The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts will discuss at least two proposed changes to its constitution at the association’s upcoming annual convention, including a possible name change and reconsideration of its national affiliation.
Editorial note: The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts has since announced it will hold its annual convention on Sunday, May 18, at Ken’s Steakhouse in Framingham. Business is scheduled to begin at 12:00 p.m. local time. Featured speakers include Tyler Harris of Project Liberal and former LNC Development Director Tara DeSisto.
In an email statement this week, Treasurer Cris Crawford said the convention will take place sometime in May, with more details to come. She also outlined two proposals to be discussed at the convention, both of which address the group’s identity and its ties to national political organizations.
The first proposal, introduced by Chair Peter Everett, would rename the organization the Liberal Alliance of Massachusetts to align with its ongoing affiliation with the Liberal Party USA. The group originally co-founded what was then the Association of Liberty State Parties after breaking from the Libertarian Party in 2022. The organization later rebranded as the Liberal Party USA. Everett’s proposal seeks to formalize this connection by aligning LAMA’s name with the Liberal Party brand.
The second proposal, introduced by member Walter Ziobro, calls for instead disaffiliating from the Liberal Party USA entirely and rebranding the state organization as the Liberty Advocates of Massachusetts. Ziobro argues that this move would provide greater flexibility in supporting both Libertarian and Liberal Party candidates without the implications of being tied to a national political entity.
A third option mentioned by Crawford would be to keep the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts name while severing ties with the Liberal Party USA. However, no formal proposal has been drafted for this option as of her statement. This approach would still require members to approve constitutional amendments, as the association’s governing documents continue to reference a delegate selection process for the Libertarian National Convention.
The association has yet to confirm a specific date or location for the convention beyond the month of May. Members are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed constitutional changes before then.
Darryl: Unfortunately, no updates yet. I’ve been trying to get a recount from the most recent party leadership election. I’m hoping to have details to share soon.
Any updates on what happened at the convention?
The libertarian groups in Massachusetts include
MIT Radicals for Capitalism (mid 1960s)
Libertarian Association of Massachusetts (LAMA; had a hiatus near 2000 when the then LAMA/LPMA Chair suppressed its existence for a few years, elected board at convention)
Libertarian Party (The Massachusetts major party, name fixed by the state, exists either as a major party or as a PAC, depending on whether or not it has major party status, elected board in Presidential Primary)
Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts (group recognized by national Libertarian Party, elected board at convention).
Massachusetts Libertarians (in the slow process of formation, board elected by mail ballot of voting members)
Update: The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts will hold its annual convention this Sunday at Ken’s Steakhouse in Framingham. Business is scheduled to begin at 12:00 p.m. local time. Featured speakers include Tyler Harris of Project Liberal and former LNC Development Director Tara DeSisto.
When this was initially reported, the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts had not yet announced a specific date for its convention. The party has since scheduled it for May 18.
As I understand it – I could be wrong – Phillies started one of the competing “Massachusetts Libertarian” groups, but there have been other such groups continuously long before, during, and since then.
I would call both statists, or big government advocates. Alternatively, you could call them Sarwark puppets.
“George Phillies was not active at that time. I was only first aware of him being active in the late 1980s or early 1990s.”
1994 according to LPedia.
“George Phillies is not a libertarian, neither is Gene Berkman….” – Rick
Just how would you classify them, Rick?
George Phillies is not a libertarian, neither is Gene Berkman, so that makes sense.
@History Buff cc. Walter Ziobro
This is what I was thinking of: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2025/01/new-statewide-libertarian-party-announced-in-massachusetts/
Are/were there different entities using the name “Massachusetts Libertarians” (as opposed to, for example, one or more entities claiming to be in continuation of some single original entity of that name)?
@ History Buff:
The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts was formed in 1972, and held its first convention in 1973. I was there.
George Phillies was not active at that time. I was only first aware of him being active in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
“All you do is smear libertarians who actually believe in freedom […] If you know anything at all about freedom it will be a surprise to all of us.”
Now don’t project, Berk. You were the one smearing the Mises Caucus, not Rick.
“If you want to read books by Mises, they are in print and for sale.”
They are in fact available for free online via the Mises Institute. So even you don’t have an excuse for not reading them, Berk.
“I would advise taking time to learn about freedom before you waste time commenting on things that are over your head.”
Ironically enough, Berk, thus far you have done a much worse job than Rick of demonstrating whether you know even the first thing about libertarianism in general, and Ludwig von Mises in particular. U+1F60F And bear in mind, Rick started off by erroneously implying there exist any Libertarian Party in Massachusetts which isn’t fake, so that says a lot more about you than it does about him…
Rick – how do you know what I think of mask mandates? I don’t know anything that you believe that is in favor of liberty. All you do is smear libertarians
who actually believe in freedom, but I have never seen you or that other Russian stooge ever defend freedom in any way.
What books by Ludwig won Mises have you read? You don’t seem to ever invoke any concept that Mises used to defend freedom, or to explain problems with goverment actions. If you know anything at all about freedom it will be a surprise to all of us.
If you want to read books by Mises, they are in print and for sale. I would advise taking time to learn about freedom before you waste time commenting on things that are over your head.
I’m fairly sure that something or another calling itself Massachusetts Libertarians existed for over two decades before Phillies joined. A Walter Ziobro was mentioned in their newsletters from the early 70s. My guess is that it’s either the same Walter Ziobro who comments here or perhaps his father. In any case, it’s pretty easy to confirm within a few seconds with a search engine that there was a Massachusetts Libertarian party long before Phillies got involved with it.
Did you wish to say something, my “dear” colleague emeritus, founder of the Massachusetts “Libertarians”, noted Harlos apologist, and IPR editorial director? U+1F60F
Please deign to provide us with a single example of Russia – not the RSFSR – being the aggressor since World War I.
You can’t of course, since there aren’t any – but it will certainly be amusing to see what you come up with, and to rebut it if necessary.
The claim that there has been no Russian aggression since World War 1 is unusually bizarre, even for the internet, but lets you judge the accuracy of that commenter.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, please, comport yourselves.
For all its “Libertarian” “parties” – of which there are recently at least four (Libertarian Association of Massachusetts, Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Libertarian Party, Massachusetts Libertarians) – Massachusetts (currently) has no Libertarian Party that isn’t fake.
The Mises Caucus is in favor of free-trade in the same sense Ludwig von Mises was, i.e. not for foreign slave labor undercutting American wages.
Nor was Ludwig von Mises in favor of allowing an invasion and occupation by illegal immigrants, or for the death and replacement of native values, norms, customs, habits, culture or people.
And what Ludwig von Mises opposed was not Russian Aggression but Soviet Aggression. Nor does the Mises Caucus support Russian Aggression. In fact, there hasn’t been any Russian Aggression since that against Austro-Hungary during First World War.
Mask-mandates and lock-downs are certainly totalitarian, though not necessarily (exclusively) communist.
I’m just glad to see our very own Walter Ziobro arguing the commonsense notion of a state party having (a greater level of explicit) autonomy from national parties, and the freedom to mix endorsements and nominations across party lines.
To clarify, Gene Berkman knows nothing about Mises. Berkman has openly supported mask mandates and lockdowns, as well as communist ideas. That is why he supported fake libertarian Chase Oliver.
To clarify, Rick does not know anything about Libertarianism, and is not qualified to judge who is a fake libertarian.
It is clear the The “Mises”Caucus are fake libertarians because they do not agree with Ludwig von Mises on:
(1) Free Trade – Ludwig von Mises was for Free Trade
(2) Open Immigration – Ludwig von Mises was for Open Immigration
(3) Opposing Russian Aggression – Ludwig von Mises opposed Russian Aggression.
On those three issues and others, the so-called “Mises” Caucus were fake libertarians and fake supporters
of Ludwig von Mises.
To clarify, this is the fake Libertarian Party.