LPNY Holds 46th Annual Convention; Larry Sharpe Nominated For Governor

From LPNewYork.org:

New York Libertarian Party April 2018 Convention

The Libertarian Party of New York held their 46th annual convention over the weekend of April 20-22, 2018 at the Comfort Inn in Castleton, New York, near Albany. The convention consisted of formal business, election of officers and statewide candidates, featured speakers, fellowship among party activists, and an exciting kick-off to a strong gubernatorial campaign, as Larry Sharpe was nominated as the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Governor of New York.

The convention began with an informal reception Friday evening in a hospitality suite as many of the early convention attendees arrived. Business began Saturday morning, opened by John Rayome, Chair of the Capital District Libertarian Party, host chapter of the convention. Jeff Russell served as Chair of the Convention Arrangements and Credentials Committees, Bill McMillen served as Chair of the Program Committee, and Andrew Kolstee served as Chair of the the Standing Rules and Resolutions Committees.

Opening remarks were followed by by three morning speakers: Bill McMillen, longtime party activist, past chair (1985-89), and candidate; Alyce Auman, discussing strategies for outreach, and Trish Lynch, speaking on drug policy activism.

LPNY Chair Mark Glogowski opened the formal business session with the election of party officers. Incumbent Chair Mark Glogowski and Vice Chair Jim Rosenbeck were nominated for the position of state chair. Rosenbeck, who has served as Vice Chair for three terms, was elected to the chair position.

There are two Vice Chair positions. Incumbent Vice Chair Brian Waddell was elected to a third term as Vice Chair and Shawn Hannon, At-Large Committee member and Chair of the Onondaga County Libertarian Party, was elected to the Vice Chair spot previously held by Rosenbeck.

Blay Tarnoff was elected to a tenth term as Secretary after a challenge from Tucker Coburn.

Mike Dowden, incumbent Treasurer, was elected unopposed to a third term.

The most competitive election was for the five At-Large positions. In total, there were nine nominees: Tucker Coburn, Fred Cole, Tony D’Orazio, Christopher Edes, Hesham El-Meligy, Mark Potwora, Susan Overeem, Jarrod Thuman, and Gary Triestman.

On the first ballot, Mark Potwora (Vice Chair of the Genesee County Libertarian Party) was elected to a third term as an At-Large Committee member. Tucker Coburn (Field Director for the Larry Sharpe Campaign), Hesham El-Meligy (Co-Founder of Muslims for Liberty and former Chair of the Staten Island Libertarian Party, 2016-2018), and Susan Overeem (Treasurer of the Staten Island Libertarian Party) were elected as new At-Large Committee Members. On the second ballot, Tony D’Orazio (Vice Chair of the Monroe County Libertarian Party) was elected to a second term as an At-Large member.

Afternoon speakers were Lauren McKinnon, Communications Director for the Larry Sharpe campaign, Brian Waddell, LPNY Vice Chair and Campaign Manager for the Larry Sharpe campaign, and Brandon Phinney, Representative from New Hampshire. Also giving remarks were Jess Mears, National Libertarian Party Development Manager and Bill Weld, 2016 vice presidential nominee.

In the afternoon, LNC Vice Chair candidates Alex Merced and Joe Hauptmann discussed their candidacies and vision for the party at the national level in a panel discussion.

Todd Haggerty, former Chair of the Capital District Libertarian Party, recognized Bill McMillen for over 40 years of distinguished service and dedication to the Libertarian Party of New York.

In the afternoon, nominees for statewide candidates were selected.

Larry Sharpe, 2016 vice presidential candidate, business consultant, entrepreneur, and political activist, who first announced his candidacy in July 2017, was unanimously chosen as the Libertarian Party’s nominee for Governor of New York.

Completing the slate of statewide candidates were Andrew Hollister for Lt. Governor, who was also a 2017 candidate for Rochester City Council, Chris Garvey for Attorney General, who was also the LPNY’s 1998 nominee for governor and 2006 nominee for Attorney General, and Cruger Gallaudet for New York State Comptroller. All three were chosen unanimously.

Aaron Commey was chosen as the party’s nominee for U.S. Senate. He is a State Committee member and was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Mayor of New York City in 2017.

In the evening, Kevin Wilson, Development Director for the Sharpe campaign and Chair of the Monroe County Libertarian Party, presented Andrew Hollister and Larry Sharpe, who gave speeches. Later in the evening, the Sharpe campaign held a campaign kickoff event that included a program of speakers.

On Sunday morning, newly-elected Chair Jim Rosenbeck gave opening remarks on the vision for the party moving forward. He was followed by Communications Director and Historical Committee Co-Chair Andrew Kolstee, who gave a presentation on the history preservation project and LPedia, and efforts to preserve the state party’s history. This was followed by the first state committee meeting for the 2018-19 State Committee. The convention was adjourned in the afternoon.

To learn more about Larry Sharpe’s campaign for governor and how you can help, visit www.larrysharpe.com and follow Larry on Facebook here.

To watch archived live streams of the convention, visit our Facebook page here.

68 thoughts on “LPNY Holds 46th Annual Convention; Larry Sharpe Nominated For Governor

  1. Fred Stein

    I can’t believe that Bill Weld who endorsed Hillary Clinton and said the prostitution was not a victimless crime was a speaker at the recent New York convention.

  2. Fred Stein

    I can’t believe that Bill Weld was an invited speaker at the recent New York convention. He endorsed Hillary Clinton during the campaign and said that prositution was not a victimless crime.

  3. Andy

    Bill Weld also said that assault rifles should be banned, and that hand guns are a problem, and that the federal government should create a task force that should be granted the power to strip people of their right to keep and bear arms, without a trail, in secret, and based on the whims of task force members. He also said that he supports the Obamacare mandate, the United Nations, the IRS and the present income tax system, and taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood (even the most rabidly pro-abortion libertarians have traditionally opposed taxpayer funding for abortion). He supported both wars in Iraq and the Patriot Act, and in a recent interview (post 2016 election) with Reason Magazine, he said that he thinks that the US military should “Sabre rattle” from time to time to project its military might by engaging in air strikes. He did say that marijuana should be taxed and regulated, which was one of his few quasi-libertarian stances (the purest libertarian position on marijuana is that it should be legal and untaxed and unregulated, of course) that he took, but he also said that the War on Drugs should continue against other drugs. Like Donald Trump, he has a record of supporting eminent domain to benefit corporate business interests. When he was Governor of Massachusetts, he signed gun control bills. He endorsed George HW Bush, George W. Bush twice, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney for President, and in September of 2015, he endorsed Jeb Bush for President, and in February of 2016, he endorsed John Kasich for President. He also broke his promise to the LP of New York when he conned them into nominating him as their candidate for Governor back in 2006, under the stipulation that he would remain in the race if he did not also win the Republican nomination for Governor, as New York is one of the few states that allows fusion (as in candidates running for office under more than one party label), by dropping out of the race after he lost the Republican nomination, therefore screwing the LP of NY over and causing them to scramble at the last minute to nominate another candidate for Governor.

    Why does anyone think that this man is even remotely libertarian? Why does anyone in the LP take this man seriously and want to book him to speak at their convention?

    This man is a disgrace, and should be run out of the Libertarian Party.

  4. Bondurant

    There’s nothing wrong with Weld speaking at a LP event but he should, under no circumstances, be deemed a credible candidate for office as a Libertarian.

  5. Andy

    Bill Weld came about as close to endorsing Hillary Clinton for President as one could get without flat out saying that he endorsed her for President.

  6. DJ

    If any place needs a Libertarian in a place of recognition it’s NY. I wish him well.

  7. Fred Stein

    Yes he did tell voters to vote for Hillary towards at the end of the campaign. It made all the news media outlets. Check it out. Also he said on national TV that he thought that prositution is not a victimless crimes. William Weld is not a Libertarian.

  8. Jim

    Weld’s strategy was to displace one of the two majors. His best chance of doing that was to tear down Trump. So, for the most part, he attacked Trump and tried to position Johnson and Hillary as the honest political opponents between whom the election ought to be decided. But he never hesitated to attack Hillary on both fiscal and foreign policy, including in the interview where you and Hillary’s supporters claim that Weld endorsed her.

    Chuck Todd: “Why would Gary Johnson make a better President than Hillary Clinton?”

    Bill Weld: “I think he’s got a very appealing policy mix. The number one issue would be fiscal policy. Gary and I both balanced our budgets and moved our states in more conservative fiscal directions. I think the next President has to do that or we’re going to hollow out the economy and we won’t have the strength economically to do all the wonderful things that Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton have promised are all going to be for free. It’s not for free just because the government printing presses are churning out the money. There’s actually no such thing as government money. There’s only taxpayer’s money. And the fact that Johnson and I were reelected by wide margins after having been fiscal conservatives in our first terms suggests to me that the voters, at the end of the day, do appreciate responsible fiscal stewardship.”

    Chuck Todd: “Do you believe he is more qualified to be President than Hillary Clinton?”

    Bill Weld: “I’m not sure anybody’s more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States. That’s not the end of the inquiry, though. We were two term Governor’s and I think Gary’s very, very solid. At this point, we overlapped as Governors and I thought highly of him back when we served together, but having spent the last several months with the guy, I don’t just like the guy, I love the guy. I think he’s very solid and deep. I think his insight that it pays to have some restraint about military incursions for the purpose of regime change, before we spill American blood on foreign soil, and put boots on the ground in countries where we just don’t like what the government in that country is doing. I think that’s a valuable insight. I’m not sure it characterizes the foreign policy of either of the the most recent Bush or the Obama administrations. I think that might be a refreshing change. I think he and I could bring a more tranquil approach to government in Washington because we wouldn’t be screaming at one of the two parties about how stupid they are.”

    Read in context, it becomes crystal clear that Weld was not endorsing Hillary. He was saying it doesn’t matter if Hillary is the most qualified – her policies are wrong.

  9. Fred Stein

    Yes, Weld told voters to vote for Hillary google the washington post and the ruth maddow show. It’s all there.

  10. Fred Stein

    You ARE WRONG GEORGE google the washington post and the ruth maddow show. It’s all there. WELD TELLS VOTERS TO VOTE HILLARY.

  11. Andy

    Bill Weld’s strategy was to continue the subversion of the Libertarian Party, thus turning the party, at least at the presidential ticket level (although this is not likely the only place where infiltration and subversion has taken place), into controlled opposition. The establishment does not the idea of there being a real opposition party that has ballot access in all 50 states plus DC, especially if that party has a platform that if implemented, could mean game over for the ruling establishment. The establishment knows that the LP is not in a position to win the presidential election (if the LP had a shot at this, the party would have to overcome vote fraud), but they’d prefer it if the general public never hears a strong libertarian message.

  12. Just Some Random Guy

    Yes, Weld told voters to vote for Hillary google the washington post and the ruth maddow show. It’s all there.

    I looked it up, though I’m not sure why you’re apparently unable to drop a link yourself. No, he did not tell people to vote for Hillary. Also, you make yourself look silly when you are apparently unaware of what Rachel Maddow’s name is.

  13. Andy

    Like I said above, Weld came about as close to endorsing Hillary Clinton as he could without flat out doing it.

    I do not know what is more disgusting, seeing this big government ruling establishment cretin Bill Weld getting on national television misrepresenting libertarianism and gushing over the horrible corrupt lying crooked statist, Hillary Clinton, or the fact that any Libertarian Party member still takes him seriously and wants him to speak at their state convention.

    Why is Bill Weld not being booed off stage at these LP State Conventions?

    Is the Libertarian Party a party of hardcore freedom fighters, or is it a party of unprincipled bootlicking cowards?

  14. Anthony Dlugos

    “Of all the state parties I am surprised LPNY in particular would have him after he burned them in 2006.”

    It’s called big boy politics, and i know you know that, even if you find it distasteful.

    Don’t take anything personal in this arena. its just business.

  15. wolfefan

    Hi Fred – if proving that Weld endorsed Clinton is as simple as googling the Post, why don’t you do it and share your results. Others who disagree with you have shown their work, and you can do the same.

    There is something sad but not surprising about an article regarding the nomination of a guy that a lot of people here seemed to like when he ran for the VP nomination devolving yet again into a discussion of Bill Weld or who is or isn’t a libertarian or almost anything besides Sharpe, the NY party, or any other candidate they nominated or action they took.

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    “There is something sad but not surprising about an article regarding the nomination of a guy that a lot of people here seemed to like when he ran for the VP nomination devolving yet again into a discussion of Bill Weld…”

    However, to be fair, the impetus behind Sharpe at the convention was that he was not-Weld. Governor Weld is to the Loserterian caucus what the USSR was to the Republican Party: the bugbear that holds the various losertarian factions together.

    Point being, until Governor Weld actually rules OUT a run for the 2020 nomination…and he would be dumb to do so…you can be sure the prospect of him being the standard bearer for the party will be an obsession for the Losertarians.

    I’m firmly convinced that, apart from his positions, it would be worth it for him to be the 2020 nominee based alone on who he would drive out of the party. That is not to say we wouldn’t lose some good people, but it would be worth it to lose them if it meant also losing the Pharisees and Sadducees, the hard-right paleos, racists, and xenophobes, the snake oil salesmen who think they can run for president with zero experience, the lilliputians who vacuously call experience in office a “shiny badge” and who prefer a small party they can run rather than a large party they are unqualified to run, and the anti-staters who’s obsession with hating the state makes them ineffectual allies.

  17. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    April 26, 2018 at 06:44
    ‘Of all the state parties I am surprised LPNY in particular would have him after he burned them in 2006.’

    It’s called big boy politics, and i know you know that, even if you find it distasteful.

    Don’t take anything personal in this arena. its just business.”

    You mean the business of screwing people over.

  18. Anthony Dlugos

    I mean the business of realizing everyone is self-interested. Or have we Libertarians found angels in the form of NAPsters?

  19. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “I’m firmly convinced that, apart from his positions, it would be worth it for him to be the 2020 nominee based alone on who he would drive out of the party. That is not to say we wouldn’t lose some good people,”

    This is an example of why Anthony Dlugos has no credibility and should not be taken seriously by anyone in libertarian circles.

  20. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    April 26, 2018 at 11:15
    I mean the business of realizing everyone is self-interested. Or have we Libertarians found angels in the form of NAPsters?”

    Self interest does not override principle. It may serve my self interest in stealing money out of your wallet, but this would not make me stealing money out of your wallet a morally justifiable act.

  21. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    I’m firmly convinced that, apart from his positions, it would be worth it for [Bill Weld] to be the 2020 nominee based alone on who he would drive out of the party. That is not to say we wouldn’t lose some good people, but it would be worth it

    Some have said that is exactly what Arvin Vohra was doing to the hysterical LINOs. So now you endorse that alleged strategy?

  22. Andy

    “Bondurant
    April 24, 2018 at 12:38
    There’s nothing wrong with Weld speaking at a LP event but he should, under no circumstances, be deemed a credible candidate for office as a Libertarian.”

    I disagree. Bill Weld is a guy who lied and screwed over the Libertarian Party twice. The first time was in the New York gubernatorial race in 2006, and the second time after being nominated as the LP’s vice presidential candidate, he ran blatantly ran against the LP’s platform on multiple issues, plus he was specifically asked if he had changed his stance on gun rights at the national convention, and he claimed that he had, and then right after the national convention he started advocating for more gun control laws again.

    This man has proven that he has no loyalty to the Libertarian Party, or to the cause of liberty.

    Inviting him to speak at a convention is basically rewarding his bad behavior. It sends a message to him,
    and to those like him, that Libertarians don’t really give a shit about principles, and that you can stab Libertarians in the back and they will let you get away with it.

    The only reason I could see for inviting him to a convention would be if it was to be used as an opportunity to debate him, and/or to berate him in a public forum.

  23. George Phillies

    Chuck, if you add up teh folks Vohra was making uncomfortable, and the folks Weld is making uncomfortable, and subtract them all from the LP,there is vary little left.

  24. George Phillies

    “This is an example of why Anthony Dlugos has no credibility and should not be taken seriously by anyone in libertarian circles.”

    You got that one right, Andy.

  25. Anthony Dlugos

    CM writes:

    “Some have said that is exactly what Arvin Vohra was doing to the hysterical LINOs. So now you endorse that alleged strategy?”

    I endorse is as a beneficial happenstance to nominating a qualified candidate who can appeal to the voters and who can begin the process of reducing the size and scope of government. My statement was meant a little tongue-in-cheek, but if we want to be serious about “Dueling Purges” then lets be serious about it:

    One of these purges (the Weld Way) is welcoming of deviations from dogma, speaking the “Be Libertarian With Me” message of a “six-lane highway going right up the middle, and we’ve got one party to the left of us and one party to the right of us,” to a country sick of partisanship and so leads to viability and the chance to effect some positive change in this country.

    One of these purges (the Vohra Vituperation) is not just intolerant of the SLIGHTEST deviation from dogma, it is savage in its punishment of said deviations, such as calling gay people who don’t stand for abolishment of Age of Consent laws hypocrites, and calling service members “accessories to murder.” The Vituperative Caucus either celebrates such savagery, or explains it away as the private musings of one man that decent people should just ignore. This path leads to complete devolution to an angry, dark, vicious cult that gets absolutely nothing accomplished, except reinforcing its dismal belief that “no one gets it except us” with mindless shibboleths like “taxation is theft.”

  26. Anthony Dlugos

    GP writes,

    “Chuck, if you add up teh [sic] folks Vohra was making uncomfortable, and the folks Weld is making uncomfortable, and subtract them all from the LP,there is vary little left.”

    and

    ‘“This is an example of why Anthony Dlugos has no credibility and should not be taken seriously by anyone in libertarian circles.”

    You got that one right, Andy.’

    GP,

    a) With regard to your first comment, you’re assuming a static organization with no hope of getting bigger. This is not surprising, because if there is anyone appears to want this party to stay a small pond that you’re in charge of, its you.

    Of course, as I noted in my above comment, there is a way to grow this party, and it doesn’t involve Vohra’s assholery.

    b) With regard to your second comment agreeing with Andy. I would remind you that you are agreeing with a xenophobic, racist, conspiratorial hard right Troofer. I am not suggesting you are any of these things, but I am suggesting you should consider the company you keep, and the kind of organization that would result from such company.

  27. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos: “b) With regard to your second comment agreeing with Andy. I would remind you that you are agreeing with a xenophobic, racist, conspiratorial hard right Troofer. I am not suggesting you are any of these things, but I am suggesting you should consider the company you keep, and the kind of organization that would result from such company.”

    More lies, exaggerations, and smears from Anthony Dlugos in order to deflect from the fact that he favors nominating a candidate who is very far out of line with the Libertarian Party’s platform, and who has displayed zero loyalty to the Libertarian Party, or the overall cause of liberty, as the LP’s presidential candidate in 2020, in Bill Weld.

    Perhaps George Phillies remembers how Bill Weld recently displayed his loyalty to the Libertarian Party in Massachusetts, by not bothering to attend their state convention, so he could attend a fundraising event for the Republican Party in Massachusetts, where money was raised for Republican candidates who were not remotely libertarian.

  28. George Phillies

    Andy probably also believes the sun rises at the horizon. And it does, no matter his beliefs.
    Dlugos’s claim that I want to be in charge of the Libertarian party is unusually wrong, even for the internet.
    Readers will note he is on the same web page as Andy much more often than I am. (8^))

  29. dL

    I’m firmly convinced that, apart from his positions, it would be worth it for him to be the 2020 nominee based alone on who he would drive out of the party. That is not to say we wouldn’t lose some good people

    Just to be clear, if Weld were to, say, flip flop on abortion, you would be leaving too, correct?

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2018/02/libertarian-party-national-platform.html#comment-3779179881
    Better not be a change away from the pro-choice position, or I will register as a Democrat.
    Anthony Dlugos

  30. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “a) With regard to your first comment, you’re assuming a static organization with no hope of getting bigger. This is not surprising, because if there is anyone appears to want this party to stay a small pond that you’re in charge of, its you.”

    What evidence is there that Bill Weld is growing the Libertarian Party? LP dues paying membership has dropped post election, and dues paying membership is less than half of what it was 18 years ago.

    I spoke to two people who tried to do fundraising off of the Johnson/Weld fundraising list, and they said that a lot of the people they called told them that they had no interest in the LP, and that they only donated because they were trying to swing the results of the presidential election.

    Most of the comments that I’ve heard from the general public about Bill Weld have been negative, and the few positive comments I have gotten about Weld have been from people who are not remotely libertarian.

    The overall consensus about Bill Weld that I have heard from the greater libertarian community has been overwhelmingly negative. I was at the recent Anarchapulco event in Acapulco, Mexico, which was attended by more than 1,700 people, and the subject of the Johnson/Weld ticket came up multiple times during this event, and everyone there that I heard talk about this did not have anything good to say about the campaign, and they all particularly despised Bill Weld.

    Even if Bill Weld did bring a lot of new people into the Libertarian Party, if they are as far out of line with the Libertarian Party’s platform as he is, that would not be a good thing.

  31. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “I endorse is as a beneficial happenstance to nominating a qualified candidate who can appeal to the voters and who can begin the process of reducing the size and scope of government.”

    Neither Gary Johnson or Bill Weld reduced the size of government during their terms as governors. State spending and state debt doubled under Gary Johnson, and when it came to granting pardons, he only pardoned around 124 or 128 (it was in that range) people during the 8 years he was Governor or New Mexico, and he only pardoned these people after they had already served their sentences behind bars. Bill Weld made trivial cuts to the size of government during the first year or two that he was Governor of Massachusetts, but by the time he left office he had grown the size of government to being bigger than it was prior to him becoming governor. He also signed new gun control laws as Governor.

    Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were unqualified to be Libertarian Party candidates.

  32. Anthony Dlugos

    “Andy probably also believes the sun rises at the horizon. And it does, no matter his beliefs.”

    I don’t know what you are getting at GP. Andy’s political beliefs obviously are germane to the direction the Libertarian Party should take, given that he is a member. Its not irrelevant information, say, like his position on the designated hitter.

    As I said, I’m not suggesting you are the hard right Troofer xenophobe he is. I am suggesting you are obsessed about a common enemy: anyone electable, which means anyone with a non-dogmatic message that appeals to the typical voter. I think electable, qualified politicians are a good thing and something that will grow the party. You call people such as me the “Shiny Badge Caucus” blithely unaware of how vacuous such a statement is. As if the American voters are gonna turn public offices over to a bunch of political neophyte..

    When you remove the electable and decent, moderate people, of course you are left with only screwballs and nuts.

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    “Just to be clear, if Weld were to, say, flip flop on abortion, you would be leaving too, correct?”

    Incorrect.

    That comment you linked to is with regard to the party platform itself, not any particular candidate. Justin Amash is pro-life. I can assure you if the 2020 nomination was down to Amash and some screwball radical, i would be casting my ballot for Amash, as disappointing as his position is on medical choice.

    But, if you want to scare me away, make the party platform unequivocally anti-choice. I’d leave.

  34. Anthony Dlugos

    “What evidence is there that Bill Weld is growing the Libertarian Party? LP dues paying membership has dropped post election, and dues paying membership is less than half of what it was 18 years ago.”

    It’s irrelevant to make comparisons of membership totals between different years in the LP history. First of all, the differences are marginal at best. Second of all, no matter what the membership totals are, they pale in comparison to where we need to be. If you are going to create a soft drink to take on Pepsi and Coke, why you sold 12,000 cans in 2017 and 14,000 cans in 2016 is really quite irrelevant. In order to take on those behemoths, you have to have a soft drink that can appeal to millions of soft drink consumers. Until then, worrying about minuscule sales totals is pointless.

    Premise: We have NEVER even remotely approached competing with the Demopublicans. Not even close. Not in 45 years.

    Conclusion: There is something seriously wrong with our product. We ain’t a few tweaks shy of success.

    The most moderate presidential ticket in LP history tripled the vote total of the previous high water mark for the presidential ticket, which was ALSO a moderate ticket. Not to mention that said moderate ticket easily defeated the radical ticket in a room full of Libertarians. Unless you are going to suggest to me that the American public is MORE libertarian than the collected libertarian delegates at the 2016 Convention, we have pretty strong circumstantial evidence of what direction the LP needs to take.

    Why even have this discussion? Most radicals I know are opposed to growing the party if it means losing the dogma.

  35. dL

    But, if you want to scare me away, make the party platform unequivocally anti-choice. I’d leave.

    And you are talking out both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you tirelessly harp that winning elections trumps principle. You know, big boy stuff. Yet, you put your foot down like a petulant child when it comes to certain principles that apparently matter most to you. Anyone not burdened by having complete shit for brains should realize that your hard on for weakening principle in the name of some pie in the sky expediency invites the very thing you claim to oppose(the right wing gutter) and ends with you storming out of the tent blaming purists.

  36. Andy

    The most watered down LP presidential ticket in history did get more votes than all past LP tickets, but they also did it in a year that happened to have the easiest set of circumstances under which the LP has ever run a presidential ticket.

    It you took a past LP presidential ticket that was more hardcore libertarian, like say Harry Browne and Art Olivier from 2000, and transported them to 2016, they would have rereceived a lot more votes than they got in 2000, and they would have done so under a much stronger libertarian message.

  37. Andy

    I disagree that there was a room full of Libertarians present as delegates in Orlando in 2016. Sure, everyone there joined the party, but I do not believe that all of the delegates who voted for Johnson and Weld were really libertarians. Somethig was “off” about some of those people, and I am not the only one there who noticed that.

  38. Anthony Dlugos

    don’t know what you are talking about, dL. You’ll have to dumb it down for me.

    I said if the party went full-on anti-choice, I would leave. Not storm out. That’s not a petulant child. That’s an adult. Vohra was the one acting like a petulant child, sticking around and throwing a fit. Petulance is baked into the radical attitude.

    I also said previously I am adult enough to understand that its a pipe dream to think the entire party (as in every member, every candidate, every state affiliate) is going to be pro-choice. That’s absurd.

  39. robert capozzi

    aj: Harry Browne and Art Olivier from 2000, and transported them to 2016, they would have rereceived a lot more votes than they got in 2000

    me: Maybe, and it depends on your definition of “a lot.” Browne/Olivier lacked the shiny badges that J/W have. J/W were actually qualified to do the job in that they have experience running large government bureaucracies. Both tickets got most of the core L vote, but the incremental vote was probably some pure protest voters and some who actually liked their message. Both tickets had other 3rd party competition in at least many states.

    How many more pure protest votes Browne/Olivier might have gotten in 16 is pure speculation, but it’s highly unlikely they might have gotten many non-core L votes from those who actually liked their message.

    Mostly, I suspect B/O was mostly about preaching to the choir. It’s a small, 0.5-2% of the population choir. This particular choir likes hearing esoteric hypotheticals in their hymnals; few else do.

  40. Andy

    Browne/Olivier had to contend with two higher profile and better funded third party candidates in Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan. Johnson/Weld did not have to contend with any higher profile or better funded candidates. Sure, Jill Stein was in the race as the Green Party’s candidate, but she was only on the ballot in 44 states plus DC, and she was less known and less funded than Johnson.

  41. Anon-Tipper Post author

    Anthony,

    I guess this whole thread turned into a re-litigation of the pragmatist/radical/purist debate. The thing is, Anthony, and I think you might agree with this, I don’t think your exact problem is with radicals, but the toxic people (the anti-immigration “an”caps that go off the rails). If Weld drives away all radicals it will also drive away the non-toxic ones and some to the left-libertarian anarchists that are also opposed to the noxious right-wing hoppean tainted “an”capism.

    I have a knee jerk reaction to anything described “radical” because I end up thinking about the ancap type people (the Radical Caucus had post from LvMI, Ron Paul etc. last time I looked and one of them supported Augustus) (Just looked now and don’t see any LvMI stuff, so things seem to be improving!), but I’ve been trying to keep in mind the other types of radicals and anarchists. And maybe keep in mind that using Weld to drive away people you think are bad for the party (and I agree with you that noxious right-wingers need to go) is part of the same tactics people like the Mises Caucus are trying to do by getting their people in positions on the LNC to drive away anyone left of far-right nuttery.

    And I’m someone who is not an anarchist (more left-leaning though) but I think I can deal with a party with anarchists like people in the LibSoc caucus (or anyone non-toxic really) over people in the Mises Caucus and can recognize that they have a lot of the same goals as me (and are consistently anti-fascist). Just some thoughts.

  42. paulie

    the toxic people (the anti-immigration “an”caps that go off the rails). If Weld drives away all radicals it will also drive away the non-toxic ones and some to the left-libertarian anarchists that are also opposed to the noxious right-wing hoppean tainted “an”capism.

    I have a knee jerk reaction to anything described “radical” because I end up thinking about the ancap type people (the Radical Caucus had post from LvMI, Ron Paul etc. last time I looked and one of them supported Augustus) (Just looked now and don’t see any LvMI stuff, so things seem to be improving!), but I’ve been trying to keep in mind the other types of radicals and anarchists. And maybe keep in mind that using Weld to drive away people you think are bad for the party (and I agree with you that noxious right-wingers need to go) is part of the same tactics people like the Mises Caucus are trying to do by getting their people in positions on the LNC to drive away anyone left of far-right nuttery.

    As one of those left-libertarian free market anarchists I agree. Let’s get the far reich national-anarchists, America First fascists and racists out of the party and movement and then we can get back to a reasonable Dallas Accord between libertarian anarchists and moderates. I used to have an equally negative reaction to libertarian moderates or self-styled pragmatists because I associated them with Tea Party conservatarian fusionism a la Barr/Root. But I guess the real problem is not with either anarchists or moderates, it’s with right wingers – both the Barr/Root types and the more extreme Invictus/Ramsey/Hoppe types. The sooner and more completely we break with the right wing in all its forms the better off the party and movement will be.

  43. robert capozzi

    aj: Browne/Olivier had to contend with two higher profile and better funded third party candidates in Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan.

    Me: True. Had Nader not been in the race, I’m not sure that would have led to many votes for B/O. They might have gotten a sliver of Buchanan’s, Phillips, and Hagelin’s votes, mostly as a protest vehicle. Maybe they’d have clocked in around 500,000, still less than 0.5%.

    Actual B/O supporters other than the 500,000 NAPster core? Likely almost none.

  44. Andy

    Political parties are coalitions. All political parties have different factions and engage in I fighting/internal debate. This is the nature of politics.

    I have not joined the Mises Caucus (at least at this time), but as a long time fan of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Lew Rockwell.com, I am sympathetic to them.

    Having said this, the only people I would really like to see out of the LP are the obvious fakes like Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, (I would say Bob Barr and Wayne Root, but they are already gone), and people like them.

    I find some of the left leaning Libertarians to be annoying, but I do not really wish to drive them out of the party. I am also not as conservative or right leaning as some people have made me out to be recently (oddly, it was not that long ago when there seemed to be more people accusing me of being too far to the left), as I favor a complete end to the War on Drugs, I think gays should be able to marry (ideally, government should be out of marriage, but as an interim, I do not have a problem with the state licensing gay marriage, although I do have a big problem with gays using government to force bake shop owners to bake cakes for their weddings), I favor repealing laws against prostitution and gambling. I support free speech, including offensive speech (offensive to all kinds of people). I am vehemently anti-military imperialism and warrantless domestic spying.

    I generally think that keeping the pro-liberty coalition is better, even though there are certainly disagreements within the movement, than seeing it splinter apart, like the old sayings, “United we stand, and divided we fall,” and, “We shall all hang together, or surely we shall hang separately.”

  45. Andy

    Robert Cappozi said: “Me: True. Had Nader not been in the race, I’m not sure that would have led to many votes for B/O. They might have gotten a sliver of Buchanan’s, Phillips, and Hagelin’s votes, mostly as a protest vehicle. Maybe they’d have clocked in around 500,000, still less than 0.5%.

    Actual B/O supporters other than the 500,000 NAPster core? Likely almost none.”

    There were a lot more factors that benefited the 2016 ticket and were not favorable to the 2000 ticket.

    1) The word libertarian was less known in 2000 than it was in 2016 (the increase is in large part thanks to the Ron Paul r3VOlution of 2007-2012).

    2) There were a lot more people online in 2016 than in 2000.

    3) The general public was more disgusted with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump than they were with Al Gore and George W. Bush.

    4) Not only did Browne have to contend with the higher profile and better funded Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan, he also had to contend with Howard Philips of the Constitution Party, and John Hegelin of the Natual Law Party, both of whom qualified for a significant number of state ballots. Gary Johnson only had to contend with Jill Stein, who was less known and less funded than 2000 GP nominee, Ralph Nader, and who made the ballot in 44 states plus DC. After this, the next candidate in terms of ballot access that Johnson had to compete with in 2016 was Darrell Castle, who only qualified in 24 states, which is less than what CP nominee Howard Philips had in terms of ballot access in 2000, Rocky de la Fuente, whose campaign was barely a blip on the radar screen, as he made the ballot in 23 states, but only got 33,000 votes, and Evan McMullin, who only qualified for the ballot in 10 states. Gary Johnson was the only candidate on the ballot besides the Clinton and Trump in North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, and Oklahoma.

    5) The LP came into the 2016 election season in better shape ballot access wise than it had ever been in during a presidential year, thanks in large part to work done by various state parties, and the LNC, as well as some states that had a vote test for Governor in 2014 re-qualifying for the ballot (like Maryland), and also some changes in the ballot access laws which were to the LP’s favor (like in Oklahoma, where the signature requirement was greatly reduced).

  46. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Sure.

    Do you disagree that likely many J/W voters voted for them because they were credible? Both were former governors vs author, or consumer activist, or doctor, or pundit, or fundraiser, or physics prof, lovely people all, but none qualified to be president.

    Let’s be real.

  47. dL

    don’t know what you are talking about, dL. You’ll have to dumb it down for me.

    Ok…I think you’re talkin out your ass

  48. Andy

    The vast majority of people I have talked to who said they voted for Johnson/Weld said they did so because they did not like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. It was more of a protest vote than anything else.

  49. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Right, once again, this is your anecdotal findings. Yes, you probably have a more varied sampling than most. You also have a confirmation bias, hearing what you want to hear. And, yes, of course, a lot of the J/W voters were protest-voters. The difference is that this time, the protesters voted for a ticket that was qualified for the job.

  50. robert capozzi

    more….

    Counting non-voters, 99% of people you meet did not vote for J/W. Only 1-2% or so did. For you to get meaningful data, you would need a massive survey before any statistically valid conclusions can be reached.

    We can’t know exactly why someone votes the way s/he does. Yes, based on the polling, both DJT and HRC have high negatives, and that opened up the possibility of voting 3rd party. It so happens that this ticket made it easier for the disgusted to vote. In other years, they might not have voted at all.

  51. Andy

    Robert, I have heard reports from other petition circulators about responses to the Johnson/Weld ticket,, some of whom are not libertarians, and the data they reported to me is the same as what I received, as in the most of the people who voted for Johnson/Weld did so as a protest vote because they did not like Clinton or Trump, and that there were a lot of negative responses about the ticket from people who are otherwise sympathetic to Libertarians and/or other minor party or independent candidates.

  52. Anon-Tipper

    Paulie: “But I guess the real problem is not with either anarchists or moderates, it’s with right wingers – both the Barr/Root types and the more extreme Invictus/Ramsey/Hoppe types. The sooner and more completely we break with the right wing in all its forms the better off the party and movement will be.”

    I think a lot of the fighting has been in the wrong direction. I agree with many of the radicals though that compromising on positions, especially on ones that people use to go “well there’s a libertarian case against immigration” is dangerous. I think there’s hope, even beltway groups and people have tried to re-claim libertarian anti-racist past, Jeffrey Tucker is trying to get people to realize the threat is now the right. I can be pretty pessimistic, but I have hope that there are enough good people to turn this around.

  53. John Clifton

    As a past LPNY State Chair and its 2006 candidate for Governor, I am overjoyed at the nomination of Larry Sharpe, and anticipate he will succeed in finally obtaining permanent ballot status for the LP through his run this year. I also concur with the sense of betrayal left with the party by its experiences with William Weld, past and present.

    As for his comment on prostitution, the dividing issue for Libertarians in applying the “victimless” definition is the background worldview of the holder. Left-libertarians have tended to be secular and humanistic in their perspective, thus hold the only issue is whether there is consent between human persons. That is, they have a view that defacto equates the LP with secularism and social liberalism.

    Right-libertarians tend to prioritize a belief in a real God, whose person and moral law is victimized by violations of it by human beings even if all humans involved consent to the action. This divide will not be resolved anythime soon, but for now it is helpful that unifying figures like Sharpe will representing the party and its core opposition to aggression.

  54. paulie

    You also have a confirmation bias, hearing what you want to hear.

    Bingo. I’ve talked to plenty of people with a variety of reactions/recollections about the last LP ticket. Some positive some negative. Andy always hears what he wants to hear.

  55. paulie

    Right-libertarians tend to prioritize a belief in a real God, whose person and moral law is victimized by violations of it by human beings even if all humans involved consent to the action.

    I think you mean right-authoritarians. This is not any kind of libertarian view.

  56. Anthony Dlugos

    Anon-Tipper writes,

    “The thing is, Anthony, and I think you might agree with this, I don’t think your exact problem is with radicals, but the toxic people (the anti-immigration “an”caps that go off the rails). ”

    You’re absolutely correct: my problem is not with radicals per se. Its with radicals who either implicitly or explicitly deny the ground rules of the arena (electoral politics) that we are playing in.

    I want to make clear that this is not ad hoc reasoning in order to engender support for my preferred candidates/platform/direction for the LP. I frankly don’t care what formulation of libertarianism maximizes vote totals. All I care about is that the party does what it takes to maximize said totals. I didn’t set the ground rules for the sport; the Libertarian Party didn’t set the ground rules for the sport. We as a party CHOSE to compete in a sport where vote totals are what counts. Hell, our own INTERNAL debates are settled by who ends up with more votes. Before we get into the direction this party should take, we need to agree as to what the metric is going to be for determining who is right.

    It a little late for anyone…radical or otherwise, to step foot into the political arena and then either implicitly or explicitly suggest something other than vote totals are our primary concern. Its more than a little late…its immediately concerning for me, because I have to think such a person is one of three things:

    a) an idiot.
    b) a dangerous person with ulterior motives.
    c) a genuine person who inadvertently ends up running interference for a) or b) or both.

    You’ll note from my previous burbling at this site that I am nothing if not consistent: find the support for your particular formulation of libertarianism, even if its radical libertarianism, and I’ll get behind your candidate/platform. If you think that there is a hidden well of support for a radical message in the nation at large, then present your candidate that represents that message, and lets see what we see. I think there is a surfeit of evidence that contradicts such a theory, but I’m willing to have such a debate play out. And in there is only one way such a debate can resolve itself in the electoral arena: whoever has more votes, wins. Its that simple. If you can’t find that support, I have very little sympathy for you. These are the rules of the game.

    The rules being what they are, the question of what to do about the proximate threat of the alt-right becomes a very simple matter. Are there more voters out in the public for a radical libertarian message on, say, immigration, questioning not just the federal government’s immigration policy, but whether borders should exist at all? Or are there more votes for a more moderate libertarian message on immigration that improves upon the current federal government policy without complicating the matter with esoteric talk about Borderless Planet Earth?

    Choose the policy that gets us more votes. I don’t care which one it is. But you better have some evidence your way is gonna get us more votes. Otherwise, we got no use for you.

  57. Andy

    I do not no of anyone who is anti-immigration. Surely not I. I have never suggested that all immigration be shut down. What I have suggested, is that people with Marxist or theocratic or other totalitarian ideologies, as well as welfare seekers, criminals, and people with communicable diseases, be weeded out, at least as much as possible. Could some sneak in anyway? Sure, but if they do they should not be rewarded with government benefits or citizenship. How do you do this? Stop offering government welfare programs to foreign migrants. Stop inviting people with totalitarian ideologies and/or non-productive people to come here. Make the citizenship requirements more difficult (this works well in Lechtenstein, which ranks high on the freedom and prosperity index). Make the citizenship process more difficult. Design a teat that requires a thorough understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, as well as free market economics, and a special class on the right to keep and bear arms, which would include trips to a firing range. Statistics clearing indicate that a super-majority of modern day “immigrants” to the USA favor welfare statism and gun control, both of which are anti-American points of view, and are repugnant to the US Constitution. The fact that the Deparment of Immigration and Naturalization is swearing in large numbers of these people who hold anti-American, anti-liberty views means that the people running this department are engaging in fraud on an epic level, as part of the Naturalization process includes swearing an oath to the US Constitution.

    My proposal does not shut down immigration. My proposal also does not shut down foreign guest workers, students, and tourists. My proposal is merely to weed out destructive and/or non-productive people, and to not reward people who sneak into the country. The simple steps of not offering these people access to government programs, and making the citizenship process more difficult, would go a long way towards fixing the problem.

    The above proposal is merely an interim step, as the purist libertarian solution is to privatize everything and abolish the state, and leave borders/migration/immigration up to private property owners.

    It is funny how some so called libertarians will accept incrementalism when it comes to things like taxes (the purist position is to abolish all taxes,
    not just reduce them), marijuana (medical marijuana and taxing and regulating marijuana are not purist positions), and gay marriage (state licensing is not a purist position), yet when it comes to immigration, they want to immediately implement a policy where the government allows the entry of unlimited numbers of people, with no questions asked, in spite of the fact that we live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of taxpayer funded property/infrastructure. I have to wonder if these so called libertarians are just not very good or consistent when it comes to actually implementing libertarianism in the real world (non-peaceful people crossing borders does not increase liberty), or if they have some other priorities that are not really inline with the principles of liberty.

  58. Anthony Dlugos

    “What I have suggested, is that people with Marxist or theocratic or other totalitarian ideologies, as well as welfare seekers, criminals, and people with communicable diseases, be weeded out, at least as much as possible. Could some sneak in anyway? Sure, but if they do they should not be rewarded with government benefits or citizenship. How do you do this? Stop offering government welfare programs to foreign migrants. Stop inviting people with totalitarian ideologies and/or non-productive people to come here. ”

    You’re too xenophobic and racist to figure out that giving the federal government such authority IS creating a totalitarian state.

  59. Andy

    All governments regulate who crosses international borders. There is no country where people can waltz in with no questions asked.

    We do not live in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, and no such place exists, and even if such place did exist, migration across private property borders would be regulated by private property owners.

    Even in our present world, there are private communities, and even a few defacto private cities. Disney World is somewhat of a private city. These type of places all regulate who enters their borders and under what terms.

    So government is just handling a function which would still exist in a private property anarcho-capitalist society in regard to regulating borders/migration/immigration. Private actors are prohibited from doing this in our present society, so this function is being monopolized by the state. So given that the state is monopolizing thus function, the policy that is in place should not be one that is destructive or overwhelming to the existing population.

  60. paulie

    My proposal does not shut down immigration. My proposal also does not shut down foreign guest workers, students, and tourists. My proposal is merely to weed out destructive and/or non-productive people

    And you want to put the US Government in charge of determining who is or isn’t desirable? Good luck with that.

  61. paulie

    It is funny how some so called libertarians will accept incrementalism when it comes to things like taxes (the purist position is to abolish all taxes, not just reduce them), marijuana (medical marijuana and taxing and regulating marijuana are not purist positions), and gay marriage (state licensing is not a purist position), yet when it comes to immigration, they want to immediately implement a policy where the government allows the entry of unlimited numbers of people, with no questions asked

    I’m all for incremental policies which make immigration easier, not harder. How is this complicated? Do you want to make it easier or harder to cross national borders? State lines?

Leave a Reply

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