"Libertarianism is not pacifism. It is not isolationism. It is skepticism." – @RogerJStoneJr #Libertarian pic.twitter.com/KdwAu2n7WD
— Broward Libertarians (@LPBroward) March 15, 2013
So, what do Libertarians think? Does Roger Stone now speak for the LP? Not only does the Ohio LP embrace him, but recently the Broward County LP did so as well.
What do LP followers of IPR think of this quote?
How does Stone’s “libertarian” presentation fit with his past support for George W. Bush and numerous other statists and interventionists? Or with his current support of them:
Does his forthcoming book on Benghazi fit with a libertarian viewpoint?
Please discuss.
It should be noted also that one Alex George was strongly considering running for Governor, until he realized that he had no shot at the nomination because of a select few in leadership who were already convinced it was Adrian or no one. I plan to support who ever the Libertarian voters nominate at the ballot box.
Certain individuals in FL would support hiring staff if the money was there, and you know they’d be overcompensated and it would be a political favor to one of their friends
LOL. I’m for it. Warren?
A more poetic title for this article would have been: “County LP in Florida Turns to Stone”, complete with a picture of Medusa.
FL has an easy nomination process in redistricting years but they are employing a different strategy (selective races versus filling the ballot). There are many states which nominate by convention that don’t have very many candidates.
Texas has nomination by convention. It matters. They are exploiting their tool effectively.
Exactly how many affiliates has Roger Stone helped over the past few years in which he has been involved with the LP?
Also, a bad idea in real political life.
Falling For Stone would be a good band name or album title.
I wish Florida had an Executive Director, a professional staff, and so on; but until we have the leadership that wants to raise the money and build the organization, it will never happen. Florida desperately needs a full-time staff, unfortunately since the current leadership is more focused on flexing their own perceived power and promoting their favored candidates, I doubt that would happen. Prime example, they’ve been more focused promoting Overby than aiding in the planning of their own state convention (which one would assume is more important than a Congressional candidate).
I wish Florida had an Executive Director, a professional staff, and so on; but until we have the leadership that wants to raise the money and build the organization, it will never happen. Florida desperately needs a full-time staff, unfortunately since the current leadership is more focused on flexing their own perceived power and promoting their favored candidates. Prime example, they’ve been more focused promoting Overby than aiding in the planning of their own state convention (which one would assume is more important than a Congressional candidate).
“The longer the LP relies strictly on volunteer help, the longer it will take to grow.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that Texas has paid staffers, and they have 51 candidates for Federal office this year.”
It is great to have paid staffers, but the paid staffers should actually be philosophical libertarians. The party should hire from within the Libertarian or at least from within the libertarian movement. The Libertarian Party and movement is big enough to do this, so there is no legitimate reason to not do this.
“Mike Kane March 24, 2014 at 12:48 pm
Frankly I was very disappointed Roger Stone didn’t seek the Libertarian Party of Florida’s gubernatorial nomination. It would have been the first time in FL history that a primary occurred (Provided another candidate makes it).”
Is Roger Stone actually a philosophical libertarian? If not, then Libertarians should be glad that he did not seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination for Governor of Florida or anything else. The last thing that this party needs is non-libertarians running for office.
Be careful what you wish for.
I doubt that.
Nothing in it for him.
True.
Yes of course Matt, which I should of included with the “other variables” portion I wrote above.
Ballot access barriers also have a lot to do with the number of candidates in a state.
Additionally, I have no issue with paying people for LP services. Remember that old saying, you get what you pay for? The longer the LP relies strictly on volunteer help, the longer it will take to grow.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that Texas has paid staffers, and they have 51 candidates for Federal office this year. In Florida, we have 3.
Of course, there are other variables, such as fundraising, and state leadership.
Frankly I was very disappointed Roger Stone didn’t seek the Libertarian Party of Florida’s gubernatorial nomination. It would have been the first time in FL history that a primary occurred (Provided another candidate makes it).
What kind of disappoints me though is that Roger Stone very rarely attends Miami-Dade local affiliate meetings, and could be a tremendous asset in some ways to help the party there locally. I’m unaware of him being of any assistance to the affiliate or even attending a meeting, at least in the past year. I could be wrong, but still. For all the talk about him being a great asset to the party, you would think he could at least take some time to help out the county he resides in.
“Thomas Knapp March 24, 2014 at 7:45 am
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with Harry making money from what he did with the LP. In fact, I specifically contrasted him from unprincipled money-grubbers by pointing out that he at least put out a (fairly) consistent libertarian message.”
It could also be that the way that Bill Bradford related the story was not exactly what was said, or that he took some remarks out of context.
Case in point: Somebody could talk to me and say something like, “Why did you go on the road and work as a paid petition circulator?” I could then go into a story of how and why I got started, and say something like, “Well, at the time I’d been a member of the Libertarian Party for 4 years, and I was on the Libertarian Party’s email list, and they said that they were hiring petitioners in various states. I needed to make some money, and so I decided to try it.” (Short version of story) Then I could go into more stories, during part of which I talk about making money in various states and how much things paid or best days in various states, etc… Then Bill Bradford or whoever goes and relates the story to somebody else by saying, “That Andy guy is only in it for the money. He said that he went on the road to make money, and then he went into stories about how much money he made on various petition drives, etc…” He then cherry picks a few comments, and then relays the story to somebody else, who then relays it to somebody else, and then it is like that game kids play in school where a story gets whispered from person to person and the details of what was being whispered gets changed from what was originally said.
This of course would produce a distorted version of what the full story actually is, and make it sound like I was only out to make money and maintain a certain lifestyle, which would not be an accurate account of the story, because reality is that I’d have made a lot more money if not for being dedicated to pro-liberty activism and turning down a bunch of work, which means I turned down a bunch of extra money, by refusing to work on a bunch of anti-liberty causes over the years, and of course another part of the story is that perhaps I could have made more money doing something else all together. This also does not factor in all of the money that I’ve donated to the Libertarian Party and other pro-liberty causes, all of the money that I spent out of my own pocket photo copying pro-liberty outreach material to hand out to the public, as well as copying pro-liberty videos onto VHS tapes or DVD’s to hand out to the public, as well as all of the money that I’ve spent attending libertarian meetings/conventions, as well as the countless volunteer hours that I’ve put in on pro-liberty causes.
I’d bet that the real story with Harry Browne was that he had already been a small “l” libertarian for decades, he had at least some name recognition in the libertarian movement, and so people were like, “Harry, you should run for President. You are already known as a libertarian, and you’ve got some good ideas, and you are a good communicator, and just think of it, it won’t be a total loss because you’ll be able to make some good money on the side selling your books.”
There is a big difference between this, and somebody who is just an apolitical mercenary or a non-libertarian mercenary who is only looking at the Libertarian Party as a way to line their pockets with money and who don’t give a rat’s behind about the philosophy or the party.
‘Didn’t Bill Bradford put out the libertarian magazine called Liberty? If so, wasn’t he making money off of the movement himself?’
“In a word, no.
Liberty was set up as a non-profit, sold for less than its operating costs, tried to make up the balance with donations to its associated foundation, and if I am not mistaken ran an operating deficit every year, which Bill made good out of his own pocket.”
There are people who make full time livings off of non-profits, some even make very lucrative full time livings off of non-profits. Maybe Bill Bradford was not able to make a full time living off of Liberty magazine, but he could have if it had sold more copies.
The bottom line is that there are Libertarians and small “l” libertarians who have turned their political activism into money making ventures. Some are very effective at what they do and make a good living at it, others may only make a little bit of money, and others make a lot more money than they deserve to make (as in they are ineffective, but still make money). There is not really anything inherently wrong with anyone making money just as long as they are effective enough to justify however much they are making at whatever it is they are doing.
Look at Rob Kampia. He’s a Libertarian Party member, and he also was one of the founders of the Marijuana Policy Project. He’s made a full time living for years running the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), and he makes a pretty good living from what I’ve heard. I’m not sure how much he gets paid, but it sounds like it is more than the average person makes, plus he gets a bunch of perks, like getting to travel around the country and going to parties at the Playboy Mansion. I’d say that MPP has been a pretty effective organization. Have they always been as effective as they could have been? No, but even so, MPP has played an instrumental role in getting marijuana laws changed in a pro-liberty direction in a bunch of states, so I’d say that overall, MPP has been an effective organization. None of the things that MPP have accomplished would have happened if not for their paid office staff, and all of the paid contractors (such as paid petition circulators, etc…) that have worked on MPP funded projects over the years. Everything that MPP does is of course supported by their donors, but considering that MPP has actually been a catalyst for changing marijuana laws in this country in a pro-liberty direction, I’d say that they have given their donors a pretty good value for their money. Is everyone at MPP only in it for the money? I doubt it. I think that they all like getting paid, but that they also really do want marijuana to be legal.
Getting back to the original article: does retweeting one of Stone’s tweets really constitute an endorsement of everything Stone does? Seems like pretty thin grounds for an article to me.
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with Harry making money from what he did with the LP. In fact, I specifically contrasted him from unprincipled money-grubbers by pointing out that he at least put out a (fairly) consistent libertarian message.
“Didn’t Bill Bradford put out the libertarian magazine called Liberty? If so, wasn’t he making money off of the movement himself?”
In a word, no.
Liberty was set up as a non-profit, sold for less than its operating costs, tried to make up the balance with donations to its associated foundation, and if I am not mistaken ran an operating deficit every year, which Bill made good out of his own pocket.
Matt Cholko March 24, 2014 at 12:07 am said: “If I pay you to print campaign flyers, and you give me poorly printed pieces, I’m unlikely to buy from you again, or recommend you to other Ls. If I pay you to collect sigs, and you give me a terrible validity rate, I probably won’t hire you again.”
LOL! This is not the way the LP has been operating.
“Frankly, if the LP is every going”
Should read, “Frankly, if the LP is ever going…”
“Matt Cholko March 24, 2014 at 12:07 am
There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone making money by any, non-coercive means. While I would prefer that everyone involved did something to help the LP grow, there is nothing inherently wrong with joining the LP for the sole purpose of making money from said involvement.”
Actually, I would say that there IS something wrong with joining or getting involved with the LP for the sole purpose of making money. I would be leery of anyone like this.
What I’m talking about is people who are actually already Libertarians or small “l” libertarians finding ways to make money at it. If such a person is effective, be it as an LP office staffer, a campaign manager, a writer, a talk show host, a fundraiser, a petition circulator, etc… This is akin to the old career advice of doing what you love and the money will follow. If a person is effective, then I’ve got no problem with them making money. Frankly, if the LP is every going to grow we actually need more full time Libertarians. Ideally, every state party would have a full time office staff, and we’d have Libertarians on the ground full time in every state gathering petition signatures and/or registering people to vote and/or doing outreach/signing people up for the Libertarian Party’s contact list.
“But, it seems unlikely to me that someone could make significant money, for very long, from LP related activities that are ineffective in growing the party or movement in some way. And that goes, at least in a general sense, to everyone who receives money from someone for anything even remotely L-ism related. ”
If only this were true! I can tell you that the LP has and has had more than a few contractors and employees over the years who have been highly suboptimal, and who have caused the party to squander I don’t even know how many thousands of dollars.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone making money by any, non-coercive means. While I would prefer that everyone involved did something to help the LP grow, there is nothing inherently wrong with joining the LP for the sole purpose of making money from said involvement. But, it seems unlikely to me that someone could make significant money, for very long, from LP related activities that are ineffective in growing the party or movement in some way. And that goes, at least in a general sense, to everyone who receives money from someone for anything even remotely L-ism related.
If I pay you to print campaign flyers, and you give me poorly printed pieces, I’m unlikely to buy from you again, or recommend you to other Ls. If I pay you to collect sigs, and you give me a terrible validity rate, I probably won’t hire you again. If I donate to your campaign, and you’re W.A.R……… you get the point.
Me neither.
Or hurt the LP, as he did in NY and with the Johnson campaign.
Exactly.
“So the issue should not be him making money off of the Libertarian Party/movement, but rather how EFFECTIVE was he, as in did the amount of money that he made off the movement justify the amount of money that he made? ”
Should read, “So the issue should not be that he made money off of the Libertarian Party/movement, but rather, was he EFFECTIVE enough to justify the amount of money that he made off of the party/movement?”
“It kind of funny how”
Should read, “It is kind of funny how…”
George Phillies March 23, 2014 at 9:25 am said: ” With respect to Tom Knapp’s remarks, I confirm that the late Bill Bradford told me almost exactly the same thing,”
Didn’t Bill Bradford put out the libertarian magazine called Liberty? If so, wasn’t he making money off of the movement himself?
Thomas Knapp March 23, 2014 at 8:55 am said: “”Some people automatically discount the idea that anyone would see the LP as a place to make money, but a few people do make significant money from it.
The late RW Bradford waited until Harry Browne was dead to tell me what he told me, and I waited until Bill Bradford died to repeat it to anyone except my wife. What Bill told me was this:
In a private, candid conversation after the second campaign, he asked Browne “why.” And Browne’s reply was: In the early 1990s, his investment newsletter / advisor business was winding down and he needed to replace that income — he needed to knock down $100k per year to continue living in something like the style to which he had become accustomed. Perry Willis and Michael Cloud convinced him that running for president on the Libertarian ticket could provide that income. Not as a straight transactional thing, of course — not taking a salary from campaign funds or anything like that, but book sales, personal appearances, etc.
I have no reason to believe that Bill would lie to me about that. And, we both agreed, at least Harry played it fairly straight as regards libertarian ideas and the LP platform, and worked his ass off to convey a pretty solid libertarian message. As, to be fair, have other Willis and/or Cloud productions — Carla Howell, for example.”
George Phillies March 23, 2014 at 9:25 am said: ” With respect to Tom Knapp’s remarks, I confirm that the late Bill Bradford told me almost exactly the same thing, except that when we spoke Bradford discussed not book sales but various campaign expenses.”
I think that there is a BIG difference between a person who makes money off of the Libertarian Party and/or some aspect of the libertarian movement by EFFECTIVELY doing something that actually BUILDS the Libertarian Party and/or libertarian movement, and while actually disseminating a pro-liberty message to the public, and a person who is making money off of the Libertarian Party and/or libertarian movement who is NOT effectively doing something that actually builds the Libertarian Party and/or movement, and who is not really disseminating a pro-liberty message to the public.
Harry Browne had a solid Libertarian message, and he did an excellent job of disseminating that message to the public. Although Harry Browne did not join the Libertarian Party until 1994, and he only joined so he could seek the LP nomination for President in 1996, Harry Browne was not a Johnny-Come-Lately to the libertarian movement, as he had been a small “l” libertarian for decades before this. Also, Harry Browne did not leave the Libertarian Party, nor did he abandon Libertarian activism, after his last run for President ended in the year 2000. Harry remained a Libertarian activist up until he passed away in 2006.
This is a big contrast from somebody who made money off of the LP and/or libertarian movement, who was not effective, and who did a poor job of disseminating a libertarian message to the public, and, since we are talking about running for office as a Libertarian candidate, who abandoned the party and movement after the election (like say Bob Barr or Wayne Root).
It kind of funny how some people in the Libertarian Party and movement, which is supposed to be in favor of the free market, act like anyone making money from the party or movement is automatically doing something bad/immoral. This sounds more like a socialist attitude than a libertarian attitude. I have no problem with anyone making money, so long as they are effective and they are disseminating a pro-liberty message. Now how effective a person is and how pro-liberty a person is can be something that is up for debate, but just making money in and of itself should not be regarded as a bad thing.
Heck, I’ve had people accuse me of just being out for money since I’ve been working on petition drives for the past 14 years, but reality is, if this was true, I’d have a lot more money right now because I’ve TURNED DOWN a lot of work that was for anti-liberty causes over the years. I also have a reputation and track record that says that I’m highly effective at what I do. I was involved in the Libertarian Party for 4 years before I ever made a penny off of politics, and I’ll continue to be involved even if moved on to some type of work to make money outside of politics. I have also spent a bunch of my own money and countless volunteer hours working to build the Libertarian Party and movement.
Working around politics for the last 14 years I’ve seen a lot of apolitical mercenaries, con-artists/hucksters, and some people who I’d even describe as anti-libertarians, make money off of the Libertarian Party and movement, and none of these people, even the best of them, are as effective as an actual philosophical libertarian with a good work ethic, and none of these people effectively disseminate a libertarian message. I’ve also seen people who claim to be Libertarians, and who spout Libertarian rhetoric, be in some kind of paid position within the party or movement, and be highly ineffective. Just because one is a Libertarian Party member, it does not automatically mean that they do their job well or are competent. Also, just because one claims to be a libertarian, it does not automatically mean that they a really are libertarians. I’ve seen more than a few people over the years claim to be libertarians just so they can make money off of the Libertarian Party, and then they go on to the next client and claim to be something else. These type of people are whatever the person who is writing out their paycheck wants them to be.
Now speaking for myself, am I motivated by money? Sure, but I’m not solely motivated by money, because if I was, I’d run off and work on any anti-liberty cause that offered to pay me, and I’d have a lot more money right now if I had taken this attitude over the past 14 years.
I’d bet that Harry Browne’s motivation was not just to make money, but rather, was to promote the libertarian message AND make some money at the same time. So the issue should not be him making money off of the Libertarian Party/movement, but rather how EFFECTIVE was he, as in did the amount of money that he made off the movement justify the amount of money that he made? I would say that it did. Harry Browne’s books were very good, and Harry Browne did in fact grow the party and movement, and I don’t think that anyone can make a serious claim that Harry Browne’s message was not a libertarian message. Many of the people whom I’ve talked to over the years in the Libertarian Party and movement have told me that they came into the movement because they heard about it through a campaign, usually a campaign for President, and the two names I hear the most from people as to who it was that brought them into the party or movement are Ron Paul and Harry Browne, and as I have said in multiple posts on this forum, it was seeing Harry Browne on C-SPAN back in 1996 that got me into the party and movement.
If Harry Browne had been a guy who was just out to make money, couldn’t he have made more of it by selling out the Republicans or the Democrats? Ron Paul has made from his involvement in politics/activism, but I think that Ron Paul could have made a lot more money if he had just sold out and become a mainstream Republican. I know that I’d have made a lot more money over the last 14 years if I had just been a total mercenary who was willing to work for any cause that offered to pay me. Some people have attacked Alex Jones for making money off of his radio show and website, but the fact of the matter is that Alex Jones would have a lot more money right now if he had sold out and gone mainstream. Alex Jones was offered a lot of money earlier in his career to become more of a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity type, but he turned it down because they didn’t want him to talk about certain subjects, and Alex was actually let go from one of the radio stations he was on early in his career for talking about things that the mainstream establishment did not like.
So I see a BIG DIFFERENCE between a person making money off of the Libertarian Party or movement by being EFFECTIVE, and giving the donors and/or people who purchase their products a good value for their money, and people who make money off of the Libertarian Party or movement or a NOT effective, and who basically squander donor money – or at least have it spent in a way that is suboptimal – and who basically rip people off.
I would have no problem with a person coming into the Libertarian Party making $1 million or more off of the party IF THEY WERE EFFECTIVE ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY EARNING THIS MUCH, as in if they greatly increased the size of the party and actually got multiple Libertarian Party candidates elected to office, and I’m not talking about offices that nobody cares about like Soil & Water Commissioners and Library Board of Trustees, I’m talking about to seats in state legislatures, county Sheriffs, United States House of Representatives, or any other office that is at least somewhat high profile and where Libertarians can make a difference and get noticed (and this of course assumes that the people being elected will all be philosophical libertarians, not phonies posing as libertarians). Let’s say a person made $1 million off of the Libertarian Party in one year, but they also played an instrumental role in getting 5 Libertarian Party members elected to the US House of Representatives, would this be worth them making $1 million? Considering that the Libertarian Party has never elected anybody to the US House of Representatives, than yeah, it may very well be worth it for somebody to earn $1 million if they could get 5 Libertarians elected to seats in the US House of Representatives.
Once again, the issue should not be that somebody is making money off of the Libertarian Party or movement, but rather, is the person EFFECTIVE enough to justify the money that they are making?
What really disgusts me, are when ineffective Libertarians, or apolitical mercenaries or anti-libertarians, make money off of the Libertarian Party or movement, and basically SQUANDER donor money and/or rip people off. It really turns my stomach when some of the biggest money makers off of the Libertarian Party or movement are people who are NOT even Libertarians or small “l” libertarians, and are people who’d be just as happy to make money off of campaigns that would reduce individual liberty as they are to make money off of campaigns that are to increase individual liberty.
Politics is about money. I see our donations as a “fee” for the ticket. Some campaigns (shows) are more entertaining than others.
Stone hasn’t had a victory in a long time. He is just another player in the dinner theater of the LP. I am not sure if he even identifies with the variable of winning. I think he sees politics as a means of living a life.
The utility of Scientology for Ron Hubbard was what? A small fortune and following. Did he care about his followers? He sold an illusion. How is Roger Stone any different?
If people want the illusion of being in a political party, then that is Roger Stone’s utility. He provides what the people want. If he charges for it, then they still must pay for the ticket.
Well, in some cases book sales WERE campaign expenses. It’s not at all unusual for a candidate’s campaign to buy copies of his campaign book in bulk to give away to donors, at events, etc.
In the case of Browne’s campaign books, the LNC purchased bulk quantities of his first one (Why Government Doesn’t Work) to give away as membership incentives. Since it was pretty obvious, at the time they did so, that there was going to be a second campaign, some party members and LNC members objected, but then-chair David Bergland told them to, and I quote, “sit down and shut up.”
With respect to Tom Knapp’s remarks, I confirm that the late Bill Bradford told me almost exactly the same thing, except that when we spoke Bradford discussed not book sales but various campaign expenses.
I don’t see any problem with the particular thing that Stone said there.
But based on his actual activities related to the LP and their effects, it seems a lot less likely that Stone is really an asset to the LP than that he’s playing with it for 1) money he can milk out of the LP or 2) money that someone’s paying him to act as a “wrecker.” The second seems more likely, as dirty tricks is, well, what he does, what he’s famous for doing, what he brags about doing, etc.
Some people automatically discount the idea that anyone would see the LP as a place to make money, but a few people do make significant money from it.
The late RW Bradford waited until Harry Browne was dead to tell me what he told me, and I waited until Bill Bradford died to repeat it to anyone except my wife. What Bill told me was this:
In a private, candid conversation after the second campaign, he asked Browne “why.” And Browne’s reply was: In the early 1990s, his investment newsletter / advisor business was winding down and he needed to replace that income — he needed to knock down $100k per year to continue living in something like the style to which he had become accustomed. Perry Willis and Michael Cloud convinced him that running for president on the Libertarian ticket could provide that income. Not as a straight transactional thing, of course — not taking a salary from campaign funds or anything like that, but book sales, personal appearances, etc.
I have no reason to believe that Bill would lie to me about that. And, we both agreed, at least Harry played it fairly straight as regards libertarian ideas and the LP platform, and worked his ass off to convey a pretty solid libertarian message. As, to be fair, have other Willis and/or Cloud productions — Carla Howell, for example.
Stone and his horses, not so much.
Stone is a “behind the scenes” guy. You’ll never know what he contributes — and I can’t say that he has contributed to the LP.
He does have a reason for doing everything. He’s either interested in helping the LP to either hurt or help the GOP. I’m not sure which.
As far as his past stances: who cares. Libertarians get so stuck on a persons’ past that they fail to see the value in their present.
Get over it and start thinking of the future, not about who “is more libertarian” than you.
Good question.
Stone is over-rated. He’s worked on the failed Presidential campaigns of Jack Kemp & Arlen Specter, and rumored to be involed in Al Sharpton’s failed run. He was forced to resign from Bob Dole’s Presidential campaign and from New York State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno’s office for questionable behavior. The guy seems to be political poison with every campaign he seems to be involved in (Kristin Davis, Carl Paladino, Steve Berke). And he’s accepted as the voice of the LP. Give me a break.
I don’t know enough to speak to Stone’s credentials as a libertarian, either small or capital L. What i find myself wondering, though, is what he brings to the table as a professional. When’s the last time he was associated with a winning campaign, or even a successful one by third party standards? I don’t read about any candidates that he has particularly helped or any ballot initiatives that he has brought value to. What is his particular appeal to the Ohio LP or any other party?
I don’t see a problem with Stone’s definition of libertarianism as skepticism. However, Stone is clearly not sufficiently “skeptical” enough (judging by his support of Bush, etc.) to actually be
considered a honest libertarian.