Christine Smith ran for President in 2008 as a Libertarian Party candidate. Her attempt to secure the nomination of the Libertarian Party ultimately failed when she was eliminated in the 1st of six ballots. She is now running for State Representative in Colorado and had some harsh words for the national Libertarian Party regarding her experiences in 2008.
Colorado’s favorite John Denver-loving libertarian is back in politics, two years after her unsuccessful run for the Libertarian Party‘s presidential nomination left her angry at the process. Christine Smith, a freelance writer who penned A Mountain in the Wind — An Exploration of the Spirituality of John Denver in 2001 and organized a festival honoring the late singer for six years, will challenge Republican Tom Massey in House District 60, which includes Chaffee, Custer, Fremont, Park, Saguache and Pueblo counties.
Smith, who lives near Howard, was one of several Libertarian Party candidates who vied for the top spot on the ballot back in 2008. They all eventually lost to former Republican Bob Barr — whom many regarded as an interloper. “What I saw at the Libertarian Party convention disgusted me,” Smith wrote at the time. “I thought Libertarians actually believed in libertarian principles and that would always be their highest priority. I was wrong…. Obviously, the majority of Libertarian delegates cared nothing about libertarian principle when they chose Barr….”
Today, Smith says she’s still frustrated by the national party and no longer wastes her “time, money or work” on it. But she continues to find value in the Libertarian Party of Colorado, which still espouses the principles she believes in. And in addition to the issues of taxation, property rights and gun control, the freedom-loving Smith has recently added another passion: medical marijuana. While Massey was the “Chong” to Senator Chris Romer’s “Cheech” this past spring, taking the lead in hammering out new rules for pot in Colorado, Smith and other libertarians believe the drug should be legal — and free from all regulations. “Tom Massey intervened in an area that was previously perfectly harmonious in our district and state, turning it into a battle that needn’t be between medical marijuana providers and the state government,” she says. “I oppose both of the bills Ritter signed, and see no reason for the Colorado state government to ever have become involved in the matter of regulating medical marijuana as they are at this time.”
In fact, Smith says she disagrees with just about everything Massey has done in his six-year legislative career — except, perhaps, for his yes vote in 2007 when the Colorado Legislature approved making John Denver’s “Rocky Mountain High” our new state song.
In 2008, Smith also participated in the non-binding Libertarian Party Presidential primary in California. She won that primary with 25.16%.
JT: dittto ……….
I’d also add, Robert, that I don’t think many people will vote Libertarian when Libertarians take position X on a particular issue. Just because Libertarians say, for example, that the U.S. military should exit Iraq quickly, that doesn’t mean that most people who support that idea will vote Libertarian.
Many people will vote Libertarian when a) they don’t perceive a big difference between Republicans and Democrats, and b) they like what Libertarians stand for in general (i.e., less government control, more personal freedom across the board).
Robert, I think we pretty much agree here. I just don’t like the idea that a Libertarian candidate would support less government in education policy or healthcare policy, for example, and the status quo in drug policy or foreign policy (or vice versa), and yet still be considered a “lessarchist” overall. I don’t think a Libertarian candidate must campaign on abolishing government schools or legalizing heroin, but I do think such a candidate should consistently apply the idea of less government control and more personal choice across the board. Neither Republican candidates nor Democratic candidates do that.
jt, I’d certainly agree that being broadly for less government is a key differentiator. That, however, can be taken to extremes, and thereby make the LP not viable electorally. Part of this depends on what an “issue” is.
Abolition of copywrite laws is an “issue” for some Ls, but I’d be very surprised if that was considered an issue that voters would care about. I’m also not sure that all Ls would agree that copywrite abolition is the right thing to do.
Exiting Iraq could well be an issue with voters. Pulling the Marines out of the US consolate in Vladivostock…I’m not seeing as being a sound campaign issue.
Absolutism in politics is not differentiation…it’s a near-guarantee of permanent irrelevancy.
Robert: “Lessarchists, people who believe government should be smaller, is a MUCH larger number, possibly a quarter of the population at large and a majority in some congressional districts.
If the LP were interested in electing people, it could be done, despite the election law obstacles.”
I agree that “lessarchists” are a much, much larger percentage of the U.S. population than anarchists or very limited-state minarchists. I think reaching out to them for votes is crucial, as long as Libertarians running for higher offices don’t focus only on social issues or the economic issues.
On the other hand, I don’t think Libertarian candidates for higher offices should merely advocate some degree of less government on some issues and not on others. There are already Republican candidates and Democratic candidates who do that, so that approach wouldn’t really distinguish Libertarian candidates in most voters’ minds as a clear alternative.
At the least, I think Libertarian candidates should advocate less government on all issues, both economic ones and social ones. Successful marketing and sales begins with offering a product that’s perceived as different in from all of your competitors.
JT, agreed. If we could total up all abolitionists and nightwatchman statists, we might find, say, 1MM in the US.
Lessarchists, people who believe government should be smaller, is a MUCH larger number, possibly a quarter of the population at large and a majority in some congressional districts.
If the LP were interested in electing people, it could be done, despite the election law obstacles.
We’ve been too busy looking for a witness to our moral superiority.
lg, near as I can tell, old-school minarchists and abolitionist anarchist adhere to the so-called natural law theory. That debate is about how to apply natural law to any particular political question.
Most old schoolers seem to believe that political philosophy can be approached like physics. For an extreme example, check out some of Walter Block’s “proofs” — they are entertaining, although it seems likely that was NOT their intent.
TAAALists check that premise, and find it wanting. If politics is at all structural and like a hard science, it’s most like chaos theory.
But mostly it’s about assessing one’s own values and, in practice, attempting to convince others that your values are respectable, respectful and workable. Political movements involve a growing number of people buying into a political approach that, with any luck, starts to change prevailing attitudes and ultimately political policies.
Alex: “But I like to see the libertarian movement as a big tent that includes people who support a very-limited state (minarchists) and people who support no state at all (anarchists).”
I thought Harry Browne was a great spokesman for liberty also. But I don’t see how you can seriously call a movement comprised of anarchists and very-limited state minarchists (gov. limited to military, courts, police) a “big tent.” Do you think many millions of Americans today accept either one of those ideas? If you do, then I want some of what you’re smoking. In reality, you have to expand the tent from there if you want it to be “big” or “medium” in the context of contemporary U.S. politics.
the old minarchy vs anarchy debate —sigh – 🙂
ap: The law against murder is a natural law. It is not created by any person or organisation. Natural laws are not examples of central planning.
me: Another one to follow up on from an earlier thread. Many Ls believe your statement. It strikes me, though, that a truly radical L would have to question this one thoroughly.
Natural law, near as I can tell, is a theory. I’ve read the theory, and I find it a helpful way to look at social orders, but we kid ourselves if we really believe that there’s a “natural law” that says, for ex., murder is covered by natural law but reasonable checks of immigration is not. In point of fact, neither are covered by natural law, since natural law obviously does not exist. It’s a concept, an abstraction, a construct.
At the heart of abolitionist anarcho-Lism is natural law theory.
Weak foundations lead to unsound artifices.
Unfortunately the radicals are losers too. The same reason would compel Ruwart to decline vp with Barr as Gravel-a game changing fusion ticket-impurity.
mhw, boy, that’s a tough one. Back in the day, my view was that US interests end just off the shoreline, so the USG should remain completely neutral on which nations may or may not join the Club. With Iran apparently developing the bomb, I start to get concerned.
My current take is I would not support the US unilaterally taking action to deny Iran or NK the bomb. I could imagine reluctantly supporting a concerted global effort to deny those nations the bomb. What that concerted effort might be is above my paygrade. Ditto if the Somali pirates were in the process of getting a nuke. That is, I’m open to humanitarian efforts to stop nuclear proliferation or to stop a genocide.
Taxes may be offensive, they might even be “theft,” but mass murder is way more offensive.
I remain reflexively non-interventionist, but I am not an absolutist about.
Just my opinion, though.
@ 28 RC writes; “Rothbardians who love to speculate about the “correct position” on private nukes”, so the U.S. government outlaws the ownership of private nukes, how do we stop people in other countries from getting them?
more…without nukes, I’m not sure how much those silos’d fetch on the open market. The expense of the auction may be prohibitive on its own!
AP: As for the government, it should work to cut back on or eliminate its supply of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a threat not only to one’s enemies but also to one’s self. Should an nuke fall into the hands of some nut, it could be quite dangerous, regardless of whether it’s a foreign-made nuke or an American-made nuke. So, the less nukes that exist on this planet, the better. Should we successfully eliminate all nukes, we can then sell off the silos.
Me: My feedback on this old comment of yours is to welcome you into the TAAAL-ist fold. The reality of the dangers of weapons like this should be acknowledge and thoughtfully addressed.
Yours is not the answer of an abolitionist, IMO. Hand-waving about theory sometimes runs smack dab into the real world, which is often complicated and not addressed by sloganeering.
sh, cute. Freeing the slaves is indicated. Abolishing all government is contra-indicated, at least for now.
HOW the slaves were freed seems the job of those engaged in the political process. I would think we all would have learned that history lesson. A right-minded, inspired politician might have a) come up with a way to effect emancipation that b) didn’t lead to the Confederate Insurrection of 1861-65. That didn’t happen, and half a million died as a result.
This seems instructive to me: Even if I still found the NAP a meaningful, serviceable philosophical proposition, I’d hope I could be mindful that the means can be just as important as the ends.
We TAAAL-ists do strive to offer ideas that maximize freedom, minimize coercion, while also minimizing catastrophic dislocation, e.g., avoid Grandma and Gramdpa having to rely on eating cat food or grounding NORAD.
I’d like to think I would not be SO concerned with getting the cotton in, although making slaves employees might have worked.
Undoing profoundly dysfunctional institutions can be tricky business that sometimes leads to greater dysfunction. Heck, even the Rockwell crowd might agree with that!
Knapp, give Capozzi some credit here. He just wants to know what your plan for getting the cotton in is before he goes all wild about freeing the slaves.
It’s just prudence!
tk: …your baseless, unsupported claim that “silo abandonment” would occur if the state disappeared tomorrow.
me: My God I’m being misunderstood. I’m not claiming that AT ALL. I am attempting to expose the profound limitations of the NAP. I thought you got that, Tom.
Recall our MANY conversations on the limitations of being too literal.
The world is one big projected metaphor.
mhw: Ya know Robert after the many years I have spent in the LP and talked to a bunch of people I have met very few who suggest that the government can or should be done away with overnight.
me: Agreed. But I’ve met a lot of abolitionists and Rothbardians who love to speculate about the “correct position” on private nukes and personal secession.
mhw: Seems to me that you waste a whole lot of time on something that ain’t gonna happen.
me: Hear, hear! Agree in spades! This is the nub of my informal campaign to mainstream the LP!
mhw: I’d suggest that you might wish to consider a more productive approach but I doubt that any idea I suggest will even be considered
me: I am for continuous optimization in all things, Michael, so suggest away! It aligns nicely with my TAAAL-ist approach…through lessarchy we can move asymptotically toward a stateless society. TAAALism, Taoist Hayekianism, with green leanings and war aversion may well NOT be the optimal approach for the LP. In fact, I’m starting to be convinced of that myself, but I haven’t found a better approach as yet!
Keeping the LP tent big for a variety of approaches? That I’m as sure of as I am that this computer is a Toshiba.
ap, of course Ruwart’s a L. If (a big if, since I’ve not heard them say that) Root and Smith said she wasn’t, I would strongly disagree with them.
But you sidestep my point about “consistency.” I believe I am as consistent and principled as I can be, and I suspect Root, Smith and Ruwart think that about themselves, too. You used the term “too consistent,” as opposed to “too radical,” “too extreme,” or “too theoretical.”
I have had many leading abolitionists claim that I’m not an L. One described me as a “fellow traveler.” I feel not one scintilla of defensiveness about my take on liberty and politics, but I sure as hell am not going to allow someone to dictate what I call my political philosophy.
Yes, of course the abolitionists are exercising their free speech, which I of course support. What I challenge is the sense I get from abolitionists that THEY are the keepers of the flame, and we non-abolitionists are second-class Ls.
Mostly, I’m reaching out to the newer, the unaligned, and the silent majority in the L community. They need not fear attack and judgment from the abolitionists.
Dear LibertarianGirl,
That is the reason why I was disheartened in 2008 when Root and Smith both claimed that free-market anarchists are somehow not actually libertarian. Do we free-market anarchists not fall within the libertarian quadrant on the Nolan chart? Yes, therefore Root and Smith were necessarily wrong.
Of course, I don’t wish to say that there is no place for litmus tests. After all, I think we’d all agree that Daniel Imperato was not a libertarian. But I like to see the libertarian movement as a big tent that includes people who support a very-limited state (minarchists) and people who support no state at all (anarchists).
As Harry Browne wrote in 1998,
“Libertarians…know that government doesn’t work?even when it tries to do something we want. Government is coercion?pure and simple. Every government program involves forced activity, forcible prohibition, and/or forced financing?or else it wouldn’t be a government program. And there’s no way to make force efficient or benevolent; it’s just force. Thus libertarians are continually looking for ways to take functions?any functions?away from government, because they want to reduce government force to the absolute minimum possible.
“What is the absolute minimum possible? We might argue endlessly about that, but the question is really irrelevant. What’s important today is that most people reading [Reason] magazine?and, in fact, most Americans?want much less government than they have now. Once we’ve harnessed that antigovernment sentiment and reduced government to a fraction of its present size, we can argue over how much further we should go.”
In 2004, he wrote,
“If we can get the federal government down to $100 billion, I’ll lead a drive to raise the money necessary to rent the New Orleans SuperDome for three months?so we can all get together and argue over how much further the federal government should be reduced.
“Those who want no government at all can continue working to reduce the size of government. Those who want limited government can fight to keep the federal government at $100 billion?or work to reduce it slightly more?or even work to increase it slightly.
“But none of it is relevant until we reduce the government dramatically from where it is now.
“As to the question of whether a society without government is possible, today we try to answer it with limited knowledge. If we can ever make government very small, we will undoubtedly find that plenty of people?people with more creativity and imagination than we have?will find it profitable to devise ways to do things privately and voluntarily that today seem possible only through government. Until those creative people have an incentive to put their minds to the question, we’re contemplating the issue without knowing all the possibilities.
“But so what? The question is moot.”
Dear Mr. Capozzi,
Root’s and Smith’s shared position amounted to, “Well, Ruwart doesn’t count because she’s too far in the libertarian corner of the libertarian quandrant on the Nolan chart.”
Is it “tortured” logic for me to say that one doesn’t suddenly cease being a libertarian because she happens to be too libertarian to supposedly count?
What part of the premise (i.e., the premise that people do not suddenly cease being a libertarian because she happens to be too libertarian to supposedly count) do you not “buy”? I would have thought you would have agreed with me on this premise.
Or am I misreading you? Is so, I apologise in advance.
You write, “They generally won?t engage and specify what those plans might be in their dreams or otherwise.”
Actually, I have responded to your questions on various occassions, but you have apparently never read my responses, for I’ve never seen responses from you to my responses.
WHAT TO DO WITH LIGHT-HO– USES, THE U.S. CAPITOL BUILDING, AND NORAD
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/libertarian-party-monday-message-dont-blame-immigrants/
CANDIDATES ON NUKES AND SILOS
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/mary-ruwart-reviews-wayne-roots-conscience-of-a-libertarian/
You continue, “I suspect none of them would be willing to engage on the question, What exactly would the insurance companies DO with the silos?”
Perhaps we could destroy the silos and sell off the rubble as souvenirs, thereby gaining money with which to pay back to the elderly the money that was stolen from them their whole lives? Perhaps we can convert the silos into storage facilities for grain? I honestly don’t see why an insurance company would have any particular interest in them, except perhaps in so far as someone wishes for the integrity of the infrastructure to be insured.
Finally, you write, “The stated reason among ‘purists’ (generally abolitionist Ls) is that impure Ls will ruin the brand. Yet, I?m pretty sure that abolitionists support freedom of speech.”
(1) I don’t recall seeing anyone claim that you are not a libertarian.
(2) Even if someone does make such a claim, the person is simply using her natural right to free speech. Telling someone that he is not this or that does not violate the person being told. Nor does it violate the person’s natural rights to try to pursuade him or her to cease calling him- or herself something. In short, the “let’s not ruin the brand” argument is employed through free speech, and purists have as much a right to make it as you have to call yourself whatever you want.
Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak
lg, the only reason I can see for “litmus tests” are psychological. If one views oneself as “pure,” it tends to separate the purist from the impure, making the pure in some sense “superior” to the impure.
The stated reason among “purists” (generally abolitionist Ls) is that impure Ls will ruin the brand. Yet, I’m pretty sure that abolitionists support freedom of speech. When they get all high and mighty on my own bad self, I remind them I’ll call myself whatever I damn well please. This is a view that most non-abolitionist Ls tend to share, and at some point the abolitionists will accept that or start calling themselves something different, perhaps agorist or something.
Of course, we all conduct litmus tests of SOME sort. I voted for Barr, for ex., even though I disagreed with some of his positions. I would probably vote for Rand Paul if I lived in his state, even though I disagree with MORE of his views than I do Barr’s.
It’s a messy world. We’re all doing the best we can, day by day.
Ya know Robert after the many years I have spent in the LP and talked to a bunch of people I have met very few who suggest that the government can or should be done away with overnight.
Seems to me that you waste a whole lot of time on something that ain’t gonna happen.
I’d suggest that you might wish to consider a more productive approach but I doubt that any idea I suggest will even be considered.
“This reminds me why the prospect of silo operators staying in the silo after the checks bounce not an attractive scenario.”
I didn’t say it was an “attractive scenario.” I said it was a far more likely outcome than your baseless, unsupported claim that “silo abandonment” would occur if the state disappeared tomorrow.
tk, nope, I didn’t “forget.” I found your essay unpersuasive when you wrote it, and I still do.
Perhaps I need to come up with a longer set of extreme examples of abolitionism’s untenability so as to take the focus off this one example.
Still, my understanding is that a lot of pirates were former Navy and some merchant marines, and warlords were once loyal-to-the-emperor military men. This reminds me why the prospect of silo operators staying in the silo after the checks bounce not an attractive scenario.
I’d rather not be reduced to Mad Max! You? 😉
Bob,
In case you forgot, I already burned your “silo abandonment” strawman down.
LOL , we’re on the same page , I just dont understand anyone having a litmus test on who is and isnt a libertarian . I guess Im a simpleton , if yu fall in the libertarian quadrant on the nolan chart ur a libertarian in my book
lg, I believe ap’s logic goes something like this: abolitionist anarcho-Ls like himself and Ruwart are “consistent.” Those who are not abolitionist anarcho-Ls are less than consistent. Therefore, if Smith is NOT an abolitionist anarcho-L, then Ruwart, an abolitionist, is “too consistent” in Smith’s eyes.
Peak’s point is tortured and based on premises I don’t buy, but I get his point from his perspective.
Peak may not buy Emerson’s view of FOOLISH consistency. I often challenge abolitionists by exposing the (IMO) foolishness of abolitionism applied consistently, e.g., do they advocate immediate silo abandonment? Based on their own tautological construct, they should, since the nuclear silos are staffed and maintained with “stolen” tax dollars.
Many abolitionists then try to change the subject by using Rothbard’s “well, of course there will need to be ‘transition plans’.” They generally won’t engage and specify what those plans might be in their dreams or otherwise. We could imagine abolitionists having vicious internal debates about how quickly the silos would be handed off to insurance companies, “bold” abolitionists wanting it done next week, “leaky” abolitionists taking, say, one year to effect the transfer.
I suspect none of them would be willing to engage on the question, What exactly would the insurance companies DO with the silos?
AP_It is my understanding that Ms. Smith did not consider Dr. Ruwart to be a libertarian because Dr. Ruwart was too consistent in her opposition to statist power.
me_ huh? that doesnt make sense to me. Too consistent?
While I definitely would not have said what she said on stage at the convention, I do want to say something positive about Ms. Smith: she was, and remains, extremely passionate about liberty, and I think (or at least hope) that that’s something we can all appreciate about her.
Mr. Shawn Levasseur writes, “This was the woman who claimed we were being taken over by neo-cons while Mary Ruwart was still a strong contender for the nomination.”
It is my understanding that Ms. Smith did not consider Dr. Ruwart to be a libertarian because Dr. Ruwart was too consistent in her opposition to statist power. Of course, whether or not Ms. Smith has since come to her senses and now recognises that free-market anarchists are indeed within the big tent we call libertarianism, I cannot say. In any event, given that no neoconservative would ever support a radical libertarian like Dr. Ruwart anyway, your assessment might stand regardless.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
inDglass, right, she is radical, that’s for sure!
CS seems like a good fit for a Colorado BTP endorsement.
Wasn’t John Denver a Republican?
What would John Denver think of that?
Christine Smith got very angry at Jim Duensing when he put on the StateChairs Conference and we put on a debate , mind you myself and others brought , set-up and ran all the video and audio of the Pres Debate , if we had tried to get that done not pro-bono it would have been THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS. anyways we had a $500 fee to appear in the debate and she lost her mind. No other candidate had a problem , but she refused to attend unless she was comped. ROFL
NF_Does this mean she would accept the VP spot on the Milnes in 2012 winning ticket?
me_ ROFLMAO , good one NF!
Bruce Cohen // Jun 18, 2010:
“……… actually, LG is stable and Christine isn’t.”
Bruce has claimed that he is a ‘closed borders’ (my words) Libertarian, one of many, many!
Bruce has claimed he would do any thing to help veterans!
Bruce, a self described ‘Proud Zionist’ (his words) will not respond on the Israeli murder of American non combatant sailors on the non combatant USS Liberty! [Get it, Liberty, Libertarian, Liberty, Libertarian ……..]
Bruce will take time and energy to mindlessly taunt and tease on this site and others. The recent Long Beach state LPCa convention comes readily to mind.
And this guy is qualified to speak authoritatively on sanity and class. Well may be from the position of ‘a bad example’!
Hey Brucie, once again, as a person, a Lib and as an American, what is your opinion on the Liberty ‘incident’ ??????????
“Christine is the poster child for Poison Activists.”
Does this mean she would accept the VP spot on the Milnes in 2012 winning ticket?
LG is waaaaay cuter than CS. And more stable, too.
Well, actually, LG is stable and Christine isn’t.
There are some really funny Christine Smith stories around.
Like the time she went into a week long email tirade against a State Officer because he could not fund her and request.
She wanted him to pay for her staff’s RFB, First Class, for her to appear at his State event.
When he would not, she called him ‘homophobic’, etc… Best part is the guy is bi/gay.
She asked several Counties in California for the same thing. First Class air for her and her ‘staff’ and RFB.
LOL
And people call Wayne Root arrogant?
Puhleeze.
Christine is the poster child for Poison Activists.
This was the woman who claimed we were being taken over by neo-cons while Mary Ruwart was still a strong contender for the nomination.
You stay classy Christine!
ya shes pretty
LG- that’s what I remembered as well but she looked pretty good doing it!
she had absolutely no class at all in the way she acted at the 2008 convention , and with cameras on her —sigh — its a good thing she isnt runing for anything National again , there isnt a chance she would get it
Where’s the photo? As I remember the best thing about her was her appearance.
Have you thought about joining BTP?
Christine Smith, if you were to ask to be vp on my Independent bloc fusion executive ticket, I would be hard pressed to say no.