I hope that after the membership drive, the LP implements a similiar concept for a fundraising drive - perhaps for a specific project.

Yeah... if we could connect with a lobbying group that supports one of our causes, see what kind of cash they need to move ahead with one of their projects, and then go about raising it... I think it could work wonders.

The choice is so simple!

How does the ACLU feel about a joint publicity campaign with the Libertarian Party? How about NORML? Why don't I see ads for the LP on MTV or Nickleodeon where youth is being hyper-informed by everyone else? It seems like there are more available foot holds for LP popularity than steps taken to promote the LP.

I'm not so sure the ACLU would be beneficial to the Libertarians given their reputation.

I haven't joined yet; but I'm only 14 years old, so I can't vote either.

Is there a minimum age requirement for joining the party? I, like the previous poster, am not 18, but I would like to help out the drive. I would really like to get the monthly newsletter, which I hear is very classy. ;)

I agree w/ Original Michael.... I don't think we want the ACLU...

The average American either has no idea what the LP is or has a vague idea that we've got something to do with pot. On the other hand, the average American has already built up some prejudices towards/against the ACLU and NORML. If we pair up with one of them, we'll draw some attention, but we'll alienate a lot of people who might have joined us under different circumstances.

Personally, I've been really open about my libertarian-ness with my family. So far, they've been willing to listen, and they're learning that the LP is the answer to a lot of America's problems. If the LP partnered w/ ACLU or NORML, they'd skip the listening and go straight to arguing. They'd write off anything the LP had to say because of their prejudices and their idea of a group that the ACLU and NORML would both support. It wouldn't matter that I'm a libertarian as well as a pro-lifer who reads her Bible and has never tried any drug stronger than caffeine.

As I mentioned earlier, the LP needs to hire some real marketing people with backgrounds in consumer behavior. Next time we get a million dollars, let's put it towards good marketing, huh? And a forum...

Ashlee: There's a great online forum discussion going on over at http://libertyforsale.com/?p=123

For all the ACLU bashers... Umm, they have one hell of a lot more clout and a much better reputation than the LP. I am not sure that I understand your logic.

There is no minimum age requirement for joining the LP. We welcome you!

According to our Bylaws:

ARTICLE 7: MEMBERSHIP

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.

Dues for membership in the Party shall be set by the National Committee.

Only members whose national dues are current shall be counted for delegate apportionment, and National Committee representation. Only members whose national dues are current shall be eligible to hold National Party offices or be a candidate for President or Vice President.

Ingenious tactic - rope them up and get them to join now before the 100% dues increase goes into effect - and then next year, sock it to them with the balloon payment!

The ACLU has been smeared time and again. They are basically pigeon holed as flaming liberals, unpatriotic, druggies, hippies, whatever.
It's my opinion, that the LP should make it's own mark.
Although the ACLU does do alot of things that agree with the LP platform, they carry alot of baggage.
I didn't intend to "bash" anyone.

Adamson, are you suggesting that because the LP is planning on raising renewal rates, that all membership recruitment should be stopped?

I am suggesting the LP be honest and upfront when they sign up new members, to let them know their membership dues will DOUBLE in one year's time. It's definitely something people need to take into consideration, given the incredible controversy about this subject.

How frequently do the dues increase and/or double?

I believe membership has not been raised for over 15 years, and as far as I know the proposal to increase membership fees to $50 was shot down because of the negative effect it would have on membership.

To the best of my knowledge, there are a number of proposals on the table that the LP board members are considering. However, none of them have passed as yet.

With the possible increase of the LP dues, I have been thinking
about dues structures of other groups and here are some suggestions.

Basic Membership-Free-you receive a membership card.

Supporting Membership-$25.00-(pay $50.00 for two years you get the
third year free) you receive a membership card and a year of the LP
News

Life Time Membership- $500.00-you get Lifetime membership card, LP
News, LP Windbreaker, Lp Mug and LP cap.

Currently, the Lifetime membership is $1000.00 and I'am not aware
that this offers anything other than saving someone from writing
forty twenty-five dollar checks.

I also feel we should abandon the requirement of "signing the
pledge".

Alot of people would oppose the Free Basic Membership, but I feel
many of those that join for free would in time improve their
membership statitist and or donate to the Party.

Also I think by reducing the Life Time Membership dues many people
would "bite the bullet" and pay the $500.00 .The NRA's Lifetime dues
(a couple years ago) was $750.00 and that included a
Leather "Pilots" jacket.

Bill

I'm a 19 year old college student who cannot, seriously cannot, afford any amount above a dollar to become a member. A free, limited membership would give me the opportunity to get the feel of being a member of the Libertarian Party before I start paying for it. Once I graduate and get a career I would gladly pay the 25 or 50 dollars (a year is it?). Plus, I can be counted as one of the 5,000 new members before July 31st! I don't think the LP is purposely trying to "rope people in" before raising dues, since people can just not renew...

Best thing you can do about the dues increase is to tell your LNC rep to SUPPORT THE SQUYRES PROPOSAL at the next LNC meeting.

If this passes, there wont be any "dues" per se. There wont be members in the current sense - you'll just belong in the LP if you identify with it.

Yes, Timothy there won't be any dues per se. Also, there won't be nearly as much money for the LP to run, and it's already running on a skeleton budget.

I can't believe how many people are pissed over $50 per year.

If helping libertarians get elected isn't worth 14 cents a day to you, why are you even bothering with politics? Why not just let the Dems & GOP run everything, go about your life, and forget about it?

Although I agree on most points of the party I can't help to wonder what you would be doing if our Forefathers had lived by your bylaws?
According to our Bylaws:

ARTICLE 7: MEMBERSHIP

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.

The LP would still have the same amount of money. If the 22,000 people still want the monthly newsletter, they will still be paying $25 a year.

Getting rid of dues would be a great move. We'd be able to give media much higher membership figures, as well as have a much larger mailing list.

The Republicans and Democrats do not have dues. While we shouldn't immitate their policies, we can learn a lot about how to run a political organization from them.

Solutions sought through lobbying/bribery only benefit the wealthy.

Walt, you're a card.

If the LP cant attract enough money to fund itself, what do you think should happen to it? Shouldnt you be true to your libertarian principles and allow it to go out of business? It's going broke NOW, under the current scheme! Exactly how can positioning the LP to have a broader base of support equals failure is beyond me.

This is about nothing less than expanding what libertarianism is. The best way to have a prosperous LP is to have about 5 X the people who are willing to give it money. The Squyres Proposal does that in spades. The alternative is 50 dollar a year dues or more. I'll take a broadened party base, thanks. If you double the dues, you'll lose about half the members you have left. How does that advance liberty Walt?

You'd rather have a exclusive club of in-crowders than a broad inclusive party that can be politically effective? Fine Walt, you can pay the bills for the 40% of LP members that will let their memberships drop. There's no other choice.

I have to agree with Timothy West.

The free market would tell us that if you can't be successful, then your ideas must not have been that good, or you priced them too high. But you are in a very competitive, mature, commodity market. Most of the ineffeciencies have been wrung from this market of ideas.

Also, however is the concept of supply and demand. The supply of political parties, is basically two. R and D. Offering a third alternative, L, could play, unless the supply exceeds the demand. Most people will settle for the crappy "free" parties, instead of having to pay to be a part of this one.

Offering free memberships are going to do nothing more than broaden your appeal, help you attract more people, and they will eventually start paying, if you sell them something they aren't getting anywhere else.

I don't understand how having more people identify with the party, could possibly be a bad thing. Someone mentions 22,000 people getting the newsletter. Why aren't there 1,000 times more than that? Are the ideas of the Libertarian party so weak that it can't attract even 1% of the population? The real problem with the Libertarian party is their marketing stinks. Take any group of people, remove the 40-60% that *strongly* identify with a party. The rest, give them a quiz on where they stand on the issues of the day, and they will almost always match the Libertarian party's platform. I have done this informally for years.

The big problem with the Libertarian party, is people don't understand what it really stands for. Your message isn't getting out. You have thousands of people that want to hear your ideas, and you don't want to get them heard because you want $25 a year from them? Have you seen the Catholic Church? What are the membership dues there? Free. I can walk in, say teach me to be Catholic, and they will. You will then freely give them what money you have, just so you have a place to go on Sunday morning.

And the other problem is the word "Libertarian", it sounds too much like "Liberal" and no one wants to be a liberal. It needs a stronger identity. Linux has a Penguin, Dems and Reps have donkeys and elephants, maybe Libs should be a junk yard dog, or a cute puppy or something. An eagle maybe? A Bell?

But I totally don't understand the concept of: "we don't have enough members, so we need to raise the membership." Sounds more like the logic of big government, or a private club, and not like free market, pragmatic thinking individualists.

Eric Collins
Houston, Tx

The 22,000 number I mentioned is roughly the number of folks who paid $25 to be a member or get the newsletter.

If you add in the folks who have registered Libertarian, the number is about 250,000-300,000. Keep in mind that many states don't allow you to register with a party. So with the zero dues proposal, we are likely to see membership jump well over 300,000 right away.

There will still be 22,000 people giving National $25 for the newsletter, but now we've grown the mailing list 1500%. Plus we get to tell the media that we're an organization of 300,000 instead of 20,000.

The only cost to the LP would be the cost of typing the 280,000 names into our database.

What's not to love about this proposal?

There's something else you guys are ignoring. There's already a free membership option. You can sign the pledge and get a "basic" membership card that has no annual dues, but it also prevents you from voting for officers, platform changes, bylaws changes, etc. In other words, it's a card that allows you to claim to be a card carrying member of the LP, but with none of the benefits.

And that's what this discussion is really all about. Should people who don't contribute to the LP be eligible to make decisions regarding its policies, officers, etc? I think the answer to that should be no.

Thats exactly what the major parties do. Everybody can identify as a R or a D, but contributors get access to candidates etc etc. Thats just a reality of how it's done.

BTW, I reupped my membership today.

At least in my particular state, a D or R can run for precinct committeeperson, win, and make decisions about their party's "policies, officers, etc." without being *forced* to pay membership dues to their party. So "Libertarian TV's" analogy doesn't hold up.

One more thing - re "Libertarian TV's" comment about free party membership - take a look at the LP's own web page http://www.lp.org/members/join.shtml - there's no mention whatsoever of a "free" membership. National has always underplayed that and always will - because it wants to keep the guaranteed gravy train rolling in.

Now that we're on the subject of "Libertarian TV," is he/she one or more person in these posts?

Is anybody else absolutely disgusted at the Supreme Court ruling on emminent domain?

LPer: I am a he, and I am one person.

Adamson: I agree that the LP doesn't play up the free membership. I think they should do so. Also, I never made an analogy between the LP on the one hand and the Reps and Dems on the other regarding membership. So don't blame me for something I didn't do! Finally, local chapters of the LP can set their own rules and often do, including local membership and voting rights. The restrictions on membership apply to voting for officers at the state and national levels.

Tim: I agree with your latest post.

Chris: Yes, I'm disgusted by it to. It might be fun to find out what town Justice Stevens lives in and have the town target his house for "redevelopment" into a shrine to eminent domain and its abuses, as "part of a broader scheme for redevelopment," to use his words from his majority opinion in the case.

Way to go Tim! It really helps us all, if we all keep our membership current.

Once again the Supreme Court has proven they have lost their way. I think the real "Supremes" could have "ruled" correctly, (Stop in the name of.....)(those Supremes ;-)

Former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph Banister Acquitted of Tax Fraud And Conspiracy

Government Unable To Prove U.S. Law Requires Income Tax Withholding or Filing

http://joebanister.blogspot.com/

I have a question that I haven't had satisfactorily answered in what I've read: what is the LP's position on immigration and illegal aliens within our country?

From the LP platform:

Immigration

The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

-----

It should be noted that the platform stance on immigration has not been modified since 9/11 to directly address the issue as it relates to terrorism, although given its importance as a modern issue, perhaps it should be.

Before "Libertarian TV" tries to get off the hook, here's his/her exact quote:

"And that's what this discussion is really all about. Should people who don't contribute to the LP be eligible to make decisions regarding its policies, officers, etc? I think the answer to that should be no."

The *obvious* inference was that the R's and D's already have a structure where they must contribute in order to make decisions.

Therefore, I felt obligated to point out that other parties allow people "who don't contribute" to make decisions "regarding its policies, officers, etc", and we should do the same.

Democracy doesn't require a cover charge! Pass the Zero Dues proposal!

That inference only exists in your mind, Adamson. It was certainly not in my mind when I wrote that.

I do not believe in democracy like you apparently do. I think that democracy is inherently dangerous to liberty. We participate in democracy because it's the best of a bad set of options, but that doesn't make it the goal of the LP. As a matter of fact, take a look at our platform at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml and then do a search on that page. You will not find the word "democracy" anywhere on that page!

The reason I think that people who don't contribute a minimal annual donation of $25 shouldn't be eligible to vote for the party's officers and platform has nothing to do with the R's and D's. It has to do with the fact that when people don't have a financial stake in something, they don't take it seriously for what it is and they try to change it into something it's not.

I've played a leading role in organizing and founding a few Sudbury-model schools. In each case, the project didn't get off the ground until the participants all made tiny financial contributions to it. They didn't take it seriously until they had to back their intentions with a little money. Not a lot. In many cases, we were only asking for $5 a pop. But you should have seen the change in attitude once they were asked to contribute on a voluntary, ongoing basis. They became serious about the project in a way that they had never been before.

I think we should follow this policy regardless of what the D's and R's do. I think a zero-dues policy would bring in a whole bunch of people who don't give a damn about what the party stands for and who would try to turn it into something it's not.

Why would anyone not interested in liberty or freedom want to do that, Walt?

If they believe in SOMETHING ELSE, why would they come here?

There's a touch of paranoia in your statement.

Why should they come here Tim? Lots of reasons. Here are just a few possible reasons:

1. They're pissed off at their own party and can't bear to switch to the other major party. Joining us has nothing to do with our ideals. And they figure that once they get here, they can change our platform to say anything they want it to be. After all, it doesn't cost them anything.

2. They think that freedom means a free lunch.

3. They're actually neo-Nazis or some other awful fringe people who the major parties won't touch, and they think the LP is an easy party to crash. Don't laugh...this has happened twice so far even with the current safeguards, most recently in Missouri.

The list of possible reasons is actually endless. And while we can't defend against the possibility completely, we can protect against it.

Besides, you don't have to be a dues-paying member to support the LP. As I said elsewhere, you can be a non-dues-paying member who doesn't get to nominate candidates and vote for officers and platforms changes, but who can fight for liberty in every other way.

Finally, I'd like to point out that in the American Revolution, the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors to the cause. Surely, asking modern supporters of freedom to pledge $25 a year isn't much to ask.

After I find out what the signed statement required for membership actually means, maybe I'll renew.

Some say it means "We aren't going to overthrow the government" (or something similar) and others say it means "No government, period" (or something similar) and others says it means "Decrease government" and some way it means something else. (You'd think a membership requirement would be clearer, now wouldn't you?)

I'll be asking LP HQ for a clarification shortly. If it turns out there is an official explanation of its meaning, and it means something specific, and it's something I agree with, I'll re-up. -Eric

Yes, LibTV, it does need to be addressed. Did I read that correctly? Open borders? Is that the wisest idea in this day and age?

Put up a booth at every fair you can. Give out stickers/pithy t-shirts (The Supreme Court Steeling Your Property Rights Today! Vote Libertarian!)or (The Federal Government Usurping your Rights Today! Vote Libertarian!) and get candidates talking to the public. Let them take a political quiz, with a special low cost membership for those who test Libertarian.

Offer to have party representatives speak to various high school and government classes throughout the country. Everywhere you can.

I am a high school teacher and do a project where my computer students put together presentations on various political groups, our government teacher loves it. Many of my students choose the Libertarian party, but so few know anything about it. Put together a quiz for government students to take and show them there political leanings based on the results. List several parties.

Eric, here is the Statement the LP ask incoming members to sign:

"The Libertarian Party is the party of principle. To publicly affirm what we believe-and to ensure that our party never strays from our principles-we ask our members to proudly sign this statement:

I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

____________________________________
Signature Required for Membership

Bill Wood
Membership Director
Va. 10th CD

First, a correction: the LP does not "ask" members to sign it. It requires those who wish to be full members to sign it. (Article 7, Section 1 of the By-Laws, last I checked.)

Don't sign it, you aren't counted as a member for the purpose of apportioning delegates to the national convention. Don't sign it, and you can't be on the LP's presidential ticket.

I'm aware (very aware) of the statement says. I just don't know what it means. Various people have told me a wording which is equivalent to it. Unfortunately, those various people providd alternate wordings inconsistent with each other.

Some say it prohibits all taxes, and all other government mandates and prohibitions. Some say it is about not increasing government. Others say it is about decreasing government. And so on.

If it is going to be required for membership and other things, shouldn't it be clear?

Some would say that taxes are collected under threat of force. Don't pay, and eventually some agent of the government in question will engage in "initiation of force". And taxes are collected to achieve political and social goals.

From that they conclude that to be a member of the Libertarian Party you have to be against all taxation.

Is this true?

This is a simple straightforward yes-no question that I would expect the LP HQ to be able to answer, with either "yes" or "no".

We'll see.

Yes, LibTV, it does need to be addressed. Did I read it correctly: a party principle is open borders? That is one goal of the Libertarian Party?

"I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

This means that we do not believe in the "initiation of force" (taking our weapons and attacking the Government).

Eric- No-

The Libertarian Party: Working to slash your taxes!

The Libertarian Party is working every day to cut your taxes. By contrast, professional politicians from the other parties just want more of your money, and are busy increasing the size of government.

In the last few decades, the federal government has exploded in size. No area of your life or business is free from the meddling of politicians -- especially your wallet.

It doesn't have to be that way. With less government and lower taxes, you could keep more of what you earn. It would be easier to start new businesses, build new homes, and fuel stronger economic growth.

Just Defend Our Rights
Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost.

How Can We Cut Taxes?
Instead of tending to the basics, government has grown into a bloated conglomerate of political services that gets larger every year -- with no end in sight.

For example, politicians spend millions of dollars to urge people not to smoke -- while spending more millions to subsidize tobacco farmers. They send billions overseas for foreign aid -- while the federal deficit swells. They spend millions to subsidize public art -- while working families struggle to pay their taxes.

Politicians also run trains, bail out savings and loans, construct houses, sell insurance, print books, and build basketball courts -- you name it! But the fact is, every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business.

Privatize And Cut Taxes
All over the world, governments are busy selling airlines, power plants, housing, and factories to private owners. Where inefficient government bureaucrats lost money and squandered tax dollars, hard-working private owners now make profits and create new jobs. Why can't we do the same thing in America?

Defend America: Cut Taxes
Military expenses are over $250 billion a year! A large percentage of this is spent overseas to defend wealthy countries like Germany and Japan -- who then wallop us in international trade. Let's take them off military welfare. We can defend America better and save at least $100 billion a year in taxes.

Stop Bailing Out Industry
No one has the right to cover his losses at taxpayer expense -- and yet wealthy corporations demand exactly that. The federal government has bailed out railroads, banks, and other corporations with your tax dollars. This must stop!

Replace Welfare: Cut Taxes
The bulk of your welfare tax dollars goes to pay the handsome salaries of well-educated welfare workers. The poor get little from government welfare except meager handouts and a cycle of despair. Let's get government out of the charity business. Private charities and groups do a better and more efficient job of helping the truly needy get back on their feet.

Why An Income Tax?
Before 1913, federal income taxes were rare and short-lived. America became the most prosperous nation on earth. The U.S. Government did not try to police the world or play "nanny" to everyone from cradle to grave. People took responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities. That is how the founders of America thought it should be. And it worked. It can again!

It's Time For Action
Republican and Democratic politicians have refused to reduce the size or cost of government. So we need your help to build a powerful new political party to get the job done -- the Libertarian Party! If you agree, please use the attached form to join the Libertarian Party or to request more information.

To Bill Woods:

Thank you for that explanation.

You seem quite certain it is correct, and the only one, so I'll put you in the "no bombs" column.

Guess folks like L. Neil Smith are wrong, then, eh?

Thanks Eric, I worked an LP booth today at a "Beer Festival" I would have hated to get "Bombed" twice today ;-).

Great talking with you Eric. Hope you keep posting. Now it's time for this old men to hit the "rack".

About the statement. It fits our non-aggression stance. The key part is that we won't initiate the force. In my opinon the government has already intitiated the force and therefore the statement is sort of null and void.

Eric,

To heck with what other people think the pledge means. What do YOU think it means? Put another way, what does it mean to you? After all, you're the one who is being asked to sign it.

Bill asked: "Yes, LibTV, it does need to be addressed. Did I read it correctly: a party principle is open borders? That is one goal of the Libertarian Party?"

I wasn't questioning the idea of open borders. I was simply saying that we should be directly discussing terrorism in our plank.

Bill, there is only one way to be sure that you can keep terrorists out via a borders policy, and that is to build an iron curtain around 100% of the country like Stalin did and keep everyone out. Anything less will allow terrorists in. I for one don't want to live in Stalinist America.

After all, we have over 5,000 miles of land borders to patrol and another 5,000 miles of sea borders to patrol, and that doesn't even count Alaska, Hawaii, and the other US possessions. Even if we were to go over the top and assign the entire army, navy, air force, and marines the task of patrolling those borders, we still wouldn't know for sure that some of the people they let in wouldn't be terrorists. As we learned on 9/11, it doesn't take more than three or four terrorists to bring a plane down.

Thus, there is nothing we can do that will keep a determined terrorist out. Instead, we should be focusing on ways to avoid becoming a target of terrorism.

Those who argue for partially closing the borders are arguing from irrational fear. The irrational part is the mistaken belief that partially closing the borders will keep terrorists out. That's about as intelligent as saying that all the airport checks done since 9/11 have kept terrorists from taking over airplanes. Everyone knows those security checks are a joke, including the people who man the security stations in the airports.

Thought I'd do alittle promo for a Virginia Libertarian Yahoo group . News and photo on happenings in the Va. 10thCD. Hope you check it out.I don't think the adress will link you might have to type it in.

www.groups.yahoo.com/group/virginialibertarians/

Libertarian TV, what exactly do you think we could do to "avoid becoming a target of terrorism"? We could give up Capitalism and become an Islamic Theocracy, I mean Iran obviously found away to avoid becoming a target. We are a target not for anything we have done to them, but for what we stand for, especially what the Libertarian Party stands for. While I agree that partially closing the border will not keep all terrorist out, I also believe completely open borders will only increase the opportunities for terrorist. In a perfect world with no terrorist and people taking personal responsibility for their actions this wouldn't be an issue, but in today’s world documenting and interviewing potential immigrants is a necessity. Nowhere in our constitution does it say that we have to accept with open arms people who would try to destroy us. As for the airport security comment, how many terrorist have hijacked planes since 9/11? I'm not saying they hijack a plane if they really tried, but it is no longer a 'soft target'

"We are a target not for anything we have done to them, but for what we stand for, especially what the Libertarian Party stands for. "

WHAT? You've been listening to Bush Limbaugh. Trust me, this guy has nothing of value to say.
To my knowledge, Canada, Mexico, Iceland, UK(?), Scandanavia... the list goes on of countries that stand for what we stand for(share our western values) have not had terrorist attacks from these islamic extremists. And, I doubt they can separate out LP values.
"...done nothing to them"...?? well, you can do the research (policy re isreal, binladen statements on gulf war would be good search phrases).
I would bet that you have above average intelligence, but I also think that you are uninformed/misinformed. Some sites that can provide different perspectives: debka.com (israel biased), aljazeera.com (islam biased), bbcnews, foxnews, airamerica... the list goes on. George Will and Pat Buchannon have interesting things to say from the right if you can find them regularly (though I disagree with them mostly)... but Limbush is NoValueAdded.
You don't have to agree with what you see/hear. And, if you agree with a majority of what you do see/hear, you are probably not learning much of what is really happening and certainly not much about what the others views are.

The Libertarian Party of Colorado, sent you their newsletter and considered you a member if you just registered "as" a libertarian. That was it, then they decided that wasn't enough, which was the point where I registered as an Independent. And remain so today, I may rejoin the LP national party as a paying member, but my registration will never change.

Mr. Wood,
I believe this thread is very productive. Does this content get flowed to the formal party administrators?

$50 membership fee:
It is very restrictive to the politically active college student. I was there, literally scrounging pennies to get food. Now, $50 isn't enough to make me feel vested. $10,000 would be though, but you would certainly lose membership.

Signed Membership Statement:
Just like anythng else you sign. It doesn't matter what it means. The only thing that matters is what it states... literally.

Wow . . . Really?
So there were no innocent victims in the World Trade Center, because they were a part of the system which is supporting Israel and harming the Arab world? Basically, we got what we had coming to us? Or maybe you just don't agree with their methods but you at least feel they had the right to defend themselves against us. They didn't pick the World Trade Center (twice 1993 & 2001) by accident (they could have waited a couple of weeks and hit the World Series or a couple of months and hit the Super Bowl); they know what they are fighting for and what they are fighting against, it's to bad so many of us don't. I've recently become a member of the Libertarian Party, the reason I decided to join is because they seem to be the only defenders of individual and property rights, of freedom. I never expected to hear the "America is the cause of all of the world's problems" line of thinking on their website. Trying to give legitimacy to a group that kills innocent people, and wants to set up tolitarian religious governments wherever they can, trying find out what we can change so we don't get attacked again, its like telling a rape victim not dress so provocatively and she won't attract rapist. Man, they hate what we hold dearest, our freedom, and you want to make excuses for them and absolve them from responsibility for their actions. As for the other countries not being attacked (not that it matters, America is the closest thing to actual freedom the world has and its existence exposes the glaring flaws in their philosophy). . . Spain was attacked; you constantly here about terrorist plots broken up in the UK and Germany; and France has bent over so far backwards to appease and support the terrorist they have nothing to fear (unless of course the terrorist win, then they won't need France anymore and they can take them down too); Canada, Mexico, Iceland . . . not going to make much of a statement against freedom by attacking them.

Is the LP HQ working on a revised imigration policy and do they have a terrorism policy?

Matt, are you on the rnc payroll? I did not even come close to what you imply. Everything you replied with is complete nonsense.
Let me break it into smaller pieces for you.

"So there were no innocent victims in the World Trade Center, because they were a part of the system which is supporting Israel and harming the Arab world?"
Answer: They were ALL innocent victims.

"Basically, we got what we had coming to us? Or maybe you just don't agree with their methods but you at least feel they had the right to defend themselves against us. "
Answer: No, we didn't 'have it coming'. It is important to know the consequences of your actions. It doesn't matter if your actions are the most noble; you may have some very bad reactions to them. You don't have to like the reactions. But you are best served to anticipate the reactions. To these extremists, that is what we have done to them. This should be very clear. We became targets of alQaida after the Gulf war under Bush. binladen predicted our actions. We should have predicted his. He even told us he would do something. If this were a leave-it-alone-libertarian form of government, they would not care one bit about us. You are just singing bush's party line...keep the fear going. But my point was, from their perspective we did something to them.

"They didn't pick the World Trade Center (twice 1993 & 2001) by accident (they could have waited a couple of weeks and hit the World Series or a couple of months and hit the Super Bowl); they know what they are fighting for and what they are fighting against, it's to bad so many of us don't. "
Answer: You are picking up some good data but coming to the wrong conclusions. Maybe you forgot the point you were arguing. I agree it is a shame that most of us don't know what we are fighting for.

"I never expected to hear the "America is the cause of all of the world's problems" line of thinking on their website. Trying to give legitimacy to a group that kills innocent people, and wants to set up tolitarian religious governments wherever they can, trying find out what we can change so we don't get attacked again, its like telling a rape victim not dress so provocatively and she won't attract rapist. "

Answer: Maybe you did hear that, but that is not what was said. And I think that is the core of the problem. [rapist comment]:No, it isn't. Though I would bet that if there were a specific profile that rapists go for that women would avoid it.

And you go on...
Answer: the best I can offer is that you should check the timelines of events. France? You may have me on that one.

I implore you--think in broader perspectives, try to separate what you think SHOULD happen with what you think WILL happen and you will be far more successfull in your life.

"Libertarian TV" seems to miss the point that a Zero Dues proposal wouldn't cause the party to be flooded en masse by deadbeats who wouldn't give a nickel or a dime to the party. Quite the contrary! The Zero Dues proposal, matched with creative and aggressive fundraising *and* real incentives to give more $, would mean increased funding for the party as well as increased excitement and participation (as much as "Libertarian TV" seems to want to decrease participation only to those financially able).

Right now there is absolutely no incentive to donate more. How about a free subscription to Liberty or Reason for a donation of $100? How about your name in the LP News if you donate $1000? How about an autographed book by Harry Browne or Tonie Nathan or Ed Clark?

Never mind - it'll never happen - the LP will never actually do something innovative.

Scenario 1 (With the $50 membership fee): "I already paid the LP that $50 this year. I don't need to give any more.

Scenario 2 (Without a membership fee): "The LP has given me so much without asking much in return, except for my vote. I think I'll donate $100.

Which would you prefer?

Steve,

I'm sure this is being read by our "Leadership"

The important thing to remember it is "We, the Libertarian Party membership" that runs the Party.

In the four years I've been a "dues paying" member I have seen the Party "turn the corner" with a growing Party membership base, name recognition, and more women getting involved with the Party.

In the last two years membership growth has averaged 6.5 lets keep the numbers rolling.

"Two sides of the same tarnished coin. But no matter what the flip comes up, you lose."

There are about 300,000 people in the US that are REGISTERED LIBERTARIAN. Out of this group, we have about 22K membership. Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that everybody thats a member now would KEEP their membership after it goes to 50 bucks if Squyres does not pass.

22,000 X 50 bucks = $1,100,000 Basically a million bucks.

Now, lets say that after Squyres, we add 280,000 thousand to the membership roles, having registered as Libertarians to vote.

Lets say that on average, we get ONLY 30% of those people to contribute as average of ONLY 25 Bucks a year. This will probably be a VERY LOW FIGURE, many people will donate much higher amounts.

90,000 X $25 = $2,250,000 2 million and 1/4.

So in a ABSOLUTE WORST CASE scenario, the LP gets
over twice as much money per year. Lets say that on AVERAGE, the LP gets 50 dollars a year contributions averaged over the number of people who give at all. I think that's more likely.

90,000 X 50 = $4,450,000 and this is with ONLY 90,000 people across the entire USA giving to us! 30% of the number of people actually registered as Libertarians!

Lets give a best case scenario: What if we could get just HALF of those people to give the LP only 25 LOUSY BUCKS A YEAR?

Thats $3,750,000 a year people. And I think ALL of these scenarios are low low numbers of contributors.

To not pass the Squyres Proposal would be incredibly stupid. It should have been that way ALL ALONG.

All we have to do is allow the freedom of people to decide for themselves if they want to be a libertarian or not. Thats all Squyres does.

Write your LNC Rep today and tell them to PASS Squyres and whatever resolutions as needed to change the By Laws to get this done. We dont have a chance to actually do anything without it.

Look at this: http://ncway.blogspot.com/

Sean Haugh says that the LNC just froze all activity at HQ just so they can get Raisers Edge fixed, which they havent been able to do as of yet. That means all political activity has stopped to fix this, becuase if it does not get fixed, there will be many heads on many blocks. I still dont know how much this system cost to buy!

We cant keep this party the way it has been. There's no chance of actually being politically successful if we dont try something new. POLITICAL SUCCESS BRINGS MONEY. Databases and magic bullets by themselves wont do it.

Matt C:

If you think that we cannot avoid becoming a target of terrorism, please explain why so many other Western countries have not become targets of terrorism.

Also, exactly how many planes were targeted by terrorists in the US before 9/11? Claiming that your "blue elephant dust" is successfully keeping blue elephants away is not a valid argument. There have been many articles written about how porous the US security in airports has been. That's what I'm referring to.

Adamson wrote: "'Libertarian TV' seems to miss the point that a Zero Dues proposal wouldn't cause the party to be flooded en masse by deadbeats who wouldn't give a nickel or a dime to the party. Quite the contrary!"

You missed the point Adamson, not me. I said that a zero dues policy would undermine our existing budget. It would. I also said that we risk being taken over by people who don't give a damn about what we stand for and want to try to turn it into something else. That's a very realistic concern, despite your hyperbole.

Tim,

As I remember it, our party went through pie-in-the-sky criticisms for the Archimedes project a few years back. I'm sure you recall it. From what I remember of your previous posts on the Badnarik website, you were highly critical of what that group did. Your current numbers seem to me to be no less fantastic than their numbers were.

I'm done here, because "Libertarian TV" is obviously one of those party hacks who is so embedded in party minutiae that he/she can't see past a budget spreadsheet to actually see the real people involved in the party.

A Zero Dues proposal would not "undermine our existing budget" as long as the LP steps up to the plate and conducts new and innovative fundraising. Once the LP is liberated from the Cover Charge Gravy Train, people will be emotionally and intellectually freed up to give more, once they are no longer *forced* to give that initial $25. "Libertarian TV" (whoever he/she is) doesn't understand how that serves as a barrier to additional contributions.

As for the "takeover" fears - if the LP is that small that we're in danger of being taken over, then it's entirely our fault and we'd deserve being taken over. Anyhow, that wouldn't happen because a Zero Dues proposal will bring in more excited activists who aren't shackled by being *forced* to pay a cover charge in order to take part in our democratic processes (as much as "Libertarian TV" hates democracy, the LP does take part in democratic processes!)

This is an idea that came out of reading the first few comments...

Eliminate dues. Organize fundraisers around the country through state/local level volunteers every 3 months or so and have a page on the site dedicated to members of the month/year who donated the most. Granted this may exclude the more tightly budgeted but as a marketting tool it could be quite effective.

Personally, I would have no problem paying $50 a year. That's basically a dollar a week. You can find more than that in change lying around on the streets, or in your couch, you dirty bastard. LoL.

Most registered libertarians have little more interest in being activists than most D or R registrants. Of course, this only refers to the half of the country where you can register by party.

The notion that 30% of registered voters are going to give us money because we tell them they are 'members' is just plain silly.

Eliminating dues can only cut the dues fraction of our income, which is $500K/year on a 2 million budget.

The $50 a year dues proposal, unless there is value received, will cost the party a considerable fraction of its membership. The National Treasurer has already denounced this plan. Of course, if you live in an area where money grows on trees, falls from the sky, appears like mushrooms uder couches, or is laid by geese, your mileage may be different.

George Phillies
http://www.LibertyForMassachusetts.org
The real Massachusetts libertarian activists

Donny Ferguson is in a 2 way race for House of Delegates in VA and has an excellent chance to win! Please donate what you can to his campaign or we lose a great opportunity for success!

I need the funds it will take to
keep the campaign going. I'm $21,000 short of what I
need, and my cash on http://www.DonnyFerguson.com and
clicking on the credit card icon, or by mailing their
check to "Friends of Ferguson" at PO Box 3134 in
Reston, VA 20195.

We're doing a great job getting into the newspapers
every week, we're hitting over 1,000 houses a week.

In fact, not only is the incumbent attacking me
publicly, he's convinced my pledge to cap property tax
increases (the same pledge taken by both candidates
for Governor) is unpopular and is urging people to
visit my websites and learn more about my proposals to
cut taxes.

We're working hard every day to win as many votes as
possible, but unless I get more contribution I'll have
to shut down the campaign soon.

The examples I used were just examples used to illustrate a point: that soliciting money from a potiential group of 300,000 is far more likely to raise more money than doing the same to a group of 22,000.

And George, 30% of ALREADY REGISTERED LIBERTARIANS or voters that have VOTED LIBERTARIAN in past elections is NOT simply "registered voters". They are voters that probably dont need a ideological shift to contribute, and thats important. Ses above - the numbers used are only to illustrate a point. Number of donations from 300,000 is always going to be more than donations from 22,000 I say.

Are you arguing that to solicit money from 300K people would get you a LESSER amount than solciting money from 22K people? I dont believe that is true. The examples I gave were just that, fictionary examples used to make a point. The point is that there is NO WAY that Squyres will make the problem WORSE than it is now. It can only make it BETTER - how much better, no one knows. But it WILL make it possible to cast the contrebution net to 300,000 instead of 22K. passing Squyres will the LP more money, not less. You can bet that if the closed membership model was the way to raise money, the R's and the D's would be doing the exact same thing.

As far as Harry Browne's gang goes, I was and still am critical of them for many reasons - and of course, you know Harry has been banned for life from LP conventions right? He cant step onto the floor of any future LP convention, and theres a reason for that. I quit the LP for 2 years becuase of it from 2000-2002. Look it up in google, it's beyond the scope of the blog here.

If the $0.00 proposal passes, the LP will gain 2 things from my family
1) Two new members who are Libertarians, but just use my membership to read the LP News
2) 1 New Lifetime member, because for $500.00 I will do it.

There's one other issue of Walt's ( Libertarian TV ) I want to address. That is his fear that a bunch of liberty ruffians and hooligans will somehow come into the party and change it from what it is now to something else.

Walt, you will never get this party to ever be in a position to actually effect the loss of liberty to our lives by following the current course. It hasnt happened since 1980, and that's been 25 years. That was the high water mark for the LP, in a year where we had John Anderson the Independant to deal with as well. We still hit a million votes.

I say it's about time this party became something else, becuase right now it it is operating on a shoestring and can barely pay it's own bills. It cant get Raisers Edge to work. It's always the same thing. LACK OF MONEY. It's that way becuase the base of support for the LP with the current membership model is too small.

What exactly do you think these people will turn the party into - Socialist? They have a party, it's called the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

How about the people that support Bush and the War? The flag wavers and bible thumpers? They have a Party too - It's called the REPUBLICAN PARTY.

If we have a influx of people joining our ranks, so much the better. That will mean that we are finallt on the right track for a change and that more money and ability to get more liberty will follow. Having lots of people that want to join the LP IS A GOOD THING.

STOP BEING AFRAID OF CHANGE. WE DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO GO BUT UP.

Part of the problem is the party has no idea how to diagnose thier own problems. Politicians won't join for fear of being attached to the platform - even if they are Libertarains, it's the end of the career when you sign up.
The party then reads the lack of quality candidates as a problem that can be directly fixed by trying to get REAL candidates to join the party, not even realizing that most solid candidates won't be attached to the platform.

No one has ever been able to point out the disadvantage of taking the "Long Term" goals off of the platform. Apparently the people who have read/written this document have never compared it to the parties they compete with. That would seem to be an obvious move for anyone with any marketing skills.
You can only stand up against a competitive product if you understand it, and can exploit it's weaknesses.

Tim,

You can insult me all you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that I am not afraid of change and that the zero-dues proposal will not produce the results you're expecting and will definitely put the party at risk.

You're trying to push the wrong buttons, Tim. Our party is not failing to achieve its goals because of our membership dues policy.

If you want to know what it's going to take to change the LP's path, start thinking in terms of getting candidates elected at the local level. All of these other arguments are merely distractions from this one, basic fact: we have not yet won on the national level because we have not yet learned to win on the local level. Period.

Adamson, I don't claim to be a fundraising expert, but I do know that you're barking up the wrong tree.

And no, I hold no official title within the party. I'm just a dues-paying member. But I'm also working diligently at the local level, where the real, meaningful, long-term, successful, winning changes are going to take place. Can you say the same?

On a different topic, did anyone notice the latest insanity issued from the Supreme Court today? They gave two contradictory rulings on displays of the Ten Commandments in a public building. The difference between the two cases? The one they approved had been there for 40 years, while the one they turned down had been there a much shorter time. Their view of Constitutionality has to do more with tradition that with what's actually written in the Constitution itself.

On the issue of membership dues, frankly I'd have to agree with many others here in seriously doubting that removal of the dues would harm the party, financially.

Now I also agree that the LP really must do more to be viably, politically active at both the local and national level. Particularly with a plank focusing more on short term, achievable, goals. Nothing wrong with having ideological goals, mind you, but it's the small steps that I think the party really needs to focus on for political viability. For example, push towards a platform endorsing legalization of medical marijuana and encouragement of more open LEGAL immigration policies that recognizes our need to ensure some level of security at the borders. I believe that taking the small steps will only open to way to showing how returning our liberties will only prove to be a prosperous condition for America.

I think that with both of those changes (and we should probably get rid of that "oath", except for officers and candidates, IMHO) the LP should be in a position to truly be competitive and, thereby, garner better funding without the need for membership dues. I'm with those who've pointed out that the LP could easily be viewed as another corporation in a free market economy. We really should open it up to being attractive and competitive so that it really can stand on its own and help to foster candidates who would be willing to associate their name with the LP and who could be truly viable, electable candidates in America's current political climate.

I'm not insulting you Walt. Insulting you would be to call you names or such, and I havent done any of that here. I do think your fears are unfounded, but thats not a insult.

You have two choices: either make the LP into a modern political party with a chance for success or some Ross Perot type figure is going to come along and start one - becuase politics abhors vacuums, and we have one right now that is so big it cant be ignored.

Some one or thing is going to fill that vacuum. There WILL BE another Reform type third party, and if we fix whats wrong, we could make the LP into that party without changing much. There wont be a vacuum there becuase the LP will have filled it and people like Gary Johnson and Bob Barr wont be afraid to tack there names to us.

If the latter happens, the current LP wont matter anymore. It will be like the Prohibition Party, and about as relevant. Mr. Moneybags will make short work of the LP and fill that space. I want the LP to fill that space, but we cant do it without expanding the party base of support.

BTW, on the inital request of "Sound off below if you've renewed or joined so that we can be sure and recognize your efforts and commitment to the LP." I just joined the LP about a month ago. I had previously been registered Democrat (yeah, I'm one of those darned Left Libertarians. ;)) I have always known I had, small l, libertarian leanings but had always found the party a bit too focused on an almost anarchistic viewpoint to interest me in joining. It is only because of seeing recent changes in verbage to suggest that the purely ideological viewpoint I had seen before is beginning to showing some leeway to understanding political reality and possible changes to suggest political viability that have encouraged me to step up to actual membership and declaration on my voter registration.

I apologize, Tim. You're right, you're not the one who was calling me names. That was Adamson who called me a "party hack." I'm sorry I wrongly blamed you for what he did.

I'm glad we agree that the party's base of support needs to be expanded, even if we disagree on the means toward that end.

---

Adamson, I just realized that you're the one who resorted to name calling, not Tim. You're the one whose unwarranted attack is something I want to address.

The term "party hack" is defined by Wikipedia as, "a derogatory term for an unscrupulous individual of questionable competency, who's political position comes by virtue of a devout party loyalty."

There is no justification for such name calling on your part. I suggest that you're more interested in dividing the party than in finding ways to work together.

It's all been said before. I've been a member since 1996 and this talk about watering down our "radical" postions is nothing new. So let me tell you what happened. I saw republicans run more libertarian then the Libertarian. So instead of the Libertarian getting 2% of the vote they got less then 1/2 %. I will say it again 3rd party populace groups have historically had vey short lifes. Our dedication to principles have kept us from going the way of the reform party and the many third parties that came before them. I ask you which "radical" issue should we trash. I will not become like one of the two party sheep. I will not bring up the constitution to defend a point then except the 1970 nacatioc laws that have no true base just because most people are uncomfortable with crack being legal but completly comfortable with the fedreal government exercising authority it doesn't have. I will not support curtils on the second amendment just because some are not cool with a neighbor having some dynamite in their basement, but cool with the government changing law not through an amendment process but through judical activism. I will not except vioations on my property rights because people have more irrational fears about coporations then they do with a government that has a monoply on force and who refuses to obey their own law. I would like to ask a question that has been asked before. How many of the people on this blog that keeps lobbying for a change in platform has ran or help somebody run for a local seat. I'm growing impatiant as well. My brother ran for State Rep. a couple of years back we got no help from local, state, or national lp. I went to the county lp and begged for members to help us work the polls, after we got no help the entire race. Not one showed up to help. Don't speak to me about changing the platform until we get off our ass's and start working grass roots.

Trust me, I'd love to join, I'm just 2 years off. :(

Count on my vote in 2008 though. :D

I've only read about half of this discussion, but I've got a semi-related question: What's with the broken links in the membership section? And other sections of the site, as well. It doesn't come off as very professional when I get an "Oops, such and such a page has moved" when I try to access the information request form.

watering down our "radical" postions
and
taking the "Long Term" goals off of the platform

Are two different things. Completely different. The former is giving up on principal the latter is objectively marketing correctly.
Look up some Reagan quotes, he spoke a Libertarian game (even though he didn't govern that way). He was elected because he made his goals sound appealing to the population.

I rejoined the Libertarian Party reluctantly. Not because I no longer believe in its principles (I have been a member since 1980) but because I am tired of belonging to a party that much of the general public hasn't heard of. Usually if they have heard of Libertarians they have no idea of what we stand for, or worse, perceive us as a bunch of nuts. The recent coverage of the ill-conceived Guns for Tots program on the Daily Show won us neither sympathy nor converts. We have to brand the LP as enterprenurial-minded forward thinkers or we will always have an uphill battle. I am tired of battling uphill.

Lenny and James, Thank you both for rejoining the LP.
James, I wish you were with the LPVA booth this past weekend. Many people came over with smiles asking for more information about the LP. Many said they have visited the website or knew Libertarians. I had twenty people take the World's Smallest Quiz in a couple hours plus many more pointed at the chart at where they scored. The grade on that hill isn't as steep like it was 5 years ago.

Gordon Andrews-
I misunderstood. Sorry. I have nothing against changing how we makert the party and agree that we need a new approach.
James-
Exactly right. With Congress pushing 27% tairffs on China I think we need to be very vocal about how these incompetent morons are leading us to a collapse of our economy. We need to point out the republican leadership has lead the run away spending and anti-free trade mandate that will cause massive job lost. We have to postion are self to show that we are the enterprenurial-minded foward thinking party that can bring fiscal sanity to our national budget.
To all under 18-
You can still be very useful to the party. Spread the word, help with campaigns, drive people to the poll, get active at the grass root level.

The Libertarian Party needs to nominate a candidate who will focus on the issues people care about: healthcare, social security, education, the economy and taxes.

Notice how the radical wing of the party has ran it since 1983 with no success? Very few people advocate the end of taxation, public schools and immigration controls.

Why can't the radical wing step aside just ONCE for P2008 and let a real Libertarian up to the plate. Not one who will talk about "fully automatic machine gun ownership", "legalization of drugs" and other fringe issues.

Every time Libertarians have a chance to hit the big time and become a real political party, we have to stick to our guns (principles) and run another safricial lamb who won't even break 500,000 votes opposed to someone who agrees with roughly 90% of the platform and can get us widespread exposure and more support.

You're not going to be a democrat or republican if you agree with roughly 70% of the platform. We need to lose the "private club" attitude and become a true political force -- we need to widen our base by compromising on some things.

1. Immigration
2. Taxation
3. Education

No average joe is going to say "Hey, open borders after 9/11 is a great idea!". I see the need for allowing more peaceful people into the country but we need at least a background check before crossing to ensure we're not allowing terrorists across the border.

No non-kook is going to go "Yup, ending taxation is an excellent idea that will work in practice". We need at least excise taxes to fund the government. No taxation = 99% of people who notice us will write us off as nuts.

The radical libertarian stance of ending public education cost a good man, Drew Wrenbreck his election for school board. He was noted as being part of a political party that advocates ending public education. Am I a Democrat or Republican if I support a voucher program?

Okay one more time. This has been tried. We have cross overs that have held office with the other big two and ran on these "moderate" issues that you talk about. They have done worse then the so call "radical" libertarian. Why? Because I won't vote for some smuck who wants to pretend to be a libertarian when I have a republican or a constitutional or a reform caniadate on the ticket who I agree with more. I vote on issue not party.

All I know: If the LP doesn't get with the program by 2008 and nominates another Andre Marrou-like candidate that confirms peoples assumptions about libertarians being machine gun toting anarchists who hate taxes, I will be changing my affiliation to "Independent".

The LP never learns -- PRIVATIZING ROADS and ENDING TAXES are fringe issues that NOBODY CARES ABOUT. When you talk to someone about the LP at an outreach event and they ask what you stand for,

would you rather say
a) Well, Libertarians support the idea of cutting taxes and cutting the the size of government down to the level
that our founders intended. We want to allow you to live life as you want as long as your conduct is peaceful.

or
b) we support legalizin' drugs and lettin' yall own nuclear weapons and ending those taxes. if yall don't agree with everything I stand for, yall are damn statists/commies/pinkos. people who don't agree with me 100% are dem-e-crats and re-thug-licans.

B is the radical, no compromise position that only a handful of people, mostly kooks would lean to. The average Joe American is going to back away slowly and run off in fear.

In 1983, CATO walked out. In 2008, the non-anarchist libertarians are walking out if the LP does not lose the near-anarchist agenda. We might form a new party or try bringing true libertarian principles to the GOP or DNC.

Either the LP learns to be a true political party that Joe American can relate to or it can stay an intellectual debate club that shuns away anyone who is not 100% libertarian and keep receiving 500,000 votes or less.

Perhaps I should start a Draft Tim West petition? He's the man the party needs. He has the road map the LP needs to become a true political party while staying true to our principles -- our protection of personal and economic freedoms.

You can still be a freedom loving Libertarian and not advocate radical position such as open borders, no taxation and privately funded roads.

Don't get me wrong I think myself a hardcore libetarian and I like vouchers, I think we should go back to the tax system of import, export tax and states taxed based on population. But you must understand we can not compromise the constitution. That means no compromise on the second amendment(automatic weapons). I might support a canidate that is working for an amendment to change the constitution but never one that will not follow the constitution.

Or is following the constitution to radical?

The founding fathers didn't have automatics. If they did, would they have kept them legal?

absolutely, automatics would be legal. they didn't foresee an Air Force, but that's legal!

Why in the world would an Air Force be illegal? I don't see a connection.

The founding fathers knew that they couldn't see what the future would bring so they gave us a way to change the law with the changing of time. It is called the amendment process. Do I think if the founding fathers were around today would they want to keep automatic weapons legal? YES!The second amendment was put into place as a safegaurd for intruding government not for clay shooting.Do not support unconstitutional laws because you like the result. Then try to complain about the growing power of government. I also believe that under the frame work of the constitution that we do have the right to have a nuclear weapon. I don't think anybody should own wmd but I don't support judical activism to get there. If we didn't have judical activism I am 100% sure that this would have been made so with a legal amendment process. The end does not justify the means. It sets up precedent that the government does not have to stay with in the enumerated powers. The cause and effect of this is that government can now steal our homes and give it to wal mart.

The way I view it is this. There is no need to compromise on libertarian principles. Your principles are your principles. The LP, OTOH, needs to be able to see that achieving the goals of those principles requires compromise. I think we NEED to consider what can reasonably be accomplished in 4 or even 8 years. Blanket legalization of drugs, for example, no matter how sound and reasonable we may realize it really is, simply will not get past the emotional barrier that many folks have regarding their distaste for those drugs. Wild images of crack being sold at the local supermarket and 12-year-olds shooting heroin all day at school are the first, gut-reaction images that pop into peoples' heads. Is that unreasonable? Absolutely! But it doesn't stop that reaction from occurring, nor does it stop folks from voting on such issues emotionally.

Instead I think the LP needs to consider a doable platform for shorter-term goals. How about legalization of medical marijuana. Then stepping on to legalization of marijuana. Then go back to the American people and say "See? That didn't end the world and we are now a better society for taking those steps." Then the LP can continue pushing for even more freedoms. Frankly the American public just isn't ready to stomach the idea of blanket legalization, or completely open borders, or immediate and blanket repeal of gun control laws.

There are so many gut, response issues that are harming LP candidates.

As for those candidates who have had more moderate platforms and failed, I would suggest the LP platform may well have been a consistent point of failure for at least a few of them. I would also offer that I feel that "times they are a-changin'" and now may be the time for the LP to start working the political system from a moderate angle where voters in today’s political climate may be more open to us then they may have been in the past. Certainly many were highly disillusioned after the Ross Perot fiasco and felt that voting third-party was utterly useless and went back to voting R/D instead, but that there are some signs that we may be swinging back to the point where a third party may be becoming more viable, I think. More viable IF we can fill the niche of a more open party willing to accept those pushing for moderate legislation in the libertarian vein.

The difference is whether we focus on the long-term goals of our ideals as somehow being viable in the short-term as opposed to focusing instead on the shorter-term step that will help us to, hopefully, achieve those long-term goals. I believe the latter is the place where the LP needs to be to be that truly viable third-party that I think the American people are so desperately looking for.

And that, as I mentioned before, is why I decided to join the LP now because I've seen the sings of that change finally occuring in the LP. There seems to be some recognition that political success hinges more on being able to focus on those shorter term accomplishments to help show folks that we really do have good, viable ideas for a better life for all of us than the "jump off the deep end" philosophy that the party has mostly had. I'd love to jump off the deep end! But politically I just don't see that happening or working. It certainly hasn't been working for the past 30 years, I don't think.

The Libertarian Party needs it own lobbyists and Political Action Comitees. The Libertarian Party needs to stand on it's own two feet. The ACLU is not Libertarian and the ACLU probably doesn't like our party, they prefer Socialist or Marxist groups. I have always disliked the ACLU and they only put a strain on our reputiton if the Libertarian party keeps supporting them

I'm pretty new to the Libertarian party, I became a dues paying member last week (before that all I knew about the LP was from a crazy college professor who someone told me was a Libertarian). Up until I joined, I was very much a card carrying Republican, but I recently began to look around and I didn't like what I saw . . .even when my party was in power the government got bigger and my freedoms got smaller. But I still never would have found the LP if I hadn't read an Ayn Rand book that got me curious to see if there were other people who believed in economic and individual freedom. I think your problem is not your message, it I think its your advertising (or lack there of). I bet there are alot of disgruntled republicans out there just waiting for a party like the LP but they just don't know where to look.

Also I read a little bit at the top of the BLOG about joining forces with ACLU, and honestly if I saw their name attached to yours I never would have stopped to look.

welcome to the party of the future

I've been away for a bit. Joined about a month or so ago. Since the unholy alliance of money hungry big govt and big business has been given the green light to steal our homes, I am even more glad I did join.

I'll be recruiting my brother tomorrow.

The supreme court has just handed the party its recruiting drive slogan: Want to keep your home? Fight back! Join the Libertarians.

Tired of getting your @$$ handed to you by the government? Join the LP!

Tired of getting bent over and taking it by the government? Join the LP!

This might be a little off the subject, but it deals directly with membership so i thought it fit. I am a dues paying member of the LP as well as a college student, and have tried to acquire information on starting an LP organization on my campus in order to spread the word and recruit voters for the Libertarian cause. There are many people my age that have the general ideals of the party, but do not really know how or where to voice those ideals. If anyone knows where I might be able to find this information and how to go about getting the backing of the LP to make it as legitimate as possible, please reply.

Walker,

I'm an LP activist of 15 years living in Illinois.
E-mail me at blacknight_80751@yahoo.com and I can refer anyone who is a college student like me to someone who does effective outreach to college students.

Wow! I'm ever so slightly amazed that the LP advocates amnesty for ALL aliens, and an open Border! Looking at the cost to America in crime, in disease, in lost jobs, in Mexicos' vow to make our Southwest again a part of Mexico, declaration of Mexican citizens as U.S. citizens, the terrorist threat, ad nauseum, how can you advocate such a thing? I want to bring our troops home and all but CLOSE the border! Let's RE-SECURE Liberty for (NORTH)Americans first! You need to re-think this question before I can call myself a "Libertarian"!

"Is the LP HQ working on a revised imigration policy and do they have a terrorism policy?

Posted by: Matt C at June 26, 2005 04:25 PM"

Matt C.: I don't know if you receive LP News (of which I'm the editor), but the July issue contains proposed new language for the Immigration plank of the national LP's platform. The article and proposed plank were written by LNC member George Squyres, and addresses many of the open/closed borders issues that are repeatedly brought up. While he doesn't explicitly address the larger issue of terrorism, he does allude to the problem and suggests that 9/11 changed the way we need to address immigration.

I don't necessarily advocate "closed borders", but we definately need to be more selective as to who we let in.
I know, I know, "this is a country of Immigrants",
and "give me your poor huddled masses longing to be free". That was fine in the days when land was a-plenty and jobs were endless. We are our own country now, and we need to regulate the ones coming into our country to exploit our resources. Give this country back to the ones who made it great, and quit giving it away to those who only drain our resources.
A completely open border will cost a lot of support. If one is sincere enough to jump through the hoops to become a citizen, or at least be here legally, then welcome them with open arms. If they slink across the border in the middle of the night, then we don't want them.
I've really had second thoughts about the LP since I've read that a party principle is an Open Border. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that an open border is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous things we could do.

I have been a dues paying Libertarian for 25 years but have never agreed with the open border policy for the same reasons that I lock the front and back doors of my house: I want to know who's coming in and why.

Thanks Mr. Cloud. I am trying to convert a wavering Republican who says the open border issue is what keeps him from joining us.

Mark: My stock response to anyone who doesn't want to join the party because of one particular plank in the platform is this: If you agree with 90 percent of the LP's stances and only 20-50 percent of either the Dems' or the Reps', join the LP. And once you're a member, you can sit as a delegate at convention and try to change the platform, if you so desire.

Dems and Republicans advocate open borders, too.

Think about it - they're in power and we have open borders.

They just don't say it, because they're politically saavy enough to know it's not a popular position.

At least we're honest.

As others have said, if you disagree with us on 1 or 2 issues, but disagree with the Dems/Reps on dozens of issues, which party should you join?

another thing to consider -

at least when Libertarians disagree on a particular issue, we (usually) are able to have a reasonable, level headed debate based on issues and philosophy.

have you ever seen the Dems & Reps "debate"?

It's usually nothing but talking points, spin, and name calling.

The closest I've seen the LP come to that was in the last nominating convention. The 2nd grade antics between Russo & Nolan were just about the most juvenile I've ever seen in the LP. And guess what - they both lost.

Who wants a country based on reason? (Apparently not Americans) So, shut up you doody-head.

i know you are but what am i?

http://micronation.homeip.net/phpbb2/index.php