

    me: I’d note that this is only a resolution, not an edict, and as such requires no policing – especially since the operative word is “should” as opposed to “must”.

    Mr. Capozzi, are you now the spokesperson for the Raging Moderate Caucus, or do you merely serve on the Ministry of Propaganda for this group of absolutists?

  7. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi opines:

    I would prefer to lose the terms “self-ownership” and “non-aggression.” Too vague, in my book.

    Would you also prefer to change the name of the LP to the Neo-Libertarian Party?

    I’m sure the Raging Moderates and Reagan-Libertarians would agree that to distance the party from what is the essence of “traditional” L-ism, a name change would not be contra-indicated.

  8. AroundtheblockAFT

    This item should take about 2 minutes on the agenda before it passes unanimously. However, it will take far longer – if it even makes it on the agenda – because it is more fun to squabble over wording and other nonsense than come up with ways to make the LP effective. I know, too much cynicism.

  9. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    #1 I’m a Nott Libertarian myself (actually a Free Parliamentary, registered as a Free and Equal) and I know these discussions are none of my business.

    But I have to say I really do appreciate your comments.

    I like PNAR.org too, although they could use some ads. I can help you add the ads if you’re interested. It would be a good way to promote PNAR, since they would have ads in different regions. We have the search engine GoNott.com and the ad program GoNott Advertise and we’ll be making the announcement soon – probably within a few weeks. We’re testing the system now on The USA Parliament, Inc.’s site.

    And one more thing…NLP could really speed up decisions by adopting ranked voting. As quickly as the ideas can be ranked, the decisions can be made. Those with 50% plus one vote are approved by the executive.

    I don’t think we’ve ever approved any decisions in The USA Parliament, Inc., because no decisions have received 50% plus one vote, but that’s how we do it. And we’re very close to that on the California Super-state level.

    We have plenty of openings if you or anyone wishes to try it out, and we can appoint or elect your name, depending on which position(s) you see fit.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?’

    Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian] for President in 2012!

  10. Robert Capozzi

    tb7: Would you also prefer to change the name of the LP to the Neo-Libertarian Party? I’m sure the Raging Moderates and Reagan-Libertarians would agree that to distance the party from what is the essence of “traditional” L-ism, a name change would not be contra-indicated.

    me: Thanks for asking. No, nothing about “neoL” strikes me as a helpful change. If there weren’t ballot access complications, Liberty Party has a better ring to it, IMO. I can’t speak for Reagan Ls since I’m not one, but I since there is no “traditional” L-ism, but several strains, there’d be nothing to distance from! My sense is yours are non-serious questions, though, since we’ve been through this many, many times.

  11. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    Two more things I’d like to add;

    1) Honorable David Nolan’s [Libertarian] four items could actually be ranked, and that would allow the order to be improved. Additionally, improved wordings could get higher rankings, or maybe certain lines of the four lines might not pass at all.

    2) Those who are Nott Libertarians will be counting our votes in California on August 6th, 2012, in case anyone wishes to observe.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?’

    Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian] for President in 2012!

  12. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    #11 RC wrote (re: Liberty Party);

    “[…]If there weren’t ballot access complications, Liberty Party has a better ring to it, IMO.[…]”

    Me;

    Robert, we can add the Liberty Party as a member of The USA Parliament, Inc., and there are no ballot access complications.

    This would give the Liberty Party 1/100ths of the “power” once elected if it was your name, and you may still stay registered however you wish with your state’s elections office under our current rules.

    Although we haven’t approved any decisions, I wish to clarify, all of our rules have been ranked and approved by the members of parliament (MPs). Those MPs who have ranked the rules are known as the “ruling coalition”.

    The system for approving decisions is already implemented in the ranked rules and the rules are dynamic. For example we can change any rules as quickly as a new ruling coalition is formed, as in other words as quickly as a larger majority of voting MPs’ rankings add up to one more vote more than the current majority of MPs’ rankings. The current MPs’ rankings are linked on the site, on the main index page.

    We’re always looking for ways to improve the rules too, in case anyone has better ideas.
    http://www.usparliament.org/rules.htm

    Obviously I think it’s the cat’s meow, and that’s why I’m posting this here. I apologize in advance if this is not welcomed or perceived as a legitimate post.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?’

    Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian] for President in 2012!

  13. paulie Post author

    If my regional rep is to be believed, David Nolan will not be at the meeting, so I am guessing it will probably not be on the agenda.

  14. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    I just talked to MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] and he said yes, we can run his name for US Senate in California and all other states, with MP Ron Paul [Republican] and MP Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] in 2012.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?’

    Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian] for President in 2012!

    Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012!

  15. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    …meant to say, he said we can run US Senate candidates in all other states with Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian], as well as his name Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in California.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?’

    Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian] for President in 2012!

    Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012!

  16. Tom Blanton

    @ 11 Capozzi asserts:

    My sense is yours are non-serious questions, though, since we’ve been through this many, many times.

    No, RC. These are serious questions, but they require no answer because they are rhetorical in nature. Any answer would be, and is, totally predictable.

    However, when you suggest that the fundamental elements of libertarianism (the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression) should simply vanish, it is a curious thing – especially when you claim these ideas are vague. I would suggest that having no fundamental principles other than maximizing net freedom and minimizing net violence is far more vague, being the rhetoric of certain reformers.

    Perhaps you should start a transpartisan party and call it the Unitarian Party. The basic ideology could be an ever-changing fluid conglomeration of mainstream thinking, goo-goo platform items, and amorphous wonky rhetoric using the latest pop culture buzzwords.

    Anyway, we’ve been through this many times, but not many, many times – yet.

    I’ll be back. Meanwhile, keep an eye on Mr. Root.

  17. Billy Bob Reagan

    Tom @1 – right on the money! Right wing all the way! There’s only one right way to make glass parking lots to the Stone Age!

    A manly resolution should take *zero* minutes to read. Anything worth reading would be chisseled out of flat slabs in the form of primordial pictograms.

    It’s time we bought flatscreen TVs, drank whiskey till we vomited blood, joined the GOP and brought this country back – including East Virginia and all its noncombat troops. Get them there women folk back where they belong – in the kitchen.

    Any delibrative body of manly fortitude needn’t do more than show those commie pinko bed wetters just who’s in charge here. Any delibrative body of manly fortitude knows it’s high time to level a thatched mud hut full of brown and tan children with a cruise missile. Lord knows that if we don’t stop ’em in Angola, they’ll use the towering industrial might of Angola to make sure they’re invading Florida by sun down.

    Reagan saved Christmas from the Martians once, and you’re darn rootin’ toon’ certain he’ll do it again!

    Who can make government small with his magical debt sword pulled from the stone? Reagan!

    Who’s the reason the sun still rises? Reagan!

    Who’s the only guy that could make selling coke in LA look good? Reagan!

    It makes me feel so patriotic as all Republicans should – I need to get virtually undressed by one of them body scanners that keeps us safe while being groped by the TSA! I gladly waive my right to a dinner and movie because it keeps us safe!

    May the Reagan be with you! God save the Reagan!

  18. Jill Pyeatt

    Single winner district @ 15: Please don’t ever associate that hateful homophobe Don Grundmann with the likes of Ron Paul and Gail Lightfoot. The latter two are truly principled, effective human beings.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    tb17: …when you suggest that the fundamental elements of libertarianism (the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression) should simply vanish, it is a curious thing – especially when you claim these ideas are vague.

    me: Yes, like pretty much all inquiry, it’s an epistemological matter. In your mind, you apparently believe that “self-ownership and non-aggression” are as clear, true and discernible as the computer you are staring at. I OTOH don’t find abstract concepts like these open to wide interpretation. It may be a big reason why our communications often seem sub-optimal, as if one of us is writing in Basque, not English. One gets the sense that you believe you’ve found the immutable truth, while my inquiries are most focused on the sometimes sloppy work of discovering and rejecting falsehoods.

    You might consider asking the most basic question: How do you know what you think you know? If you do, you might laugh at what you find!

  20. Tom Blanton

    Questions, questions, questions @ #23

    Did I just stumble into a freshman pot party sleepover in some ivy covered dormitory?

    How do I know what I think I know?

    How do you know what you think I know?

    How can you perceive the perceptions of others without being able to know what you think they know?

    What makes you think there is such a thing as immutable truth?

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    @24

    If one hand claps to the beat of a different drummer and there’s no one there to hear it, is the squirrel that a tree falls on in the forest wearing a digital watch?

  22. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    Pyeatt @19

    Thank you for your interest.

    Do you like the new web page?
    Do you consider the names you mentioned as being associated on the web page?

    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.htm

    Different alliances form between different people all the time, and all I can do is count the votes, and keep expanding when possible.

    If you have a way to improve the current rules, I’m all ears. If your idesas are good, I can run it by the current ruling coalition of five.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?’

    Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian] for President in 2012!

    Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012!

  23. Tom Blanton

    @25

    YES!

    Except when the squirrel IS the different drummer. Then the squirrel would possess a huge liquid pocket watch. I believe I know that I know this because I believe I do.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tom B,

    Bzzzt. If the squirrel had a digital watch, he’d still be alive, because the tree wouldn’t have fallen on him while he was examining its shadow to figure out what time it was.

  25. Tom Blanton

    I know that I know I hate trick questions because I am what I am and that’s all that I am – especially when time is the essence of the question.

  26. Michael H. Wilson

    Extremism in pursuit of moderation is no vice. Moderation in pursuit Extremism is no virtue. Or is it the other way around?

  27. Robert Capozzi

    mhw, it actually was: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

    The questions are: did it work and is that true? Hmm, let’s review the videotape. Is there more or less liberty in 201o than 1964? With exceptions, that’d be a resounding No.

    But, sure I’d agree, extremism is not a vice, it’s just not indicated at this time. Asking radical questions is always indicated, even for Brothers Tom, it appears.

  28. Be Rational

    “The questions are: did it work and is that true? Hmm, let’s review the videotape. Is there more or less liberty in 201o than 1964? With exceptions, that’d be a resounding No.” RC

    I’m fairly sure that you can’t draw the conclusion that “extremism” didn’t work in the cause of liberty based on one speech written by Karl Hess, nor based on the efforts of a few extreme libertarians over the years.

    In fact, you could make a case that it was the extremism used in support of statism at a much louder volume, grander scale and continuously demanded for years on end that has been winning out.

    So, it could be that extremism works and that the supporters of Liberty have been too reasonable, too polite, too respectful and too soft spoken.

    I’m sure that we’ve been too shy and soft spoken and fairly sure that we’ve often been too polite and respectful to get our message out. However, I still prefer a principled, but reasonable, step by step approach to change.

    But, it does appear that extremism, successfully employed by the statists, has been working against us.

  29. Starchild

    Robert @33 asks, “Is there more or less liberty in 201o than 1964? With exceptions, that’d be a resounding No.”

    I’d say the answer is closer to a resounding “Yes.” Check out the graph measuring the progress of freedom in the world from 1972-2005, halfway down this page on the right side — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

    See also this white paper from the Cato Institute on the progress of the last century — http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa364.pdf.

    I believe there are two main reasons for libertarians in the United States often failing to see this positive long-term picture. The first is that we tend to look at the world through nationalist terms that disproportionately focus on what happens in the United States.

    The second reason, related to the first, is that as political dissidents in the United States we rightly tend to define our political mission as political, and exert much of our energies toward standing in opposition to encroachments of liberty by governments in this country, warning the public about them, and mobilizing people against them. Therefore we tend to emphasize these negative changes more than we do positive changes toward freedom that have happened since 1964 even within the United, such as:

    • Equal rights movements (blacks and other ethnic minorities, women, gays, transgendered people, disabled people, etc.)

    • The sexual revolution

    • Growing skepticism toward authority figures and government

    • Increasing diversity of media and access to information

    • Growth of the libertarian movement

    • Collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War

    • Decreased public appetite for war

  30. Starchild

    Oops – Meant to say “…we rightly tend to define our mission as political”; I seem to have added an extra “political” in there.

  31. Robert Capozzi

    sc40, hmm, yes, I’m familiar with these concepts. That’s why I said “With exceptions…” Still, while there have been advances, the State’s control of the basic flow of life — GDP — has advanced appreciably. We should celebrate the advances in some aspects of personal liberty and build on them.

    I can’t say I see the appetite for war being diminished. We’re fighting at least 2 now, and some are agitating for a bigger one. They are taken seriously in the public square, rather than hysterical over-reactors as I believe they should be viewed.

  32. Pingback: Liberty For All » Blog Archive » Open letter to the Florida and Idaho Libertarian Party State Executive Committees

  33. Pingback: Mary Ruwart: Open letter to the Florida and Idaho Libertarian Party State Executive Committees | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *