Note from Paulie: while this article is about LP organizing in particular, I thik the same issue is applicable to any electoral party.
Should We Organize a Regional LP Affiliate That Covers Several Counties/Cities, or a Single-Jurisdiction Group?
By Marc Montoni at Free Virginia
Over many years of organizing Libertarian Party affiliates in Virginia, it has become crystal clear to me that certain styles of organization are conducive to growing the Libertarian Party and recruiting candidates who actually get elected — and other styles are not.
There are many deleterious problems with organizing a regional group that covers more than one jurisdiction. Here are some brief descriptions of a few of these issues:
1) I have heard many Libertarians claim that their intent is to split up into single jurisdiction groups later on, after there has been some growth. However, in my experience, once a regional affiliate has been set up the members *never* bother to start up individual affiliates, regardless of how large the group becomes.
2) Regional groups are the Kiss of Death as far as real local activity is concerned. The members generally come to viewing the group’s purpose as continuing to meet — rather than participating in local electoral politics. In other words, the group’s purpose becomes perpetuating the group itself.
3) The entire purpose of having a Libertarian Party is to organize for elections. If Libertarians are never going to act like they mean to challenge offices at the local level, there’s utterly no point in having any local committees at all.
4) There is the issue of personalities. If a large, multijurisdictional group claims to have exclusive control over Libertarian events over the entire area, and some fraction of their constituency doesn’t get along with them, those people have no option other than to a) wrest control of the group away from those they disagree with, b) stay inactive, or c) travel to some other area far beyond their local city or county to be active with others. To me, this invites only two real outcomes: a) infighting; or b) inactivity by the group on the “outside”.
Frankly, we do not have the time to waste.
A larger group that controls a large area limits the ability of people who may not like the larger group to become active in an alternative the next city over. For example, consider Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Chesapeake. These three cities are the first, second, and third-largest cities in Virginia; each > a quarter of a million people. Each city is plenty large enough to where it could support a local affiliate that draws 25 to 50 people to each meeting.
So why we do not have a local affiliate in Chesapeake, for example?
Because we have one regional affiliate that claims to control all three of those cities, plus Portsmouth. Because of this, people in Chesapeake think they have to have something to say in the TLP, or they will have no other outlet for their energy and enthusiasm. Ergo, they focus their efforts at TLP instead.
Another problem we run into with Regionals is their membership begins to believe the group can annex neighboring communities at will. And indeed, this happened with the TLP many years ago. The TLP was originally chartered as the Virginia Beach LP back in 2001. However, without seeking approval from the LPVA, the TLP now claims jurisdiction over an enormous geopolitical area — all without following any of the procedures listed in the LPVA Bylaws for such affiliation; without any poll of the LP members within the areas they were annexing as to whether they wanted the TLP to cover them, and without circulating a new petition to that effect.
It has become clear to me that having recognized regional affiliates is not just inefficient. It’s also injurious.
Now, there *is* a place for regional libertarian groups. They just should act as social groups that don’t need to be officially affiliated with the Libertarian Party. Essentially, that’s how the TLP behaves. The Rocktown Libertarians, the Richmond Metro Libertarians, and other regional groups all operate this way. None of these groups really need any officers, bylaws, or official recongnition.
In addition, we already have eleven regional affiliates established by the LPVA Constitution: the congressional district committees. Do we really need any more?
Single-jurisdiction local parties do many things better than regionals:
1) They tend to recruit more candidates for local office — the level at which LP candidates can actually win.
2) They tend to commit political acts, such as attending local Board of Supervisors or City Council meetings as a group.
3) They allow members to have a choice of local events to participate in.
4) Personalities are less of an issue, if you can ride ten minutes down the road and see other libertarians who get along with you better.
5) Even though locals are kept as separate entities, there is ample opportunity for cross-pollination. When I started the Chesterfield County Libertarian Committee in 2007, I didn’t live there. I still supported them with my time and money. I just didn’t ask them to make me a voting member; their choices belonged to those who lived in the county.
So there are things to think carefully about when it comes to the regional vs single-jurisdiction local question. I have started both kinds of affiliates over the past twenty years — about 15 of them. And my experience tells me that once you try to cover more than one city or county, the group will rapidly lose focus on committing real political acts.
After twenty years of seeing that in action, I hope I can persuade you to take the other road.
Thank you for reading!
Too bad more peple don’t get that.
Amen!
Banks; “Well, maybe only once. Even his sun dial is stuck at high noon.
LOL! Yeah, HIGH-NOON, when visibility is maximized.
So unfortunate that YOUR clock is stuck 12 hours later.
Every time you scribble here, you put your foot further down your throat.
Your knee just disappeared!
Montoni wrote:; “Where I think Libertarians get into trouble is that there are way too many libertarians who have a public face in the Libertarian Party (party chairs, candidates, etc), and who don’t understand that exposing their own personal biases to the world makes it look like the LP as a whole actually *condones* such bias. Bigotry that makes it into LP media releases and other official publications damages the Party and the movement.
99.9% CORRECT;
The Only thing I would differ with is the fact the these loose canons are usually not party chairs
or candidates, but self-appointed zealots seeking to rule or ruin! (and sometimes they succeed)
YES, I mean that, and I’m NOT Talking about the Reeves faction.
Banks scribbled;
“Same principle. Do they want to use government or other initiation of force on behalf of their prejudice? If yes then they can’t be libertarians. If no they can.”
DT:> And you are not cognizant of the almost certain probability that these individuals will refuse to cooperate with Jews, blacks, etc, etc???
Montoni wrote: “We may not condone your activities, beliefs, thoughts, habits, or whatever — but we also reject the idea that you have a right to use government to force others to comply with your preferences.
The missing POINT here is that we are talking about operations WITHIN the Libertarian Party, not society in general. Is there ANYONE here who honestly and seriously believes that racial bigots, anti-Semites, “immigraphobes”, socialists, or anarchists (I don’t mean mini-archists) CAN or WILL work “cooperatively” with MAINSTREAM Libertarians????
I insist that that THAT answer is a resounding NO!
So WHY visit this calamity upon ourselves?
“But then that begs the question: So you’re saying that the broken old cuckoo is right twice a day?”
Well, maybe only once. Even his sun dial is stuck at high noon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ajMUaP9v4
“That also happens to be the central idea of libertarianism: We may not condone your activities, beliefs, thoughts, habits, or whatever — but we also reject the idea that you have a right to use government to force others to comply with your preferences.”
My point exactly.
“Where I think Libertarians get into trouble is that there are way too many libertarians who have a public face in the Libertarian Party (party chairs, candidates, etc), and who don’t understand that exposing their own personal biases to the world makes it look like the LP as a whole actually *condones* such bias. Bigotry that makes it into LP media releases and other official publications damages the Party and the movement.”
Right again!
Matt said:
I think that is the case also. I find myself agreeing with some of what he says here.
Rob said:
Haha good one Rob. But then that begs the question: So you’re saying that the broken old cuckoo is right twice a day?
That actually goes to the core of Libertarian beliefs. I think everyone is a bigot in some way. And I do mean EVERYONE. You, me, my brother, your mother, his aunt, David Terry, RC, Ms Moore (especially Ms Moore), The Pope, Mother Teresa, MaoBama and his pastor… EVERYONE. Bigotry only becomes “evil” when the bigot attempts to legislate their biases into law.
That also happens to be the central idea of libertarianism: We may not condone your activities, beliefs, thoughts, habits, or whatever — but we also reject the idea that you have a right to use government to force others to comply with your preferences.
Frankly, these days, I think leftists are the most blatant, violently intolerant, and belligerent practicing bigots. History actually bears this out, also — one look at the mass slaughter unleashed on the world population just by the 20th century socialists tells the story. The left kills because leftists are addicted to power and anything that speaks against their desire is just something to eliminate.
Where I think Libertarians get into trouble is that there are way too many libertarians who have a public face in the Libertarian Party (party chairs, candidates, etc), and who don’t understand that exposing their own personal biases to the world makes it look like the LP as a whole actually *condones* such bias. Bigotry that makes it into LP media releases and other official publications damages the Party and the movement.
“Actually it was Josephine XV”
No, it was her mother, Jospephine XIV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukPVZl46ZIo
“How about honest to god anti-Semites (not the tokens fabricated by Zionists)?”
Same principle. Do they want to use government or other initiation of force on behalf of their prejudice? If yes then they can’t be libertarians. If no they can.
“Gee, we could have joint LP/KKK meetings and save money.”
Well, sure, if you could have a KKK chapter that believes in the non-initiation of force, you could have an LP KKK circle jerk with Dave Terry sitting on the floor in the center of the circle with his mouth open and his tongue hanging out. Not saying this is a good idea but if that’s someone’s idea of a good time and everything is mutually voluntary, have at it.
“Banks you are disappointment, ”
Terry, you would be a disappointment, even for a mentally deranged old fart full of hot air, but that would be literally impossible in your case.
Actually it was Josephine XV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m138-Fn5Tw
The fat lady has now officially sung for Dissin’ Terry and the Burke-Reeves Republitarians.
Or at least that’s the impression I get from reading the thread, at least…
The fat lady has in fact sung for Dave Terry. She dedicated a song to him. It was by Napoleon XIV. It was called, Photogenic, Schizophrenic You.
>”And even racists ad sexists can be Libertarian if they don’t want to use government to > enforce their prejudices.
How about honest to god anti-Semites (not the tokens fabricated by Zionists)?
Gee, we could have joint LP/KKK meetings and save money.
Banks you are disappointment, even for a smart mouth, illiterate punk kid.
“Well, at least I’m right twice a day. That’s MORE than I can say of ……..”
It doesn’t matter what you say. You are a tiresome old crank.
Of course you meant party – that was understood.
Less obvious was that when you said the LP has no room for pacifists and anarchists that you supposedly meant that there should be no specifically pacifist or anarchist plank.
If that’s what you meant fine, I agree.
However there have always been plenty of anarchists in the LP and a few pacifists and the party should always have room for such.
And even racists ad sexists can be Libertarian if they don’t want to use government to enforce their prejudices.
“Even a broken old cuckoo clock is right twice a day. Take out the word “clock” and you got Dave Terry”
Well, at least I’m right twice a day. That’s MORE than I can say of Rob Banks.
“3. The Libertarian has NO PLACE for ………..pacifists……………….or anarchists.”
> Since when? This is horseshit.
Of course, I meant to type Libertarian PARTY
Why do you take exception to only THESE two groups?
By “pacifists, I clearly mean those individuals that will not under ANY circumstances raise their hand to another EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE.
I don’t have a problem with one BEING a pacifist, that’s your business, but it is NOT a legitimate
position for a political party. Secondly anarchists are against having ANY governmental apparatus REGARDLESS of how limited in scope or power. Again, it has no place as a plank for the Libertarian Party.
BTW the correct way to organize is by bioregions. Just saying.
“In this thread, it appears to me that people are disagreeing with Dave Terry simply because of who he is, and/or positions he has taken on other matters. ”
Even a broken old cuckoo clock is right twice a day. Take out the word “clock” and you got Dave Terry.
Glad someone remembered there was one 🙂
I agree. As I understand it, by local Marc means geographic units in which candidates can run such as counties and cities. A metro area making up multiple cities and counties or a section of a state is a good area to draw a social (not necessarily big L, and more people could be drawn to attend if it is nonpartisan) meeting e.g. Liberty on the Rocks. But as a political party it makes sense to use the units that government uses to designate candidates – cities, counties, congressional and legislative districts. Since the latter two get redrawn every ten years and tend to be gerrymandered, cities and counties are probably the best units for locals groups.
As to the original topic of this post, I definitely think local groups are preferable to regional ones (when regional means areas larger than whatever definition we’re using for local).
I am a founding member of a regional LP group, The Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia, which covers 2 counties and 3 cities. In the 6 years or so since we started the group (which is an official affiliate of the LPVA), we did a good job of serving Fairfax County for about 3-4 years, and have since dropped the ball on Fairfax and started doing a pretty good job in Arlington County. There was a transition period where activity was shifting between these two areas when we did a reasonable job of serving both. But, at this point, we are effectively operating as the Libertarian Party of Arlington County, even though Arlington is only home to about 20% of the people in our region.
In LPNOVA’s defense, activity has shifted to where the most people show up. Further, we still do a little bit in Fairfax, and we’ve made attempts to get things going in Alexandria. It’s not that leadership wants to underserve parts of the region, it just seems to keep happening that way on its own.
(BTW, for those of you not familiar with the political jurisdictions in this area, just substitute the names of a few neighboring jurisdictions near you.)
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Fairfax County, Arlington County, and the City of Alexandria COULD operate decent local groups. However, since they’re already “covered” by LPNOVA, there seems to be little motivation for people to step up and get local groups going. I suffer from this same lack of motivation. It’s kinda like “eh, there’s already a group here. I’m not going to bother starting another.” But, since I haven’t taken the initiative to get a Fairfax affiliate up and running, I have to drive to a neighboring county for most “local” LP activities.
I’m a relatively motivated/interested activist. Most Libertarians are not. I often find myself skipping out on things because they’re too far away (maybe 20 minutes in the car). I am sure there are tons of people within longer drives and/or less interest who skip a whole lot more than I do. And, after all, its harder to get memberships, donations, signatures, or volunteer work from people who aren’t there when you ask for these things.
“3. The Libertarian has NO PLACE for ………..pacifists……………….or anarchists.”
Since when? This is horseshit.
I’m with Matt on this, but of course as everyone should know by now I don’t read any of Dave Terry’s comments and recommend everyone else do the same, so it simply doesn’t matter what if anything he may or may not have said.
In this thread, it appears to me that people are disagreeing with Dave Terry simply because of who he is, and/or positions he has taken on other matters. I’m pretty sure that most “Radicals” would come down largely on his side on this, at least in a general sense. While it MAY be the case that he would like to use a platform/membership requirements/whatever to keep the party from becoming too radical, I would like to use the same kinds of things to keep the party from becoming too wishy washy and/or conservatarian.
I don’t think that you would have much of a party if anyone who wakes up and says they’re a member can then participate in making the party’s official decisions.
Steve M. > “Dave Terry, thanks for confirming what I was talking about. You are advocating having a minority trying to control and dominate a political movement.
Earth to Steve,……… In case you honestly didn’t know, minorities have always controlled and “dominated” (whatever you mean by that) every political movement that has ever existed. It is
in the nature of political participation.
The point is NOT in controlling the movement, but in protecting it from those who would either (a) use it for nonlibertarian purposes or (B) neutralize it either intentionally or unintentionally.
> “It is my firm belief that you will loose this battle.
Perhaps. It is MY firm belief that IF I do, the Libertarian Party and hence, the cause of liberty
will suffer accordingly.
> “People want more freedom, not more control…..
People want more freedom AND MORE control – over their own lives. People are NOT going to follow a herd of cat going in twelve different directions, or six, or three, or TWO.
I HONESTLY don’t know WHY you can’t understand that a group of people going in the same direction at the same speed, BY CHOICE, are going to be MUCH more successful than,
(a) a crowd being driven by commissars or storm troopers.
or
(b) a disorganized mob of pedestrians walking in different directions.
The principle REALLY isn’t that complicated!!!
The few people in the Reeves lawsuit will win, and all the registered Libertarians in the state of Oregon will gladly embrace their new leadership.
No, just the right handed ones! LOL. What do you mean “all the registered Libertarian”????
All Libertarians (registered or not) have NEVER done anything in unison. It isn’t it the nature of libertarians to march to any beat.
Dave Terry, thanks for confirming what I was talking about. You are advocating having a minority trying to control and dominate a political movement.
Your trying to define the Libertarian philosophy will be no more success full then the code writers who had once define hacking to be about neat tricks rather then breaking into other people computers. It is my firm belief that you will loose this battle.
People want more freedom, not more control and if you stand in their way and continue to try to control them they will shove you aside. A political movement isn’t a Bar we have no need for for bouncers or communist era political officers enforcing their regimented top down policies on us.
Jill @ 57 LOL
Oh, yes, that’s right! The few people in the Reeves lawsuit will win, and all the registered Libertarians in the state of Oregon will gladly embrace their new leadership.
JP> “Dave Terry, you lost in Oregon. Remember? Your way isn;t the way things work there any more.
The fat lady hasn’t sang YET! My way is the way things work everywhere, except in Wonderland, IPR and the radical caucus.
Steve M: “Those who seek to limit participation of self identifying libertarians because they don’t like how those people may take the direction of the libertarian party……. is an act of control.”
1. Whereas the term “libertarian” is a much misused and abused term, IT IS both desirable
AND necessary to “control” access to the LEGAL & POLITICAL use of the term. I make NO apology for desiring to preserve the legacy of those who went before us and to protect the
consistency and stability of the principles of “libertarianism”, AS IT MAY APPLY TO THE
LIBERTARIAN PARTY, for those who might follow us.
2. Individuals have every right to use their individual subjective meaning to the term, but in
a POLITICAL context. The Libertarian Party must stand for clear and cohesive principles and a platform dedicated to individual liberty and freedom from outside coercion.
3. The Libertarian has NO PLACE for collectivists, racists, sexists, militarists. pacifists, nihilists, nationalists or anarchists.
S.M> “That seeking to limit participation, is an act of control. Its like being the bouncer at a bar who decides who gets in and who doesn’t.
A person with no principles MIGHT see it that way, but contrary to your presumption, bouncers exist to keep the peace. THERE ARE such things as “undesirable persons”. Those who cause disruptions, break glasses or furniture SHOULD be 86’d from the bar.
BTW a political meeting is NOT a bar.
> “If you do keep people out, they will find a party that doesn’t and they will eat the Libertarian > Party Lunch.
Au contraire, they will simply cause the same mayhem and disruption THERE, instead of HERE.
and puke their lunch on someone elses floor.
> “As my mom would say…. “shit or get off the pot”
By all means, follow your mother’s advice……. But DON’T do it HERE.
This group is not a toilet.
paulie
“No, but it can declare what the Libertarian Party means.”
And every time to try, you will shrink more.
paulie
You are right, it is not a blank slate… the philosophy has underpinnings that are probably commonly understood as such:
“In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[18] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[19] In the United States, the term libertarianism is often used as a synonym for economic liberalism.”
The implementation of how that transforms into a political strategy is not something that can be directed from the top down via platform, a national office, a political director, etc.
This takes us back to the original premise of Marc’s essay … organizing at the local level is good … but only if they have autonomy, sovereignty, etc. and are merely just another puzzle piece in the giant free market. I do, however, know exactly what will happen to these organizations under the stewards that currently inhabit most state organizations and the national LP — and it is not pretty.
No, but it can declare what the Libertarian Party means.
I’m aligned with Gen X and younger in this respect.
I do both.
I have my opinion of the direction it should take, which is as you said more left-libertarian and youth focused.
One thing it is not is a blank slate.
And if it is not obvious from my previous post… the LIBERTARIAN PARTY as a formal entity will NEVER be powerful enough to declare what LIBERTARIAN means… period … end of story.
Get the fuck over yourselves — gain a modicum of modesty and you might actually be able to accomplish something rather than being regarded by the lions share of the libertarian community as off-base condescending worthless corrupt douche canoes.
paulie
The problem is that the Libertarian Party does not exist in a vacuum … libertarianism is a philosophy, and if you pull yourself out of alignment with the center of mass of that developing philosophy, you will shrink, become smaller, and eventually die out because you are being out competed in the marketplace.
Political parties have to go where the market is telling them to go. Gen-x and younger are decidedly more left-libertarian (classical liberal, agorist, etc.) — whereas there have been attempts to steer the national party towards the right by design. That is the future of libertarian politics, whether you want to be a part of it or not — it simply will happen.
You are out of alignment with market demand … and a large part of that is because you are trying to TELL people what libertarianism is, rather than LISTENING.
I don’t know that anyone really expects everyone to abide by it. But without it, libertarianism can mean anything or nothing. It does help define us for many people who don’t know what we are about, including some who call themselves libertarians and some who don’t know that they are.
Dave Terry, you lost in Oregon. Remember? Your way isn;t the way things work there any more.
Oy vey, what a gornisht! Welcome to earth Mr. Wagner.
Since you are new here, you clearly are unaware that libertarians, real libertarians have been meeting for many, MANY years and that the definition has been around for equally as long.
But it is nice of you to concede that you have no idea what that definition is AND that you have
not one iota of absolute, inviolate principle to stand on.
Contrary to your inference, a meeting of libertarians is not a meeting of Cardinals deciding the correct dogmas for the “faithful”, or to elect a Pope. Religious canon IS NOT the same as absolute “moral principle”, but since to observe neither, one can’t really expect you to know the difference.
Dave Terry, I thought that was abundantly clear. Those who seek to limit participation of self identifying libertarians because they don’t like how those people may take the direction of the libertarian party. That seeking to limit participation, is an act of control. Its like being the bouncer at a bar who decides who gets in and who doesn’t.
In short, if the shoe fits you probably are already wearing it.
If you do keep people out, they will find a party that doesn’t and they will eat the Libertarian Party Lunch.
As my mom would say…. “shit or get off the pot”
Expecting a group of libertarians to show up someplace and vote to define what the meaning of libertarian is and that this concept will be abided as some form of canon is about as rational as showing up someplace and electing yourself God so that you can alter the gravitational constant so you don’t have to feel as bad at your next weight watchers meeting.
They are both about as rational and as effective.
Steve M > “Libertarianism will only work if most people decide they have had enough of being controlled why would they join a party that seeks to dictate to and control them?
I don’t know who these Libertarians are who “seek to dictate to and control them” I have no idea where this comes. It is a total fabrication of those who ‘nihilists’ who wish that NO FORM or CLEAR IDEOLOGY be consistent among Libertarians.
It is THIS kind of thinking that caused the expression “organizing libertarians is like herding cats.” In THIS respect, Libertarians are our own worst enemy. But this does not HAVE TO BE!
A number of these differences are determined by ballot access laws in different places. If you have nomination by state convention there is a strong centralizing force. In Massachusetts we have nomination by petition, and fewer raw signatures needed for Libertarian candidates than for Democrats or Republicans, so there is no centralizing force.
Here in Colorado we have established a regional system to coordinate efforts within geographic areas of the state. Most specifically, it is done to gain county footholds in each region and then grow each county within a region from that foothold. The regions have no real power within the LPCO; they simply serve as communications nexuses and coordination points. The real power lies in the counties. The regions also will serve as a means to coordinate cross-district campaigns when we get that far grown. So that type of system does have benefits when implemented properly. In this case the purpose is to establish a dozen starting points simultaneously and get things moving without any geographic stomping on each other.
How do I know this is the case in Colorado? Simple: I designed it that way and got it passed at the last state convention.
Steve is hitting yet again on the exact hypocrisy that underpins the poor performance of the past several decades.
Dave Terry why is it that those who want to be leaders of a party that is about individual responsibility and reduced government control want to control the party and dictate what the party philosophy should be?
Libertarianism will only work if most people decide they have had enough of being controlled why would they join a party that seeks to dictate to and control them?
Steve M; “the catch is you can’t narrowly define the type of person you want and then expect broad based support.
NO DUH! The actual “CATCH” is that you can’T expect ANY support, If you don’t stand for SOMETHING specific!
“to have broad based support you have to trust the self identifying membership. yes they are going to be wrong a lot of the time. but this is where persuasion comes in.”
This philosophy has worked well for the Democrats and Republicans, hasn’t it. The “self identifying members of those two parties have made them undistinquishable from each other.
Is that REALLY what you want to Libertarian Party to become?????????
Boo hoo! I’m devastated! MOST of the wing nuts on IPR is about as open minded as the KKK.
Sez you, Dave Terry. Have you noticed that no one here on IPR seems to agree with you?
Mark Vetanen wrote; “The current Oregon Bylaws where created to free the organization of cult-like operations and operatives.
What Vetanen is all but conceding is the the pseudo Bylaws orchestrated by the Wagner clique was a deliberate attempt to PURGE the previously “and duly elected officers” (under the ONLY
bylaws recognized by the court) from the State Party.
> ” to be a member all you have to do is register with the Secretary of State as an affiliated voter” “We don’t control who a member is!”
…..or what he/she believes and supports. He/she does not even have to repudiate the initiation of force. This being the case, of WHAT value is a platform or statement of principles?
> “The State party cannot dictate political edicts or command the faithful to do anything at all.”
…..thus ALL manner of nonsense and anti-liberty pronouncements may be made under the auspices of the L.P without ANY recourse by the “Party” as a whole. As a matter of fact, the
so-called “Party” is NOT a “whole”, it is a figment of transient imagination. It can’t even inform its’ “so-called” members that the registered libertarian and now delegate on his left is marxist
and the OTHER co-called “libertarian on his right is fundamentalist neo-conservative.
ALL ARE WELCOME in the NEW “feel good” Libertarian Party.
>” All the State party can do is: Send out the nomination ballots; Send out the ballots for State party board elections; hold a State Rally or convention to ask the members to consider political direction or to make a unified statement.”
…..knowing well in advance that NO unified statement or unified direction can ever be applied.
Hi Steve… would you like to move to Oregon… it’s nice here 🙂
Trust is earned over time and with effort.
you might as well have a self appointed king
if you don’t trust the members why do you expect that they will trust you?
this is about picking the various boards that run the various levels of the party. If you block participation you are telling these people that you don’t trust them. and if you don’t trust them they wont trust you.
That’s the reason to have different levels of trust and responsibility in any organization.
Steve M
+1
either you have enough people to do something useful or you don’t.
the catch is you can’t narrowly define the type of person you want and then expect broad based support.
to have broad based support you have to trust the self identifying membership. yes they are going to be wrong a lot of the time. but this is where persuasion comes in.
Yes, that’s the idea.
paulie
“I’d like to have a party that is worth something, so that it can be effective in mitigating or stopping monopoly government coercion.”
Then stop putting things in a place where they are easily stolen or coopted.
I’d like to have a party that is worth something, so that it can be effective in mitigating or stopping monopoly government coercion.
paulie
The first step towards preventing a hostile takeover is to make sure there is nothing work taking over.
If you failed the first step, you doomed yourself with your own arrogance by thinking that you were somehow going to harness power better than some other person for the good of all. That is precisely how all corruption begins.
Not me. I believe my ideas would expand the party greatly. However, they have not been tried.
Well see that’s the “beauty” of signing a roster and not having to show up to anything; they don’t even have to meet Starchild. They just need a few thousand people from the Tea Party to sign the roster, elect new officers (or whatever it is they do in a party without titles) and call the sergeant at arms or the local SWAT team if Starchild shows up to anything after that.
Paulie
You have made the party so small and so vulnerable with your alleged venerated safeguards that you have practically invited them to finish you off.
Paranoid? I don’t think so. They came very close in the last few years even with the safeguards we have in place and may yet.
RE: the republicans… I will given them about 10 minutes after meeting Starchild before they balk running and screaming and never come back. The ones that don’t can be saved.
Btw…, thank you Starchild for all the good work you do 🙂
“And the Republicans get a million people to sign it. Voila, we are over.”
Paranoid delusions. They can’t get over themselves to even consider associating with us. We have that right now, btw… they are registered as Republicans and they are happy kicking our asses from over there.
Yes.
Lack of prospecting, lack of unified membership plan…
Dunno, but from the ones who show up to meetings, no. That needs to change and I have been advocating field organizing and youth outreach for a long time. So long that I have now become too old to be the ideal person to do it myself.
If and when my ideas are ever tried I will accept that verdict.
And the Republicans get a million people to sign it. Voila, we are over.
Marc
I joined a Political Party, not a church or brotherhood. Dues, oaths, loyalty test, and fancy titles all belong to the later, and I for one have no use for those.
If you, or anyone else, wants to start the ‘Holy Order of Libertarianism’, or whatever, and charge dues, have oaths, proclaim tiles and honors on each other, that then is your business and your right to do such. It is that such things have no relevance or place in a Public Political Party that is chartered though the State and abides by State Law.
It is not to say that a private club cannot influence a public organization, that happens all the time. What I am saying is that you cannot take a public organization and make it behave like a private or secret club.
You guys need to figure out what the hell you want, because 30+ years of this Private Club brotherhood has not produced the desired outcome.
paulie Post authorDecember 10, 2013 at 1:17 pm
”
‘No one gets to decide that. Period.’
Under freedom of association I believe we do. ”
And the bulk of the libertarian marketplace is moving on without you because you believe you hold the keys to that freedom of association … do you fail to see that?
Libertarianism and discussion of it is at a high… and your membership levels — where are they?
What is the trend of the average age of your membership? Is it maintaining parity with demographics?
The LNC Inc. and its hijacking of the national libertarian party – you are all failing. Period. And people like you and Marc are almost as guilty as people like Starr as for the reasons why.
Paulie
All of them have a functional equivalent… they can simply stop charging dues, stop asking for fancy pledges and putting people through farcical neo-feudalist structures and merely post a public roster that allows anyone to sign up and self identify.
Viola, you have a membership list.
Get over yourselves.
Marc
I am not demanding it, I don’t have the right to demand it — even if i did, I have the good sense not to exercise it – please stop projecting. 25+ years of trying to do things the same way and failing is a pretty good warning sign that what you have done and are continuing to plan to do, has not and may not work.
Not that many of them could even if they wanted to.
I disagree with you.
For you to continue to demand that other state parties design their affairs in your model is a failure as glaring as any other.
Under freedom of association I believe we do.
It’s a government edict, and one which applies in only about half the states.
We shall see. Predictions are easy. Getting them right is harder.
And just to be entirely clear, restraint of trade, copyrighting, etc., simply does not work in the marketplace of ideas and philosophy.
You will look like a complete douche even attempting it… in addition to failing miserably and wasting your brief existence in this world.
Marc
“‘registering to vote as a Libertarian’ is enough of a commitment to be allowed to steer the organization.”
No one gets to decide that. Period. It is a market force.
If you continue to try you will continue to fail.
Mark with all due respect you guys in OR may have some of the music right but you still manage to hit a bunch of stray notes.
I’m not going to get into a discussion of how illiterate judges and lawyers think private organizations should be run yet again; I’ve made myself clear in the past and you should remember that I disagree with you on the ownership of the phrase “Libertarian Party”, and I don’t agree that “registering to vote as a Libertarian” is enough of a commitment to be allowed to steer the organization.
You guys also never seem to acknowledge 1) registration by party is a subsidy to political parties, where the state collects your database for you and therefore Libertarians should be opposed to that on principle; and 2) partisan registration for Libertarians is impossible in the couple of dozen states that don’t allow Libertarians to do it.
Not everyone has the same situation as Oregon. Fan out and help a few neighboring states with their ballot access petitions to get a better taste of the conditions under which Libertarians in other states labor — as I have done (MD, WV, PA, NC and SC, over the past couple of decades).
Marc , but it is not about putting Libertarians on the ballot!
– People have formed these groups as a way to vent their frustrations about the current regimes among those who have sympathetic ears.
– Most of these groups are nothing more ‘social clicks’ that elevate themselves though the veneration of Libertarian philosophy.
– Going against the group is seen by the group as going against the philosophy, since the group cannot distinguish itself from the philosophy.
In a lot of ways I have identified most Libertarian groups as a cult in much of the way you see Amway, Visalus, sun rider, Scientology and other organizations that build up an elite core based on a philosophy.
Proof in point is the current Oregon legal struggles, the LNC informing all bloggist and other organizations that they own the word “Libertarian”, the issue with floor fees to as a purity tank for the faithful to swim or sink though, unethical and destructive activities going on at the National level and at the state level that is virtually ignored, as in, “It is OK to do unethical and bad things as long as it is our people doing the bad things and it is sanction by the current powers that be”.
The current Oregon Bylaws where created to free the organization of cult-like operations and operatives. All of the means to purge a member are gone, and to be a member all you have to do is register with the Secretary of State as an affiliated voter – We don’t control who a member is! The State party cannot dictate political edicts or command the faithful to do anything at all. All the State party can do is: Send out the nomination ballots; Send out the ballots for State party board elections; hold a State Rally or convention to ask the members to consider political direction or to make a unified statement.
The results in my opinion is that we have seen the highest number of candidates on the ballot than ever before; and that we have a lot of engagement in the party with new people and new ideas; and the best of all is that people are doing what they want to do to promote Liberty in their corner of the world.
Agree with, Marc and have been dealing with this locally for about two years. I think it’s time I stop waiting on the regional folks and open my house to local meetings.
” claims to have exclusive control over Libertarian events”
” believe the group can annex neighboring communities at will”
” a regional party that takes offense at half the LP platform”
Lines 1 and 2 should be viewed as not acceptable thinking. Line 3 is dealt with by organizing contrary groups in the same area. Details depend on your state ballot access laws.
Steve M, the problem is that at some point the larger group does try to “control” all activity in the area. Sure, sometimes the regional encourages other activities not sponsored by itself, but often that’s not the case.
Especially when you have a regional party that takes offense at half the LP platform. That’s when the “we want to control the message in our territory” urge comes in.
Usually — but not always — it’s about their desire to not have to address things like ending the prohibitions on drugs or prostitution, either because they’re not comfortable addressing those issues, or (more often) they actually oppose the Libertarian position on those issues.
I know there are some libertarians who don’t tread all the way into the overall philosophy. As long as they don’t control the message of the LP in huge areas, then they don’t do as much damage.
Groups focused on one limited area can then have neighboring groups nearby that operate differently.
With local vs regional organization, there’s more opportunity for a range of opinion. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Robert Sarvis tweeted IPR and said he agrees with Marc.
controls? ah thought (past tense might not be as dangerous) that we libertarians aren’t trying to control?
Seriously though control is the wrong word maybe coordinate, as in making sure that local meetings don’t overlap and are sequenced so as to make it easier for candidates to jump from one event to the next, and share, as in resources such as how to run effective campaigns or gather ballot access petition signatures….
So sure where it makes geographic sense, auxiliary regions should be good… fun to have more people at a party at the very least.