Libertarian Party Radical Caucus: Formally Organized

g10807-0-6 The Libertarian Party Radical Caucus in its current iteration has been in existence since 2006. Earlier this month, they formally organized for activities during the 2016 Libertarian Party Convention as the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party.

The Radical Caucus key points and organizing principles are:

Natural Rights Are Utilitarian – The central commitment of the Libertarian Party should be to individual liberty. Our goal should be to illustrate convincingly that there is no essential separation between natural rights and utilitarianism – that is, the morally correct choice yields the most benefit for the greatest number of people.

Radical Abolitionism – As the word radical means “going to the root” of something, radical Libertarians should not merely propose small changes to the status quo and debate the fine points of government policy with the opponents of freedom. Instead, Libertarians must always make clear that the outright removal of the injustice and interference of the State is our ultimate goal. Speaking from our basic principles avoids the quagmire of self-imposed, obligatory gradualism. Rather than offering compromise, we should demand what we really seek — a free society — and let our opponents offer the compromises.

Principled Populism – The Libertarian Party should be a mass-participation party operating in the electoral arena and elsewhere, devoted to consistent libertarian principle, and committed to liberty and justice for all. The Libertarian Party should trust in and rely on individuals to welcome a program of liberty and justice and should always aim to convince people of the soundness of libertarian principles. Simply repeating our basic principles and not proposing transition measures is ineffective in the short run because only a small part of the populace is interested in liberty in the abstract, and hiding or abandoning our principled positions is ineffective in the long run because it fails to sustain us as a movement and attract and retain new Libertarians.

No Particular Order – The removal of one harmful government policy should never be held hostage for the removal of another, as this throws self-imposed barriers in the path of liberty and removes potential pressures for change. For example, saying that borders may be opened only after welfare is eliminated is unacceptable; the proper position is to push for both changes. Should we succeed in achieving open borders only to find that welfare burdens are increased, this should be used as an additional argument to abolish welfare.

SUMMARY:

The LP Radical Caucus Believes:

The Libertarian Party should support individual liberty because it’s the right thing to do, and because it’s the best way to benefit the greatest number of people.

The Libertarian Party is the only political party that traditionally advocates for real freedom from government interference. We should emphasize this revolutionary approach rather than watering it down with uninspiring language that is a de facto endorsement of the status quo.

Our language should inspire by reflecting our goals, not the compromises we may have to accept on the way to gaining them. The Libertarian Party should be active in all areas of the political sphere with the expectation that individuals who hear and understand our message of freedom and the steps we can take today to increase liberty will choose to join enthusiastically in our journey.

The Libertarian Party should always steadfastly oppose harmful government policies, regardless of any promise that supporting one bad policy will ensure that another is abolished.

The Radical Caucus invites you to Be Radical With Us and Join the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party. The website is being developed rapidly as of the date of publication and its further organizing activities are under way.

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee and is a candidate for LNC Secretary at the 2018 Libertarian Party Convention. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

38 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Radical Caucus: Formally Organized

  1. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Been in the works for a while. As you know, our Platform Committee has been working since October or so of last year.

  2. Pingback: IPR: Libertarian Party Radical Caucus: Formally Organized | American Third Party Report

  3. Steve Scheetz

    And I am VERY proud of that work we have been doing since October of last year! 🙂 I am also proud to consider all of the members of that committee friends. The professionalism and dedication is second to none. Most of you who know me know that I very seldom give praise, but when I do it is ALWAYS very well deserved.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  4. Michael H. Wilson

    I am a radical so why do I wish to belong to an organized group Plain to me dat!

  5. Michael H. Wilson

    Oopsie dat shud be “I am a radical so why do I wish to belong to an organized group. Splain to me dat!”

  6. Stewart Flood

    Because if you don’t, then they will purge you with the rest of us!

    More stupidity. Why can’t we just organize an anti-Starr Chamber caucus? I think it would have more positive effect.

    Get those running for the LNC to pledge not to appoint members of the chamber or their minions to committees, including platform, bylaws, credentials, etc.

  7. Derrick Michael Reid

    Being radical, but to what end?

    Increases in Individual liberties and freedoms is desired by all libertarians, to various respective extents. All libertarians have different views as to the ultimate end game to the extent of maximum liberties. Question posed is HOW to get the ball rolling in a practical way toward that end. Platitudes are nice, the Theories are great, but both are effectively meaningless without a practical plan to start the march toward increasing Liberties and Freedoms. I have been around the nation and have observed the pathetic turn out by libertarians at state convention. PA, for example, has 13 millions in population, but only about 50 libertarians showed up for the East Coast Debate. Do you all really get that? There is only one practical path for the LP to start that movement now toward in any significant increases in liberties and freedoms from totalitarian socialistic fascist DC. Only one, and that option is available to the LP in May.

    And so …. Libertarians, Awake!

    Absolute Freedoms under total Anarchy and total Sovereignty cant possibly work. Libertarians must not lock in their minds from political pander into an inherently unworkable alienating failing uncompromising absolute pandered ideology alienating the vast majority of Americans. Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom and Mutual Tolerance collectively imply reasoned objectivity promoting Liberties and Freedoms, that in large measure, appeals to nearly all Americans, rendering the Libertarian Party potentially and inherently a big tent Party. Repeatedly Failed Pandering libertarian messengers, is THE PROBLEM with the Libertarian Party, CAUSING SYMPTOMS, such as a stagnant party, declining membership, limited mainstream media coverage, limited ballot and debate access, low fund raising, repeated election defeats, and crazed fringe image, which all can be cured by the RIGHT MESSENGER, being able to couch that powerful and wonderful freedom Libertarian Party Message into a proper form, to APPEAL to nearly all Americans to WIN NATIONAL ELECTIONS, to render the Libertarian Party a nationally viable and competitive third political party, finally offering Americans a Liberty choice in counter balance with the totalitarian socialistic fascist failed liberal and conservative choices which have enslaved all Americans as tax mules, perpetual debtors and state dependents.

    The issue is not defeating the Democrat and Republican nominees, as the two current leaders are clearly demonstrably suspect. The issue is not saving the US from social chaos and economic ruination and wars, as the solutions, skills and plans are solidly in place. The real issue is, are the libertarians so locked into emotional narrow-spectrum pandering that they can not think logically, or enamored by the last failing candidate, or impressed by current public notoriety, to actually believe that any one of the other presidential candidates has the intellectual capacity, knowledge base, and command leadership, necessary, to go toe-to-toe the Clinton crime family and that infantile bombastic property mogul? After nearly 50 years, the LP remains stagnant as a political curiosity, pushing hard core anarchy, sovereignty and drug war end, the collective dead end political road, proved time and again. The turn out at the state conventions are embarrassing low, eg PA with 13m population, yet only 50 show up, and that poor turn out has been across the country without exception. The other LP candidates do not know how to present the LP message to appeal to 90% of the voters and do not know how to fashion and execute a comprehensive solution set that would attract 90% of the voters. The LP FL delegates should not perpetuate the LP national tradition of failure. The drug war end can be presented as a war on DC totalitarianism, and sovereignty presented as fitting within federalism, so at to attract, not alienate, 90% of the voters. Other candidates have disjointed collections of proposed band aids, and not an integrated comprehensive solution set that is necessary to appeal to 90% of the voters, and to solve many major systemic problems facing the nation. The LP FL delegates should nominate the only candidate who can and would win the White House through message appeal, solution attraction, execution skill set, and knowledge base to defeat the DEM/REP nominees. The LP message of minimum government, maximum freedom, mutual tolerance, as well as drug war end and sovereignty can be presented to appeal to 90% of the voters, along with a comprehensive solution set to attract 90% of the voters, by one with the skill set necessary, to win the White House, only as positioned by yours truly.

    Derrick Michael Reid can present that wonderful and powerful Libertarian Party message of 1) Minimum Government, 2) Maximum Freedom, and 3) Mutual Tolerance, in a form that will APPEAL to 95% of Americans, and offers a solution set and skills to solve major systemic problems facing the country, that will ATTRACT 95% of Americans, for the November national election victory, for providing increased liberties and freedoms for all and solutions to those big national problems.

    Libertarians, 2016 presents the Libertarian Party with a truly historic opportunity, not seen in the US for over the last 150 years, to capture the White House and save the nation from social anarchy and economic collapse, caused by 110 years of Democrat Party leftist proposing and Republican Party rightist enabling, resulting in national bankruptcy, economic stagnation, social strife, bastardization of our Constitution, and the concentration of totalitarian socialistic fascist political power in DC, suppressing our liberties and freedoms from government. The two major pandering political machines have selfishly locked up the voting booth as two sides of the same coin, by corrupting our federalism, by unconstitutionally mixing social programs with federal responsibilities at the federal level, so as to enhance their political pandering abilities and increase their money elitist campaign contributions, causing wealth transfers from the 99% to the top 1%, income inequalities, destruction of the middle class, destruction of our manufacturing base, enslavement of all Americans as tax mules or state dependents, confused ineffectual government, destruction of our once real honest money, and destruction of our once honest price-discovery markets. The United States titters at the precipice of national ruination. The call is made to all my libertarian friends to unite and stand up together as one, for this noble purpose, to lead the nation and all Americans and all political groups, in Restoring Americana Greatness, Constitution, Republic, Liberties, Freedoms, Prosperity and Peace. Rarely in generations do confluences align offering national salvation by so few freedom lovers as now. Now is our time, our time to rise up and stand united for this noble purpose. Please join me. Now is our time in history to fulfill our destiny and restore our great nation. WE ARE AMERICANS, WE CAN DO!

    See Presidential Platform, Pledge, Problems, Solutions here:
    http://www.totalitariandemocracy.com/lectures/public-articles/platformletter

    Very Truly Yours, in Liberty and Freedom,
    Derrick Michael Reid B.S.E.E., J.D.,
    2016 Presidential Candidate, Libertarian Party,
    Engineer, Patent Lawyer, Military Scientist,
    Market Analyst, and Geopolitical Analyst.
    PO Box 1584, Laguna Beach, CA 92652
    Contact Email: Libereens@yahoo.com
    Skype Account Name: derrickmichaelreid
    http://www.totalitariandemocracy.com/

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    Mr. Reid,

    If your message ATTRACTS 95% of Americans, then how come you’ve been unsuccessful in ATTRACTING their support?

    Why aren’t new Libertarians showing up in droves to support your campaign for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination? Why has your only FEC filing been a statement of candidacy, indicating that you haven’t even been able to raise $5,000 from the 295 million or so Americans you claim you can ATTRACT? After all, as you note, there are 13 million people in Pennsylvania. Only 50 showed up for the LP convention and they didn’t seem very ATTRACTED to your message. Why didn’t you talk to 100 other Pennsylvanians and ATTRACT 95 of them to show up and support you at the LPPA convention, giving you nearly 2/3 majority support there?

    Are you just not TRYING to talk to that 95% of Americans yet, or have you tried? And if the former, why should we believe that your claim that you can do the latter and succeed if only a small political party will give you its nomination?

  9. Jeremy

    Yeah, that argument is dubious coming from someone like Bob Barr, but ludicrous coming from someone who isn’t even going to get the nomination.

  10. Stewart Flood

    Tom,

    Please on’t feed the trolls. Reid is nothing more than a political troll. He looked like a talking bobble head in that interview. According to Reid, “He” is the only one with the intellect to… “He” is the only…

    Actually “He” is simply bat shit crazy. He won’t understand your argument, regardless of how rational it is.

    Caryn,

    We actually already have that caucus. I created it at the 2012 convention, but it has no website and no formal meetings. We call it the “rational caucus”. The reason we call ourselves rational, is that the only rational way to move forward is to find the points where the various factions of the party agree and that can move the party forward instead of just arguing. One of these points that most of us agree on is that the Starr Chamber has been disruptive (Oregon, etc) and works AGAINST ballot access and AGAINST just about anything else that doesn’t move their agenda to control the party.

    There are about a dozen members of the caucus at this point.

  11. Stewart Flood

    I’ll have to issue membership cards, but yes you can be member #13. But you have to pledge to be rational. 🙂

  12. Stewart Flood

    You might even get a special badge. I’ve been designing something so that we know who the other members of the rational caucus are.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    Do I have to change my name to “rational,” or just display the behavior/demeanor?

    Re: Reid. Yes, I know he’s batshit insane, and I know that he won’t secure the votes of any substantial number of delegates. At the same time, I think he’s worth engaging occasionally on the most obvious and easy to explain problems with his claims. And this was one of those. If he and his ideas are so great that they will enjoy 95% support in November, how is it that they don’t enjoy 95% support in any venue where they are revealed NOW?

  14. Kyle Markley

    Caryn,

    Very nice. There are some typos in the bylaws (from the website). Section 2 exists twice, and subsection “F” refers to the resignation subsection as “D” but it is actually “E”. And I don’t know what confusion the “does not override” language is supposed to prevent — it doesn’t clarify for me, it makes me confused.

    I’m bothered by presumed resignation for being a member of an “opposition” caucus: who decides what other groups are in opposition, and how, and what if they don’t have a written platform at all? There seems to be a gap of due process, there.

    I would be eager to join your organization but for the requirement to be a national LP member. I can’t do that because Oregon.

  15. Wes Wagner

    Kyle,

    RE: Membership, I sort of understand where they are coming from because it appears to be a group designed to try to fix the problems with the national LP. I probably shouldn’t join even if they didn’t require national membership because I am fairly resigned to the fact that the problems with national can only be solved with a can of gasoline and a match, which the vast majority of their membership by the simple fact of being a member likely disagree with me on that point and likewise would not understand that it is a mere reciprocation of force and not an initiation against an entity that tried to facilitate a figurative murder against the libertarian factions in Oregon.

  16. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Hi Kyle, thank you for noting those typos! I will bring them to the attention of the LPRC. As far as who decides an “opposition” caucus, that is the Board and such things are always subjective, just like the LNC being able to disaffiliate for “cause.” We certainly want members and allies so that isn’t something to be done lightly. Since the process would be public, the due process is like there is any voluntary organization. Withdrawal if one feels the process has been wrongly applied. We are a singularly focused special interest group and wish to stay focused intensely on that goal.

    I understand that some people can’t for reasons of their own conscience be members of National. However, we purposefully are a caucus working within the National organization so we do require other members to have an interest in that. It is no judgment at all, I respect and understand your conscience. It is just outside our chartered purpose. To work within National for radical interests. We also require memberships in the state party. Some persons have objected to that as well, but our goals is to be within the Party at all levels.

  17. robert capozzi

    sf: The reason we call ourselves rational, is that the only rational way to move forward is to find the points where the various factions of the party agree and that can move the party forward instead of just arguing.

    me: Sounds worthwhile. The list might be very short, though.

  18. Mark Axinn

    >You might even get a special badge. I’ve been designing something so that we know who the other members of the rational caucus are.

    What if we don’t want no stinkin’ badges?

    Ma, take this badge off of me
    I can’t use it any more….

  19. Stewart Flood

    Well…the badge is optional. But it is cool looking. I’m 3D printing them out of brass.

  20. Steven Wilson

    Is it to be the conscience of the LP just like the RLC was to be the conscience of the Republican?

    I have never understood the caucus group think. The LP has had the Boston Tea Party and several anarchist sub-groups trying to get the LP away from RP rejects like Barr, Root, and Johnson.

    Sadly, the LP remains while those sub-groups have faded. I admire the radical heart, while I pity the radical mind.

  21. Steven Wilson

    I had no intention of directing my critique towards anyone in particular. I was just pointing out a pattern of behavior of the group of “radicals” within the LP. The desired outcome for all of these sub-groups were to get the main LP back on track and fighting for individual sovereignty which implies that the radicals had come to the conclusion that the LP had gone wrong in the first place. The radicals are reactionary rather than originating or inventing.

    Darryl dismantled the Boston Tea Party due to lack of interest, so he moves to Keene and starts another party that behaves almost in identical fashion to the anarchist sub-groups that came before. Why didn’t Darryl care about why there was a dying interest in the Boston Tea Party?

    What makes you think this time will be any different? It is not a coincidence that political fervor dissipates shortly after presidential elections. The trick is to sustain the movement.

    Why didn’t Darryl run for President under the banner of his new party in Keene?

    Does the radical caucus believe having by laws or criteria will set the main LP straight again?

    Why has it never occurred to the radicals that there IS a pattern of taking on RP rejects?

    Isn’t it possible that the common LP convention goer is less inclined toward principle and more inclined toward winning? Can’t the illness that gave us Barr, Root, and Johnson still be present in the main LP today?

    Currently, the LP has another Presidential Candidate that is disavowing a main artery of the LP plank. His fans are rabid in social media and they appear to be lasting longer than a weekend. John Stossel is putting him on the big stage to debate.

    It appears all parties share a common characteristic: in time, they all splinter.

  22. Andy

    Steven Wilson said: “Darryl dismantled the Boston Tea Party due to lack of interest, so he moves to Keene and starts another party that behaves almost in identical fashion to the anarchist sub-groups that came before. Why didn’t Darryl care about why there was a dying interest in the Boston Tea Party?”

    The Boston Tea Party died because they did not have any money. I think that their national platform actually prohibited their national party from raising money, however, individual candidates could raise money. I am not sure if their state affiliates could raise money or not.

    Outside of the 2008 Boston Tea Party candidate for President, Charles Jay, spending his own money on his campaign (he only qualified for the ballot in 3 states, and where he was a write in candidate in a few states), I don’t think that the Boston Tea Party ever really had anyone spend their own money, or raise money, under their party’s banner.

    Money is the lifeblood of politics, and a political party without money is a political party that is not going to last.

    “Why didn’t Darryl run for President under the banner of his new party in Keene?”

    The party to which you are referring is the New Hampshire Liberty Party. It was formed by Darryl Perry and Ian Freeman (of Free Talk Live fame). Their purpose in forming the party was to push for New Hampshire to secede from the union. They had no disagreement with the Libertarian Party, they just wanted a party that was explicitly secessionist.

    So being that the primary purpose of the New Hampshire Liberty Party is to advocate for New Hampshire to secede from the union, this does not make it a viable option for running for President (as in it is a New Hampshire only party).

    The New Hampshire Liberty Party has never even had ballot access as a party in New Hampshire. I know that Darryl and Ian both ran for local offices in Keene, but I’m not sure if they were listed on the ballot as having been New Hampshire Liberty Party candidates, and it is possible that local offices in New Hampshire are officially non-partisan (like they are in some other states).

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Isn’t it possible that the common LP convention goer is less inclined toward principle and more inclined toward winning?”

    I’ve seen no evidence that the two are incompatible — or that the common LP convention goer is inclined toward the latter (the results kind of speak for themselves).

  24. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 25, 2016 at 19:12
    ‘Isn’t it possible that the common LP convention goer is less inclined toward principle and more inclined toward winning?’

    I’ve seen no evidence that the two are incompatible — or that the common LP convention goer is inclined toward the latter (the results kind of speak for themselves).”

    It appears to me that most LP convention goers are wow’d by flash and fame (or perceptions of flash and fame), and these people are willing to sacrifice principles in the name of who they think is flashy and famous, even if the “flashy and famous” candidate has no chance of winning the general election, or even having much impact on the general election.

  25. robert capozzi

    A, makes perfect intuitive sense. Politics is about marketing reach. The famous have more reach potential.

  26. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    ==I The radicals are reactionary rather than originating or inventing.==

    Proof? The Radical Caucus in one iteration or another has been around since the 1970s. The formation of it was specifically invited by Nolan to “keep the LP honest.”

    ==What makes you think this time will be any different? It is not a coincidence that political fervor dissipates shortly after presidential elections. The trick is to sustain the movement.==

    I don’t care much about the Presidential cycle… and I was one of the motivators for this move.

    I don’t understand the relevance of the questions about Darryl. This isn’t about Darryl.

    =Does the radical caucus believe having by laws or criteria will set the main LP straight again?==

    No, it is about keeping us focused and being able to have guidelines to get things done. Bylaws and criteria are inward facing.

    ==Why has it never occurred to the radicals that there IS a pattern of taking on RP rejects?==

    Wut? What makes you think it hasn’t?

    ==Isn’t it possible that the common LP convention goer is less inclined toward principle and more inclined toward winning? Can’t the illness that gave us Barr, Root, and Johnson still be present in the main LP today?==

    Of course. Thus the Radical Caucus.

    ==Currently, the LP has another Presidential Candidate that is disavowing a main artery of the LP plank. His fans are rabid in social media and they appear to be lasting longer than a weekend. John Stossel is putting him on the big stage to debate==

    Thus the Radical Caucus. The Oh Shiny Thing Caucus is also alive and well.

  27. Caryn Ann Harlos

    It’s been a year. And we are still kicking. And on course to give a few thousand to radical candidates after giving over a thousand last cycle. We have a Board of about 20 and multiple officers. Our Annual Membership Meeting is in June and another Platform Committee is finishing up.

    A rousing success by any measure.

Leave a Reply

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