The official blog of the Libertarian Party
June 10, 2005
Frighten and Abuse?
by Mark Freeman
May of 2005 brought a wide array of examples of new police authority run-a-muck. In this era of paranoia, bred from the fear of terrorism, we have granted an unprecedented amount of lee-way to law enforcement officers who at times abuse the powers afforded to them.
May is a month where high school and college graduation parties become common-place. In 2005, this was no different. The Washington Post describes one such Maryland high-school graduation party in a June 7th article. This parent-patrolled party was aimed at being quite "low-key" with no alcohol available to minors. Exclaiming this fact, the parents who threw the party protested when police asked to enter the party to administer breath tests for alcohol. Having been denied entry, police ticketed almost every vehicle parked on the neighborhood street and set up alcohol check-points at either end of the block. After the successfully ruined a harmless graduation party, the mother wrote several letters to key people in the police department about the use of their power.
The above example is the classic story of authorities selectively and excessively enforcing the law. When they were denied entry to private property absent a search warrant, law enforcement officials began to abuse their authority. Beyond trivial letter writing, there is almost no recourse to this abuse. Standard procedure for police has been to assume guilt.
The Washington Examiner gives us another instance where police and government itself have overstepped their boundaries. A Channel 7, WJLA-TV, news reporter on an investigation followed a police car for about 30 minutes. When the police officer realized he was being followed, nine police vehicles surrounded the news crew. With guns drawn the police forced the crew to the ground and into hand-cuffs. When over 30 minutes later the crew was identified as Channel 7 they were released. Authorities later played on the public's fear of terrorism to justify the event.
Nine police cars were removed from normal duty to handle two citizens guilty of trailing another car. Police paranoia and an excessive amount of power given to the government compelled two citizens to fear for their lives.
A highly consolidated federal government is increasingly transcending the boundaries of fiction. Lee-way given to police has condoned aggressive and frightening breaches of the public's trust. Larger government has destroyed memorable occasions and endangered lives. Has the motto of "Protect and Serve" changed to "Frighten and Abuse"?
Posted by Shane Cory at June 10, 2005 02:27 PM
Reader Comments:
Just another example of the corruption of bigger government. Pity, really.
Offtopic:
http://libertyforsale.com/?p=110#comments
I don't know where else to post this, so this will have to do. There needs to be a discussion NOW, about how this party moves forward. There are many libertarians willing to leave, AGAIN, and I think you people should really take notice. CATO left its support behind a long time ago, only a couple of Reason staff show their support for the LP, and yet these are organizations we constantly point to for credibility, op-eds, etc. Do you people want to remain politically powerless?
A couple officers involved called a radio show to discuss this matter.
One said that the tickets were used as bait to lure the occupants out of the house where they could be breathalized.
The other said it was a lack of judgement on the part of the officers.
I find it petty and spiteful. The house occupants were penalized for exercising their right to deny the officers entry.
The government think they own private property and want to control your life, I have had many arugments with the drug cops and their supporters on these random drug test after I said if they tried to force me to take a drug test I would respectfully refuse until they got a search warrant. Many people thought that sort of talk was unAmerican.
I hope more libertarians defect from the two major parties because they both sold us down the river long ago (Democrats in the 1890s and Republicans during World War II).
I'm becoming more appalled at how the federal government is violating individual liberties, local control, and states rights. To put it nicely, they have taken the U.S. Constitution and torn it into two pieces. One piece used as a substitute for Kleenex tissues and the other for Charmin toilet paper.
I'm with Rob on getting the LP as a true political party.
The LP needs to make our platform more clear. The average joe misinterprets our platform and thinks we're nuts. You can't believe how many people think the LP advocates that 'underage' pornography should be legal, that we're anti-environment, and that civilians should be able to own nukes. We need to run a non-radical in 2008 -- another Ed Clark is what we need.
I've won people over with the moderate-Libertarian philosophy. I didn't talk about privatizing roads or ending taxation...I talked about issues people care about: healthcare, education, social security, lower taxes.
I agree: "I don't know where else to post this, so this will have to do."
I have great frustration with this party. There doesn't seem to be a path forward or any real organization. It seems to me that the party believes it is above advertising/promoting itself like the Dems and Reps. But the voting population is not; they need it. I believe that the LP emphasizes the fringe issues more than mainstream issues and that really scares people off.
Additionally, to explain my frustration: In the last election, I emailed the LP to get info on a 'best chance' candidate to GIVE MONEY to. I had other people lined up to also give money. I did not get any reply to my request to give money. I don't know how this party can survive like this. There are people in all the positions of the party... what are they doing?
What are they doing? Absolutely nothing as far as I can tell. I agree, the LP needs to focus on baby steps towards liberty and not an all out "lets get rid of all government" cry. We all want limited government, but it has to be done slowly.
Those who say we need to take baby steps don't get it. Harry Browne says we need to cut it ALL NOW, because taking small steps could AND would leave the door open for ANY of it to be reversed. ANY compromises can and will leave the door open to go back the way it was.
Any tax-cut plan by the Repugs is nothing more then a way to put the squeeze on the lower classes and, as they put it, to realign it all to bring in MORE revenue. The whole Libertarian plan is to cut taxes SO FAR DOWN that the Feds CANNOT function beyond their constitutional limits!
The media outlets have painted the LP as wackos, because of our top desires to end the drug war and such. They think if you want to end the drug war and legalize drugs, you must smoke pot. They think if you want to disallow monitoring of the internet, you must look at child porn. It's the whole assumption of "if you're not guilty, what are you afraid of?" and it's BS.
ANY Repug who tells me to "put the (insert drug, drug slang word, or drug paraphenilia word here) down" I tell them "when you stop teaching your kids how to do drive-by shootings" (after all an anti-gun person would think that is the ONLY thing you would need an Uzi for, right?)
I'm sick of this, and I don't know when this is going to end, and how America will be if and when it does.
Oh and BTW it IS the Repugs who are doing this, or not changing anything if a Dem did it. Had Clinton done ANY of this, even with a 9/11, the Repugs would be screaming for his head!
I've finally found a few more Libertarians who seem to agree that legalizing pot isn't the top priority. I tell you, I've really rethought my position on being a Libertarian, because despite the "party principles" that are posted on the web site, most of the posts that you read are from folks who are stoners and the only "rights" they care about are legalizing pot. That's the only thing they seem to care about, and frankly, it's a real turn off to people such as myself, who see a hell of a lot more problems with this nation than absence of a legal high.
The Libertarians who want fewer restrictions on guns, more freedom to live responsibly without government treating us like well cared for and unruly children.
Personally, I feel that if your highest (pardon the pun) priority is getting stoned, you need to form your own party and let the grown-ups handle this one.
Because a lot of posts that I have read, if I had read them before hearing about the true meaning of libertarians, I would hold them in lower regards than liberal democrats, or 60's era hippies.
I believe in the principles of this party. Now I'd like to see more who are clear-headed enough to make a difference.
I've been a Republican since Ronald Reagan, except for two short stints as a Libertarian, and I believe the Libertarians' three MAJOR faults are total unfamiliarity with the Founding Fathers and their largely Christian stance, total ignorance of the fact that America is an official Theocracy as evidenced by "In God We Trust" on our money and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the 1892 decision by the Supreme Court that America is a Christian nation, a decision that has never been rescinded or retracted, and a seemingly total ignorance towards the cultural/educational struggle going on between liberals and conservatives that will decide whether the liberals are allowed to take this nation further and further down the road to socialist destruction or whether the conservatives will take our country back for God and the people. As a 2008 election Republican Presidential candidate, I hope all you Libertarians become Christians. Your support for the pro-choice position vis-a-vis abortion is just as destructive as the Communazis' position on that subject. The Democrats are complete Socialists, that is, Communazis. By the way, your use of the leftist term "inappropriate" betrays your true allegiance. It is the leftists who call the speech of others "inappropriate" when they don't like it, instead of saying they don't like it or disagree with it.
Saint Michael Jesus the Archangel
Next American President
Okay, I have to admmit...I'm glad "Saint Michael Jesus Archangel" is NOT in the LP.
That being said, I wish a lot more people were in the LP. Why can't the LP just concern themselves with getting libertarians elected and leave the philosophy and policy to groups like Reason, Cato, and DownsizeDC.org?
Like it or not, that's the only way for a political party to be successful. The Democrats and Repupublicans don't have nearly as ideological a platform as Libertarians. But Democrats have groups like MoveOn.org, the Sierra Club, etc., and Republicans have groups like The Christian Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, etc.
Political parties don't have to do the dirty work.
The only job of a political party should be to *market* the ideas that its party members support.
Although I understand everyone's opinion on this subject, I think it is time that we take another look at the article and the important questions it raises.
Saint Michael Jesus Archangel,
When the founding fathers were around we did not have the same currency we do today, and the Pledge of Allegiance was not wrote until 1892. I am a pro life Christian and will not vote for a Republican who will pass unconstitutional laws, start a national id possibly refered to in the book of Revelation, and raise taxes. George Bush has done nothing to stop abortions since he has been in office, the Republicans control congress and govenment funds to abortion clinics still exist. Libertarians would end government funded abortions. I am sure glad that the Republican George Bush would never violate the constitution.
Bill wrote: "Personally, I feel that if your highest (pardon the pun) priority is getting stoned, you need to form your own party and let the grown-ups handle this one."
It's not a want of drugs, it's a want of personal freedom, please keep this in mind. Everyone should have the right to get "high" off of a plant that grows naturally upon this planet if they choose to. If the right is taken away from one person, then it's taken away from everyone. And your tax dollars go to overcrowding prisons with innocent people wanting to "have a good time". If you choose to not smoke pot, that's your choice. It should equally be YOUR choice to smoke it, without fear of being arrested. But the legalization of marijuana for medicanal and recreational purposes is an issue that effects everyone whether you think so or not. It should not be ignored, and it shouldn't be passed off as a "pot head" issue. I do agree that there are other issues that are of extreme importance, but they should be discussed equally, because they are issues dealling with personal freedom. The government shouldn't mess with our personal freedom, period.
The Libertarian party has the best platform by far of any other party, yet people on here still find some way to smear it. It is principled, simple, concise, and absolutely pro-liberty. The demopublicans don't even have a real platform (it's even hard to find, buried in the website). Re-legalizing drugs is definitely a top priority. And I say this because the demopublicans in washington only make things worse with each passing day. Any kind of cut in the bureaucracy is a step forward, so ending the war on drugs would be a HUGE step. Why hide our true feelings on certain issues, that's a demopublican tactic.
I agree, Nick. Even more important than the platform though, in my opinion, is the pledge that every paid member of our party signs. Per Article 7:1 of our bylaws, "Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."
It's our refusal to initiate force which makes me most proud to be a libertarian.
An even better question, WakeUpLP, is why doesn't anyone care about changing the platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties?
I wouldn't mind throwing out the platform and starting again from scratch, so long as we keep the pledge and stick to it. But I honestly don't think it would accomplish much.
The reason we've struggled as a party for 30+ years has little to do with our platform. In fact, extremely few voters ever even look at our platform.
The reason we've struggled is that we haven't learned the mechanics of winning local, state, and federal elections like the Republicrats have. The platform as a vehicle that needs changing is actually a red herring.
The Libertarian Party platform didn't scare me away. I had to look at a few issues and why libertarians believed the way they did but I agree with the platform most of the time. The LP has made great progress in the website and ran nationwide ads on Michael Badnarik. More people are hearing about the LP everyday.
IMO most libertarians overemphasize the "platform" leg to the LP 'table' and ignore the other three legs of the table. (give me a second to think up what the other three legs of the table are;-)
Okay the four legs of the table are:
1. platform, bylaws and stuff "on paper". we overemphasize these.
2. Logistics leg of the political table. This is the ability to get the right people to the right place, at the right time. We pseudointellectuals stink at this, and to make matters worse, we rationalize it as a virtue.
3. Communications leg of the table. Most of us have naive views toward marketing and sales techniques. How many of you have ever read a book on salesmanship by Brian Tracy, Steve Schiffman, etc in your lives.
4. Fundraising and basic believability. The state and local chapters are in their infancy when it comes to fundraising. Also, many of our local meetings are one part political party, two parts compsci club and four parts Star Trek convention.
Remember William Shatner's 'Get A Life" speech on Saturday Night Live?
It doesn't take a lot of courage to sign a noninitiation of force pledge if you are scared of your own shadow to begin with.
If someone who is afraid of heights signs a pledge that they will not work as a roofer or clean the outside windows of skyscrapers, so what?
If a black belt in karate or a Clint Eastwood signs a noninitiation of force pledge, then he or she is actually giving something up.
I don't really think that the LP needs to Revamp its platform, I think it needs to revamp it PRIORITIES! For instance, I saw a lot more effort to stop new taxes than I saw in fighting the Real Id act. Now, which do you think is worse: Paying slightly higher taxes, or federalizing driver licenses? I do commend the LP for trying to cut taxes, but I would rather have the taxes than the Anti American legislation that the Bush Administration has passed, and is trying to renew. My point is that the LP needs a much more VISIBLE effort in fighting this stuff, while low taxes should be placed on the back burner. THAT will make us a stronger Political Party, NOT revamping our entire platform so no one is quite sure where we stand on the Issues. Just my thoughts on the subject.
Good points, Tim. I still place a lot of emphasis on the pledge though. For one thing, it's one thing that neither most Democratic nor most Republican politicians could sign in light of their voting records.
Of course, they could always lie and sign it anyway, I suppose, but such lies show up pretty quickly.
But as you point out, for the average person, the pledge is a no-brainer. That's one of the things that makes it so good!
It's also a great place for starting the discussion about libertarian principles, particularly if you're talking with someone who is new to those principles. There's nothing so effective as giving them the pledge as the starting point and asking THEM to derive the LP's position on the issues.
the pledge is anarcho-capitalist.
change it.
The pledge is our best guarantee that someone like the above person won't come along and try to change us into Republicans or Democrats.
Anarcho-Capitalism will not attract any voters.
No reasonable person wants privatization of all government services and ending taxation. The pledge advocates anarchy.
The pledge is a bad idea but it would take a 7/8th vote at a national convention to get rid of it. Platform, preamble, pledge, etc. It is all an empty gesture from an organization that handles less money than the Walgreen's down the street.
"The pledge is our best guarantee that someone like the above person won't come along and try to change us into Republicans or Democrats."
Change the LP into Republicans or Democrats? How would that even be possible? Drop the conspiracy crap already, it's tired. We'd like to see it change from "The Anarchist hide behind the LP label party" to the "Libertarian Party". You tout those principles constantly, but what if I don't have an anarchist agenda? What are the LP's principles exactly? Spell 'em out. Why is that many people who call themselves libertarian, aren't members of the LP, and don't vote LP?
The Libertarian Party has been hijacked alright, but by anarchists.
______________________________________________
...Unfortunately, no one can be told what the LP should look like. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back Libertarian TV.
LPReformer: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill and you leave Libertopia and I show you how big the LP can become. (Long pause) Remember -- all I am offering is some g*d damn success, nothing more.
http://www.reformthelp.org/party/pledge/fixingThePledge.php
I have met many people who want to vote Libertarian but think some ideas are too extreme. I asked them what they found extreme.
1. Ending taxes
2. No business regulation
3. Open Borders
4. our environmental policy
These are every day joes and jills I've talked to. Only kooks and anarchists want no taxes, no business regulation, porously open borders and a laughable environmental policy.
I disagree, Rob D. You do not have to "sign the pledge" to register as an LP voter, to participate in LP activities, or donate money or effort to the LP. Millions of people could support the LP in this way, just as millions support the GOP or Demos without ever becoming one of their "inner circles." You DO have to sign if you want to be able to vote on the leadership and platform of the LP, or if you wish to be an LP candidate. The very good reason for this is because the party leadership must never be seen by the law as trying to violently overthrow the government. If you haven't noticed, anyone who even looks like he lives next door to someone whose last name is the same as someone on a government watch list goes onto a watch list himself. By certifying -- not pledging, but certifying -- that we do not believe in using force to effect social or political change, we declare that we are working within the American political system to change it; we give no legal excuse for the authorities to blame the party for acts of terrorism or violence.
You may be too young to remember the Nixon-era enemies lists maintained by the White House and the FBI. Or the campaign against "militias" in the 1990s. In both cases, groups that advocated (or could be charged as advocating) violent overthrow of the government were targeted. The non-initiation of force certification has literally helped the LP avoid being implicated.
I am happy to work with people and groups who may share some of my goals, but not my ideology. I do NOT want non-libertarians in the libertarian party as inner members, leaders, or candidates. If "the pledge" helps keep such people out of leadership roles -- where they can make us vulnerable to mission drift (e.g., support of aggressive wars of "liberation" overseas) and legal prosecution (e.g., being dragged into court along with the "libertarian" militia groups) -- then fine by me.
I have a question for those few of you who are opposed to the pledge.
Who do you want to initiate force against, and under what circumstances?
That's the only real reason to oppose the pledge. All the rest is a charade designed to avoid that real issue.
And no, opposing the pledge is not necessary to build the LP into a world class party. That's another red herring.
It occurs to me that some of you might be confused as to why we have the pledge in the first place.
It actually derives from the Lockean rights that were the inspiration for this country's birth. The pledge is really nothing more than a promise to honor, protect, and support the Lockean rights of life, liberty, and property for ALL people, which includes what Jefferson called our "pursuit of happiness."
All the pledge means is, "I will not initiate force." That's Lockean rights in a nutshell. Initiation of force is the essence of violation of the basic human rights first identified by Locke. When someone says that the pledge is really nothing more than the advancement of an anarchistic agenda, he demonstrates his own ignorance in the matter.
So while those who question the pledge may not realize it, they're actually questioning the fundamental principles of Liberty.
Why does everything in this party always come down to 'Rule By The Wackiest Common Denominator?'
One way or another, we have to stop using this party as a validation tool for weirdoes.
Of course, I just called myself CrowleyThustra, but you know what I mean.
The Pledge started out as a legal disclaimer from David Nolan. But the purists and those who can't deal with ambiguity took a legal disclaimer and turned it into Holy Writ.
The unintended consequence is that the Pledge and other party rituals put a floor and a ceiling on membership. The purists will never desert a party with a pledge, a purist platform, a super secret hand shake etc. because it gives them a sense of validation. But these things scare away 'regulation Americans', who are a minority in the LP.
The net effect is like training wheels on a bike. You won't go really fast, but you won't fall down either. Take the training wheels off. It's been 30 years, after all.
Also red pill, blue pill. That was a line from a FICTIONAL SCIENCE FICTION SHOW. Neo never existed. Spock and Sarek never existed. There is no Vulcan Philosophy covered in any UNiversity philosopy dept.
John Gault was just some engineer who had his idea stolen. But he set it all straight by doing a ninety page talk show rant at the end of Atlas Shrugged.
Funny, Rush Limbaugh and others like him have been on the air 15 hours a week for 20 years and they have only nudged the electorate 5% in the GOP direction. But good old John Gault was able to lift the veil from the eyes of the great unwashed with one speech. If you take fictional works too literally, you will never figure out politics.
another ridiculous thing that makes Libertarians warm all over is NOTA.
OUr local party has NOTA as a voting choice. But it has never kept any freak, weirdo, goofball, etc from holding office and running the local party right into the ground.
The Pledge does not help the party as much as some people think that it does. It is not a line of computer code that says 'if x>6, then end program.' The real, political, nonbinary computer world does not operate this way.
Similarly NOTA actually attracts weirdoes and people with no management or leadership expertise. This is the kind of thing that someone with no insight into human nature (i.e. computer programmers) typically come up with.
Pleges, platforms, NOTA, etc. do not keep weirdoes out. They actually attract them like moths to a light. Many LP members naively think that a pledge or NOTA or a purist platform will act as a magic talisman to ward away evildoers or maybe even EXTROVERTS!
Pledges and platforms do not obviate the need for an in depth understanding of human nature. A few rules will not ward off bad leadership. They just give some people a false sense of security.
Meanwhile Rome is burning while we are constantly fiddling with our platform. If only our platform were 1% different, the latest National ID card vote in the Senate would not have been 100 to zero. We could have held them off if only the 'platform and pledge' leg of the LP table were a little longer. What about the communications leg of the table? the Fundraising leg? The political horse sense leg?
I say it to all: One leg bad, four legs good.
Thus Sprach CrowleyThustra.
PS: The best way to keep freaks and weirdoes out of leadership positions is to ask this question:
"If you're so smart, Why aren't you rich?"
That usually stops them better than any pledge ever could.
PS: The best way to keep freaks and weirdoes out of leadership positions is to ask this question:
"If you're so smart, Why aren't you rich?"
That usually stops them better than any pledge ever could.
The only problem I see with that qualifier is that some people define "rich" as something that has nothing to do with monetary rewards. While money certainly makes the world go 'round, it's not necessarily the end pursuit for all intelligent people.
Crowley...great diatribe. Too bad you completely avoided the simple question I raised and instead concentrated on more red herrings.
I'm not sure what "Regulation Americans" are: people who believe in regulation perhaps?
In any case, I don't think the vast majority of Americans have any problem backing the basic principles this country was founded on, and that's all the pledge is all about.
I wonder how the LP would be today if instead of Bergland in '84, it was Earl Ravenal. Would the LP had been any more powerful today?
I guess we can't sink any lower than Andre Marrou.
I agree with LibertarianTV. Nothing about the certification says that Libertarians are constrained from defending themsleves or what's theirs, with violence if necessary, or from violent retaliation for wrongs done them. That's more than enough "wiggle room" for violent action and reaction to suit me, thank you very much.
Instead, the certification basically respects everyone else's right to live their lives, free of coercive, harmful violence, and declares that Libertarians won't be part of that problem.
There's nothing weird or cultish about it. The specific wording was deliberately minimalist and, as Nolan has mentioned on numerous occasions, specifically tailored to act as a shield against government prosecution and witch hunts -- a function that it has actually fulfilled several times in my own memory.
If you don't think that the GOP and Demos do far worse in terms of exacting indicators of allegiance from their core membership, keep dreaming. If you want to see something really weird and cultish, try Skull and Bones, which boasts both President Bush and Senator Kerry as members. Or the Bohemian Grove get-togethers, which have included numerous Presidents and other high officials, along with business royalty and various celebrities.
If anything, the certification is closer to the Boy Scout oath than any cult "pledge": Innocuous and harmless, except in the eyes of people who are so afraid of being labeled as "nerds" or "weirdos" that they have to excise anything that has even a whiff of nerdishness or weirdness from their lives and a 50 mile radius around them.
I have long suspected that opposition to "the pledge" is an aspect of the same personal quality that inspires the saying, "I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as a member." Anyone who is truly busy trying to enhance liberty doesn't sweat small stuff such as this, imho. And NOBODY has to sign, who just wants to help out or vote for LP candidates. So what's the big deal?
Mike Nelson above hit the nail right on the head. The LP refuses to take baby steps and because of that, they've taken NO steps. Wouldn't things be better if the government were run 10%, 20% or 50% more libertarian than it is now? I think so. That being said, I don't advocate voting republican because they are closer to the LP than democrats(I've been told that by reps but I don't see any difference).
I'm an engineer so I think a certain way. And I can't understand why anyone would expect any different results from trying the same tactics repeatedly. It hasn't worked in the past 30 years; it won't work in the next 30. Something has to change. The LP wants to BE there, but doesn't want to GO there.
The Pledge is stupid BECAUSE IT'S A PLEDGE! Dogma is dumb. It's hypocritical to be a party of freedom and then have some dogmatic recitation that party members are expected to fall in line behind.
"It hasn't worked in the past 30 years; it won't work in the next 30. Something has to change. The LP wants to BE there, but doesn't want to GO there."
I agree wholeheartedly. The radical wing of the party has ran it for 20 years and we've seen no success. Ever since Ed Clark, we have yet to see one of our candidates break half-a-million votes.
How could Clark poll near 1 million votes and have ballot access in all 50 states and Bergland could have it in 40(?) and only pull in 228,000? I wasn't alive in 1980 but I'm sure Clark had a moderate libertarian message that the average, working man could agree with.
Is it really true that Bergland won the nomination by a single vote? Wow.
Actually, some felt that Bergland was more moderate than Clark. Clark's biggest advantage was that he had a millionaire VP running mate. Bergland's campaign had only a small fraction of the money Clark's campaign had.
Having said that, I'd like to raise another question.
Most libertarians have strong feelings about what they consider to be the most important issues on the national level. Many of these issues are reflected in the "world's smallest political quiz." I'm trying to come up with a local version of the quiz, but I'm stuck on what the top 10 local issues in America are.
Education is almost certainly #1. Taxes are always on the list. For some, school prayer is big. Crime is usually considered a local issue.
But what other issues do you consider to be big local issues? Input please.
So those of you who don't want to recite oaths about not initiating violence, are you really SERIOUS about achieving significant elected office? Because here in California, if you win office -- if you even seek commission for a public office as lowly as notary public! -- you must recite an oath that includes the following:
"...I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
________________________________________________
(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions")
and that during such time as I hold the office of (name of office)___________________________________ I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
So, will you not take this oath, and thus forgo elected office? Will you lie and assume office under false pretenses?
Anybody who has already sincerely certified non-initiation of force with the LP is ready to take office in the real world with a clear conscience. The rest of you jokers can keep carping from the sidelines.
Quoting James Anderson Merritt: "The very good reason for this is because the party leadership must never be seen by the law as trying to violently overthrow the government."
And what exactly is so horrible about overthrowing the government by force that we must prohibit it? Isn't the right to overthrow the government constitutionally protected where the constitution mentions that it governs only with the consent of the governed. If the governed no longer consent to government BUT the government wont stop governing, something has to give way... and I would much rather the giving of way be on the side of the government.
And yes, we all know that the government is persecuting those who it perceives as a threat. This is nothing new -- it has been going on for years and years. IMHO, the front lines of the LP are not for the people who want to be left alone, live their lives in peace and not be looked at as nuts by some people. If you are going to take your positions while thinking in the back of your head "Is this going to make the government happy?" and "Is this going to get me put on a list of miscreants?" then maybe its time for you to have a serious talk with yourself (yes, talking to yourself is good - its called thinking - far too many people don't do it anymore) and decide how committed you are to seeing change in this country.
Basically what I am saying is this: Who cares what "the law" thinks? The law is merely an extension of the government, and today's government exists solely to protect what it perceives as belonging to it: our wallets, our ability to pay it's taxes and our souls. We as a party are all here to change this country and set a new direction that is quite different than the one we have been going on for the past several decades.
As the old saying goes, if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I wonder if the two dominant political parties in America have pledges to stop any non-purists from (gasp!) joining their party....Nope. Hmmmm...I wonder why they're so successful?
Well, they're not "principled," though. So what if they keep winning all the elections and using their ever-increasing power to destroy liberty. We, thank you very much, would rather keep our principles. You see, for us, principles are more important than liberty.
Wait a minute...
Those of you who think that the choice is between principles on the one hand and winning elections on the other hand are on the wrong track. It is not a case of "one or the other but not both."
Once again, I must emphasize this. We as a party have not yet learned to win elections, but it's not because of our "extreme" viewpoints. It's because we haven't learned how to do the basics of winning local elections.
If you look at the books (as I've been doing) written by former successful Republican and Democratic candidates for office about how they won, you'll find nothing at all about their ideology or political philosophy. I mean that 0% of their books are about Republican or Democratic policies and philosophies. Or Libertarian. Or Green. Or Communist. Or even being "middle-of-the-road" for that matter. If fact, many of them go out of their way to point out that the principles of winning elections that they discuss in their books work regardless of what political party you belong to!
Instead, what you'll find in their books is information about planning, budgeting, identifying your potential base of support on a house-by-house basis, fundraising, canvassing, advertising, phone banks, getting out the vote, and all the other practical nuts and bolts of a winning political campaign.
Those who argue that we must take "baby steps" and that we must water down our philosophy in order to win have never won an election. Yet, they claim superior knowledge!
They don't know any more about winning elections than the purists they're attacking. Yet, by virtue of their anger, and by virtue of the fact that the LP has not yet won consistently, they claim that they have special understanding that the purists are not willing to face up to when it comes to winning elections.
Just because they see Republicans and Democrats winning while selling out their beliefs, they believe that selling out to some degree is necessary to win. Their claims are rubbish since they have not themselves won any elections using their own approach.
Stop beating up purists. Start learning how to win elections.
Lib TV
For your poll, Free Speech and Censorship are way up there for me
Hi Todd,
Thanks for the input. I understand those issues as national issues, but how do you see them as local issues?
Great points made by all, especially Jake in Missouri. As a former federal law enforcement agent myself, I can say that this is a tough call. A balance must be reached between privacy rights of the individual and legitimate law enforcement concerns that serve to protect the community as a whole. I think most law enforcement agents are conscientious and want to do a good job, and beyond that, want to do what is right. However, your skepticism and suspicion is well founded, there are plenty who take personal gratification in the reckless use of power. Our current environment of national security paranoia, reasonable as it may be, only fuels the fire for many like this. We have built and are building a culture of statism and we must check this.
This leads to another question. There are many libertarians who hold office at the local level, how do they deal with these concerns? If it were me, I would closely examine the standard operating procedures of the police department and make policies that erred on the side of personal freedoms and then look at local ordinances to ensure each is compliant with a liberal reading of each article in the Bill of Rights. You can imagine what difficulty this will cause our libertarian elected officials when dems and reps throw out the tired old litany of “more should be done”. We’ve got a lot of work to do. Many people made comments that were more practical than philosophical and this is the direction we need to be headed in. I would like to see some of these policies in place, and we need votes to make this happen. Joe and Jill Voter will not think as much about these issues as many of us, they like what we say, but at the end of the day, they want results.
> you'll find nothing at all about their ideology or political philosophy...
I agree that winning elections is about a lot more than ideology, but there is a point where ideology that is perceived to be "extreme" can handicap candidates.
Here's an example:
http://libertyforsale.com/?p=37
Successful parties don't hang themselves out to dry by openly advocating "radical" ideas. And yes, ending the income tax is "radical." Not because it is or isn't but because the American people *perceive* it to be radical.
Keith totally misses the mark in the following:
---
Quoting James Anderson Merritt: "The very good reason for this is because the party leadership must never be seen by the law as trying to violently overthrow the government."
And what exactly is so horrible about overthrowing the government by force that we must prohibit it?
...
Basically what I am saying is this: Who cares what "the law" thinks?
---
Keith, do you actually think that voters will put you or any similarly minded candidates into office if they think you really believe what you said above? If you want to overthrow the government by force, you don't need a political party (which exists to put people into office to manage and/or reform the government from within, or at least to influence those who do through the electoral process). You need a radical insurgency. That's down the hall to your left. Thanks for stopping by.
Don't mistake what I said above for timidity or an overarching concern about "what people think" or the possibility of harassment and prosecution. In the end, if you want to get elected, you have to convince people to trust you and, once elected, you have to earn their trust. Big, wealthy campaign machines and sophisticated tactics can help, but we've seen often enough that voters reject machine pols who are deemed as dumb, patently untrustworthy, or completely out of touch with the public.
If you go in disrespecting the system and the law (not specific laws, but the law itself), you are likely not to inspire a sufficient number of people to vote for you. Also, if you think that candidates or a party can win elections after being marginalized in legal proceedings, on the basis that they advocate the initiation of force to bring down the government, I suggest that you need to think again. That doesn't often happen, and it isn't likely to happen anytime soon in the current political climate.
If you, Keith, don't believe in the non-initiation of force, what kind of libertarian are you? I ask that sincerely, meaning no offense, because it is good to try to understand the source of other people's libertarianism. Like LibertarianTV, I find it hard to imagine a personal libertarian philosophy that is NOT somehow based on that principle. On the other hand, if you do believe in the non-initiation of force, then what makes you imply that forceful overthrow of the government is "nothing horrible"? Also, why worry about the LP certification, which simply confirms and declares in writing what you presumably believe, anyway?
There are just some things you have to do -- file forms, pay fees, take oaths, etc. -- to run for and assume elected office in these United States. As long as the bureaucratic requirements aren't onerous, and the oaths aren't contrary to your own principles, why worry about them? Satisfy the requirements and move on, make progress! Once you are in office, there will be plenty of time to revisit and, if possible, to reform, the picayune mechanisms of the political process.
We care about the law because, by running for office, we are applying to be lawmakers, law-enforcers, and judges of the laws. We care about wanting to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with the election law and requirements for office, in particular, because success in life and politics are hard enough, without having the government hound you in the pursuit. Why put needless barriers in your own way? Lack of courage or misplaced priorities have nothing to do with it.
After reading this thread in its entirity, it seems to me that there is a great deal of confusion between values (what we as Libertarians believe), and policies (what we would/should focus on in order to be win elections.
I support the concept of the Libertarian Pledge. But it is worded in such a way that it is more confusing than enlightening to the average Joe.
I believe very strongly in Liberty, in all aspects of life, both personal and public. But having said that, the fact is that a platform that advocates legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc. is not the way you build a majority coalition in this nation at this time. If it were, the Dems or Reps would be campaigning on it as we speak.
The majority of voters...soccer moms, the elderly, homeowners, blue collar workers, etc care about Security; their Kids (thus the importance of education, the environment, healthcare,etc in their minds); and Taxes. Most other issues connect in some way to these basic ones.
Until we can convince the above groups and others that we have better answers to those issues, we will NEVER win a national or statewide election. Try telling a soccer mom with three kids in school that as soon as you get elected you're going to legalize drugs and prostitution, and see how quickly she bolts for the door.
John
Lyn,
Thank you very much for your contribution to the discussion. Your perspective as a former federal law enforcement officer gives credibility to your commentary. To the best of my knowledge there aren't any elected libertarians currently participating in this blog, so I don't think it's appropriate for any of us to comment on how they're handling the legitimate question you've raised.
I was hoping you might clarify your last point. You said, "Joe and Jill Voter will not think as much about these issues as many of us, they like what we say, but at the end of the day, they want results." What do you see as a "result" that they would be looking for?
Christopher wrote:
"I agree that winning elections is about a lot more than ideology, but there is a point where ideology that is perceived to be 'extreme' can handicap candidates...."
"Successful parties don't hang themselves out to dry by openly advocating 'radical' ideas. And yes, ending the income tax is 'radical.' Not because it is or isn't but because the American people *perceive* it to be radical."
------------------------------------------
Christopher, I understand what you're saying, but I think you're misreading what the successful parties do. Many of their ideas are radical, although perhaps not in the same way as libertarian ideas are. For instance, Bush's Patriot Act was clearly a radical idea. After all, it essentially tromped all over the 4th amendment...that's pretty radical.
The difference is that they don't present radical ideas as a central theme that they have reason to believe won't sell. Those stands on the issues that they think might cause them difficulty (usually based on their polling) don't get thrown out. Instead, those get strategized in such a way that the politician doesn't end up paying a political price for them. This means that if a particular stand on the issue isn't currently highly popular, they don't make it a centerpiece of their campaign. That makes sense.
Probably the best current example is Bush's stand on Social Security. Personally, I think he's bungling it, but at least I have to admire the way he timed it. He has held his views about SS since the late 1970s, but he said nothing about them in the two presidential elections. It was only after he was re-elected that he brought up SS reform.
I think Libertarians could do the same kind of thing (although hopefully with a much more intelligent, free market approach than Bush is offering).
I've been reading a lot of books lately by political operatives in both major parties, and their overall message is clear. It isn't a question about changing your mind on the issues. It's a question of what you present and what you don't present, and when you do these things. It's about tailoring your message to what the voters want to hear about.
My main disagreement with you and others on this topic isn't over needing to reconsider our priorities during a campaign. I think that's something we need to do. My disagreement is in your belief that we must change our minds and our fundamental stands on the issues because they might be currently unpopular. The professionals say that's a bad idea, particularly during a campaign. Ultimately, the flip-flop comes back to haunt you. I agree with them.
"Christopher, I understand what you're saying, but I think you're misreading what the successful parties do. Many of their ideas are radical, although perhaps not in the same way as libertarian ideas are. For instance, Bush's Patriot Act was clearly a radical idea. After all, it essentially tromped all over the 4th amendment...that's pretty radical."
The difference is, is that they are a major party with a huge backing ("the Republican machine"), and started becoming a force with things like Gingrich's "Contract with America". We DON'T even have any momentum going, so your comparing apples to oranges.
I agree...but that's why I've been emphasizing over and over again our need to start building local libertarian election machines. Or perhaps you hadn't noticed?
Private policy is the beliefs of a few individuals or special-interest groups. When private policy is forced into public policy via majority rules, what do you have? A democracy, the tyranny of the majority.
Anytime democracy and private policy (special interest groups, etc.) come together there will always be an infringment upon rights and liberties. This is the failure of government.
Whatever happened to Our Republic, at any rate? A republic has boundaries of government power -- obviously, there is no limit to police, politicians, or even the majority-rules powers in our current democracy. In a republic, the minority is protected; in a democracy majority rules, regardless of the minority.
The failure of the Democrats, Republicans, and even (allegedly) the Libertarians is that in order to protect liberty, there must not be any private policies in the policy of the public and there must be limitations to democracy (such as found in a republic), not an increase in statutes (i.e., Patriot Act), more policing, etc.
We need Our Republic if we intend on retaining and safeguarding our liberties, not the tyranny of the majority in a democracy.
Libertarian TV, I think we're closer on this than previously thought. You said:
"My main disagreement with you and others on this topic isn't over needing to reconsider our priorities during a campaign. I think that's something we need to do. My disagreement is in your belief that we must change our minds and our fundamental stands on the issues because they might be currently unpopular."
I might have been unclear, but I'm not suggesting that we (libertarians) change our minds or fundamental beliefs. I'm just saying that the LP shouldn't, as you seem to suggest, make the less-mainstream beliefs so prominent.
Even better would be a platform that states the goals of the LP for the short term (the next 4 years). Why is the LP obligated to have a platform that is so philosophical? The successful parties don't.
By the way, anybody that doesn't think the LP's platform hurts the party and the libertarian movement in general, see here:
http://iliketocomplain.blogspot.com/2005/06/lp-platform-reform-is-necessary.html
Libertarian TV,
I like the way this discussion is going, and Mr. Monnier makes a great point. What I meant by voters wanting results is that libertarians are an uncertainty to voters. What will a libertarian do in office? What kind of decisions will he or she make? How will they base those decisions? Will a libertarian elected official be able to bring about change and in what way? Traditionally, dems were about bigger govt and reps were about smaller govt, but as we all have seen, those lines have blurred. I think a great source of dissatisfaction and frustration in politics lies here, voters do not know what to believe from their representatives. People's ideas about politics are often very personal and not always based on reality, but rather perceived truth. Have you ever talked to someone who identified themsleves as a lifelong republican, or a yellow dog democrat? They frequently only listen to party propaganda and filter out anything postive the other side may have done. One of my greatest complaints of the current system is the degenerating aspect of our two party adversarial system.
Someone above wrote how those elected rarely have any philisophical foundations, but they do have a party machine mentality. Make no mistake, politics is big business. One reason I like the LP is that this is the party of principle, I really do know where libertarians are coming from. So in a sense, we are sheep going out among wolves, we have a viable, articulate ideology, but we lack a party mechanism, especially at the local level. We need to maintain the former, and develop the latter.
I agree with you Lyn.
And Christopher, I'm glad you clarified your comments. I've said before that we could rewrite the platform completely and it wouldn't bother me. My main concern is that we continue to keep and even play up the pledge, because in my mind it's the basis for our entire party's raison d'etre. It's also a great educational tool to use, particularly in one-on-one encounters, if used properly.
Having said that, I think it's a mistake to say that just because the successful parties don't have a philosophical platform that we shouldn't either, because such analysis implies that it's the platform which is preventing us from growing as a party. This is not true. Even a quick scan of the blogs on this website show quite clearly that even Libertarians don't read the platform. I'd be surprised if even 0.1% of those people in the population who check us out bother to read our platform.
No, the problem isn't our platform. Like I said, I'm open to replacing the entire platform, but that's not going to accomplish anything toward building our party. I think there are far greater, far more important priorities for us to address than the platform.
As Lyn said, people are unsure about Libertarian candidates because they don't know much about them. This is because we have no local political machinery to identify our likely supporters and energize them to support us at the polls. The uncertainty has very little to do with our platform. It has much more to do with the fact that the voters don't know who our candidates are as people.
Remember, less than 20% of the voters make their voting decisions based primarily on the issues. Political Scientists have proven that repeatedly over the years.
What criteria do voters use? In order they are:
#1 Party registration. If a candidate is in the same party as the voter, the odds are overwhelmingly high that the voter will vote for that candidate.
#2 Among unaffiliated voters, the main concern most have is what they think of the candidate himself...his personality, his "charisma," his attitudes.
#3 Issues come in a distant third. Unfortunately.
We libertarians have long hoped that simply our stands on the issues would draw people into our movement. To a small extent, this has happened. The problem is that it will only happen to a small extent because such a small minority of voters make issues their #1 priority in choosing a candidate to support.
This is yet another reason why I think we need to be thinking in terms of building a libertarian political machine in each one of the more than 33,000 cities, towns, and villages in America.
Hey! I don't know if anyone is still interested in the original story about the police, but I have some news.
The police cancelled the tickets given to the cars outside the party. They did so due to heavy criticism regarding "heavy handed" tactics.
That's good news Michael. Now if we can just get the police to do the right thing without having to resort to public criticism!
Thanks Michael! I'm glad you brought the discussion back to the original story. I'm happy to hear those tickets were cancelled. I am a little dissapointed to know that law enforcement feels they can abuse the law and only be forced to recognize their mistakes when caught hand-in-the-cookie-jar.
I vote for LP candidates and agree with pretty much everything the LP currently stands for, but I won't join the party if there's a pledge.
It's dogmatic, even if I completely agree with it.
Political parties shouldn't be in the dogma business.
I'm happy that enough people took action to make a change. It's a relief in a society that appears to be growing more and more apathetic.
That's fine Christopher. No one is saying you have to become a paid member. That decision is completely up to you, and I'm certain the party respects that decision.
LTv, let me help you understand what I mean by 'baby steps'. Ask yourself how many LP candidates are in the US senate or house. Then ask yourself how many LP candidates are in state senates and assemblies. These would be your lawmakers. Maybe you can help me with that, because I couldn't find any; I may have overlooked one/some. Now, a 'baby step' would be to get even ONE elected to one of those offices and back him/her with the resources to retain that office. It would be quite a task to get a useful number in federal seats. It would also be a task to get enough seats in state offices but is a more reasonable goal. So the next 'baby step' would be to get more than one (with realistic expectations), et c. And yet, I haven't mentioned a word about watering down principles.
I don't see any other way unless you suggest a violent overthrow or that spontaneously the LP gets overwhelming results in a single election. Neither one of those will happen! And what is currently being done is throwing away votes.
The christian taliban republicans and the politically correct democrats are racing to the bottom to appear as the most patriotic (flag burning ammendment). This will blow up on them some day. It would be a shame if the LP missed out on that opportunity to pick up the voters that fall out of the republicandemocrat party all because they refuse to put their best foot forward. And to put the best foot forward doesn't require watering down principles.
Steve,
Thanks for defining "baby steps." Your definition is certainly different from and more realistic than most. Most think of baby steps as getting a 1% reduction in taxes, watering down our more controversial positions on the issues, or something like that.
I guess by your standards I'm advocating even smaller than baby steps, because I think we need to start at the local government level before we can even think about winning at the state rep level. I think we need to build local political machines that know how to get out the vote with voters who have a tendency to lean toward Libertarian positions. This means knowing who they are on a house-by-house basis. It's how a local Republican or Democratic machine works, and it's how Republicans and Democrats get elected.
Imagine if you could drive down any street in your town and know, because of work you had done to build a strong Libertarian machine in your community, which houses on that street were strong Libertarians, which ones leaned Libertarian, which were Conservative, which were Liberal, which were Statist, and which were Centrist. Yes, I'm referring to the grid of the Quiz. If you had that level of information, do you think you could get a state rep elected in your area? I'm sure I could!
Now take 33,000 more baby steps. Imagine if we had that level of information in every one of the 33,000+ counties, cities, towns and villages in America. Do you think we could win some governorships? Senate races? Congressional races? Maybe even the Presidency?
The task I'm describing is overwhelming for one person to do, but it's quite realistic when you consider that we have tens of thousands of activists throughout the country. If each of those activists were to build a local Libertarian political machine in their county, city, town, or village, it would happen. What it requires is a systematic, carefully planned and executed approach that involves canvassing door to door giving people the Quiz and storing their information in a database you can get from your local Elections office of voters, including their party registration, their addresses, their ages, and their voting patterns. Imagine the power of that kind of information! This kind of effort requires an activist willing to contact other Libertarians in his area (information available from his State party) and look to build a team for this express purpose. It would take a ton of work, but it'll be worth it.
That's what I've begun to do. I just acquired my list here in Fauquier County Virginia for this purpose. Fauquier County actually contains a dozen or so townships, so in a sense I'm actually taking about 12 baby steps.
How about you?
Lib TV,
I live in Richmond and would be willing to help if you need it. Let me know if you're interested.
Hi Michael,
That would be great! Thank you. I'm still in the planning stages, but I'll definitely put you down as a volunteer.
Can you please contact me via email? I wouldn't recommend posting your email address on the blog (spammers often get their victims' emails from websites), so just click on my screen name at the end of this message. It'll take you to my website, where you can send me an email via my online email webform. That way, both of our email addresses will remain protected. I'd like to discuss with you privately the ways you might be able to volunteer.
Thanks again for your offer.
The thing we as libertarians need to remind ourselves is that we are indeed a different breed: we are not political animals that are spending every waking and sleeping hour conspiring and scheming to control others.
With us, the best meeting you can have is one where no one shows up and the best election you can have is one where no one votes. We are indeed that "special 3 percent" of the population that does things differently. "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" is an excellent primer on how to do this.
The only problem of course, Chris, is that that method doesn't win elections.
I am pretty new at this, therefore I ask everyone to bear with me.
I am a libertarian and I truly believe that the libertarian platform is a good one. Most free minded, independent thinking, liberty loving persons can agree with it. Politically and economically mature people can thrive in a libertarian society.
However, most americans are, constitutionally, politcally and economically naive, if not ignorant. Voter turnout for elections don't even reach 50% of the eligible populace.
Most of the voters that do vote, vote for the person and not hardly on the issues. The only issue that most might consider in their vote is abortion. This is so, because the media makes the abortion controversy famous with far left and christian right debate battles on tv. We all know there is more at stake at ballot.
Also, most voters don't know what libertarianism mean. Or know its principles. The internet handing out tracts helps some people to find out, but there is still a need to help more.
I like to suggest that some libertarian entreprenuers open up a brick and mortar libertarian cafe/library store. It would be a business that would sell coffee and rent out books about libertarianism. Like a starbucks/blockbuster type of operation.
Although, the inetrnet is a good medium, most people still like to read books. At a cost of a cup coffee and a library membership fee, people could learn more about libertarianism.
What
Quincy,
Since you think that a brick-and-mortar store to sell liberty is such a good idea, I can think of no one who is in a better position to open such a store as you are. You should open that store. You have the vision. You have the desire. Don't let money stop you. Start small and build it over time.
I think we need to look at alternatives to electoral politics. Quincy's idea of a cafe/bookstore is a good one. My own ideas involve enlightening people on money, taxes, government spending and an alternative to this, the Liberty Dollar.
Specifically it is called a Regional Currency Office and I want to target it initially towards those who would already have a good understanding of economics, namely business owners. You can go to my website for a link to this.
Quincy,
If you open it, they will come.
I know I would.
The LP should never compromise its ideals. We don't need to be more mainstream. Anybody can be mainstream like Rep and Dems.
I agree, compromise is the first step toward depravity. The day this party compromises is the day I leave it.
| 
Just another example of the corruption of bigger government. Pity, really.
Posted by: Erika at June 10, 2005 03:21 PM