By Caryn Ann Harlos, originally posted at the NAP Pledge Page:
The Libertarian Party has steadfastly proclaimed that there are certain principles that it holds and that it welcomes anyone who comes to embrace these principles, the two most important being *self-ownership* and *NON-AGGRESSION.* These ideas are deeply embedded in every facet of Libertarian philosophy. But the statements do not stop there.
The below is a copy of a Resolution adopted by the Libertarian National Committee during its session on November 20-21, 2010. This Resolution is bittersweet as it was just following Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan’s death. Nolan was the author of this Resolution and the LNC passed it (amended) without yet being aware that he was gone since the day before.
The closing statement of the Resolution reads as follows (image file below)—the importance of this is obvious:
The Libertarian National Committee hereby reaffirms that the Libertarian Party welcomes individuals from across the political spectrum who now accept the libertarian principles of self-ownership and non- aggression
There are very minimal requirements for being welcomed within the Party, but chief amongst them are the “libertarian principles of self-ownership and non-aggression” as proposed and accepted by David Nolan. Notice also the word “reaffirm.” This has been the historic position of the Party.
The LNC Minutes can be found here: https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf
An LP.org article on David Nolan’s death can be found here: https://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-monday-message-libertarians-mourn-death-of-david-f-nolan
I tend to think Wayne understood it, too. I doubt he was actually naive enough to think that people who demonize Obama and the Democrats far more than the Republicans were a good base on which to build an alt party, either. That dynamic inescapably leads to holding your nose and voting Republican sooner or later, as indeed it did in his own case.
Stewart wrote, at least twice:
> Of the three, Root is the only one who actually attempted to “redefine” what a libertarian is. He is also the only one that I am certain has never understood what libertarianism is.
I disagree with the second sentence. He understood libertarianism and still does. But he never fully agreed with it, especially viz. foreign policy, which is why he was a poor choice for a Presidential candidate.
I understand many things with which I may not agree.(I understand fascism. I understand Communism. I understand positivism.) I am certain that Wayne Root, a fellow Columbia College grad, does too. The problem arises when a person says one thing but then advocates another.
$3 contributors will not appear on the FEC report except as a total, with an exception for initial reports where the last time I checked, many years ago, there were options.
$3 initial donation was a Barack Hussein Obama strategy. Copying it is actually intelligent. Tom explains well why it is a good strategy.
George
Those $3 contributions aren’t as dumb as they sound, Stewart. Notice who it was he contacted, and think about why.
He’s not raising money for a general election campaign. He isn’t even raising money — at $3 a pop — for the nomination campaign.
What he’s doing is approaching likely convention delegates and trying to get them on board in even a little way.
It’s not about the money. My first political mentor when I ran for local office told me that if I got so much as a dollar from someone, or even just got them to let me put a sign in their yard or a sticker on their car, I could pretty much consider them a vote in the bank. Because now they had an INVESTMENT in me, and now we were both members of the same team.
You are not the run-of-the-mill donor or supporter. You give money to multiple opposing candidates because you’re interested in seeing a robust nomination contest for the good of the party. Most people — and probably most convention delegates — are going to stick with whichever candidate they throw in with, even if the throw-in was only three bucks.
I agree. He’s trying to divide the party. It won’t work.
As far as logic problems go, pollution caused by someone existing is not usually considered “aggression”, unless of course you are Al Gore Jr and you have a 27 room mansion and keep the lights on all the time… 🙂
And to the issue of Bob Barr: I can see why Andy did not trust or believe him, and I appreciate him not blasting me out of the water because I did. From Andy’s perspective, his position makes sense. I discounted political actions from before Bob left congress, and I’d have to see the interview saying he was against getting rid of the war on drugs to get the perspective. It clearly doesn’t sound like a good thing for a libertarian candidate to say, so I’m not going to even try to defend it.
But the “diss” of Dr Paul’s supporters was all a bunch of chest beating between staff on both sides. My view of it at the time was that it didn’t actually involve Bob Barr or Dr Paul until it was already messed up too badly to fix. I certainly didn’t like what happened, and that was when I first noticed that his internal campaign was not running on all cylinders. I was there, I drove up from Charleston overnight. It was unfortunate and it was unfixable.
Can’t say much about the hiring of a ghost writer other than it was a bad campaign decision. Obviously a very bad decision, and again it shows that things weren’t going well. At that point they were SELLING campaign material. Yup. You had to buy it. I remember calling Verne and asking why I had to pay for bumper stickers to give away at a FUNDRAISER we were having for the candidate, especially when I was already a contributor. I didn’t like the answer. They should never have spent money they hadn’t raised. I was in the campaign headquarters (volunteering, i.e. not being paid) for the last few weeks of the campaign. Things did not look good to me.
Mismanagement of campaigns through bad decisions is not unusual. It should not happen in a presidential campaign. Funny how we seem to be having a lot of it lately…which is why Johnson’s campaign bothered me. I saw/see nothing seriously out of step with his political beliefs on most issues. But I am not sure that I could stomach giving money to a second campaign, knowing that most of the same upper management would be there again.
Stewart, I plan to be sharing some of them soon… I also would be very interested in your observations. I tend to stay very focused on whether or not it is congruent with the LP.
My main point is that he appears now to be directly attacking the LP and want to re-create it in his own image. That just doesn’t fly, and particularly when he has not done particularly anything for the LP since his job at HQ in 2008. It is very patronizing IMHO.
What is apparent to me is that he felt goaded into this video… and he is very easily goaded (another big problem with someone seeking the highest office). This was apparent in the radio phone call I did with him where he lost his cool at the slightly non-provocation.
Making a campaign of attacking the LP Statement of Principles and Platform is not a winning strategy. It certainly doesn’t have the LP’s best interest at heart. If he wants to change it… okay, there are ways to do that. This isn’t the way.
Even people I know who really didn’t care too much about this issue were terribly put off by the video. If it was a strategy… it backfired badly. It has been very poorly received in the general libertarian groups I have seen it shared in. The general impression was that he is just purposefully picking fights to divide the Party.
The Obama campaign made a lot of money with those small token donations. They give people the sense that they are part of the campaign without having to give much, and sometimes those donors turn into larger donors later.
What bothers me the most is Petersen’s insistence in videos and interviews of talking about how much he’s drinking — or will be drinking — during the campaign. Voters have no interest in overaged frat boys.
I thought that I spotted several holes in his logic, so I’d be interested in hearing Caryn’s thoughts on it.
I got a call from him a few months ago, and he asked me for a contribution of $100. I said no, since I really didn’t have spare money in my “political budget” right now, and I was coming up on what turned out to be a very “expensive” state convention. I didn’t say no because I don’t support him. I’d probably give $100 to every “real” candidate — but of course I don’t have bitcoins for one of them and $100 is over the limit for another…and of course that eliminates them both as “real” candidates anyway.
But that was before I had seen his most recent antics on video and this stupid argument over the NAP. Both of which put him on the edge of being a “real” candidate in my calculations.
I got a call a few weeks later, asking me for a $10 contribution.
A few days ago I got a text message (before I saw the video), asking me for a $3 contribution.
$3? Three dollars? Seriously? Wanting to have a large list of contributors on an FEC report is stupid. I’d rather have ten $250 or even a hundred $25 contributions than a thousand $3 donations. You can go back to someone who gave $250 and ask for more, and someone giving $25 might be coaxed into giving that each month. But $3? It is almost insulting and is almost even worse than the candidate who won’t accept more than $5 from anyone! AWP is no longer a “real” candidate.
Let’s get serious here folks. Do we have ANY candidates yet?
Tom,
LOL, it WAS cringingly bad. What is worse about though is for those who have dealt with AWP for a while, is that it is basically a dramatic reading of Zwolinsky. Which has been rebutted multiple times, and AWP is aware of it. Now… AWP or anyone else is free to disagree with the rebuttals.. but to simply repeat a point without ever interacting with the rebuttals is not a forthright way to debate.
Further, AWP has continually ignored the context in which Zwolinksy wrote, which he is perfectly agreeable to admit. Zwolinksy uses this as a foundation to justify forced taking as long as it is a small amount (in his view) for things that have a great amount (in his view) of reward – such as the example of forcing everyone to pay for vaccinations. Now that might be a good goal and some here may agree with that but AWP does not… or things such as the Basic Income Guarantee… something else that AWP opposes. So.. to use an argument that undergirds things one opposes without ever differentiating on how one things doesn’t lead to another is another vacuous debate tactic.
But AWP has never responded to any of that. He has never dealt with the several on-point published articles rebutting Zwolinksi. He has never dealt with how he would differ (using the same argumentation) from Zwolinski’s other conclusions.
And there is a really really really big logical hole in AWP’s video that I am saving.
Of course this is all irrelevant in a sense to the elephant in the room. The LP holds to the NAP. He is seeking the LP nomination.
RC,
You might want to consider getting some kind of psychiatric help, then. The only two things about that video that are anywhere close to sane, rational or logical are his choice of computer (a Mac) and his choice of beer (Boulevard Wheat — I do miss Boulevard Wheat, which I can’t find in Florida).
https://www.facebook.com/ProducerPetersen/videos/vb.294291737296480/1012827442109569/?type=2&theater¬if_t=live_video
Makes sense to me….
Should read, “ripping off…”
Stewart, I appreciate your perspective, and maybe you are correct, and you can call my a cynic, but I don’t think he was ever sincere and I suspect that he was planning to run for President the whole time and that everything else was part of the act.
Remember that while sitting on the LNC he praised the federal government for waging the drug war in South America, and after announcing he was running for the LP presidential nomination he appeared on Hannity & Colmes and said on the show that he did not support calling off the War on Drugs in his home state of Georgia. Also, while sitting on the LNC, he continued to work as a fundraiser for big government Republican candidates, and he raised far more money for big government Republican candidates than he ever did for the LP, and that during this time period some of the big government Republican candidates for whom he was raising money had Libertarian Party candidates running against them. Oh, and do not forget about him ripping of libertarian author James Bovard, whom he hired to do ghost writing for his presidential campaign. Then there was his working as PR man for deposed Hatian dictator, “Baby Doc” Duvalier. There was also his pissing off the Ron Paul r3VOLution crowd, which no doubt cost the LP a lot of votes.
I think that there were plenty of “red flags” about Bob Barr before he became the LP’s 2008 presidential nominee, as well as during the campaign, and after the campaign. Lots of people chose to ignore these “red flags” because they were enamored by his fame (which was over-stated) and status as a former member of Congress.
He was actually a dues paying member in at least two separate stints in the 1980s and 1990s. I don’t know how many years total but a minimum of two, maybe more. He never revoked his pledge so he was technically a member (non-dues paying) ever since, and I believe he is now a life member, and has not gone back to the Republicans unlike other past crossovers. Also, he was called a (small l) libertarian as governor and ever since, which is not something people generally called, for example, Bob Barr when he was a congressman.
Why is this discussion on-topic? Because Bob Barr was vilified by a number of people in the LP, to the point that he left and went back to the Republican Party. I still read his columns from time to time, and he does not sound like a Republican to me.
So there’s an example of someone who would still be in the party if he had been accepted.
Root? He’d have left anyway. He wasn’t sincere. He never really understood us or what we believe in and when he found that he could not win internal party elections he left. His last act at the 2012 convention of getting Johnson to “endorse” his run for an at-large seat was disgraceful. He knew that he was on his way out, and needed to say that he was a “player” when he defected back.
I worked with him on the LNC from 2006-2008. What happened is the following:
At the Pittsburgh meeting in the summer of 2007, Chuck Moulton, Hardy Macia and I were sitting in the bar in the hotel, talking about the “crop” of candidates we had. We were drinking a bit, as tends to happen in bars at LNC meetings, and we decided to start a rumor that Bob was running. This was Saturday evening.
Sunday morning, Shane Corey approached me and said he’d heard a rumor that Bob was running, and wanted to find out about it. He did not want Bob running (since running for president on the LP ticket tends to be impossible).
I talked to Bob about it, and he said that his wife did not want him to run for office again. The topic did not come up again until I brought it up in the bar after the LSLA debate. I was sitting with Bob, while several others were sitting at a nearby table trying to get Mary Ruwart to run (via phone).
Bob Barr told me that his wife did not want him to run, but that he’d think about it. Again, the topic did not come up again until he called me about a month later to let me know that he’d decided to run. He took the ethical approach and stepped down from the LNC when he announced his candidacy. We currently have a candidate for president that has refused to do the right thing and is still on the LNC.
So yes, I am certain that Bob Barr had no intention of running for president when he joined the LP.
I worked with Bob a lot during those years. He wasn’t just on the LNC as a “celebrity”. He was actually doing things — good things from a libertarian perspective. I believe he was sincere. We talked a lot about stuff he did while “carrying the water” in the GOP. I don’t believe he agreed with everything he did. Remember, they have a cast system. You do what they want if you want to stay in congress.
Was Bob Barr perfect? Of course not. But if you spent any time on the campaign trail with him, as I did, you would not be as negative about him as some are. I’m not speaking about anyone in particular, but I know that many on IPR are very negative about him. The problem was the management of his campaign more than with the candidate himself.
Stewart, how do you know for sure that Bob Barr had no intention of running for President until 2008? People lie.
Gary Johnson had been a dues paying LP member for like one or two years in the early 1990’s and/or 1980’s.
Johnson let his LP membership expire and he did not renew it until he announced that he was seeking the LP presidential nomination in early 2012.
Johnson did change parties during the campaign. According to information I received at the time he had been a dues paying member of the LP for quite a few years. I’m not sure if that is a change of parties or merely leaving one of the two he was a member of.
Bob Barr did not join right before the campaign. He joined three years earlier (2005?), and I am certain had no intention of running for president when he did. When I first asked him his opinion of it (Pittsburg 2007 meeting), he was very much against it. Quite a few others asked him to do it, and he eventually decided to run after the pathetic debate at the 2008 LSLA.
Root changed with the intention of running for president.
Of the three, Root is the only one who actually attempted to “redefine” what a libertarian is. He is also the only one that I am certain has never understood what libertarianism is.
That’s right…Paulie was with us. I’d forgotten. It was a pretty strange trip. I got sick from the water in the hotel, as did the party secretary. I believe she ended up with pneumonia. I was sick for a few weeks, then went to dinner at a friend’s house for xmas and sat next to one of his kids who was really sick (“stomach flu”). On the way home, I stopped in the grocery store and the guy behind me in line had the flu and was coughing on everyone.
I ended up in bed until early February. Lost 40 pounds and almost died from stage 3 dehydration.
Unfortunately, the 40 pounds slowly came back…
“Distrust of people who leave one of the older parties, joins the LP, and immediately starts agitating for the LP to become more like the parts they liked of their previous parties.”
The LPCT State Convention had someone show up for the Free State Project who did this one better. He wanted us to change part of our platform, and if we did he and his friends would consider joining.
Quoth Stewart:
“I frequently hear complaints and comments showing distrust of just about anyone who leaves either of the older parties.”
I don’t think that’s true. The distrust I see falls into two categories:
1) Distrust of people who leave one of the older parties, joins the LP, and immediately starts agitating for the LP to become more like the parts they liked of their previous parties. And let’s be honest here, that describes MOST of us at first. When I came to the LP, I was still a sort of moderate interventionist and considered it obvious that the US government should maintain some kind of control over immigration. I eventually came around, and I’m glad that the LP didn’t change its positions to accommodate me and people like me.
2) Distrust of people who leave one of the older parties just in time to run for president as Libertarians, especially when they expect the party to accommodate their non-Libertarian ideas for the privilege of having them as presidential candidates.
The context of that resolution was that Wayne Root was quoted in the media as saying he would redefine libertarianism. There is some question as to how accurately he was quoted. The LNC reaffirmed that the party still stood for its founding principles. Wayne went on to endorse Romney and leave the LP and the last time I noticed him he was stumping for Trump, who is as anti-liberty as they get. Wayne wanted to redefine libertarian as tea party conservative. At least for the time being I think the resolution succeeded, as we did not get redefined, and many of the redefiners went back home to the NSGOP.
I was in the car with Stewart when he got that call from Mark Hinkle about David Nolan. It was a real blow to all of us.
LNC: The Libertarian National Committee hereby reaffirms…
me: How DID that definition of insanity go again? 😉
cah: There are very minimal requirements for being welcomed within the Party, but chief amongst them are the “libertarian principles of self-ownership and non-aggression” as proposed and accepted by David Nolan.
me: “Minimal” in the sense that the list is short. MAXIMAL in terms of the implications of the concepts of “self ownership and non-aggression,” given how unworkable these ideas are, and how few buy into these concepts as understood by true-believing anarchists and minarchists.
And, while the intention was probably different, but the way this reads, it sounds like The Nolan is some God-like figure. The LP may well be some sort of cult of personality, a kind of counter to the CotOS, perhaps?
Stewart,
==Nope. The topic of discrimination was raised in the post I was responding to.===
Ahh I see. I had also just read the McAfee thread where that was a big topic.
==As to welcoming…we don’t. I frequently hear complaints and comments showing distrust of just about anyone who leaves either of the older parties.==
I think that depends. I came from the Republican Party and was welcomed pretty readily. But I came holding those two principles (or at least sincerely intended to though I was a bit shaky in the beginning).
Nope. The topic of discrimination was raised in the post I was responding to.
As to welcoming…we don’t. I frequently hear complaints and comments showing distrust of just about anyone who leaves either of the older parties.
On your prior post,yes absolutely that is the context. And how do we know and welcome these new libertarians? They have come to accept libertarian principles…. no matter where they came from. We welcome new libertarians from anywhere.
Stewart, I think your last post is in the wrong thread.
To the issue of bias: Having spent the past 39 years (fast closing on 40!) in what is now called “IT”, I can certainly agree that there is a gender and age bias in the industry. I’d hate to try to interview for a job. They want people under 30, and with this specific skill and that specific experience. Most people under 30 who are programmers don’t even know what machine language is or WHY computers do what they do. They just throw other people’s code together and cut/paste their way to a solution.
Do they discriminate against women? Of course. They also discriminate against men who are not either white or asian. And over 30? Forget it.
But discrimination exists in a number of industries. There would be more women programming in the US if the government, under Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr, and the past seven years under Soetoro had not pushed the industry off shore, funded (through taxes) importation and training of competition from other countries (India, etc), and pretty much destroyed jobs that existed in the US — all for their dedicated and loyal investors — sorry…contributors — who own major corporations that wanted cheap labor.
I remember that meeting. I thought he died that morning. I got a call from Chairman Hinkle when we were just outside of New Orleans, heading toward home. I thought he said that it had happened that morning, but my memory could be faulty five years later.
This resolution is important to bring up and remember. People can change. They can give up positions that are in opposition to libertarian principles. There are a lot of people in the party who refuse to accept that it is possible for someone who was formally a liberal or a conservative (or whatever!) to evolve politically into a libertarian.
We need to remember that they can and should be accepted. That was the sentiment that Mr Nolan was trying to convey in the email that was submitted as a resolution.
This is refreshing news. As a pacifist I cannot agree more.
I have always taken responsibility for my own actions and life.
When Bush Jr. Took us to war, I was fully prepared to send my only son who was of draftable age to Brazil to stay with a friend down there rather than allow him to be drafted into an illegal and unnecessary war. I am all for protecting the United States and our citizens abroad. I do not believe in fight first ask questions later.
I live my life this way. I avoid confrontation as I expect all intelligent and evolved human beings to be. Unfortunately, the United States is made up of a myriad of people who fall on the entire spectrum. I surround myself with peaceful people and lead a peaceful life. I am quite happy with that.
My children were raised with the same ideals and I hope that in some small way I have contributed to others following the path to peace and personal responsibility.
Recently someone made it seem as though I was blaming others for my continued unemployment. This person either did not read my post with an open heart or completely misunderstood my words. I continue to be unemployed because there exists a gender and age bias in my profession. This has been well documented and also tried in court. I also have not kept up on the newest and shiniest technologies, which is my responsibility. I do not whine about it, I seek ways to use it to my advantage and overcome it.
Commenting to subscribe