2008 Libertarian Party PlatCom Secretary Invites Greens To Find Common Ground

From a blog posting today by the Secretary of the 2008 Libertarian Party Platform Committee (i.e. this reporter):

GP+LP fusion won’t send the right electoral signal unless there is a clear national-level statement of our common ground.  There are two good possible starting points for such a statement: 1) the Free Earth Manifesto, and 2) this redacted version of the Democratic Freedom Caucus platform.  I would love for an intellectually-adventurous Green Party insider to take her red (or green) pen to either document and see how little she could cross out before finding the remainder supportable.  I’m confident that the remainder would still be a bold and powerful statement for human liberty and ecological wisdom.

The 2010 Libertarian Party Platform Committee will be meeting Dec. 12-13 in Las Vegas to write its report for the May 2010 LP convention in St. Louis.  LP Secretary Bob Sullentrup announced last week the final state membership rankings for determining 2010 PlatCom representation.  CO has moved into the top 10, displacing MI into 11th place.  The top 10 states each get one PlatCom rep, and are (in order): CA, TX, FL, OH, NY, VA, IL, PA, CO, GA.

26 thoughts on “2008 Libertarian Party PlatCom Secretary Invites Greens To Find Common Ground

  1. Tom Blanton

    I wish the reporter had interviewed the Secretary of the 2008 Libertarian Party Platform Committee about the blog post the reporter references. I’m sure the witty banter and subtle insults would have been quite entertaining.

  2. Kimberly Wilder

    You know, you ask for a “Green Party insider” to look through the document. I have to say, I don’t think there are many people left INSIDE the national Green Party. They have done what they wanted – created some big, fat fish in an incredibly small pond.

    You might want to start collaborating with Green Party circler-arounders, ex-patriots, banishees, etc. There are way more of those. And, they have a better sense of humor!

    Peace,
    Kimberly

  3. Robert Milnes

    Brian, I appreciate your effort here. Unfortunately as you can see, the reception is poor. This is the reason I suggested that party approval would be wonderful but not necessary for the PLAS Experiment in MA & CA in January. Rather it could be accomplished by contributions to the campaigns & actual activists going there & knocking on doors etc. It was your opinion on that I asked about & that of Tom K. & Prof. Phillies who has taken a great interest in & participation in the campaign there in MA. Molasses may be slow in January but time flies. We need mmediate action & endorsements asap. we can’t wait for party action which might not even happen or theory on complex matters which might not ever be resolved. Let’s do the Experiment as best we can & see the results of that.

  4. Brian Holtz

    Kimberly, by “insiders” I really just meant anybody with insight into what positions that Greens would be willing to officially adopt.

    I could hazard my own guesses. I suspect that Greens could accept all the principles of the Free Earth Manifesto except for wanting to qualify those labeled: Aggress Not, Contract, Property, Risk-Taking, and Self-Defense. They might also quibble about the Free Trade and Free Farming principles, as I doubt that uninternalized externalities are their only objections to free markets in these two areas. And, to the extent they realize its implications, they probablywould reject the sweeping preamble statement: “The powers of governments are just to outlaw only force initiation and fraud, and to tax only monopolizing, depleting, polluting, or congesting the commons.”

  5. Gene Trosper

    Brian: I applaud your effort at finding some sort of Green-Libertarian common ground. I’m convinced this is the next wave.

  6. George Phillies

    With respect to LNC acts and behaviors, note that a petition whose text claims to be general as to what LNC members should be like, but actually titled “I support the ACHIEVE slate” as though there were a real “ACHIEVE” slate, has appeared on ipetition. In reading the list of signatures on that petition, note that comments blocks in grey correspond to comments that are not visible.

  7. libertariangirl

    I read the petition and found nothing overtly controversial . Honestly not sure what all the hoopla is about . I know Angela is disgusted by it , and since she and usually agree I followed the link , and I think I must be missing something…I usually am 🙂 can someone , George perhaps , point out what the problem with that petition is.

  8. Brian Holtz

    What does an LNC-related petition have to do with this thread? Well, I guess that this is the one thread where a Milnesian PLAS comment doesn’t count as trolling/hijacking, and nature abhors a vacuum… 🙂

    Robert, I’m still unclear on what “experiment” you’re talking about. My position remains: libertarian-leaning voters should only vote for a non-LP candidate if 1) their votes are likely to be the difference in electing the lesser of two evils, or 2) that non-LP candidate specifically runs on a set of positions that largely exclude the un-libertarian parts of her party’s platform. Otherwise, I don’t see how voting for a non-LP candidate wouldn’t do more harm than good.

    I found contact info for the GP PlatCom at http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/. I’ll drop them an email.

  9. robert capozzi

    bh, IOW, never. I view voting as a symbolic gesture, not a consequential one. One vote means nothing EXCEPT for the voter.

    Votes can begin to have meaning through endorsements and organized campaigns. But even there, one vote’s a drop in the ocean.

  10. Michael H. Wilson

    Robert maybe you should take a close look at some of the recent races. had a few people decided not to vote in Franken’s reace in Minnesota maybe the outcome would have been different. Extremely close races are not new and there seem to be more races where it is a few votes that make the difference.

    Votes really do count.

  11. robert capozzi

    mhw, yes, in aggregate, a small number of votes COULD count.

    I’m unaware of any cases where ONE vote made a difference unto itself.

  12. Mik Robertson

    @15 “I’m unaware of any cases where ONE vote made a difference unto itself.”

    Did you forget that one vote elected G.W. Bush President after the 200 election, 5-4?

  13. Robert Milnes

    Brian, your position assumes 100% LP candidates on ballot. Reality is that MANY ballots have no Lib. OR Green. Many have one OR the other. So Libs & Greens should BOTH vote for ONE on EVERY ballot. The PLAS Experiment involves the upcoming special elections in MA & CA. There is no Lib. in the CA Assembly race in Orange County, a 10% republican majority registered voters. I am not sure but I think there is no Green in the MA U.S. Senate race. But even if there is, it still won’t matter. The Experiment calls for Lib & Green voters in CA on Jan 12 to vote for the Green. On Jan 19, Lib AND Green voters vote for the libertarian Independent. Joe Kennedy has been endorsed by LPMA chair Blau. All available Green AND Libertarian activists are asked to come to MA & CA after Jan 1 & campaign. The Experiment is to test the hypothesis that the Green/progressive vote is @27% AND the Libertarian vote is @13% AND if ADDED amount to @40% & victory by plurality in a three way race. Sorry Brain, you can’t play dumb.

  14. Don Lake, A Modest Proposal ...........

    ?
    Saint-Jean; Quebec general election, 1994 0% 0 Incumbent Liberal Michel Charbonneau tied with Parti québécois candidate Roger Paquin. Consequently, a by-election was held 42 days later, which Paquin narrowly won.[1]

    Champlain; Quebec general election, 2003 0% 0 PQ candidate Noëlla Champagne tied with Liberal Pierre Brouillette. Consequently, a by-election was held 36 days later, which Champagne narrowly won.[2]

    Pontiac—Témiscamingue; Canadian federal election, 1963 0% 0 Progressive Conservative incumbent Paul Martineau defeated Liberal Paul-Oliva Goulet. A deciding vote was cast by the returning officer after the two candidates tied.[3]

    Ashton-under-Lyne; UK general election, 1886 0% 0 &0000000000006099.0000006,099 The vote was tied, so under the law of the day, the returning officer was given a casting vote.[4]
    Shelburne;

    Nova Scotia general election, 1999 0% 0 Progressive Conservative Cecil O’Donnell defeated Liberal Clifford Huskilson. The deciding vote was cast by the returning officer after the two candidates tied.
    Joliette;

    Canadian federal election, 1887 0% Conservative Édouard Guilbault defeated Liberal F. Neveu. The deciding vote was cast by the returning officer after the two candidates tied.[5]

    Assiniboia West; Canadian federal election, 1896 0% 0 Conservative Nicholas Flood Davin defeated independent John K. McInnes. The deciding vote was cast by the returning officer after the two candidates tied.[6]

  15. Robert Capozzi

    mr, that was NOT an election, it was a Supreme Court DECISION. Yes, you’re right, though, if one is a member of the Supremes, every “vote” counts.

    dl, not sure of your source, although those very few instances all appear non-US. Odds are still infinitesimally small that one vote is the deciding factor.

    To be clear, I favor voting as a symbolic gesture.

  16. Don Lake, A Modest Proposal ...........

    “Robert Capozzi // Nov 19, 2009:

    ….I favor voting as a symbolic gesture!”

    As a patriotic citizen of the Global Imperial Fascist American Empire, you are honor bound to [like Samuel Longhorn Clemens/ Mark Twain] to at least leave a paper trail of the abuses by the Duopoly Establishment!

    Sadly, the most appropriate cartoon might be the bedraggled tree denizen giving the final one finger salute to the swooping bird of prey ……

  17. Don Lake, A Modest Proposal ...........

    Kimberly Wilder // Nov 17, 2009:

    ” ……. I don’t think there are many people left INSIDE the national Green Party. They have done what they wanted – created some big, fat fish in an incredibly small pond.” [Lake: so true on the West Coast …..] “You might want to start collaborating ….. ex-patriots”

    [Lake: I am confused! When does a person whom sincerely wants good things for an other person, organization, nation – state become an ‘ex-patriot’ ?????]

  18. Mik Robertson

    @21 There was a district magistrate race in my county just before they brought in electronic voting machines where one candidate beat another by eight votes. There was a recount and the initial losing candidate was found to have won by one vote, out of over 3,000 cast.

    It was that race that finalized the decision to go with electronic voting machines. So now the system is configured in such a way that there cannot really be a recount, the best that can happen is the votes are downloaded from the machine a second time.

  19. Michael Cavlan

    Kimberley

    ROFLMAO re #2.

    Ummmmm *twinkle*?

    Mik re #24.

    I was an Official Green Party Re-Count Observer in Ohio 2004. I concur 100% with what you are saying.

    The lesson of our so called democratic republic is. to paraphrase Joe Stalin.

    “It is not important who casts the ballot. It is he who counts the ballot that matters.”

Leave a Reply

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