Florida Libertarian Party County Chair: ‘Libertarian Party was the original ‘tea party”

Posted at http://thirdpartydaily.blogspot.com/

From a letter to the editor of the St. Petersburg Times:

The Libertarian Party was the original “tea party” founded in 1971. We have always stood for constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility and personal/social freedom. The fact that the tea parties are up and running is encouraging because people are finally realizing that government is not their friend and, ultimately, is the only entity that can legally use force to make them comply.

But please do not be mistaken. Limited government parties and movements are by no means a new phenomena. The Libertarian Party has remained a bastion of consistency since its beginning, having altered its party platform very little since 1971. We remain committed to those principles even though the dominant parties change policy with every election cycle.

Joe Haynes, chairman, Libertarian Party of Pinellas County, Seminole

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/thursday-letters-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-is-evident/1085287

10 thoughts on “Florida Libertarian Party County Chair: ‘Libertarian Party was the original ‘tea party”

  1. Brian Holtz

    It would be nice if we in the LP could say “we have always stood for constitutionally limited government”, but in fact we only stood for that for two years. The original Statement of Purpose unanimously adopted in 1972 said “the sole function of government is the protection of the rights of each individual”. Ever since 1974, we instead have said that “where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual”.

    The Libertarian Party has remained a bastion of consistency since its beginning, having altered its party platform very little since 1971.

    The current LP platform is indeed similar to the 1971 temporary platform and original 1972 platform, but in the meantime we added and dropped a few ideas like Personal Secession.

  2. paulie Post author

    It would be nice if we in the LP could say “we have always stood for constitutionally limited government”, but in fact we only stood for that for two years. The original Statement of Purpose unanimously adopted in 1972 said “the sole function of government is the protection of the rights of each individual”. Ever since 1974, we instead have said that “where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual”.

    The second statement is consistent with constitutionally limited government, while acknowledging that government may be limited even more than it would be if the constitution was in force.

    in the meantime we added and dropped a few ideas like Personal Secession.

    That must seem like a fairly minor detail from an outside perspective. Granted, you or I may think it’s a big deal, but “personal secession” is not exactly near the top of most voters list of important issues. I would think that on those issues which now or in the last 40 years have dominated the real wold political debate, the LP platform has indeed been pretty consistent ….no?

  3. Brian Holtz

    Yes, the LP platform has been pretty consistently libertarian, and I can’t think of an issue where our platforms have ever taken contradictory positions.

    Striking the letter X from the English language (as redundant) is not near the top of most voters’ list of important issues, but it would still be a self-marginalizing position to take.

  4. If some one would .......... [Lake]

    mention that the world knows the 2008 VP LP candidate for his W. A. R. stance, inspite of [duh!] Doctor Phillies’ [false] claim that the LP is the solo 21st Century American peace party.

    Libs, white male loners of dubious ethics [$100T national debt, Handcock’s ‘Don’t Vote’]!

  5. Starchild

    In a statist political system dominated by career politicians whose goals are power and money, it is to be expected that taking consistently pro-freedom positions is going to be a “self-marginalizing” activity.

    Let’s accept this reality, focus on standing up for what is right, and spend less time worrying about whether or not we are popular!

    Those who do not believe in personal secession and would rather live with a minimal, voluntarily-financed government should not be forced to secede, but those who do believe in it should have the choice to “opt out”.

    The Libertarian Party should honor the Dallas Accord and not take a position on which approach is better.

  6. Robert Capozzi

    sc, I support adding Nonarchy Pods, where those who want to opt out can do so onto their property.

    I submit that these personal secession pods solve the problem for the anarchy now! set.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    sc: Let’s accept this reality, focus on standing up for what is right, and spend less time worrying about whether or not we are popular!

    me: sounds good. The question becomes: What is right? You seem to assume that the abolitionist anarchists are “right” and the minarchists and the lessarchists are “wrong.”

    If so, how so?

  8. Nate

    Brian @3,

    actually running a campaign on removing the letter X from the alphabet might at least garner the Mark Twain vote, which has got to be more than the .5% the LP averages. So perhaps you should reconsider…

  9. Steve LaBianca

    Robert Capozzi said, “sc, I support adding Nonarchy Pods, where those who want to opt out can do so onto their property.”

    Unfortunately, even with the federal and state constitutions, one cannot “opt out” one one’s own property.

    Furthermore I ask, why does Mr. Capozzi think that only on one’s property can someone opt out? Does he, or someone else he knows, own the rest of the properties out there and are banning the “opt out” folks from stepping foot onto such property? Does he eschew the likelihood of individual, or even multiple agreements or contracts to use variously owned properties in agreed upon ways? Or does Mr. Capozzi think that the state own all the property, except for those owned by “opt outers” in the so-called “Nonarhy Pods”?

    For all Mr. Cappozi’s talk, he is sorely lacking in understanding what private property is . . . at least his rhetoric is indicative of this.

    Mr. Holtz just knows nothing about libertarianism. Apparently, self determination, (which would be completely realizable in personal secession), a truly American theme means that Holtz is the self who determines!

  10. Brian Holtz

    I know enough about libertarianism to know it’s not a synonym for ‘anarchism’. Some people apparently don’t even know that much.

    Personal secession is not “a truly American theme”. My copy of the Declaration of Independence says “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government”. Is mine a misprint? Does the original say “and to personally secede from all government authority”?

Leave a Reply

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