Libertarian Party of Delaware Applauds Ron Paul, Endorses Green Party Candidate

The Libertarian Party of Delaware recently had their state convention and passed a resolution praising Republican Presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, himself a former Libertarian Party candidate.

Resolution Recognizing the Achievements of Dr. Ron Paul

The Libertarian Party of Delaware wishes to recognize the achievements of Dr Ron Paul in promoting libertarian principles.

For decades, Dr Paul has been a principled advocate for smaller, more efficient and less intrusive government, and he has championed the blessings of personal liberty over the authority of the state.  Even as a member of the Republican Party, Dr Paul has done more than any other individual on the national stage to introduce the libertarian message to a new generation of citizens and political activists.  As our party seeks to plant and nurture the seeds of liberty by growing our membership, Dr Paul seeks to renew  his own party from within.  Both of these efforts are desirable and complimentary.

We applaud the heroism and dedication of Dr Ron Paul to our common cause.

The state’s Libertarian Party also endorsed the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate Andy Groff.

62 thoughts on “Libertarian Party of Delaware Applauds Ron Paul, Endorses Green Party Candidate

  1. Nick Kruse

    “The state’s Libertarian Party also endorsed the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate Andy Groff.”

    This is what I want to see more of. People and organizations that want third parties to do well need to support all third parties and work together to get them elected. I hope the Libertarians, Greens, Constitution, and other third parties will do more of this in other states.

  2. Steve Newton

    To be perfectly clear, by the way, Andy Groff is not the typical Green. He has been in and around our party for some time. He is anti-drug war, anti-interventionism, believes that “government only has the powers that the people decide to give it.” He spent the better part of 45 minutes on the convention floor answering questions, and he even participated in the Q&A with Gary Johnson.

    He had already secured the Green nomination a couple of months ago, and since our General Assembly abolished fusion tickets we could only endorse. But the Greens are right now about two dozen signatures shy of ballot access. We think they will make it, but if they don’t we are OK with calling a special meeting to nominate Andy on our own ticket.

    We had Greens and members from the Independent Party of Delaware as well as Campaign for Liberty folks at our convention. Our idea as alternative parties is to always present the Dems and GOPers with a united front on every single issue we can agree on.

  3. JT

    Groff: “I stand for single-payer national health care.”

    Excuse me, Delaware LP, while I go vomit.

  4. David Colborne

    Article 6, Paragraph 4 of the national LP bylaws (available here):

    No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election. No affiliate party shall take any action inconsistent with the
    Statement of Principles or these Bylaws.

    There’s a reason this bylaw is there – namely, the LP is a political party whose purpose and goal is ostensibly to get Libertarian-branded candidates on the ballot, not a PAC that assigns support to “libertarian” candidates. That particular bylaw also protects the LP from getting infiltrated by pick-your-bogeyman-political-group-of-the-moment; it’s one thing to infiltrate a state LP chapter enough to get them to endorse Democrats, Republicans, or whatever, but it takes a special kind of dedication to run your non-libertarian candidates as Libertarians.

    In short, the LP Delaware could face possible disaffiliation over this. Whether that matters or not in a post-LP Oregon world will undoubtedly be an important subplot through this thread.

  5. Austin Battenberg

    I understand what JT and David are getting at, and I agree with them to an extent. But if their is no other viable libertarian candidate running, I see no problem with endorsing someone that we agree with on most issues except healthcare and some economic issues. A lot of Greens believe in government, but don’t necessarily believe that government should spend more then it takes in tax revenue.

    I like the idea of forming a united front against the two-party duopoly. They pose more of a threat to our liberties then one or two issues we disagree on.

  6. David Colborne

    @5: In principle, I agree with you, and would be happy to work with any PAC or libertarian think tank that adopted such a stance. I might even personally be inclined to support various libertarian-leaning candidates in local races for the reasons you cited. However, the Libertarian Party is not a PAC and it is not a think tank. It is a political party – one that not only fields LP-branded candidates but has clear and explicit rules forbidding LP affiliates from endorsing non-LP candidates in partisan races.

    For the same reason that a certain popular libertarian columnist that just happens to be in the LNC shouldn’t be saying anything on radio shows that might sound like an endorsement of Mitt Romney, state LPs should not be endorsing non-LP candidates in partisan races. The difference is, there’s actually a rule against the latter act with some rather clear and unambiguous consequences when violated.

  7. Pingback: Links, 5/22/12 « naked capitalism

  8. Marc Montoni

    One of the central tenets of libertarianism is that you honor your word.

    State party delegates to the national convention have, over the years, established and maintained the aforementioned Bylaws rule against endorsing the candidates of other parties.

    As a condition of affiliation, state parties agree to abide by the rules set that we all agreed upon in convention.

    The LP of Delaware, besides committing an act of political amateurism, has gone against its word to the rest of the Party by endorsing the candidate of another party.

    Yes, a motion for disaffiliation for cause should be considered.

    My goodness, people. Act like you mean it. If you want to be a political dilettante, do it in another party.

  9. paulie

    But the Greens are right now about two dozen signatures shy of ballot access.

    Signatures or voter regs? And is the deadline May 25?

  10. paulie

    Was there any move to disaffiliate Maryland when they endorsed Kevin Zeese? What about all the LPs that have tacitly or perhaps explicitly endorsed various allegedly libertarian Republicans over the years?

  11. Steve Newton

    I’m getting really tired of all the folks who are going to tell everyone else the “central tenets” of libertarianism.

    Let’s deal in some facts:
    @3 JT: at the national LP convention in 2008 Mike Gravel collected enough tokens to get into the main presidential debate, and he supported national health care. Uh, and let’s not forget that the 2008 candidate was an author of DOMA, and the Patriot Act, and has already scurried back to the GOP to endorse Mitt Romney. When you do better at the national level, give us a shout.

    @4 David–Amazing that you don’t know that state LP affiliates have been endorsing libertarian leaning candidates all over the country for years if they didn’t have a candidate in a particular race. Moreover, Delaware had–until the General Assembly eliminated it last year–fusion nominations. Many candidates, including Libertarians have run under other party nominations as well. You also apparently don’t realize that the Gary Johnson campaign is willing to endorse libertarian-leaning candidates in other parties where there is no Libertarian candidate in the race. You’re right: we’re a political party, and you build political parties by building coalitions. Our party members routinely go back and forth with their registrations to vote for Ron Paul in primaries.

    @8 Marc–get over yourself. The ugly truth is that the national LP needs the affiliates far more than the affiliates need the national LP. Delaware is one of the only states that has continually assured ballot access without the LP having to spend thousands of dollars and sweat it out each year, because we keep our numbers up and work with other alternative parties to fight against further limitations.

    And we run candidates who are Libertarian and get votes–as high as 22% in one House race in 2008 and 11.2% in another in 2010. We get news coverage and we get into candidate debates.

    And, I know, none of it will matter to “libertarians of principle” or whatever you think of yourselves.

    Get real. We operate in a heavily blue state where statist Dems outnumber even GOP voter registrations 3-2, and where the best a GOP candidate has done in the last five presidential elections is lose by 6%.

    We’ll make our inroad our own way. You do yours, and we won’t mess with that, either.

    @paulie

    I meant voter registrations. Yes, the deadline is May 25 but they have currently six more in hand than they need.

  12. Brian Holtz

    The dilettantism here lies in Bylaw’s 6.4 rule against fusion endorsements — a rule I’ve opposed for years.

    The LNC wouldn’t dare disaffiliate LPDE over this, but if they did then JudCom should uphold that decision.

    An 8.13 petition challenging non-disaffiliation should only be heard if an LNC minority forced a vote on whether to disaffiliate for cause.

  13. Nick Kruse

    If they would be disaffiliated, that would absolutely cause another problem like we have in Oregon. There is no reason to make people with control over a ballot line mad at the National LP.

    There is also nothing wrong with endorsing other third party candidates. That is how you work together to become a big political force.

  14. JT

    Austin: “But if their is no other viable libertarian candidate running, I see no problem with endorsing someone that we agree with on most issues except healthcare and some economic issues.”

    I do. Endorsing a candidate who wants a totally socialist healthcare system? Seriously? That’s not even the status quo–that’s the *polar opposite* of what libertarians want. And by “some economic issues” you must be referring to huge expansions of government welfare & mandates. Not a big deal though.

    Paulie: “Was there any move to disaffiliate Maryland when they endorsed Kevin Zeese? What about all the LPs that have tacitly or perhaps explicitly endorsed various allegedly libertarian Republicans over the years?”

    If those were formal endorsements, then there should have been. I thought the endorsement of Zeese was a disgrace.

    Steve: “@3 JT: at the national LP convention in 2008 Mike Gravel collected enough tokens to get into the main presidential debate, and he supported national health care.”

    So what? Any candidate is free to *seek* an LP nomination or endorsement. The issue is whether that candidate *should receive* it.

    Steve: “Uh, and let’s not forget that the 2008 candidate was an author of DOMA, and the Patriot Act, and has already scurried back to the GOP to endorse Mitt Romney.”

    Uh, the difference is that BB repudiated those stances when he sought the LP nomination. He wouldn’t have been nominated if he supported those things *while* he sought the nomination. And nobody could predict what he’d do in the future.

  15. JT

    Nick: “There is also nothing wrong with endorsing other third party candidates. That is how you work together to become a big political force.”

    No, you work together in specialized areas where you agree (e.g., ballot access reform, antiwar rallies, civil liberties petitions, etc.). You don’t work together when it means endorsing some of the exact opposite of what you want.

  16. paulie

    That’s not even the status quo–that’s the *polar opposite* of what libertarians want.

    Yes and no. A socialist health care system may be better or worse than a corporate-fascist one. And a single payer is a step from government health care. Taxpayers pay but providers are still private. Mandates for individuals to pay, in effect, taxes directly to the large insurance corporation of their choice may or may not be worse.

    And nobody could predict what he’d do in the future.

    Some did.

  17. Robert Capozzi

    12 bh, agreed on all counts. What’s the appropriate thing to do here, IYO?

    My gut sez disaffiliation is a bad idea. Yet saying nothing also seems dysfunctional. A letter from Neale, perhaps?

  18. JT

    Paulie: “A socialist health care system may be better or worse than a corporate-fascist one.”

    Those aren’t opposites; they’re 2 sides of the same coin. Both are disasters. A free-market system is the opposite of both.

  19. Brian Holtz

    Groff’s site says: We need to return to a market economy […] I stand for corporal sovereignty ( the belief that each one of us is responsible and decides what is best for our bodies) […] Every government official takes an oath of office “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Not some of it, or parts of it that fit the moment, but ALL OF IT.. Lots of other good stuff there.

    The only unlibertarian thing I see in all his positions is: I stand for single-payer national health care. But he also says: Healthcare, education & vocational training are examples of programs intended to do that but don’t seem to be working well. I’m not so sure how beneficial it would be to be prescriptive in specific legislation during a campaign and make those hollow promises typically thrown your way. I’d like to find a new way and be candid with you about the issue. Some things just don’t have clear cut answers. If we work together we have a better chance of finding them.

    I’m OK with the LPDE endorsing him. I’m going to contact him and see if he’ll endorse this Libertarian version of The Ten Key Green Values.

  20. Jed Siple

    If there is no LP candidate in the race, the LP should ALWAYS endorse another third party/independent candidate as a united stand against the two-party duopoly. To hell with bylaws.

  21. JT

    Holtz: “Groff’s site says: We need to return to a market economy […] I stand for corporal sovereignty ( the belief that each one of us is responsible and decides what is best for our bodies) […] Every government official takes an oath of office “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Not some of it, or parts of it that fit the moment, but ALL OF IT.. Lots of other good stuff there.”

    These things can mean different things to Greens than Libertarians. I’m sure that other Greens believe that they’re loyal to the Constitution, using weird logic. Ditto for Constitutionalists.

    Holtz: “The only unlibertarian thing I see in all his positions is: I stand for single-payer national health care.”

    Look in his energy section where he calls for “investments” (a euphemism candidates use for government spending) in R&D, as well as subsidies for “green buildings,” etc.

    But even if that weren’t the case, socialist healthcare is enough for me. I have no problem with a candidate who wants transitional measures in the right direction. I wouldn’t necessarily disqualify a candidate who’s flat-out wrong on something or other. But advocating a socialist healthcare system is beyond the pale, IMO.

    As for the rest of what he says, it’s so vague & noncommittal that it’s worthless.

  22. Nicholas Sarwark

    Just to clarify re: Kevin Zeese, he was actually nominated by the Libertarian Party of Maryland for Senate in 2006. The state would only allow him to appear on one ballot line and he chose Green.

  23. Nick Kruse

    Jed Siple: If there is no LP candidate in the race, the LP should ALWAYS endorse another third party/independent candidate as a united stand against the two-party duopoly. To hell with bylaws.

    Me: Couldn’t agree more!

  24. Robert Capozzi

    19 bh, so do I take it that you advocate looking the other way until the bylaws are changed?

  25. Steve Newton

    Uh, the difference is that BB repudiated those stances when he sought the LP nomination. He wouldn’t have been nominated if he supported those things *while* he sought the nomination. And nobody could predict what he’d do in the future.

    That last line has to be the dumbest thing I’ve read all day.

    You’re OK with a man who has held every position under the sun in favor of the state, and who then supposedly repudiates them all for a shot at running on the LP ticket, and then–all of a sudden–you say no one could predict what he’d do in the future like first endorsing Newt and then endorsing Mitt?

    All elections are about making predictions about what your candidate will do in the future.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    25 sn: All elections are about making predictions about what your candidate will do in the future.

    me: For some, perhaps, but not me, so “all” is false. I’ve only voted for Ls with no expectation of anything except not winning the election. I’ve never once wondered what the L candidate might do in a few years, as it’s immaterial to the exercise.

  27. Steve Newton

    @25 I didn’t say “all votes,” I said “all elections.” There’s a difference.

    Candidates always run on what they have done (if they’ve done anything) and what they will do (or not do).

    You may not vote on that, but an overwhelming majority of voters do. Thus the statement.

  28. Robert Capozzi

    27 sn, let’s play with that. You claim that the “dumbest” thing you’ve read all day is that, “And nobody could predict what [BB]’d do in the future.”

    I suspect most Barr voters were like me, not expecting him to win. Therefore, few if any had reason to “predict” much of anything about a President Barr. Badnarik voters probably gave no thought to what he might or might not do in a few years down the road, yes?

    Yes, voters who vote R or D probably visualize something about what the candidate might do in office. But it appears you are confusing that with LP nominees.

    To NOT predict seems like the WISE, not the “dumb,” position to take, yes?

  29. Gene Berkman

    It is not dispositive, but interesting to note that the authors of the National LP by-law prohibiting endorsement of other party candidates all quit the LP years ago, to back Pat Buchanan (in Rothbard’s case) George W Bush (Charle Koch) and other Republicans.

    In regard to Kevin Zeese, fusion was legal in Maryland when the LP and the Green Party decided to back Mr Zeese for Senate. The Maryland legislature passed a ban on fusion specifically to prevent Kevin Zeese’s multi-party campaign.

  30. JT

    Me: “Uh, the difference is that BB repudiated those stances when he sought the LP nomination. He wouldn’t have been nominated if he supported those things *while* he sought the nomination. And nobody could predict what he’d do in the future.”

    Newton: “That last line has to be the dumbest thing I’ve read all day.”

    Steve, your analogies were dumb. You compared a state LP *actually endorsing* someone who *currently* advocates socialism in medicine to 1) Gravel *seeking* the LP nomination for President in a debate, and 2) Bob Barr receiving the nomination *after* denouncing several earlier positions.

    Newton: “You’re OK with a man who has held every position under the sun in favor of the state, and who then supposedly repudiates them all for a shot at running on the LP ticket, and then–all of a sudden–you say no one could predict what he’d do in the future like first endorsing Newt and then endorsing Mitt?”

    First, I’m not okay with him.

    Second, BB joined the LP well before running for President (which I think he did reluctantly right before the convention). He even served on the LNC. Like most (not all) Libertarians, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he did those things in part because he realized that laws such as DOMA & the Patriot Act were inimical to liberty. He even worked with the Marijuana Policy Project.

    Third, I shouldn’t have used the word “predict.” Anyone can make any prediction. But BB endorsing Newt Gingrich & then Mitt Romney happened four years in the future, so unlike the above-named laws he supported prior to his nomination, you can’t hold that against the LP for when it nominated him.

    Anyone who advocates importing healthcare socialism from other countries is advocating either accelerating America toward bankruptcy or death by rationing. It’s not a trivial issue; given the percentage of government spending on healthcare & projections into the future, it’s one of the most crucial economic issues today

  31. Brian Holtz

    you advocate looking the other way until the bylaws are changed?

    No, I advocate looking straight at these fusion endorsements, both to make sure the endorsees are worthy, and to call attention to that misguided bylaw.

  32. Nick Kruse

    For everyone concerned with following that by-law to the letter, I have heard no one complain that the Delaware LP applauded Ron Paul. He is a Republican. That would be against the by-laws if you want to read them literally.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    31 bh, yes, but in the meantime what would you advise the LNC to do about this clear violation?

  34. Trent Hill Post author

    The bylaw seems really misguided, at best, and downright harmful, at worst.

    In New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and a handful of other states–I would think it is a tool that should be available for use to state parties. The key is to not rely on it too heavily.

  35. Eric Blitz

    There is nothing wrong with LP members arguing who or isn’t a proper libertarian or worthy of their nomination. Bob Barr obtained the LP nomination, for better or worse. Maybe most wish they could have undone that. But to have an LP affiliate endorse another party’s candidate is an entirely different matter. If I had donated funds to the DE affiliate to support libertarian candidates and it turned around and endorsed any other party’s candidate, I would feel deceived.

    Too many people seem to treat the LP as something other than a political party. The LP is a partisan organization, advocating for its partisan candidates (who we all hope express a coherent vision of libertarianism, but if not, that’s an in-house fight). The LP can work with the Green party or any other party for ballot access or litigation challenging laws which hurt third parties. But the LP must stand for getting only libertarian party members elected, or you might as well be fighting for libertarianism within the Republican Party (as some argue is the preferable route) or for libertarianism outside of the political process.

    State affiliates should be just that, affiliates of the national LP, not completely independent political parties.

  36. Kevin Knedler

    So if a Communist was running against a R and a D and there was no Libertarian, the answer is to vote for the Communist? I had to ask.

  37. Nick Kruse

    One of the most influential state third parties is the Conservative Party of New York. They rarely field their own candidates and instead endorse conservative Republicans, and yet they have more power and influence than most other third parties have. Fusion nomination/endorsement is a good ability for third parties to be able to use when a candidate of another party agrees with most of the third party.

  38. Eric Blitz

    @Kevin, 38 It would be difficult to discern a difference in their positions…. (half-kidding).

    How an individual libertarian votes is completely up to their independent judgment. How a party uses its influence on endorsement/nomination of candidates is one which should be guided by the interests of the party as an institution, and from my perspective that means only supporting declared Libertarian Party candidates.

    There are plenty of opportunities for small l libertarians to participate in the political process, including organizing groups that endorse libertarians or liberty-leaning candidates of other parties. The LP should be reserved for that part of the process that is designed to support declared LP candidates, otherwise it obscures its core purpose and creates infighting over the support of non-sanctioned candidates. It also facilitates outside groups ability to co-opt the affiliate parties for their own partisan ends.

    That said, I applaud Steve Newton’s work in helping to support the LP of Delaware and while we may disagree on this point, he has helped the cause greatly in the past week. Applauding the efforts of other candidates (like Ron Paul) is fine, but an endorsement or nomination is a qualitatively different act-it is giving official party sanction to the views expressed by the candidate receiving the endorsement or nomination.

    @Nick, 39 Fusion nominations can also be viewed as a way of keeping third parties as fringe elements, destined to always remain as a 3rd party.

  39. Marc Montoni

    I disagree that the bylaw is wrong. I support it.

    In Mr Berkman’s example, he noted several individuals who **left the party** in order to endorse statists.

    I don’t like affiliates endorsing Ron Paul, either. If you want to support Ron Paul, take off your LP hat and do so, by all means and with my blessing. But don’t sit there and use your elected position in the LP to endorse Republicans, Democrats, or Greens.

    The time you spend endorsing the candidates of other parties could be better spent calling one of the new prospects LPHQ sends to your state, getting him signed up, and helping him start his county/town/precinct committee. And maybe getting him elected once his area is properly organized.

    Libertarians have this strange bias towards activities that do NOT build the party or get us any closer to actually implementing our goals.

  40. paulie

    Marc,

    Gene was pointing out that those people were the same ones responsible for the bylaw which prohibits the LP from endorsing candidates of other parties. Thus, you can say they followed their own rules and therefore left.

    The alternative is that they could have stayed in the LP and pushed it towards cross-endorsing candidates such as Bush and Buchanan. Does anyone here think that would have been a good thing for the LP?

  41. Marc Montoni

    Paulie, I *was* saying they did the correct thing.

    They persuaded their fellow party members to adopt the rule; when they later decided to support someone else, they did the proper thing and left the LP.

    I have no problem with someone who shows his support for other parties or individuals IN AN HONEST WAY.

    Telling people we’re a libertarian political party, then publicly supporting gun control, or Obamacare, or foreign misadventures, is an act of fraud.

  42. paulie

    Paulie, I *was* saying they did the correct thing.

    I got that. However I did not hear a response from Gene or other on this:

    The alternative is that they could have stayed in the LP and pushed it towards cross-endorsing candidates such as Bush and Buchanan. Does anyone here think that would have been a good thing for the LP?

  43. Matt Cholko

    I absolutely agree with this statement, made above – “There are plenty of opportunities for small l libertarians to participate in the political process, including organizing groups that endorse libertarians or liberty-leaning candidates of other parties. The LP should be reserved for that part of the process that is designed to support declared LP candidates…”

  44. Matt Cholko

    I would further say that I have no problem with a bunch of Libertarians sitting in a bar after their meeting deciding that they should all vote for the Green Party candidate, or any other candidate, for any reason. But, and LP organization officially suggesting that LP members do so seems out of bounds to me.

    For the record, my view would be the same regardless of the LPUS bylaw prohibiting endorsements.

  45. Will McVay

    Go ahead, disaffiliate us. We lose four delegates to the national convention that we could probably send and get seated with other states. We’ll still have ballot access. Run your own state. Once you’ve taken it over, you can tell us how to take over ours.

  46. Starchild

    Steve Newton @25 – “All elections are about making predictions about what your candidate will do in the future.”

    Robert Capozzi @26 – “I’ve only voted for Ls with no expectation of anything except not winning the election. I’ve never once wondered what the L candidate might do in a few years, as it’s immaterial to the exercise.”

    Notice that Steve said it’s about “what your candidate will do in the future”, but Robert interpreted this as “what your elected Libertarian will do in the future”.

    Robert, you would have us believe that we need to be “moderate” and “pragmatic” and so on in order to win elections.

    Yet now you say it doesn’t matter what one thinks a Libertarian candidate will do in the future, because he or she isn’t going to win.

    In other words, since he didn’t get elected, it’s just fine for Bob Barr to con us into giving him the nomination, and then turn around and abandon the LP in favor of Mitt Romney.

  47. Robert Capozzi

    51 sc, yes, I happen to believe that the LP would be more effective on a lot of levels if the party was more moderate and practical in its approach.

    It is also the case that I’ve never voted for someone who was likely to win. My vote is a symbolic act.

    And, no, your logic escapes me on Barr. First, I don’t feel “conned” by Barr. Barr in 08 was what he was…a former R MC who’d become a L and after RP could not be recruited, threw his hat in the ring.

    What Barr does in ’12 means nothing to me. I don’t agree with his endorsement, if that’s what you mean.

    Or are you suggesting some sort of multi-year conspiracy by Barr to undermine the LP?

  48. paulie

    I haven’t scrolled to read the original statement, but it’s not impossible that LP candidates could win in a few years. Some of them have been winning local office for many years, and we can never know when something may take the party to the next level. 40 years in the desert does make us feel like we’ll be here forever, but that’s not necessarily so.

  49. paulie

    Or are you suggesting some sort of multi-year conspiracy by Barr to undermine the LP?

    Some people have suggested that, but I think the more frequent cynical suggestion about Barr is that he just used the LP as a booster rocket for a failing career.

  50. Starchild

    Robert @52 – “Are you suggesting some sort of multi-year conspiracy by Barr to undermine the LP?”

    No, I’m suggesting that the multi-year failure of some Libertarians to see the truth about opportunists like Barr and be more wary about nominating them is undermining the LP.

  51. Robert Capozzi

    55 sc, we’re watching a different movie, then. I saw no “undermining” in 08. Barr, like L prez candidates past and future, did the best he could. I would say ALL L candidates are opportunists, and I would like to see them be MORE opportunistic!

    But, OK, you believe you possess the “truth” about the “opportunists.” Do you maintain a list of them? A file filled with evidence of their “opportunism”? Do you plan an expose of these opportunistic poseurs?

  52. Starchild

    Robert @56 – I wish you would stop with the “you’re playing holier-than-thou” spin.

    If you don’t believe you possess any truth, then you have no business arguing with anyone, since if even you yourself have no confidence that the opinions you voice are true or correct, why should anyone else waste time on them?

    A few basic questions:

    (1) Do you think that opportunism (I’ll define that here as people using the Libertarian Party to promote themselves or their non-libertarian agendas rather than libertarianism) occurs in the LP or is likely to occur?

    (2) If so, do you agree that this is a bad thing?

    (3) If you agree it’s happening or could well happen and that it is a bad thing, what do you think we as a party ought to do to prevent it, if anything?

    (4) Don’t you who are allegedly concerned with the party’s image and such see any problems when our most recent presidential candidate walks away from the party and evidently away from libertarianism?

  53. Common Tater

    I don’t think you two mean the same thing by opportunism, as far as I can tell.

  54. Robert Capozzi

    57 sc, yes, but my intent is not to “argue,” it’s to share ideas. If it’s an argument, then you win!

    And, yes, I don’t think I possess “truth,” as my perceptions are far too limited to discern the complete big picture. Near as I can tell, that’s the human condition. I am doing my best to approximate truth by eliminating untruths.

    My feedback on your 4 points…
    1) Check your premise. Since there is no one thing called “libertarianism,” you have set yourself up for failure from the outset. But if you mean, are there people who knowingly advocate a state of affairs in which the social order has less individual liberty than is the current state of affairs?, I don’t know any. Yes, that could happen.

    2) Were it to happen, it would be something to deal with at the time. I don’t find worrying about such things productive or helpful…seems a touch paranoid to me. Chill is my default position.

    3) Preventing, say, a David Duke figure from damaging the LP brand seems like something to be way on the back burner, since I don’t see it as much of a threat. I do think the LNC or a state committee should be prepared to repudiate something like that happening. We did see an advocate (for a time) for legalizing bestiality through his hat in the prez ring this cycle, and he did not come anywhere close to the nomination. The body seems more sane than to consider such an audacious candidate for the top of the ticket.

    4) No, I don’t think anyone notices Barr’s endorsements except Ls. I just think he’s made a mistake, one that is none of my business or the party’s business. Any remedies (an LNC repudiation resolution, for ex.) would only serve to give Barr (and Romney) publicity. Barr said some supportive things about GJ recently, too. I don’t see him as being hostile to the LP (although he might be), I just see him making a call and perhaps trying hard to be a “playa” of some kind.

    RP went back the Rs, too, and that’s worked out pretty well generally. (I’m a bit surprised that NewsletterGate did not blow him up karmically, but I may be more sensitive about haterade than others.) He’s popularized a libertarian approach in ways that I’d submit eclipses anything the LP’s done, actually, despite the serious warts on his last 2 national campaigns.

  55. paulie

    But if you mean, are there people who knowingly advocate a state of affairs in which the social order has less individual liberty than is the current state of affairs?, I don’t know any.

    You mean in the LP, right?

  56. Robert Capozzi

    60 p, thanks, yes, of course.

    The LP is the only lessarchist party with national scope, although BTP technically is another one. All the rest are morearchist parties, although there are a few lessarchists in other parties.

  57. Common Tater

    BTP being on zero ballots I don’t think you can really count them (or the Objectivist Party, also not on the ballot anywhere that I know of this year).

Leave a Reply

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