Deadline to apply for Libertarian National Platform committee is this week (Nov. 16)


The Libertarian National Committee is looking to appoint ten people to serve on the Platform Committee in preparation for the 2010 Libertarian National Convention.

Committee members will be expected to expend an appreciable amount of their time in the months leading up to the Convention; and due to the anticipated amount of work, they will be expected to incur considerable travel costs, at personal expense, for meetings prior to the Convention, in addition to attendance at the Libertarian National Convention in 2010.

So that members of the Libertarian National Committee can determine who might best fill seats on the Platform Committee, each applicant is requested to draft and submit via e-mail three proposed or modified platform planks to no later than November 16, 2008.

27 thoughts on “Deadline to apply for Libertarian National Platform committee is this week (Nov. 16)

  1. Catholic Trotskyist

    I will be applying to this committee, in an attempt to transform the platform into one in line with Catholic Trotskyism. Then the radicals and reformers would finally get along as they unite against me.

  2. Libertarian Joseph

    I’d eliminate that pledge you have to make when joining…

    I would tone down the utopianism

    I would be more specific on abortion. no federal position, leave to states

  3. Libertarian Joseph

    Unless you want to be an organization to educate people on libertarian ideas….

    you should leave much of the platform to the states. I can already see how environment policy turns off many, many people. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in free market environmentalism, but most do not… besides, wouldn’t it be the states that create the policies anyway?

  4. Libertarian Joseph

    better yet…

    energy policy: get rid of dept of energy

    education policy: get rid of dept of education

    national security policy: get rid of homeland security

    the federal government is nothing but an organization created by the states. like a UN type of thing. the states should hold more power

  5. Libertarian Joseph

    1. shrink the federal government down to merely an instrument of the states

    2. make association voluntary at the state level, meaning landowners could choose to “opt out” of their state

    a “state” can be voluntary, as long as the property owner’s of each state all agree to be members of their states. otherwise, no. they can chose to be sovereign landowners.

    America has been built on alot of statism, that’s why it’s awkwardto think about voluntaryism WORKING, but it’s possible…

  6. Libertarian Joseph

    then we would truly have an anarchism/voluntaryism

    and no, you wouldn’t need to be a landowner to “opt out”

    you just leave the organization. like you would leave the ACLU, it should be that simple.

  7. Libertarian Joseph

    but that’s all subjective. anywho, is there any other option tha federalism? leaving mostissues to states. if we end the war on drugs, do we go and mandate that states legalize them as well?

    Kubby said: “states have no rights, individuals have rights”

    I like it. but can we rationally argue in favor of centralizing power?

  8. paulie cannoli Post author


    This post is actually not intended as a forum for proposed platform planks, although I don’t care if you want to keep posting about that here.

    It’s actually just notice for those people who DO want to help craft the next platform that there is a looming deadline to apply to be on that committee. Otherwise, you will have little input, if any.

  9. Melty Rox

    For months I’ve been saying that just by removing the euphemisms (namely “gender” and “healthcare”) one would greatly improve the platform, but few seem to recognize the importance of doing so.

    Incidently, I applaud Brian Holtz’s efforts in drafting the current platform. Now streamlined, it’s far better than the previous, and much more workable for the incoming Platform Committee.

    As it stands, less is still more. It could be terser yet.

  10. Libertarian Joseph

    It depends on what you want the FEDERAL government to do. It says we should have free market healthcare. But how do you do enact this at the federal level, unless you oppose state’s rights? Unless you want to centralize power? I don’t get it. Is the platform about how Washington DC will operate?

  11. Melty Rox

    I too think that’s the kind of question to be asking, Joseph. I think there should be some commonality, … where there’s strong consensus only, bring it up, …a bare-bones platform for the candidates to flesh out.

    Oh well, …folks with more fortitude than us will fill those posts. I’m all talk, and my excuse is I’m overseas.

  12. Melty Rox

    It’s the buzzword “healthcare” that’s so offensive. It’s the going euphemism for “socialized Medicine”. I say call it like it is.

    The platform should be (about) what the party overwhelmingly agrees upon. Is there any such thing?

  13. Libertarian Joseph

    Yup. Where we agree:

    we oppose socialized medcine

    we oppose the war on drugs

    we oppose illegal wars

    we oppose involuntary socialized education

  14. paulie cannoli Post author

    For months I’ve been saying that just by removing the euphemisms (namely “gender” and “healthcare”) one would greatly improve the platform, but few seem to recognize the importance of doing so.

    Well, see, that’s just what this thread is about. If you want to have any input on the platform, you need to email out those platform planks. have you done that? You have less than five days.

  15. Libertarian Joseph

    At the federal level, it’s more about what we’re against rather than what we are for.

    The federal government is nothing but a united state sanctioned organization. The states are to the federal government what the federal UN is to the federal government.

    Why was the federal gov created? to create a unifying voice for all states, to conduct foreign affairs, etc. Not to declare war on a plant and trample on its state sponsors

  16. Libertarian Joseph

    damnit. Messed that part up.

    Anyway, we need to set our agenda t the federal level, not the libertarian philosophy. How do we create a free market system at the federal level? That implies that we are going to ignore the policies of states. Are we going to overrule state governments? Otherwise…. there’s no reason even stating we are for free markets in our national party’s platform.

    but that’s just my opinion 🙂

  17. paulie cannoli Post author

    The way I have heard it explained, they want to make sure that you know how to write and have at least some work ethic.

    Submitting sample planks does not mean you intend to actually submit those planks.

    Also, I suppose for anyone not known to the LNC members personally, it helps them to gauge what kind of ideas they have, so they can strike what they consider the proper balance on the committee.

  18. Melty Rox

    hmmm… it’s doubtful that I’ll be living in the Western Hemisphere in the near future. If I’d send plank ideas, it would not be as a serious applicant. Would it be of any consequence to send something anyway, Paulie?

  19. paulie cannoli Post author

    Well, last time after the committee was appointed, they set up one or more fora – yahoo group, blog page – where interested party members who are not on the committee could provide their input.

    I can’t guarantee that this will happen again, but it probably will, and I hope it does. If you decide to participate in the process, you may well be able to, although you will not have a vote on the committee.

  20. Steve LaBianca

    Peter Orvetti // Nov 12, 2008 at 9:36 am

    The platform is fine the way it is.

    No REAL Libertarian Party member would EVER say that!!!

    I believe that I am a “REAL Libertarian”, and I absolutely do NOT say that. I think the current platform, the so-called “directional” platform as opposed to the originally crafted “principled” platform is extremely inappropriate.

    The problem isn’t so much that it is anti-libertarian, but that it leaves so much out. Plus, it doesn’t (as far as I can tell) relate its directional nature (ie. each plank), back to the guiding, philosophical or economic principle, which IS libertarianism. Simply working TOWARD libertarianism isn’t libertarianism per se. Working TOWARD achieving a libertarian society is a STRATEGY, and if LP’ers want a document to emphasize strategy, fine. Let’s craft one, a sort of “LP Program”, like the that which was crafted in the late 1980’s and 1990’s.

    The PLATFORM is, IMHO, NOT (and SHOULD NOT be) a strategy oriented document. It should be a principled document.

    The founders of the LP had it right. Craft a platform that is completely adherent to the non-aggression principle, with hard hitting specific references to how our current system of law, current laws themselves, and government structure and function, all violate non-aggression . . . that is violates libertarianism.

  21. Coming Back to the LP

    I agree with Steve LaBianca, above:

    The LP platform should be a principled, hard hitting, well written and well reasoned document that lays out the libertarian position on or solution to a variety of important issues and problems.

    The LP platform does NOT have to limit itself to national issues, but can include any significant issue even if it is relevant at the state or local level. While we are members of a national party, we all have state and local concerns as well and it is fully appropriate to address those conerns in a national platform.

    The idea of having a “program” of immediate or intermediate steps toward liberty, that are improvements and move us in a Libertarian direction, while the platform lays out our principled beliefs on where we should ultimately end up, is the best way to go.

Leave a Reply

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