Brian Miller dishes Libertarian Party dirt

At Delaware Libertarian:

1) An e-mail where Shane Cory told Angela that she’s well-liked “despite being the representative of the Outrights and the radicals,” not because of that… Keep in mind that as an LNC member, she was Shane’s boss, and such comments are borderline insubordinate. Too bad LNC rule books only get dragged out as pillories when Angela’s involved, huh?

2) A coffee date that I enjoyed with both Stewie and Angela during the CLC (Conservative Leadership Conference) in Las Vegas where, at the mere sight of Alan Hacker, Stew turned purple-faced and started ranting that “Hacker has defrauded the LNC and the LP!!!”

3) Overhearing Shane Cory curse a little too loudly under his breath when Outright showed up at the CLC event with a booth of our own

4) Watching Shane shit his pants when Angela and I grilled Bob Barr on DOMA in front of an assemblage of Libertarians and Republicans alike right in front of the Outright booth

5) Enjoying engagement from youth at various LP events, who are attracted to Angela like moths to a flame and who are attracted to Aaron, Stewie and M like gourmets to a Waffle House

And here’s a host of other entertaining (and not so entertaining) memories of the last 18 months:

1) Recalling when the LP violated its fiduciary duty by voting to make LP campaign resources available to a Republican incumbent congressman campaigning for a Republican nomination in an election contested by the Libertarian Party

2) Watching in stunned amazement this past election cycle as the Libertarian Party National Committee and web site refused to comment on California’s Prop 8 (or any similar amendments), and doubling that amazement when a vote for the LP of California to post the no-on-8 logo to its web site failed… not to mention the “fun” I had in explaining that “oversight” to all and sundry

3) Answering with a confused “The national committee is against it, I think” whenever I was asked about the LP’s position on the TARP, Citigroup bailouts, etc…. followed closely by me having to cite Bob Friggin’ Barr as the only Libertarian in national officialdom on this issue due to his proposed bill to ban bailouts

4) Showing up twice on the Signorile Show on SIRIUS Radio to comment on and defend the Barr candidacy from the righteous indignation of the LGBT community (by talking about his “evolution” on the issues and stating he’s no worse than Hillary Clinton… a world class defense of a Libertarian if I’ve ever heard one). Not to mention watching Angela struggle heroically to defend the indefensible candidacy herself without compromising her world-class integrity

5) Popping up on CBS News to talk about alternative candidacies… closely followed up by having the CBS News people inform me that the LNC members I referred them to (including Stewie) didn’t return their requests for comment… followed by complaints from some of the same people about a “media blackout” of Libertarian candidates

6) 42 newspaper and news magazine interviews in one week (mostly gay press) the week after the Barr nomination, grabbing the Libertarian Party’s Worst Ever Presidential Ticket the Best Ever Media Coverage it’s received in the LGBT community’s media

7) Watching Rob Power get profiled in the Advocate twice in a year — beating out the heads of the Stonewall Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans for coverage in 2008

8) Noting that the only significant Washington press coverage (with photograph) that the LPHQ received was an article about the Communications Director’s efforts to sell his SUV

9) Watching the Munger campaign run just about a perfect campaign with the resources they had — and watching LP national do nothing to leverage it

10) Explaining to media contacts that I had no clue why their requests for interviews with top LP officials I referred them to were ignored, and also that the full-time LP national HQ PR resource was not at HQ but working for the Barr campaign and thus was probably not returning their emails for that reason

11) Watching LPHQ celebrate an interview of Redpath in a bunny suit on YouTube as a media breakthrough less than 48 hours after a chat with a media person complaining that LNC members never return requests for interviews… and explaining to them that they’re “very busy” and “usually ignore me too.” 😉

12) Watching the idiotarians (try to) beat up on George Phillies and his team, even as they grabbed media attention and ballot access cash for the LP…

13) Reading leaked e-mails from the LNC (which is leakier than the Speedwell) defaming every candidate running for the Libertarian nomination with the exception of Barr himself… and publicly slamming the effort to defame Dr. Ruwart… and reading LNC e-mails written by the culprit trying to pin the whole Ruwart thing on George Phillies

14) Watching the LNC claim it didn’t have enough money to complete a ballot drive in WV on time

15) Watching the LNC claim it had enough money to bash Phillies in NH despite not having enough to actually get access in WV

16) Watching the LNC’s lawsuit call its effort to remove George from the ballot while Barr was already on the ballot a “substitution lawsuit” (and seeing that Orwellian phrasing repeated by Stewie in his List of Supreme Soviet challenges to Ms. Keaton)

17) Watching Mike Gravel get pissed off every time someone referred to him as a Democrat during the National Convention

18) Watching some LNC members bask with pride every time someone referred to them as Republicans during the National Convention

19) Watching Christine Smith get drunker and drunker at the Capitol Barr in Denver before losing it over only getting 6 votes

101 thoughts on “Brian Miller dishes Libertarian Party dirt

  1. richardwinger

    Much of this post has merit, but points #15 and #16 do not have merit. The purpose of the NH Libertarian Party’s lawsuit is to force the state to recognize presidential substitution. We are on track. New Hampshire is one of only 4 states that has ever denied presidential substitution, and which has not yet lost in court. It will be a huge improvement in the future if we win this.

  2. Michael Seebeck

    You’ve said it before, richard, and you’ll say it again, but you’re still wrong. The NH suit was not about substitution and never was. We’re not going to go into debunking that again.

  3. Michael Seebeck

    See previous posts here and LFV and BAN. There are plenty. Simple inidsputable fact that you can’t substitute A for B on the ballot when both A and B are on the ballot. Old news.

    Besides, if the 1st Court of Appeals upholds the MA case, NH becomes a moot point anyway. Focus on that instead, it’s a better and more winnable fight

  4. richardwinger

    Lawsuits are not so mechanical as that. If you really want to understand the lawsuit, e-mail me privately and I’ll give you our attorney’s contact info, and you can discuss it with him.

  5. Michael Seebeck

    I’ve read the suit. Its premise is flawed at step 1 and it has no merit. And that’s the opinion of MY lawyer.

  6. George Phillies

    The core alleged facts in the New Hampshire suit are obviously false.

    Furthermore, the suit was not served in a timely way.

    In addition, the suit is about an effort of one group of Libertarians to try to steal the right of another group of Libertarians, the Libertarian Party State Convention, to choose the candidates that it and its volunteers want to put on the ballot.

    Furthermore, the Libertarian State Convention met in October 2008 and had a key vote conclusively demonstrating its opposition to this suit.

    The Massachusetts litigation has carefully substantially stayed, if you read the filings and decision, on the question of whether the usual lack of estoppal against a government applies in this case, and whether we Massachusetts libertarians are entitled to know what the laws of our state are. We are. We won.

  7. richardwinger

    The lawsuit’s main thrust is that New Hampshire violates equal protection by letting the qualified parties substitute new pres or v-p candidates, and not letting the unqualified parties do the same.

    The lawsuit is not specifically about 2008. The New Hampshire discriminatory policy also harmed the party in 2004, when NH was one of only two states in which Badnarik didn’t get on the ballot. The brief hasn’t even been filed yet; you are only judging the case by the complaint.

  8. George Phillies

    The core alleged facts in the New Hampshire suit are obviously false.

    Furthermore, the suit was not served in a timely way.

    In addition, the suit is about an effort of one group of Libertarians to try to steal the right of another group of Libertarians, the Libertarian Party State Convention, to choose the candidates that it and its volunteers want to put on the ballot.

    The Massachusetts litigation has carefully substantially stayed, if you read the filings and decision, on the question of whether the usual lack of estoppal against a government applies in this case, and whether we Massachusetts libertarians are entitled to know what the laws of our state are. We are. We won.

  9. G.E.

    George Phillies plays the role of the anti-free speech Nazi fighting a free-speech case here. He’s a victim of the centralism he preaches. I don’t feel sorry for him. But the principle remains: the suit is unlibertarian for numerous reasons.

  10. Jeremy Young

    Regarding #1 on the first list: didn’t Cory resign from LPHQ before Angela was elected — thus making it impossible for her to have ever been his boss?

  11. richardwinger

    This year we won a ruling in federal court that if the government gives a list of the voters who voted in the presidential primaries to the Dem & Rep Parties, the government must also give it to us.

    Last year we won a similar lawsuit in New Hampshire state court.

    In 1994 our nominee for Governor of New York, Robert Schulz, won a pro se lawsuit that if the government gives a list of the registered voters to the qualified parties, it must give it to the unqualified parties.

    In 1980 we won a federal court decision that if the federal government gives cheap postal rates to the parties that polled over 5% of the last presidential vote, it must give cheap postal rates to all political parties.

    Fighting for equality under the law is a long libertarian tradition.

  12. G.E.

    1. The 14th amendment is an unlibertarian, centralist amendment, which wasn’t even ratified. This is the double source of this suit, (1) the bogus “equal protection” clause, and (2) the notion that the federal government is supreme and the states are just administrative provinces.

    2. Regardless of this, the suit was centralist. It sought to use the power of the federal government over a state, and the national LP over the state’s electors who (I don’t know why) are deluded enough to think George Phillies is a libertarian.

    3. It’s also hypocritical for “states’ rights” Bob Barr to use the federal government to force a rival candidate (one who abhors states’ rights, ironically) off the ballot. Is hypocrisy libertarian? I don’t know.

    Don’t for a second think that my opinions are motivated by dislike for Bob Barr (whom I voted for). Politically, I am much more in line with Barr than with Phillies.

  13. rdupuy

    Thanks for the lawsuit discussion, its interesting.

    But back to the original story with lines like “Watching Shane shit his pants when Angela and I grilled Bob Barr on DOMA in front of an assemblage of Libertarians and Republicans alike right in front of the Outright booth”

    I don’t know what the purpose of this writing style is, whether it appeals to some segment or not, but to me it sounds like some kind of immature rant. I don’t know Shane Cory, I don’t know the author of this article.

    Given that as my starting point, you would think the author of the article would have the advantage….but he didn’t. This was written so poorly that I ended up disliking the author, rather than the intended target.

    I’m sure Shane didn’t ‘shit his pants’ and rather, you simply saw what you needed to believe. You come across as immature, and perhaps needing to believe you are on par with the more accomplished people you write about.

  14. Michael Seebeck

    Jeremy @12, Cory resigned before Angela was re-elected. She was elected the first time before he came on board, IIRC.

  15. Michael Seebeck

    rdupuy, it’s called exaggerated sarcasm. Kind of like when I make the statement, “I watched Aaron Starr’s jaw fall off his head and onto the floor when he saw what Starchild was wearing.” Obviously Starr’s jaw didn’t fall of his head, but the exaggeration is there to illustrate. It’s how she writes these things. Not an immature rant at all, just a writing style.

  16. JimDavidson

    @12 Angela was on the LNC before the Denver convention. She was re-elected to continue her service. During her previous term, she worked closely with Aaron Starr and others to raise money for the LP – and raised a great deal. Her work has been quite exemplary, in my view.

    I think she was very bitter that the LP chose a nominee – or its insider clique pushed through the nomination anyway – who is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, a war monger, a former drug war prosecutor who still wants to fight parts of the drug war at both state and national levels, and anti-privacy – having voted for the USAPATRIOT act, for example.

    It doesn’t seem to me that the LNC ought to be disciplining members who take exception to the Barr campaign running against the LP platform. Rather, the LNC ought to be disciplining the Barr campaign for running against the LP platform.

    Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and polyamorous members of the LP are offended by the Barr nomination, and ought to object as loudly and as often as possible. Barr is a disgusting vermin.

  17. JimDavidson

    I wasn’t there, but I say if Brian Miller smelt feces when he saw the look on Shane’s face, then his report should be given credit. I feel confident that Brian would be able to establish whether someone crapped his pants.

    For my own part, I like a colorful style in prose. Ambrose Bierce and Lenny Bruce were pioneers in using clear language, and not beating around the bush.

  18. TheOriginalAndy

    GE said: “Don’t for a second think that my opinions are motivated by dislike for Bob Barr (whom I voted for). Politically, I am much more in line with Barr than with Phillies.”

    You voted for Bob Barr?!?!?!?! WTF??? I thought that you said that you weren’t going to vote this year, although before this you said that you were going to vote for Ralph Nader just to help prevent Barr from getting 3rd place.

    Given all of your negative comments about Barr, I’m really suprised that you voted for him.

    I voted for the Libertarian Pae rty candidate for President in every Presidential election in which I voted (Browne in ’96 & 2000 and Badnarik in 2004) until this year. I did not want to reward the LP and the Barr campaign by voting for them given the fact that they have done numerous things in which I disagree, so I cast a write in vote for Ron Paul.

    I’m shocked that you of all people voted for Barr.

  19. Libertarian Joseph

    “2) A coffee date that I enjoyed with both Stewie and Angela during the CLC (Conservative Leadership Conference) in Las Vegas where, at the mere sight of Alan Hacker, Stew turned purple-faced and started ranting that “Hacker has defrauded the LNC and the LP!!!”

    You were at a conservative event and you were talking down to the LP? Ha. That’s what I call hypocrisy!

  20. sff

    I appreciate the humor of this posting, but I must make the following points:

    I have never been contacted, either by phone, e-mail, or any other means by CBS News. I have just searched the old e-mail messages in the spam folder and there is no message from anyone at CBS News.

    Turned purple? I don’t remember turning purple over anything, nor was I ranting over anything. I remember seeing Alan Hacker come in. My recollection is that we discussed whether he was going to sit anywhere close enough to overhear our discussion.

    I agree that Shane looked very disturbed, but it wasn’t any of his business so I really didn’t care what he thought of it. We were having a discussion between several members of the LNC and representatives of Outright Libertarians in front of their booth.

    The conversation with Bob was appropriate and I felt that Brian expressed his opinions clearly. I wouldn’t say that he “grilled” Bob.

    I thought that the discussion was productive and that Bob appeared to understand more of the position that Brian was explaining to him than he had before they talked. I’m not a mind reader, so I can’t say what Bob was thinking, but reading body language and listening to words that were spoken I believe that he and Brian both moved closer to understanding each other.

    It was a good debate.

    That’s all I have time for today. Have to get some work done…

  21. Mandude0

    I supported Phillies as the LP nominee. Once Barr won the nomination, I kept close eye on him. As long as he stayed within the LNC planks, I continued to promote his candidacy. Has he slipped away, I would have stopped. Either way, my vote for Barr was a vote for continued ballot access for the LP in Texas. He was also the best option on the ballot, in Texas.

    I voted a straight LP ticket. I knew McCain was going to take Texas, anyway, it was a given. Just like Obama was sure to take California. It’s just the way things work, for now.

  22. G.E.

    Andy – Here’s what I just told Richard Winger, who was equally shocked I voted for Barr:

    I did not want to reward the Libertarian Party’s decision to nominate a non-libertarian candidate. I thought it would set a bad precedent if Barr got a lot of votes. But as the election drew nearer, two things became clear to me: 1) Bob Barr was not going to get a lot of votes, and 2) the LP, under your friend Bill Redpath and his criminal cronies, has become irredeemably corrupt and not worth caring about. So I voted for the lesser of five evils.

    I will have you know that I originally wrote in Ron Paul, but there was a problem with my ballot (a machine-printed dot on one of the write-in ballot lines for a low-level office). On being given a second chance, I voted for Barr. I took it as an omen that voting for Paul (which would not have counted) was a bad idea and I chose the least repugnant candidate. That, I’m afraid, was NOT protectionist-idiot Baldwin.

  23. Mandude0

    After seeing Phillies miss out, I was hoping to see Ruwart win. I was disappointed with the Barr selection but I dealt with it.

    In what way do you consider Phillies to be a protectionist? If you are speaking of being an economic protectionist and those policies only affecting nations run by autocratic or communist type leaders, I’m ok with that. I saw nothing from Phillies that made me feel he had any intent to restrict trade with any democratic/non-socialist style governments.

  24. yankeefox

    I think the LP convention would have been interested to learn that Phillies had no intention of honoring its choice of Presidential candidate.

    A political party is nothing if it can’t select ONE candidate for each general election – a prerogative NH denied the LP. Of course, in the world of George Phillies, it would have been legitimate for “groups” of Democrats to put Hillary on the ballot along with Obama and “groups” of Republicans to put Huckabee on the ballot along with McCain.

  25. hogarth

    If you are speaking of being an economic protectionist and those policies only affecting nations run by autocratic or communist type leaders, I’m ok with that. I saw nothing from Phillies that made me feel he had any intent to restrict trade with any democratic/non-socialist style governments.

    Why should I be allowed to trade with socialists? Or monarchists, for that matter (since you seem to be excluding them, too). What about anarchists – do you exclude them as well?

  26. hogarth

    Why should I be allowed to trade with socialists?

    Please insert NOT between “I” and “allowed”.

    Damn!

  27. Mandude0

    Hogarth, I will not justify my lack of desire to help support socialist economies. I will also not be drawn into a “True Scottsmen” debate.

    Yankeefox, I agree that the post convention Phillies was not what I had hoped for. N.H., I think, was a bad decision by Phillies. It was up to the convention where I had supported Phillies, not post convention. I am friends with Phillies’ press director (Carolyn Marbry) who I think has stepped down from that position during the N.H. issue. I didn’t ask her about it but she stopped talking about the campaign during all that.

    Knowing her, I’d like to see her run in 2012. Very smart and I think she would make a great candidate. I just don’t think she wants the headache.

  28. Trent Hill

    “who is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic”

    I think that is a stretch. Perhaps the policies he support are some of these things–but I dont think Bob Barr is concsiously sexist, racist, or xenophobic. I also sincerely doubt he is afraid of homosexuals, though he may feel that homosexuality is a sin.

  29. hogarth

    Hogarth, I will not justify my lack of desire to help support socialist economies.

    There’s no reason you should. I only ask that you not interfere with my equal desire to help (1) myself and (2) people living under the burden of a socialist government.

    If I agree to not force you to trade with socialists, will you agree to not force me to NOT trade with them?

  30. Mandude0

    Paulie, I might take that statement differently than some. I see it as saying that if our government wants to regulate domestic companies where they have a problem competing with foreign companies from other nations, it would only be fair to our domestic companies to place similar financial burdens on foreign imports.

    To me, that is meant to say that we should not stifle our own companies if we have no intention of doing the same to others. Or, stop stifling economic growth, all together.

    Maybe I read it wrong. Maybe it was worded badly. Not sure but I didn’t see a problem with how I understood the comment.

  31. Mandude0

    Hogarth, I see no way you would be helping yourself or the people of that nation. The socialist government will make sure that the local equivalent is more affordable than you. It’s the way they keep it in the family where they can control it. It a socialist thing. You would have no way to do better than the local equivalent.

    Helping that nation would not be very helpful. Your costs will be regulated to that of which the government of that nation sees fit. If you impede on their ability to make money, you will either not be allowed to trade or you will be regulated to the point that you could lose a lot of money.

    Either way, you can’t trade freely with a non-free economic structure, like socialism. Regardless of your own nations policies.

  32. G.E.

    I saw nothing from Phillies that made me feel he had any intent to restrict trade with any democratic/non-socialist style governments.

    There are “non-socialist” type governments?

    Democracy = socialism. So your characterization of the countries Central Planner Phillies will “allow” you to trade with is oxymoronic.

  33. G.E.

    George Phillies is pretty much a standard liberal who believes everything his public-school teachers taught him. He’s with the ACLU, for god’s sake. He’s a moderate Democrat at best.

  34. hogarth

    Hogarth, I see no way you would be helping yourself or the people of that nation.

    That’s an interesting discussion, but irrelevant to the point, I think.

    You may see ‘no way’ that I would be helping myself or others by taking heroin, but I suppose (hope) you’re enough of a libertarian to ‘allow’ me to make that decision for myself. Are you?

    I’m simply asking for the same consideration with respect to trade. it’s none.of.the.government’s.business who I choose to trade with.

    If you impede on their ability to make money, you will either not be allowed to trade or you will be regulated to the point that you could lose a lot of money.

    Well, then, if these governments are doing such a good job of busybodying that no free man could/would trade with socialists, why would you and/or George Phillies feel the need to pile on more busybodying?

  35. Trent Hill

    Yea, I respect George Phillies’ intellect, but I dont see what seperates him from the average progressive. I suppose he’s less protectionist and for lower taxes/spending—but not dramatically lower.

  36. paulie cannoli Post author

    Non-“average progressive” views from phillies2008.org:

    “A partial solution is reached by allowing people at some age of adulthood to opt irrevocably out of the Social Security system”

    “We should make Washington, D.C. a model for how business deregulation lets small businessmen make their community wealthy.”

    “Our only hope is a President who points at Federal program after Federal program, corporate welfare scheme after corporate welfare scheme, and says the same four words “We can’t afford that.””

  37. G.E.

    Mandude0 – Don’t be a moron. It’s called division of labor and comparative advantage. If you don’t understand these concepts, study up. If you can’t understand them, like George Phillies, then you’re not smart enough to be a libertarian.

  38. Trent Hill

    One neednt be “smart” to be a libertarian GE. The arguements for libertarianism can be based down just as simply as those for socialism…they’re just harder to accept for the average person. “Do I want ‘free stuff’ or to ‘work for everything’? No question.”

  39. hogarth

    One neednt be “smart” to be a libertarian GE. The arguements for libertarianism can be based down just as simply as those for socialism…they’re just harder to accept for the average person. “Do I want ‘free stuff’ or to ‘work for everything’? No question.”

    That’s what folks mean when they say we have marketing issues. We need the question to be: “Do I want to work for myself only, or for a bunch of freeloaders?” No question!!

  40. paulie cannoli Post author

    That’s what folks mean when they say we have marketing issues.

    It could be stuff like this:

    Don’t be a moron. If you can’t understand … then you’re not smart enough to be a libertarian.

  41. JimDavidson

    @34. “I think that is a stretch. Perhaps the policies he support are some of these things–but I dont think Bob Barr is concsiously sexist, racist, or xenophobic. I also sincerely doubt he is afraid of homosexuals, though he may feel that homosexuality is a sin.”

    I don’t think it at all a stretch. He can lie to you about his views, but he is consciously pursuing policies that support my understanding of his views.

    How do you interpret his eulogy for Jesse Helms? He wrote that Americans should be grateful for the entire Helms career – which included a long segregationist period. Several people supposed that Helms was a one-off thing, where Barr eulogised him because it was something he could do to get Barr’s name out in the press. But then he endorsed Chambliss who is also a blatant racist (and something of a pederast from the video I saw on The Daily Show).

    How would you characterise Barr’s call for a pogrom to cleanse the military chaplain corps of any Wiccans? Seems like religious bigotry to me, which scent rises from many things Barr does.

    I stand by my statement. If you don’t think Barr wants to continue to fight the drug war at the state level and by pursuing foreign intervention in Colombia, because Barr has said some nice things recently about medical marijuana, then perhaps you are naive. There’s nothing wrong with being jejune. Revel in it while it lasts.

  42. Michael Seebeck

    G.E., there are plenty of LP members who are ACLU members–including me. And no, I don’t agree with the ACLU on everything, either.

  43. G.E.

    there are plenty of LP members who are ACLU members–including me.

    So what? That doesn’t make them any less unlibertarian.

    And no, I don’t agree with the ACLU on everything, either.

    I agree with some of the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s platform. But I don’t join it. I would before the ACLU, though.

  44. Mandude0

    G.E., there is no reason to get personal. Freedom and Liberty are different to EVERYONE. If you cannot understand that, you are not smart enough to be considered human.

    Treat others as they treat you. A socialist nation will restrict you from practicing free trade. You will be taxed on your exports to them and your exports to them will be heavily regulated to the point where you are not trading freely. In return, I see no reason why our nation should not provide the same courtesy to their nations companies.

    Free trade is a two way street. I’m not proposing that you not be allowed to trade with another nation or they with us. What I am saying is that if they allow free trade with us, we’ll allow free trade with them. If they want to tax and regulate our trade to them, we’ll do the same in return. There is nothing unlibertarian about that. It would be no different than retaliation to an attack. If they wish to live, peacefully, with us, we’ll live , peacefully, with them. If they wish to attack us, we will respond in kind.

    Aggression begets aggression. Tell me where turnabout being fair play is not a Libertarian concept.

  45. G.E.

    paulie – I’m NOT concerned with “marketing,” especially not to “libertarians” who don’t understand free trade. Maybe your problem with “marketing” is your sissy style. I think LRC recruits more people into being libertarians than the LP ever has or will.

  46. G.E.

    G.E., there is no reason to get personal.

    I wasn’t.

    Free trade is a two way street.

    Only if you’re a socialist. Free-market economists have long understood the suicidal nation of retaliatory tariffs, etc.

    There’s a lot of “they” and “we’ in your comments. Not surprising from a Phillies supporter.

  47. Trent Hill

    “That’s what folks mean when they say we have marketing issues. We need the question to be: “Do I want to work for myself only, or for a bunch of freeloaders?” No question!!”

    Precisely Susan. Libertarians too often try to make intelligence an issue in any conversation, and then they’re pissed when America doesnt get it—or doesnt want to. Limousine Libertarians is what my uncle calls them. They think libertarianism is for the intelligent, the moral, the whatever. Instead, they ought to be figuring out ways to pitch the simple ideas of liberty to the stupid, the poor, the whatever.

    “I think LRC recruits more people into being libertarians than the LP ever has or will.”

    Depends on what your definition of “libertarian” is. But I think FEE recruited more to libertarianism than either.

  48. Mandude0

    If you are trying to use “A Phillies supporter” as a derogatory term, you are only showing your maturity level.

    The world is made up of sovereign nations. So, there is nothing wrong with using “they” and/or “we” to make the separation. We are a nation, they are another nation. Since when did Libertarians not recognize the sovereignty of individual nations?

  49. Mandude0

    Ok, G.E., so that maens it would be perfectly fine for the U.S. to send our troops to be stationed in any nation we see fit? Is that what you are saying? You know if they try to stop our military, our military will respond with violence, right? Why? Because those nations will see themselves as being sovereign. They will see U.S. troops entering their land as an invasion.

    Is it your intent to force your version of Libertarianism on every nation on Earth? Unless that is your plan, you have no right to remove the sovereignty of any nation to your ideological whims.

  50. paulie cannoli Post author

    Ok, G.E., so that maens it would be perfectly fine for the U.S. to send our troops to be stationed in any nation we see fit? Is that what you are saying? You know if they try to stop our military, our military will respond with violence, right? Why? Because those nations will see themselves as being sovereign. They will see U.S. troops entering their land as an invasion.

    Is it your intent to force your version of Libertarianism on every nation on Earth? Unless that is your plan, you have no right to remove the sovereignty of any nation to your ideological whims.

    No, GE is an anarchist, as am I.

  51. paulie cannoli Post author

    Mandudeo,

    It may be helpful if you look at it from the standpoint of individual consumers and businesses rather than nation states (or more accurately, armed gangs who illegitimately declare themselves as leading nation states).

  52. hogarth

    Susan’s position on free trade is correct.

    Stop it! Between Davidson agreeing with me and Holtz praising me, I’m getting the creeps.

    Y’all are ruining my rep and perturbing my equanimity.

  53. yankeefox

    Mandudeo – Don’t take GE’s comments personally – he voted for Barr after calling Barr supporters “Subhuman” – that’s just how he rolls.

    And I do think you’re position on trade is not wholly un-libertarian. I believe the late great Harry Brown wanted to eliminate all taxes but import duties. But to most libertarians, any trade restriction in the pursuit of “fairness” is an abridgment of individual liberty in fact. As someone once said, “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

  54. Mandude0

    Why are anarchists arguing politics? Not trying to be rude. Anarchist see no point in government, Libertarians see government as evil but a necessary evil that must be kept to a minimum and under control of the population.

    G.E. is an anarchist trying to tell me, a Libertarian, that I am not a Libertarian because I don’t believe what he does. That makes no sense. Discussing politics, as an anarchist, isn’t going to be worth your time, if you are a true anarchist.

    In case you guys didn’t notice, the name of this site is “Independent POLITICAL Report”. Did you not expect to see discussion of politics and separation of sovereign nations here?

    In an ideal world, there would be no government. Unfortunately, the world is not and will never, for the foreseeable future, be ideal. Until that ideal time comes, we have little choice but to do what we can to limit the footprint of government. Governments have grown to huge. We cannot just stop government from being government.

    THe problem is, in business, there will be hierarchy. Any business will have an owner. That owner will eventually select managers to handle various departments as the company grows. There will be some form of government existence even if we remove all the current governments of the world.

    It is human nature to develop groups with leaders and followers. It has been that way since the beginning of history. It will be that way until the Earth finally gets consumed by the inflating Sun as it burns through it’s fuel and becomes a red giant. There will always be some form of government. That’s why Libertarians exist, to make sure that governments do not get too over powering.

  55. hogarth

    Mandudeo,

    I suggest you continue dialogue with Paulie and ignore GE. You’ll both be happier, and Paulie has more patience for teaching, apparently. A shame.

    Paulie’s right – you and GE (and just about every other lib here) are coming at this from different viewpoints. One of my first lessons from a fellow lib was to stop saying ‘us’ and we’ when referring to the government-of-the-US and ‘they’ and ‘them’ when referring to the governments-of-other-places. It’s sometimes convenient shorthand, but it’s a bad mental habit to get into.

    If I wanted to sell (say) blue jeans to the Russians in 1970, the Russian/Soviet government **AND** the US government sure would have tried to make it difficult, but there were apparently a lot of willing customers.

    Consider the government-enforced embargo against Cuba. Who does that hurt? Cubans, mostly. Who does it *support*? The Cuban dictatorship, mostly.

    Trade restrictions are always a bad idea. We can’t really change what other governments do to the people they rule over, but we have some slight hope of modifying what our government will let us do.

  56. Mandude0

    Y’know, Yankeefox, if he were a true Anarchist, he wouldn’t have voted for anyone.

    I think it’s safe to say “Pot…meet kettle”.

  57. hogarth

    Why are anarchists arguing politics? Not trying to be rude. Anarchist see no point in government, Libertarians see government as evil but a necessary evil that must be kept to a minimum and under control of the population.

    You need to read some history of the movement and maybe work out a Venn diagram 🙂

    Here’s the short of it: many folks consider themselves both libertarian and anarchist. Many folks consider themselves both statist (minarchist, usually) and libertarian.

    It is human nature to develop groups with leaders and followers.

    Sure. But that doesn’t (necessarily) say anything about government, and it *sure* doesn’t say anything about the desirability of government. After all, it’s human nature to get ill, too, but that doesn’t make illness desirable.

  58. Mandude0

    Hogarth, I see where you are coming from. I have made no attempt to say the companies or individuals of the U.S. should not be allowed to trade with these nations (See my post, above, explaining retaliations).

    I think trade with Cuba should be opened. As I said, earlier, if they do not tax and regulate U.S. exports to Cuba, there is no reason the U.S. should tax or regulate imports from Cuba.

  59. hogarth

    Y’know, Yankeefox, if he were a true Anarchist, he wouldn’t have voted for anyone.

    Reading assignment:
    http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm

    It’s all gold, but the money line for this discussion is:

    “Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.”

  60. hogarth

    Hogarth, I see where you are coming from.

    I’m not sure you do – and that isn’t meant as an insult.

    I have made no attempt to say the companies or individuals of the U.S. should not be allowed to trade with these nations (See my post, above, explaining retaliations).

    What do you mean by ‘these nations’? Any nations?

    I think trade with Cuba should be opened. As I said, earlier, if they do not tax and regulate U.S. exports to Cuba, there is no reason the U.S. should tax or regulate imports from Cuba.

    Right, I thought so. But suppose the Cuban government DOES tax-and-regulate, say, steel imports. Does that mean that *my* government should prevent *me* from selling cars in Cuba?

    Why?

  61. paulie cannoli Post author

    And I do think you’re position on trade is not wholly un-libertarian. I believe the late great Harry Brown wanted to eliminate all taxes but import duties.

    Argument from authority is a fallacy in logic.

  62. TheOriginalAndy

    “And I do think you’re position on trade is not wholly un-libertarian. I believe the late great Harry Brown wanted to eliminate all taxes but import duties.”

    Harry Browne wanted to reduce government down to only what was specifically listed in the Constitution. After this he suggested renting out a large arena to debate where we go from there.

  63. paulie cannoli Post author

    Why are anarchists arguing politics?

    If we chose to ignore politics, that doesn’t mean politicians would ignore us.


    Anarchist see no point in government, Libertarians see government as evil but a necessary evil that must be kept to a minimum and under control of the population.

    Incorrect. Libertarians are anarchists who believe in individual property rights. Some libertarians believe in participating in politics as a practical necessity, while others don’t. There are also minarchists, who are close enough to being libertarian that, when engaging in practical politics, we call them libertarian.


    G.E. is an anarchist trying to tell me, a Libertarian, that I am not a Libertarian because I don’t believe what he does. That makes no sense.

    From the point of view of many libertarian anarchists, that is indeed the case. However, it’s not IMO the best approach when engaging in real world politics. If minarchists want to call themselves libertarian and work with libertarians, I see no reason why they shouldn’t, and many reasons why they should.


    Discussing politics, as an anarchist, isn’t going to be worth your time, if you are a true anarchist.

    Many anarchists, myself included, disagree. Like it or not (and I don’t), we do have a political system, and we have to deal with it. Likewise, some socialists may not like the existence of money, but they still have to make a living.


    In case you guys didn’t notice, the name of this site is “Independent POLITICAL Report”. Did you not expect to see discussion of politics and separation of sovereign nations here?

    In case you did not know, GE started the site, and I am currently posting most of the articles here. So please don’t lecture us about the name of our site.


    In an ideal world, there would be no government.

    Ah, so you are an anarchist. Good.


    Unfortunately, the world is not and will never, for the foreseeable future, be ideal.

    How do you know?


    Until that ideal time comes, we have little choice but to do what we can to limit the footprint of government.

    Good, then we agree in opposing protectionism.

    There will be some form of government existence even if we remove all the current governments of the world.

    It does not have to have a coercive territorial monopoly.


    It is human nature to develop groups with leaders and followers. It has been that way since the beginning of history.

    At one time, the same could be said of slavery, unification of church and state, and many other evils.


    It will be that way until the Earth finally gets consumed by the inflating Sun as it burns through it’s fuel and becomes a red giant.

    I disagree.

  64. paulie cannoli Post author

    Y’know, Yankeefox, if he were a true Anarchist, he wouldn’t have voted for anyone.

    Some anarchists have made that argument. Others disagree. I didn’t vote for anyone, but I participate in the political process I would eventually like to eliminate in many other ways.

  65. yankeefox

    TheOriginalAndy – Thanks for jogging my memory on that one. I’ve always agreed with Harry Brown’s pragmatic approach that says “if you want dramatically smaller goverment, I’m with you.” This is what unites Libertarians, be they Anarchists, Constitutionalists or whatever.

  66. paulie cannoli Post author

    Many folks consider themselves both statist (minarchist, usually) and libertarian.

    I am not aware of anyone who considers themselves a statist and a libertarian. Statist, as a self-description, is only used by a small handful of authoritarians (and even those generally prefer other terms, such as communitarian), and a few non-libertarians who have spent time debating libertarians. Libertarian minarchists might describe themselves as minarchists or libertarians, but I’ve yet to hear one call himself or herself a statist.

  67. Mandude0

    Right, I thought so. But suppose the Cuban government DOES tax-and-regulate, say, steel imports. Does that mean that *my* government should prevent *me* from selling cars in Cuba?

    Why?

    No, that is not what I am saying. If they (Cuban government) decides to tax and regulate steel, *your* government should NOT prevent you from selling cars in Cuba. *Your* government should level the field and tax and regulate imports from Cuba just as Cuba taxed and regulated imports from the U.S..

    Trade is still allowed. The U.S. simply retaliated on behalf of U.S. based companies to show the Cuban government that the U.S. government does not appreciate the Cuban government taxing and regulating imports from the U.S..

    Those taxes and regulations prevent proper pricing for sales and impedes true market value for goods and/or services.

    If Cuba attacks Florida, I would expect the U.S. government to retaliate on behalf of the state of Florida. It a form of aggression against Florida from Cuba. Taxation and regulation of U.S. based companies is aggression of the Cuban government against U.S. based companies. I have no problem with the U.S. government responding in kind.

  68. paulie cannoli Post author

    *Your* government should level the field and tax and regulate imports from Cuba just as Cuba taxed and regulated imports from the U.S.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, and this does not help the people of Cuba or the people of the US.

  69. Mandude0

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, and this does not help the people of Cuba or the people of the US.

    Yes, it does help. The fact that U.S. based companies are not able to compete in a proper way due to taxation and regulation means the U.S. based company is being hurt and the Cuban companies get a benefit. That is not free trade.

    For the U.S. government to impose the same taxation and regulation to Cuban imports to the U.S. means that Cubans lose any possible advantage in the U.S. and that will equally help the U.S. based companies to compete with Cuban Companies, of U.S. soil.

    Forgive me for continuing to use the terms “us” and “them” because with the current climate, that is the way it is, period. What we want and what we have to deal with are two different things. There is no point in sugar coating the reality that there are separate nations with imaginary lines.

    And, I wasn’t lecturing on the name of the site. I was pointing the obvious. The sites name implies political reviews. That encourages political discussion. The reality of political structure will be discussed. I found it offensive that I be attacked for political opinions on a site clearly designed for political opinions.

    I know the tone of people’s voices aren’t always apparent in text. I mean no disrespect to anyone or anyone’s views. I just didn’t appreciate being called stupid (essentially) just because I didn’t agree with someone’s point of view. To be honest, and I’m not attacking, that shows me that there is little thought coming from that side of the discussion. I own a political discussion community that houses over 3600 people. I see hear and discuss a LARGE range of political views. I’ve never accused someone of being stupid just because they didn’t agree with me.

  70. hogarth

    I am not aware of anyone who considers themselves a statist and a libertarian.

    Yes, an unfortunate mix of terminology on my part. Minarchists don’t normally call themselves statists, but technically they are.

  71. hogarth

    If they (Cuban government) decides to tax and regulate steel, *your* government should NOT prevent you from selling cars in Cuba.

    Good. We agree there.

    *Your* government should level the field and tax and regulate imports from Cuba just as Cuba taxed and regulated imports from the U.S..

    In what sense does this ‘level the field’? It punishes the would-be consumers of Cuban goods.

    Trade is still allowed.

    Not free trade. Managed trade.

    The U.S. simply retaliated on behalf of U.S. based companies to show the Cuban government that the U.S. government does not appreciate the Cuban government taxing and regulating imports from the U.S..

    What if the American companies don’t want ‘retaliation’ on their ‘behalf’? What if American consumers don’t want retaliation?

    Those taxes and regulations prevent proper pricing for sales and impedes true market value for goods and/or services.

    Well, yes, exactly. And the American ones compound the problem.

    If Cuba attacks Florida, I would expect the U.S. government to retaliate on behalf of the state of Florida.

    I expect defense from the military, not ‘retaliation’. But setting that aside for the moment, what has warfare got to do with trade?

    It a form of aggression against Florida from Cuba. Taxation and regulation of U.S. based companies is aggression of the Cuban government against U.S. based companies. I have no problem with the U.S. government responding in kind.

    Taxation and regulation of trade by a government is a form of aggression against the citizens of that particular country, not against another country.

  72. JimDavidson

    @66 “Why are anarchists arguing politics?”
    In order to find out exactly where to throw the bombs for maximum effect.

    Oh, snap! Did I type that out loud? lol

  73. cxxguy

    What amazes me is that people feel some need to drag party business into the public view. If you don’t like what the LNC is doing, run for the LNC, or support somebody who agrees with you!

    Why publicly trash the party? Are you somehow gaining something for the broader Libertarian movement? I disagreed with Ron Paul’s decision to endorse Baldwin. I wrote a blog explaining my position, I ceased supporting the C4L until after the election, and voted for Barr (I might not have if I though he would get elected, but what mattered was the Libertarian vote total).

    That was sufficient. One does not have to spasticly joust at every windmill he sees to be consistantly opposed to windmills.

  74. George Donnelly

    @cxxguy So we should look at the floor and whistle when “our guy(s)” do something wrong but take note of when “others” do something wrong?

    That strikes me as a double standard.

  75. TheOriginalAndy

    “G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Andy – Here’s what I just told Richard Winger, who was equally shocked I voted for Barr:

    I did not want to reward the Libertarian Party’s decision to nominate a non-libertarian candidate. I thought it would set a bad precedent if Barr got a lot of votes. But as the election drew nearer, two things became clear to me: 1) Bob Barr was not going to get a lot of votes, and 2) the LP, under your friend Bill Redpath and his criminal cronies, has become irredeemably corrupt and not worth caring about. So I voted for the lesser of five evils.

    I will have you know that I originally wrote in Ron Paul, but there was a problem with my ballot (a machine-printed dot on one of the write-in ballot lines for a low-level office). On being given a second chance, I voted for Barr. I took it as an omen that voting for Paul (which would not have counted) was a bad idea and I chose the least repugnant candidate.”

    GE, I think that you made a bad decision by voting for Barr. Your vote sent out a message (even though it was just one vote out of millions of people it still sent out a message) that all of the shenanigans from the Barr campaign and from LP National are OK with you. Your vote will not be interpeted by them as you voting for whom you percieved to be the least toxic candidate on the ballot, it will be interpeted as an endorsement of Bob Barr, the people that surround him, and the manner in which they conducted their campaign. Judging from your posts over the last few months you are clearly unhappy with the Barr campaign and with LP National, so it would have been better if your actions on election day reflected your that. It would have been better if you had left the Presidential section of your ballot blank.

    I happened to vote in a state where Ron Paul was officially registered as a write-in candidate, so that is why I wrote in Ron Paul. Had Ron Paul not officially been a write-in candidate I probably would have left the Presidential part of my ballot blank.

    I sure as hell was not going to reward the Barr campaign and LP National for the shit that they’ve pulled over the last year. You having voted for Barr kind of undermines your criticisms of the Barr campaign and LP National since you voting for the LP Presidential candidate in spite of Barr is the same thing that you would have done had the LP nominated a good Libertarian candidate (like say Mary Ruwart) this year.

    “That, I’m afraid, was NOT protectionist-idiot Baldwin.”

    While I know that Baldwin has some flaws from a libertarian standpoint, I’m not convinced that Barr is better than Baldwin. If anything, I suspect that Baldwin (flaws and all) is more libertarian and more trustworty than Barr.

  76. JimDavidson

    @86 Not just some people, but a great many people, believe that a party which is suited to lead a free people would have features like openness and transparency, where members can be aware of the deliberations and the results obtained, and even provide feedback in the process.

    I do not believe that the LP as currently organised at the national level is serving liberty activists well. I stopped having any such belief in 1998, and stopped paying dues to the group. I have, in the time since, been a critic of the LP. Happily, in 2006 and again this year, I found a party that could serve my interests, the Boston Tea Party.

    I do not say that it hasn’t been ugly. At times, it has. But, it has been open. When you look at the Boston Tea Party, our web site, our national committee discussion lists, you know where we stand, and how we got to these views.

    And I think that’s important. It is important to know what the leaders of the party are doing in the names of the members of the party. After all, if the LP is to generate more freedom, for whom is it to do so? For the members of the LP, for starters.

    Why not look at the conduct of the LNC? If the LP members are not willing to hold the leaders of their party to high standards of conduct, such as integrity, commitment to liberty, and appreciation for principle, then how can the members of the LP ever hope to bring any portion of those things to government? If the LNC is to behave absurdly, waste its time on castigating one of its own, ignore its budget problems, and oversee a convention that nominates distinct and hated foes of liberty, what good is it?

    I think rather than ignoring the wrongdoing on the LNC and at LP HQ, the members should offer to withdraw their support. I think it is high time that LP activists choose whether the LP is going to be worthy of their support. And if the LNC thwarts that choice, then LP activists should have other choices available.

    In this point, I like Terry Hulsey’s comment that an alternative party can be an option. It costs less and may be exercised when the standard parties fail to serve. The BTP costs nothing – there is never any fee to join.

    Since May of this year, people are increasingly exercising the BTP option. Not always because they think we’re the greatest, but because we’re becoming a viable alternative to something which no longer serves.

  77. Mandude0

    JimDavidson,

    I see the BTP as being nothing more than people that are upset that the LP has begun working toward becoming a real political party rather than just and activist group or debate community.

    To be electable, we must concentrate on issues that are important to the majority of the voting public. I see nothing be hidden with the LP. The LP is just emphasizing the more popular issues rather than concentrating on the fringe issues.

    The LNC/LP is starting to come of age as a political party. We are beginning to see that being totally unwilling to compromise will get us no where. The big two parties got where they are because they slowly worked toward greater goals through gradual growth. That growth came from compromise.

    No one likes to compromise. I don’t. What I hate more than compromise is to get nothing for my efforts. I’d rather work and get a little at a time than to work and get nothing at all, ever.

    No matter how noble the cause, no matter how much better things can be, if you can’t get elected to make changes, none of it matters and those changes aren’t going to make themselves happne, they need people to convince people.

  78. paulie cannoli Post author

    LP has begun working toward becoming a real political party rather than just and activist group or debate community….The LNC/LP is starting to come of age as a political party.

    Do you have any real world metrics proving that this theory is borne out by observed facts? Vote totals, membership totals, fund raising totals, take your pick, suggest a category…

  79. Mandude0

    Paulie,

    LP membership has been growing over the last few election cycles. Vote percentages are also doing well. In Texas, the LP has gained and maintained ballot access over the last couple of elections cycles (Taking at least 5% in at least one state wide office).

    You are mistaking winning with becoming a real political party. Before enough people vote to put people in office, they have to have confidence in the party’s viability. That confidence is growing. Fewer people are saying “If I thought a third party could win…” less often and starting to actually vote third party.

    I was at a PAC meeting in October where there were thousands of people. The majority of people said they had heard of the LP but didn’t know enough about the LP to decide if they would vote for us. That tells me a lot considering 6 or even 4 years ago no one I talked to had ever heard of the LP. We are becoming known. As people learn of our existence, more people will begin supporting us, and have.

    I don’t recall seeing the BTP on my ballot. For that matter, the only three parties I saw were Republican, Democrat and Libertarian parties. No constitution, no BTP, no Green, no Socialist (Thank GOD!!!), no Reform, etc…

    Ballot access, alone, is enough to show the LP is growing as a party. We had over 170 candidates on the ballot under the LP name in Texas for 2008. I believe there were only 2 Independents. Zero other third party candidates other than token write-ins available.

    The LP is growing.

  80. hogarth

    The LNC/LP is starting to come of age as a political party. We are beginning to see that being totally unwilling to compromise will get us no where. The big two parties got where they are because they slowly worked toward greater goals through gradual growth. That growth came from compromise.

    I think this shows a poor understanding of how political parties function in the US’ two-party system. Being ‘willing to compromise’ essentially means being willing to be folded in as wing of one of the two power parties. Being uncompromising *as a party* means continuing to offer your undiluted ideas so that the major parties *compromise in your direction* to woo your support.

  81. pdsa

    hogarth – if i wanted to be compromised, I’d still be a member in one of the two mainstream parties.

    I will not to be compromised in my defense of liberty.

    Any LP member who speaks of compromise within the party should be perceived for what they are: fainéant Republicans, who watched idly by while their party was compromised, and now are attempting to use the lessons learned from that experience to pollute the LP.

  82. Mandude0

    For those who are unable to compromise, you will not achieve anything from those in power.

    I, as any LP member, would love to see the total removal of drug prohibition. A stepped compromise is to persue the more popular issue of medicinal marijuana. Once thqat has been achieved, we can move to the next compromise step of allowing testing of other prohibited drugs which will lead to their legalization, and so forth.

    Myself and other LP members that I talk with see that as progressive compromise. Take a little at a time. Why? Because we have spent 30+ years not accepting compromise and we have lost over and over and over. In losing so much without compromise, we also lost ground.

    People are tired of voting for a losing strategy toward freedom. People want freedom but the LP of old will have never won a position to help win that freedom. The LP cannot win trying to sell freedom, alone. We need to sell positions. Those positions move us toward freedom.

    We didn’t get into the position we are in, today, overnight. It has taken time. It has taken slow compromising steps by two parties who’s only goals are self serving and ignore the Constitution for which the U.S. government was formed. For the Anarchist, it doesn’t matter about the Constitution as it is only another piece of paper that legitimizes government. For the Libertarians, and I’m sorry for those who cannot see the difference, it is the guide from which the U.S. government is designed to work, and it has been ignored time and time again.

    Zero compromise has gotten us no where. I’d rather achieve a little bit at a time, over time, than to never to achieve anything at all. No compromise achieves nothing when you have no strength to influence those in power. Taking less than 1% of the vote provides us with zero influence. We are increasing our percentage of votes since we have begun to compromise. We are increasing our ability to influence those in power.

    I’m sorry for those who cannot see that.

  83. G.E.

    Your vote sent out a message (even though it was just one vote out of millions of people it still sent out a message) that all of the shenanigans from the Barr campaign and from LP National are OK with you.

    Andy – Did you read what I wrote? I KNOW, and I don’t care. The “shenanigans” ARE “okay” with me because the national party is irredeemably corrupt. Having any care of what it does it a complete waste of time. It’s not the party of people like Mandudeo. GIVE UP.

  84. JimDavidson

    @90 “I see the BTP as being nothing more than people that are upset that the LP has begun working toward becoming a real political party rather than just and activist group or debate community.”

    I see the Boston Tea Party as being people who are interested in actually furthering the cause of freedom. In at least two instances, that has involved winning elections. Since we’re already winning elections, I don’t really seek your advice on how to be electable.

    “To be electable, we must concentrate on issues that are important to the majority of the voting public.”

    What do you mean we? Are you a member of the Boston Tea Party? If not, then you and I don’t belong in the same pronoun. I’m not with you, ever. I don’t get my freedom from majority approval.

    I would ask you whether the days of anticipatory angst and the minutes spent disciplining Angela Keaton seem, to you, like things that make LP candidates more electable. Do you think a majority of voters cares about Angela Keaton’s blog?

    “I see nothing be hidden with the LP.”

    Then their efforts to hide things are working, at least in your case.

    “The LP is just emphasizing the more popular issues rather than concentrating on the fringe issues.”

    Yes, the LP is emphasising how clever it is to attack one of its own national committee members for exercising her freedom of speech. How droll.

    “The LNC/LP is starting to come of age as a political party.”

    The LP is getting old and tired and dull and boring and stodgy and unworkable. Been that way for about ten years that I can see.

    “We are beginning to see that being totally unwilling to compromise will get us no where.”

    You sound like an NRA gun compromiser. The thing about compromising principle is: it means you have none.

    “The big two parties got where they are because they slowly worked toward greater goals through gradual growth. That growth came from compromise.”

    The two big parties got where they are by working together to outlaw third parties as much as possible. They got where they are by being corrupt, by using the FBI and CIA to spy on people who oppose the established order, and, when necessary, kill them. They got where they are by providing money to the big defense contractor companies like Westinghouse (which owns CBS) and General Electric (which owns the NBC networks).

    “What I hate more than compromise is to get nothing for my efforts.”

    So you don’t want to have principles, because it annoys you that you have to put lots of work in at first for very little out, to build up a system that can ultimately give out lots of results for very little in. I don’t agree with your priorities.

    “No matter how noble the cause, no matter how much better things can be, if you can’t get elected to make changes, none of it matters and those changes aren’t going to make themselves happne, they need people to convince people.”

    You are very badly mistaken. Most change does not occur from people getting elected. Elections are a useful sideshow for generating interest in the problems and their solutions.

  85. JimDavidson

    @92 “LP membership has been growing over the last few election cycles.”

    No, it has not. LP membership has fallen dramatically since peaking in 1999-2000.

    “Vote percentages are also doing well.”

    You mean that elections are being won? Where? How many? Vote percentages that generate losses do not elect candidates. Didn’t you just get done telling me that electing candidates was the only thing that mattered?

    “In Texas, the LP has gained and maintained ballot access over the last couple of elections cycles (Taking at least 5% in at least one state wide office).”

    Yes, I was there when we did that in the 1990s. And then lost it. You seem to think that everything is grand in this brave new world. ‘Tis new to thee.

  86. JimDavidson

    @98 “For those who are unable to compromise, you will not achieve anything from those in power.”

    The objective of elections is to replace those in power. I see that you are just another worthless supporter of the powers that be.

    “I, as any LP member, would love to see the total removal of drug prohibition. A stepped compromise is to persue the more popular issue of medicinal marijuana. Once thqat has been achieved, we can move to the next compromise step of allowing testing of other prohibited drugs which will lead to their legalization, and so forth.”

    So, how is that going? That stupid compromise ideology has been around for decades, and we’ve seen referenda in a dozen or more states pass. And, guess what? You haven’t fixed the problem. Marijuana is “legal” in many states and is still prosecuted as a crime by the feds, with the cooperation of the police and other state gov’t agencies in those states. So, your compromise policy has failed.

    “Myself and other LP members that I talk with see that as progressive compromise. Take a little at a time. Why? Because we have spent 30+ years not accepting compromise and we have lost over and over and over.”

    Nonsense. We’ve spent most of the last 37 years listening to whiners and losers like you tell us to compromise, and push agenda items like the medical marijuana strategy, and it has repeatedly failed. You keep failing to produce any real freedom. But you keep your buddies in the established power structure happy. So, that’s nice.

    “In losing so much without compromise, we also lost ground.”

    You should know.

    “People are tired of voting for a losing strategy toward freedom.”

    What people have been voting for freedom? Not even 1% of the population votes for a given freedom candidate at the national level.

    But, to the extent that the top down, opaque, and corrupt strategy of the LP has not been working, I offer the fresh bottom-up, transparent, and corruption-free strategy of the Boston Tea Party. We’re also new, so people who are tired of the old can enjoy the new.

    “People want freedom but the LP of old will have never won a position to help win that freedom.”

    And that’s because the people you say want freedom have never voted for freedom. So….

    “The LP cannot win trying to sell freedom, alone. We need to sell positions. Those positions move us toward freedom.”

    You need to sell positions? Like, a position in the government? Or a position with a government contractor? You are saying that you support corruption as a strategy?

    “We didn’t get into the position we are in, today, overnight. It has taken time. It has taken slow compromising steps by two parties who’s only goals are self serving and ignore the Constitution for which the U.S. government was formed.”

    The two parties have the goal of corruptly allocating contracts and positions. Which is what you think the LP should be doing, I gather.

    “For the Anarchist, it doesn’t matter about the Constitution as it is only another piece of paper that legitimizes government.”

    It was your current president, Bush, who said it is only a goddamned piece of paper. It is not a piece of paper that legitimises anything. It is a noble, classical liberal notion that government might work out if it were limited. Have you followed the progress of that experiment? It has been falsified. The constitution has not managed to limit the power of government. If you cannot see that, then you are truly blind.

    “For the Libertarians, and I’m sorry for those who cannot see the difference, it is the guide from which the U.S. government is designed to work, and it has been ignored time and time again.”

    It has either allowed all the tyranny under which we suffer now, or the constitution has been powerless to prevent any of that tyranny. Those words were first written by Lysander Spooner in 1874. The constitution has not improved things one bit in the time since.

    “Zero compromise has gotten us no where.”

    So you would propose compromising on matters where the constitution says one thing and the government does another?

    “I’d rather achieve a little bit at a time, over time, than to never to achieve anything at all.”

    No, you are gullible. You would like to be gulled into thinking that you are getting something done, while actually accomplishing nothing. You have no principles, so you won’t be able to tell when you fail to get anything done.

    Found your house upon the shifting sands of expedience, and it is going to fall down.

    Found your house upon the solid rock of principle, and it will stand for generations.

    “No compromise achieves nothing when you have no strength to influence those in power.”

    Endless bickering over the free expression of Angela Keaton and a persistent failure since at least 1984 to maintain consistent principles has failed to inspire even the 100,000 or so people who have over time signed the pledge to be members of the LP. Only 16,000 of those who once did so are currently paying dues. That’s 16% for you compromisers.

    “Taking less than 1% of the vote provides us with zero influence.”

    So, um, how is that consistent with the great vote percentages? I don’t get it.

    “We are increasing our percentage of votes since we have begun to compromise.”

    Only the candidates with the strongest principles have been winning election.

    “We are increasing our ability to influence those in power.”

    And that’s what you want. You want to be useful to the established order.

    “I’m sorry for those who cannot see that.”

    I spit on your pity.

  87. paulie cannoli Post author

    LP membership has been growing over the last few election cycles.

    Incorrect. It fell from 33k or so in 1999 and kept falling with very few interruptions until 2007, to a low of about a third of its high. It has grown a little since then – which usually happens around every presidential election.


    Vote percentages are also doing well. In Texas, the LP has gained and maintained ballot access over the last couple of elections cycles (Taking at least 5% in at least one state wide office).

    When I petitioned to get the LP back on the ballot in Texas in 2004, it was the first time we had to do that since the 1980s. Nationwide, the LP has the same number of states with retained ballot access after the 2008 election as it did after the 2004 election. The biggest bright spot is North Carolina, which changed its retention requirement from 10% to 2% in the Governors race.


    You are mistaking winning with becoming a real political party. Before enough people vote to put people in office, they have to have confidence in the party’s viability. That confidence is growing.

    Sorry, I have yet to see evidence of that.


    Fewer people are saying “If I thought a third party could win…” less often and starting to actually vote third party.

    Show me the vote totals.


    I was at a PAC meeting in October where there were thousands of people. The majority of people said they had heard of the LP but didn’t know enough about the LP to decide if they would vote for us. That tells me a lot considering 6 or even 4 years ago no one I talked to had ever heard of the LP. We are becoming known. As people learn of our existence, more people will begin supporting us, and have.

    I what manner are they supporting the LP? With money? With votes? I agree that the potential is there and while I was out petitioning around the country in 2007-8 I noticed a libertarian current in the air.

    Ron Paul took advantage of some of that, mostly by being bold and standing up to Giuliani on foreign policy, and then pissed some of it away by sitting on a lot of his money and running conservative anti-migrant TV ads.

    The LP failed to take advantage of it with the tepid Barr campaign and toned down national office rhetoric which fails to inspire, the constant pandering to the dead enders of the reich wing, and the lack of proper nuts and bolts management. It is true that some state parties did better in the nuts and bolts department than national, with Texas being the best example.

    Wes Benedict is a competent manager. He knows how to grow a small business and a county and state LP. He has applied to be executive director at national, but is probably not likely to get the job, because it is given out on the basis of cronyism rather than demonstrated achievement.


    I don’t recall seeing the BTP on my ballot. For that matter, the only three parties I saw were Republican, Democrat and Libertarian parties. No constitution, no BTP, no Green, no Socialist (Thank GOD!!!), no Reform, etc…

    I have no idea why you would be thanking God for the ridiculous ballot access barriers imposed by the ruling gang of Texas. (I’m assuming it’s Texas based on what you said earlier, my apologies if I got that wrong). I want ALL those choices on the ballot. No party should gain its votes by keeping other parties off the ballot.

    As for the Socialist Party, they are good on many peace and civil liberties issues. The LP mostly is too, but tends to vacillate and sweep them under the rug. The Socialists are now better than the LP in some ways on the issue of corporations, since the Libertarians no longer call for an end to corporate personhood and nonconcensual limited liability. However, the Libertarians are better in that they realize nationalization of the means of production and bureaucratic management does not work.


    Ballot access, alone, is enough to show the LP is growing as a party. We had over 170 candidates on the ballot under the LP name in Texas for 2008. I believe there were only 2 Independents. Zero other third party candidates other than token write-ins available.

    It’s true that the Texas LP did a great job of candidate recruitment thanks to Wes Benedict. The national LP, not so much. There were way more candidates nationally in 2000, 2002, 1998, and several other times. It’s also true that Texas keeps other alternative parties and independents off the ballot. I don’t see how that is anything for an advocate of freedom to celebrate.


    The LP is growing.

    You will need better evidence than what you have presented so far.

  88. Mandude0

    My lord. If these last few posts weren’t so sad, they would be almost laughable. Let me know how the BTP works out for you, Jim. I don’t think I’ll be seeing much in the media about them.

    And yes, since 2004 (The last couple of election cycles) the LP has been doing well. We’ll talk in November 2010.

Leave a Reply

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