Hi. Thanks for the trackbacks. Bloggertarian is going to be my new political blog and I am gradually transitioning my readers to that site for all such material--hence the duplicate posts on Jabley.com and Bloggertarian.com
Regards,
Jabley (aka the Bloggertarian)

Yes, I also would like to extend my gratitude for turning the volume up on my voice via trackbacks.

It's nice to see that the national LP is doing some things to get noticed. When Democrats and Republicans won't stand up for average Americans, it's good to know that us Libertarians will.

Although I disagree with some small parts of the plan... thanks to everyone who worked on this plan to show the nation that the Libertarian Party is the only party with a plan.

Thanks for the link, I didn't even know that people from here read my site. I would like to encourage everyone to put a link on their website or blog about this. I plan on putting a new post on my blog with the graphics from the libertyforsale website, thanks for the graphics.

In one of the above comments it was stated that we stood by our principles.

We did not stand by them. Our leadership sacrificed them on the alter of temporary political gain.

Libertarians call for bringing all our troops home immediately and not over a dragged out time span and not out of just one nation, but ALL of them!

Libertarians call for ending ALL aid to other nations and keeping that money RIGHT HERE so it can be RETURNED to the taxpayers. Even if some people in our government started the war in Iraq the rest of us do NOT have the responsibility to pay for their screwup!

The truth is that this plan for Iraq would sound good coming from a progressive democrat or perhaps a slightly freedom leaning Republican (which is very rare). But it is NOT consistant with Libertarian principles.

I think that all Libertarians need to demand this plan be revise to bring all the troops home as soon as possible from ALL nations and at the same time end ALL aid to other nations.

Then it would be Libertarian. Now, it is an insult!

I am ASHAMED to call myself a Libertarian when the national LP calls for these anti-libertarian sort of things!

Congrats! "LP Iraq Exit Strategy" perfectly mimics the position of the Bush/Dean camp. We have given the people what they wanted: an echo, not a choice. Gosh, if we would only give in on the drug war, public schools, and the IRS we'd really be cookin' with gas.

You can't make America a libertarian country overnight.

You either take a small step or no step.

I don?t understand how no one gets the fact that this is a start? We have to achieve our goals in increments. The mainstream has been conditioned to think the drug war, public schools, and the IRS are good things (yes I have heard people justify the IRS: (). We have to prove that our ideas work first. That means make changes in one at a time. The idea of magically getting two thirds of the senate, the house and a LP president on a platform of legalizing ALL drugs, Getting rid of public schools and ALL taxes is just insane. We can sit here and talk about ideals until we are blue in the face but we will be just doing that talking. If we had people running on a platform to legalize pot, protecting our civil liberties (which is greater than all of the other policies and should be focused on more that ANY of the other stuff) we would get elected. As I have said in the previous blog that once we lower taxes, restore civil liberties, legalize pot, and bring the troops home with this plan that most American agree with then we can peruse our more "extreme" policies. I don?t care what it takes as long as we get the military out of Iraq even if it takes them one more year to do it with honor our however the other parties want to see it. Our platform is good and I don?t argue with most of it but it CAN?T be done in one term. Also IRS, public schools, and legalizing all drugs (minus pot I think that one could fly) should be the LEAST of our worries right now. The dems/reps are royally screwing this country and we need to ACT not sit around and bitch and moan cause a plan sounds too dem or rep. which in itself is nonsense because both parties want to stay for at least 5 damn years. Both parties want a draft and both parties don?t care about the bill of rights. So to the people that are too die-hard and purist to figure out that things just don?t work like they want them to in the real world we need something to start with. Also calling me a democrat or republican is insulting because I actually believe in freedom of the individual and would like to see it restored. So for those of you who don?t like the plan because its wasting your tax dollars or its not fast enough (I guess you mean like in a week or a month?) my question to you is if we don?t support at least the withdraw part then I can GURANTEE that we will be losing money and lives in Iraq (possibly yours) for a very, very long time. Makes me mad that the party finally does something that?s a push in the right direction (for a goal that we all want which is to get the hell out of Iraq) and all we can do is say its sucks and it clashes with our belief in non intervention. I agree with this policy but we can?t get elected on it. We have to crawl before we can walk if you are getting what I?m saying.

PS when I used the word extreme, I wasn?t implying that I think these are extreme polices. However if we don?t compromise on these issues at first then we wont get elected which will be compromising our freedom in the end.

Big ideas are what move people, not small incremental changes. Just look at history . . . the Declaration of Independence, tearing down the Berlin wall, for example. Let's see . . . hmmm; how could these have been done "gradually"?

Libertarian ideas will eventually prevail when they are proclaimed truthfully, proudly, honestly, and persistently enough. They won't be implemented by an unconfident policy of compromise and concealment.

Withdraw all American troops NOW! Stop U.S. perpetual meddling in the affairs of other nations NOW! Abolish un-American, unconstitutional national secret-police agencies (NSA, BATF, CIA, FBI, etc.) NOW! Stop all foreign "aid" NOW! Get out of the UN NOW! Repeal the income tax and socialist welfare-state programs NOW!

Carl,

Would you be opposed to a tax decrease until such time as the income tax has been repealed?

The fact is that both of those things you mention WERE done gradually. The Declaration of Independence took EFFECTIVELY 13 years to actually implement, and the first try for a national government failed ( The Articles Of Confederation ) and had to be replaced with the Constitution we all know. It simply did not happen NOW, and it required a lengthy political process to achieve.

The Berlin Wall fell as it did becuase of a misunderstanding. From Wikipedia:

"Due to a misunderstanding, GГјnter Schabowski announced in a live press conference shown on East German state TV that all travel restrictions had been abandoned. Tens of thousands of people immediately went to the checkpoints in the Wall and demanded entry into West Berlin. They quickly became a major crowd control problem for the surprised and overwhelmed border guards.

Many hectic telephone calls with the guards' superiors ensued while still more people kept converging on the major crossing points. It became clear that there was no way to hold back the huge crowd of East German citizens short of dispatching the army to kill them all, as the vastly outnumbered border guards had only been equipped for another day of regular duty. The masses could also not be convinced to turn back or calm down — they had heard of Mr. Schabowski's statement, and they wanted it to be acted upon.

The only way to hold the crowds back would have been through the use of massive lethal force, but this would have meant massacring the country's own citizens in huge numbers — which the guards and authorities were simply not willing to do. In face of the escalating crowd safety situation, the guards eventually just yielded, opening the access points and allowing people through with (at most) minimal identity verification checks."

And the conditions to allow the wall to come down had to take from 1961 to 1989 to actually bring East Germany to the point where the above could happen. If the same thing had happened in say, 1964, they probably would have killed them all. The idealogy of communism had not yet been shown to be the monster that it is.

It's simply not true that these things happened quickly as you suggest.

Most human achievement that lasts any length of time is a direct result of a determined and many times painful struggle, either politically or otherwise.

Here again is the Ron Paul proposal:

http://www.house.gov/abercrombie/Iraq%20War%20Res.pdf

Re: Purism, there is no compromise here, nor is it appropriate to call a transitional proposal showing logical steps a compromise.

The Platform makes our position clear enough. This is a policy proposal on how to do it based on present circumstances. One year to move out troops is quite rapid. We're against foreign aid, but keep in mind Iraq has substantial and real claims for damages against the US. I think the proposal is fairlky clear, but in future it may help to state somewhere our ultimate position and how it illuminates the situation in future papers of this kind.

It would be helpful for US Libertarians to keep Libertarians abroad in mind. The main concern of Iraqi Libertarians and quasi-Libertarians is that the US stop meddling including supporting someone as the US did with Saddam Hussein. Then they'll do the rest, as local Libertarians did in the USSR, Phillipines, Mongolia, Costa Rica, etc...

MG

Small step or no step?

I would rather have nothing accomplished at the moment than beg for the government too...

Not take quite as much of my paycheck from me in the form of taxes.

Not redistribute quite as much of my money to others in welfare and social security scams.

Not take all of my constitutionally protected firearms away (like in real life I can even afford a firearm do to their high taxes, because I can barely feed myself when I go to Walmart much less go to the sporting goods department).

Not ban all of constitutionally protected free speech. At least please leave the internet even if you start banning radio and TV broadcasts.

Not ban all my vitamins and health foods do to the international forces of CODEX. Please just leave my vitamin C alone if you take everything else.

Not violate ALL my privacy.

etc.

I will NOT beg the government to do what they already should be doing! I will not bargain or make deals.

Libertarians are NOT politicians. Politicians deal in the art of compromise. Libertarians deal with the small government the constitution demands, PERIOD! Because of this we do not compromise!

Keep our troops around the world, giving more aid to Iraq, and keeping our troops in danger that much long is ALL BIG GOVERNMENT!

Carla Howe said small government is beautiful.

Apparently the Libertarian Party is not anymore.

Micheal Gilson,

Also, one year is a long time if we could get them out in six months or less.

Additionally, they may have claims against the US but millions and millions of Americans did NOT support the War in Iraq! You are saying that all the hard working taxpaying americans who opposed Bush and opposed the War in Iraq should have their tax dollars spent on funding Iraqis. That is not fair and is theft!

Just because America's current tyranical leadership made a mistake does not mean that every single american citizen should pay for it!

Should every German have to pay a tax to each and every Jew for the past action of certain Germans who harmed their grand parents? Of course not! It might be happening, but if it is it is WRONG!

If individual Americans feel horrible about what our nation did let them VOLUNTARILY donate to help rebuild Iraq. But do not force them to pay it out of their tax dollars!

Libertarians abroad know that Libertarians in the USA did not call for this war. They should not want US citizens opposed to this war to pay for it!

One more thing, we cannot call for the government to do one little thing at a time. We need to tell them exactly what we want done. That is what makes the Libertarian Party great. We are bold and fearless. No one might give us anything that we demand, but at least we call for it!

If we stop demanding TRUE freedom and TRUE liberty then we are nothing but little dogs begging at their table.

Thirty years of history have proven that no one really cares if a tiny minority of the population expresses itself on the nature of "true liberty."

On the other hand, there are millions of Americans who want more personal and economic liberty. They are poorly served by both major parties. The Republicans promise more economic liberty and mostly provide less. The Republicans promise less personal liberty.

The Democrats promise less economic liberty and maybe some more pesonal liberty. They deliver less of both.

Those Libertarians who want to actually increase liberty need to develop a message that appeals to the millions of Americans who want more personal and economic liberty.

Just expressing what a tiny minority believes has next to no impact. That is because elections in America are about who will win and rule. Politicians with messages that appeal to a tiny minority have approximately no chance to win. And so, their participation in elections is basically ignored by just about everyone.

So what is it that the LP has done so often? It just makes a few people feel good because they can join with a few others and express their beliefs.

Polling shows that there has recently developed a slight majority of people who say that they would rather withdraw all U.S. troops within one year rather than remain in Iraq until it is stabilized.

While that majority might not hold, there are millions of Americans who hold that view.

I think it is a good thing for the Libertarian Party to offer them what they want--a plan to get out within one year.

How could anyone be so blind as to believe that this is no different from what the major parties are offering? Bush refuses to provide for any timeline, but all indications are five years or more.

I believe that at least some factions of the administration want the U.S. to be in Iraq for decades if not forever. Of course, they hope that no U.S. troops will be needed to suppress violent opposition. The troops will be there to threaten or invade Iran or Syria.

Most Democrats are saying the same thing about the needed timeline and are calling for more troops to boot! They really buy into this notion that we are there now and so we must remake Iraq into a vision of personal liberty and social justice.

The LP plan is to start withdrawing troops now and get all of them out in a year.

Starting to withdraw troops now is an improvement over the status quo. Getting them all out in one year is better than what is likely to really happen. And better than what the Republicans and Democrats have on offer.

If the Democrats come up with a proposal for more rapid withdrawal--endorse it! But it hasn't happened yet.

The _best_ proposal to come out of Congress, was for troop withdrawals to start in a year. And it didn't have majority support from either party.

I believe adding the foreign aid element was a mistake. Having the U.S. government hand out money to U.S. businesses for Iraqi reconstruction is awful, and I will grant that giving it directly to the Iraqis is better than the status quo. The language about how the Iraqis won't waste it is a big laugh. I suppose that the caveat that if they do, it will be cut off means that "in reality" this proposal would have no impact. Of course, there is no chance that the LP will be implementing this plan "in reality."

I don't believe that "Iraq" has legal claims against the U.S. It would be like the Continental Congress demanding reparations from France for all the damage they did with their naval bombardment of British positions in Virginia.

The old government that the U.S. warred against for over a decade is gone. The new government of Iraq is only in power because the old government was defeated. Hardly any Iraqis support a return of the old regime. Most Iraqis were "liberated" when the U.S. destroyed the old regime. And if the U.S. gets out, they will really be "liberated," and most probably develop some new version of oppression. But that is their concern and their responsibility.

Humanitarian aid, and even military aid, might be sensible. But the LP should make sure that it is proposing less than what the U.S. government is spending now and emphasize that it will be cut off at some point. It is good that the "official" plan doesn't promote this reparations line explicitly, but I would suggest just shutting up about it on all fronts.

The U.S. is already spending an arm and a leg in Iraq. The LP proposes that less be spent immediately, and that spending be eventually cut off. The Iraqis have oil that they can sell to finance their rebuilding.

The key to the plan, complete withdrawal in a year, is something a most Americans support. Here is a position where most Americans will say that they agree more with the Libertarians than with the other major parties.

Don't ruin it by adding some kind of "long term goal" to the plan about how the U.S. should never intervene ever for any reason. Don't add something to the plan so that most Americans will say, well, I don't agree with the Republicans or Democrats, but I can't agree with the Libertarians either. They just go too far.

It is great that the plan sticks to the subject at hand rather than uses it as an opportunity to promote some position that is held by only a tiny minority of the population. That is, it is great that the plan doesn't seek to exhilarate the current rank-and-file of the Libertarian Party, but rather seeks to reach out to the American people.

Thirty years of history have proven that no one really cares if a tiny minority of the population expresses itself on the nature of "true liberty."

On the other hand, there are millions of Americans who want more personal and economic liberty. They are poorly served by both major parties. The Republicans promise more economic liberty and mostly provide less. The Republicans promise less personal liberty.

The Democrats promise less economic liberty and maybe some more personal liberty. They deliver less of both.

Those Libertarians who want to actually increase liberty need to develop a message that appeals to the millions of Americans who want more personal and economic liberty.

Just expressing what a tiny minority believes has next to no impact. That is because elections in America are about who will win and rule. Politicians with messages that appeal to a tiny minority have approximately no chance to win. And so, their participation in elections is basically ignored by just about everyone.

So what is it that the LP has done so often? It just makes a few people feel good because they can join with a few others and express their beliefs.

The Libertarian Party must develop a message for candidates that will appeal to a substantial portion of the population. The 20% of voters who are libertarian--who want more personal and economic liberty would be an excellent start!

Polling shows that there has recently developed a slight majority of people who say that they would rather withdraw all U.S. troops within one year than have them remain in Iraq until it is stabilized.

While that majority might not hold, there are millions of Americans who have that view.

I think it is a good thing for the Libertarian Party to offer them what they want--a plan to get out within one year.

How could anyone be so blind as to believe that this is no different from what the major parties are offering? Bush refuses to provide for any timeline, but all indications are five years or more.

I believe that at least some factions of the administration want the U.S. to be in Iraq for decades, if not forever. Of course, they hope that no U.S. troops will be needed to suppress violent opposition. They hope U.S. troops will defeat the insurgency and Iraqi forces will handle whatever trouble remains. No, the U.S. troops will be there to threaten, or even invade, Iran or Syria. Or whatever other enemies the U.S. finds in the Middle East.

Most Democrats are saying the same thing about the needed timeline and are calling for more troops to boot! They really buy into this notion that we are there now and so we must remake Iraq into a vision of personal liberty and social justice.

The LP plan is to start withdrawing troops now and get all of them out in a year.

Starting to withdraw troops now is an improvement over the status quo. Getting them all out in one year is better than what is likely to really happen. And better than what the Republicans and Democrats have on offer.

If the Democrats come up with a proposal for more rapid withdrawal--endorse it! But it hasn't happened yet.

The _best_ proposal to come out of Congress, was for troop withdrawals to start in a year. And it didn't have majority support from either party.

I believe adding the foreign aid element was a mistake. Having the U.S. government hand out money to U.S. businesses for Iraqi reconstruction is awful, and I will grant that giving it directly to the Iraqis is better than the status quo. The language about how the Iraqis won't steal it or waste it is a big laugh. I suppose that the caveat that if they do, it will be cut off means that "in reality" this proposal would have no impact. Of course, there is no chance that the LP will be implementing this plan "in reality."

I don't believe that "Iraq" has legal claims against the U.S. It would be like the Continental Congress demanding reparations from France for all the damage they did with their naval bombardment of British positions in Virginia.

The old government that the U.S. warred against for over a decade is gone. The new government of Iraq is only in power because the old government was defeated. Hardly any Iraqis support a return of the old regime. Most Iraqis were "liberated" when the U.S. destroyed the old regime. And if the U.S. gets out, they will really be "liberated," and most probably develop some new version of oppression. But that is their concern and their responsibility.

Humanitarian aid, and even military aid, might be sensible. But the LP should make sure that it is proposing less than what the U.S. government is spending now and emphasize that it will be completely cut off at some point. It is good that the "official" plan doesn't promote this reparations line explicitly, but I would suggest just shutting up about it on all fronts.

The U.S. is already spending an arm and a leg in Iraq. The LP proposes that less be spent immediately, and that spending be eventually cut off. The Iraqis have oil that they can sell to finance their rebuilding.

The key to the plan, complete withdrawal in a year, is something a most Americans support. Here is a position where most Americans will say that they agree with the Libertarians and not with the other major parties.

Don't ruin it by adding some kind of "long term goal" to the plan about how the U.S. should never intervene ever for any reason. Don't add something to the plan so that most Americans will say, well, I don't agree with the Republicans or Democrats, but I can't agree with the Libertarians either. They just go too far.

It is great that the plan sticks to the subject at hand rather than uses it as an opportunity to promote some position that is held by only a tiny minority of the population. That is, it is great that the plan doesn't seek to exhilarate the current rank-and-file activists of the Libertarian Party, but rather seeks to reach out to the American people.

Because reaching out to the American people is what the Libertarian Party must do if it is to become a serious third party.

I can understand (and do agree) with the whole "shouldn't have to" argument. I shouldn't have had to get a license to marry my wife, or drive my car, or buy a gun to defensd my property, or construct buildings on my property, etc etc.

But the fact of the matter is that arguing the "shouldn't have to" stand point doesn't make any progress in that direction. You could either wait for the day when you can jump a mile in one single bound or you can start taking steps. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who is going to get to the end goal faster and who is not going to get there at all.

All libertarians want the "shouldn't have to's" to be "don't have to's" TODAY, but they aren't, and merely pointing that out isn't going to change anything.

If someone takes a swing at you are you going to refuse to duck because your principles dictate you shouldn't have to?

From Cory:

"So for those of you who don’t like the plan because it’s wasting your tax dollars or it’s not fast enough (I guess you mean like in a week or a month?), my question to you is if we don’t support at least the withdraw part then I can GARANTEE that we will be losing money and lives in Iraq (possibly yours) for a very, very long time."

I think this misstates essential objections to the plan.

We all seem to agree that getting out is the goal.

The objection is not really that the plan says "one year" vs. "immediately."

The objections I have are as follows, none of which stand or fall on precisely how long a timetable for withdrawal we have.

First, a "gradual" withdrawal is a bad idea conceptually because it means we have a slowly dwindling force which is left behind BY DESIGN.

There is considerable question right now about whether a force of almost 150,000 is sufficient to adequately defend Americans and American installations against the insurgents. As our military muscle is slowly diminished, those forcibly left behind (pursuant to the plan) are DELIBERATELY being exposed to greater and greater danger.

It's just wrong to leave a force behind that's incapable of adequately defending itself. If our plan was adopted, how would you like to be assigned to the last brigade scheduled for departure? "Wow, great, I get the last three month tour in Iraq, along with a few thousand others, left here against hoards of angry, armed opponents."

No matter how fast we get out, someone will be on the last helicopter. Those particular soldiers will be most exposed. But, why make them (essentially) sit at the airport for months and months?

Also, the announcement of a full and complete withdrawal as fast as is possible might be met by a kind of unannounced “grace” period, allowing a clean get-away. But, a plan to leave behind a dwindling force for long periods of time will be seen as a lengthy opportunity to fire away at ill-equipped Americans.

So, a “gradual,” or incremental, withdrawal is just a bad military idea.

Second, the Plan’s REASON for staying is to provide a military defense of the current Iraqi government.

My objection is to the very strategy of our providing assistance to the current government. There are people in Iraq who oppose this government.

Yes, it was elected. But, how do we know anything (really) about the fairness of the election? (It was fair because President Bush says so?) The minority Sunni Muslims mostly boycotted it and are not represented – at the very least they are under-represented.

So, what we have is a current government run by the majority Shiite clerics who have a long-standing beef with minority Sunni's and a reason to abuse and oppress the Sunnis, yet WE have decided to train, arm and protect the Shiites. Why? It’s like deciding to assure the Nazis have enough firepower to defeat any Jewish opposition.

We gave arms, money and protection to the Shah. We gave arms, money and protection to Osama bin Laden when he led the Mujahadeen against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. We gave arms, money and assistance to Saddam Hussain when he made war on the Iranians who'd overthrown the Shah. At the time, we thought we were arming and assisting “friends,” but each time things didn’t exactly pan out as planned. Isn't it time we quit arming and training and equipping armies in the Middle-East?

This plan is DESIGNED to assure that the current Iraqi regime gets its hands on an effective military force. Why, why, why should we do that AGAIN, thus earning the enmity of whoever is abused by one more military power we’ve created?

The objection is NOT that this plan compromises the timeframe from "immediate" to "a year later." The core objections arise because of the REASONS advanced for waiting around and because slow withdraw is more dangerous to the troops than fast withdrawal. Get it?

A thoughtful argument in favor of this plan must address those essential objections. Your thoughts? Thoughts from others who support the plan?

J. Mills

Did anyone ever know Roger Macbride, the 1976 Libertarian candidate for President? He looked like an interesting candidate but yet I can hardly find anything on him or Andre Marrou on the net.

Sorry for posting twice.

The second version is a bit better in my opinion.

I found Mills military concerns unpersuasive.

I am sure that the U.S. military can figure out a way to withdraw from Iraq in one year without endangering our soldiers.

Currently, the U.S. is seeking to defeat the insurgency and our soldiers patrol Sunni dominated areas where the insurgency is active.

The notion that U.S. casualties are occuring because we don't have enough soldiers to defend themselves is disconnected with the realities in the field.

Perhaps I misread the plan, but I didn't see some kind of obligation for the military to keep on doing what it is doing where it is doing it with 1/365 th fewer soldiers each day.

If it were me, I would seek to defend the areas the government has under control from some kind of mass attack for the next year, so the Iraqi government can build up its own forces.

And, of course, the U.S. forces can defend themselves.

And since they aren't going to be trying to defeat the insurgency--that will be the Iraqis problem--we can begin withdrawals immediately.

I anticipate that most of the insurgents will wait. And that is the issue of the proper deadline--how long should the Iraqi government be given before they have to be ready to protect themselves.

When the U.S. military decides to actually start leaving in large numbers--just go to safe areas of the country. The Kurdish areas are very safe. And the south isn't very dangerous either.

I think it is much better to turn authority over to the elected Iraqi government rather than just pick some people. Were the elections perfect? No. Do I think they were fair because Bush said they were fair? No. But I have been paying a bit of attention. The elected government is dominated by Shia and Kurds. The Shia are the majority--a majority that had been persecuted. When added to the Kurds (another persecuted group,) the result plausibly represents the vast majority of the population.

Since the U.S. is currently fighting the Sunni insurgents, moving to an approach that simply protects the Shia and Kurds for a time and then lets them deal with it, is hardly a change that is more offensive to the Sunni.

Whether the Iraqi government creates an effective military is their concern and responsibility.

Anyway, if Mills really supports a more rapid withdrawal to give the insurgency a fighting chance of taking over (and surely putting some bigtime retribution on the Shia and Kurd "traitors," then I would suggest that such a strategy is politically impossible in the U.S.

If, on the other hand, Mills wants to U.S. to remain in Iraq until the insurgency is defeated--well, I disagree. It insn't worth the drain on the American economy, having the bulk of our forces tied up in this effort, and the lives of American soldiers.

Like most Americans, I want American troops out within a year.

Thank you (LP) for coming up with an Exit Strategy.

Currently, the leader of the free world seems to have no clue and no plan.

When I read the part about 30,000 US troops going to Afghanistan (restationed), I wanted to go outside and beat my head against a wall.

I'm not exactly a libertarian (purest). I've been getting 'kicked out' and excommunicated from the LP'ers since 1973 (contrary opinions, I guess).

In the late 1980's I was thoroughly ex'ed from LP friends for opinions about Ronald Reagan. He was some kind of hero to many libertarians. When I saw him on TV bragging about arming the Afgan rebels with stinger missiles to attack the USSR, I went on a three week rant that lead to the loss of friends libertarian, republican and democrat.
My opinion still hasn't changed, though. At that time I said (with much profanity) that the leader of the free world (R. Reagan) had 'lost his marbles'. I was expecting WW3, but I didn't expect it to go anything like this (USSR collapse).
RE: Afghanistan
How about an exit stategy for Afghanistan?
What I see in the LP version looks to me like an 'Entrance Strategy' for Afghanistan!

By the way, excommunicate me again, but Afghanistan is a 'hot button' for me.
1) we did not declare war
2) we expanded the search for Osama Bin Laden to 'taking out' al Qaeda
3) we expanded the war to 'taking out' the Taliban
4) we went on to change their form of government
5) now we want to 'keep the peace' there?

What are we doing in Afganistan?
What is our mission?

If we stay there long enough, we will lose (just like the USSR). Thanks to the US occupation, Afghan farmers get 12 times more for a crop of poppies (heroin, etc.) than for a crop of wheat.

Our occupation says 'We can run their lives better than they can'. Does the LP want to treat Afghanistan as a US territory? Are we wanting to 'tangle' with Pakistan?

30,000 troops to Afganistan? Have you lost your marbles? (with much profanity)

Occupations of foreign countries does not solve problems but ceates new enemies. We have enough.

The LP "exit plan" is prolix and mediocre .

It unilaterally extrapolates actions continuing to impose our Government's decisions upon the countries in the region .

It should suffice to clearly state , and mean , our intention to cease interfering with and fueling all conflicts in the region and to seek their input as to how to quickly and safely extricate ourselves from the mess we have so predictedly made .

I cannot endorse this standard political sop , and , in fact , it causes me to deeply question our current leadership .

J Mills: "As our military muscle is slowly diminished, those forcibly left behind (pursuant to the plan) are DELIBERATELY being exposed to greater and greater danger."

This is a fair point. It's always a tough call on what the safest form of withdrawal is. However, military people usually prefer a controlled withdrawal rather than the equivalent of a headlong retreat. They believe it reduces losses. Since they're the ones doing the withdrawing, I think they deserve to withdraw in the manner they prefer. If the military express a preference for withdrawing more quickly than one year, I'm all for it, and I seriously doubt that anyone in the LP will oppose it.

J Mills wrote: "Second, the Plan's REASON for staying is to provide a military defense of the current Iraqi government."

Actually, that's not accurate. The plan attempts to provide an INTERIM military defense while turning that defense over to the Iraqis over the course of one year.

J Mills wrote: "My objection is to the very strategy of our providing assistance to the current government. There are people in Iraq who oppose this government."

This is another fair objection. But what's the better alternative? ANY action we take from this point on, including instant withdrawal, gores someone's bull in Iraq and thus bears the same defect. I don't think we can reasonably take this into account either one way or another. We're going to be pariahs to some people in Iraq no matter what we do at this point.

Also, in reply to the many in this blog who refer to this proposal as a "small step," I disagree. This is a large step. It might not be a quick all-in-one step like some of us might prefer, but characterizing complete withdrawal from Iraq over the course of one year as a "small step" unjustly minimizes the significance of the event.

This one was good. It is something to be taken seriously and seriously promoted.

Time for the next ploicy letter/action plan: What to do to fight back against the Supreme Court Eminent Domain decision.

This is a HUGE threat to Liberty that has WAY MORE people upset than even know what the Libertarian party is.

Time to take advantage and show leadership, just like the Iraq plan.

It is interesting to see some of the posters here would rather leave the Libertarian Party (if they were really members tto begin with) and join one of the other two major parties. Would you really want to join the republican party who plans on staying in Iraq for at least 10 years and maybe for ever? Hmmm, do I want to support a plan that calls for US Troops to start returning home now and at the rate of 11,900 a month or a plan that leaves 130,000 in Iraq for 10 years, "Hello".

Do you really want to join a political party that calls itself the "Small Gov't Party" and they grow Gov't twice the size that the Democrates have done?

Libertarians, I believe almost unilaterally, understand that democracy and freedom cannot be hoisted on the backs of another country. That's why MOST of us are against the war in Iraq, among other important reasons. If that type of change is to occur in a country it has to come from within, and it will come at the pace of each individual. When enough individuals stand up, systematic change will occur, but it STILL takes time.

Yet the LP hardliners continue to throw out the, “it’s all or nothing” attitude when it comes to the often times difficult task, of trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in our OWN country. They fail to see that they’re precisely doing the same thing they so adamantly oppose. We cannot hoist freedoms on the backs of Americans who are unwilling. If more freedoms are to come to this country, it's going to come in incremental steps and successes that vindicate the idea that more freedom is desirable.

MPP, Insitute for Justice, Independent Institute, CATO, Reason, etc, ...all are fighting their own small little battles in their own way. They are respectable organizations that have earned their reputations by proposing common sense solutions to win back freedom and America's faith in freedom. Why can't the LP follow the same model?

I'm proud of this move on the LP's part to propose an exit plan for Iraq. I've finally joined the party after being a libertarian for 9 year because I'm starting to hear solutions. Keep it up LPHQ.

Welcome Aboard, Rob D.

I have a family. Why should I waste my energy on this pathetic party? Someone tell me, please, because I have nothing left to give. Why don't libertarians have FAMILIES? If you do have one, prove me wrong, please. Libertarians are so arrogant that they have no friends.

oops sorry about that last post... I am drunk.

really drunk.

I formally retract my offensive statement. My apologies.

No need to apologize. You said what you really mean. Sometime it takes a little alcohol to say what you really mean.

I just want to go on record to say that my brother is a soldier in Iraq and he's coming home by the end of August. In fact, their *all* coming home then. Not gradually, but over the period of a couple weeks, they'll be coming home in droves. The only soldiers left in Iraq will be in Iraq for the same reason we have soldiers all over Europe and Asia. Why do we need a plan again?

What we need is a plan to *not* start a war with Iran.

Murray Rothbard wrote:

"Cleaving to principle means something more than holding high and not contradicting the ultimate libertarian ideal. It also means striving to achieve that ultimate goal as rapidly as is physically possible. In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he under?cuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them?

In short, to really pursue the goal of liberty, the libertarian must desire it attained by the most effective and speediest means available. It was in this spirit that the classical liberal Leonard E. Read, advocating immediate and total abolition of price and wage controls after World War II, declared in a speech, "If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage and price controls instanta?neously, I would put my finger on it and push!"2

The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push the button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty. Of course, he knows, too, that such a magic button does not exist, but his fundamental preference colors and shapes his entire strategic perspective.

Such an "abolitionist" perspective does not mean, again, that the liber?tarian has an unrealistic assessment of how rapidly his goal will, in fact, be achieved. Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being "unrealistic" when in the 1830s he first raised the glorious standard of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His goal was the morally proper one, and his strategic realism came in the fact that he did not expect his goal to be quickly reached. We have seen in chapter 1 that Garrison himself distinguished: "Urge imme?diate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."3 Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, "Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty14.asp

When December rolls around, remember what you wrote about nearly all the soldiers coming home in August.

I would like to know how you know that they will be home in August and if they do come home in August the plan would probably fail because of the quick withdrawl. A slow withdrawl will not make to much of a difference because only a few will be leaving and we will not be a huge target when we are leaving.

This question was not addressed to me but I will answer it anyway.

When it comes to the federal income tax, social security, or medicare tax I oppose all tax "cuts" and demand the immediate and complete elimination of those taxes.

If a Republican or Democrat happens by some strange chance to lower those taxes instead of eliminating them I will NOT tell them to raise taxes of course. But I will yell and scream that those taxes need to be eliminated all together.

I also oppose any Libertarian plan or call to action that urges specific "cuts" to such taxes by certain ammounts. For the Libertarian Party to be consistant we must demand those taxes be eliminated completely.

Theft is theft. If a man holds you up in a dark alley way, demands your wallet, and steals just one dollar it is just as bad as if had stolen the entire 37 dollars inside of it.

The LP cannot support the continuation of practices that we obviously feel are unconstitutional, violate the rights of citizens, and are simply WRONG!

When it comes to Iraq the LP cannot urge just some of our troops to be brought home or that we only stay one more year. The LP can additionally not urge the government to give aid to Iraq.

Those things are truly anti-libertarian.

The only LIBERTARIAN call to action that can be made is to...

BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME FROM AROUND THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.

END ALL AID TO IRAQ AND OTHER NATIONS.

IMMEDIATELY GET OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

And those three are just a start of what Libertarians should be calling for!

Once again, the Iraq proposal by the LP is simply NOT Libertarian.

It dillutes our message, dillutes our principles, and dillutes our image.

We MUST be consistant in our principles and not pander to the Reps and Dems for temporary political gain!

I think the LP should rally behind Libertarian-Republican Ron Paul (TX congressman) and extend the deadling of troop withdrawl until October 2006, rather than July 2006. This would help build momentum in Congress. What do you guys think?

Regarding Murray Rothbard: he had an interesting idea, but one that has been an utter failure in practice. Even Murray's example proves this point. The purist abolitionists did not succeed in abolishing slavery. This was accomplished by the much more incremental Republican Party, which only advocated containment of slavery.

It is time to wake up and realize that radical politics does not work in the U.S. Unlike certain parliamentary systems, the U.S. system does not welcome radical parties of any stripe. This is due to the fact that we have district elections. To win, a party must represent the mainstream of at least some political districts.

I applaud the national office for doing real politics, offering realistic solutions with some consciousness of transition costs.

Now if we could only get the platform rewritten along these lines. Calling for default on the national debt is a hard sell. Let's realize that at least for a temporary period of time that we need a replacement for the income tax, until we deal with the trillions in debt and other obligations foisted on this country by the D's and R's.

secession is a hard sell, too, and it's in the platform!

Unnamed poster said this about the Libertarian Iraq plan:

"It dillutes our message, dillutes our principles, and dillutes our image."

You just don't get it. The Libertarian party DOESN"T HAVE an image, except maybe in its on mind!

I once told my wife why men don't pay any attention to a particularly popular and supposedly powerful talk show host. That is because in the real world where they live that person amounts to the yapping of a poodle, something you occasionally hear, but essentially doesn't amount to much. How does it feel being the poodle of American politics? No one takes you seriously!

There is nothing wrong with the Libertarian principles as a whole. But if we want our power over our own lives back, which is essentially what we are talking about, we'll have to convince a WHOLE LOT more people. To do that you will need real world approaches to try and get closer to you precious principles. Otherwise, just be happy yapping.

Dear [no name provided]:

Quote: I also oppose any Libertarian plan or call to action that urges specific "cuts" to such taxes by certain ammounts. For the Libertarian Party to be consistant we must demand those taxes be eliminated completely.

Question: Are you stating that you would not support any sort of incremental reform "in a more libertarian direction"? This would include medical marijuana legislation, tax cuts, spending cuts, and unconstitutional or non-libertarian laws are regulations.

I have a question and a follow up discussion on my blog I would like for all those who may think it apply to them.

I would like to know if the the use of the terms "hardliner", or "anarchist" or "conservative" when used to describe those in the LP who think the current pledge, platform, etc. is just fine the way it is is offensive to them when used to describe them in matters of discussion. In other words, do they find being described as such hurtful, or do they wear it like a red badge of courage?

This is a genuine attempt to better bridge the divide. If you dont like those terms, what terms would you feel better with? Please read and describe your feelings over here:

http://libertyforsale.com/?p=163

Thanks,

TW

First of all, my name is William. I apologize for not adding it to that post.

I would be opposed to the Libertarian Party calling for specific "cuts" to spending, "reductions" in taxation, "reductions" in drug laws, beauracracy, etc. My reasoning is as follows.

The LP philosophy is not murkey or unclear. We more or less know the size government we want. The only size government that can exist while abiding by the constitution (which is very important if this is a valid nation and anything more than just a tyranny) and fits into our principles is not just small but would be in the minds of many ABSOLUTELY TINY!

I am NOT opposed to general calls for "smaller government" or "less spending", or "less or fewer taxes". However, when we are making SPECIFIC PROPOSALS that DETAIL what we as Libertarians REALLY WANT we need to stick by our principles and not make concessions for temporary gain.

If there were a formal "Libertarian Plan" to move our nation forward on lets say TAXES it (the following of course is just a brief sample) should be something like this:

"The Libertarian Party calls for the immediate elimination of the federal income tax, social security tax, and medicare tax along with a dozen others. To accomplish this goal simultaneus cuts in the size, scope, and cost of our federal government must occur. There is no need for our federal government to have trillion dollar budgets. A constitutionally sized federal government should easily be able to function on the few hundred billion dollars generated from other government revenue. To ensure that all Americans on social security and medicare programs do not suddenly become poverty stricken an immediate program must begin to sell off all government assets from all unconstitutional programs and agencies. These assets will be sold to finance a one time only purchase of interest producing accounts to be given to individuals who are currently on this programs or are soon to be on them."

On drugs it should be,

"The Libertarian Party calls for the immediately legalization of marijuana and all other drugs such as cocaine, meth, LSD, etc. However, at the same time we call for much tougher laws against real crimes such as mugging, robbery, assualt, rape, murder, fraud, theft, etc. Libertarians reject the idea that individuals should be imprisoned for deciding what they can put into their own body that they have peacefully acquired. Furthermore, Libertarians oppose non-violent and law abiding individuals being thrown into prison for drug usage when monsters who severely harm others are given parole after short periods of time."

Those are just two examples.

My basic theme is this...

In GENERAL it is okay to call for smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, bringing our troops home soon.

However, when we talk specific we MUST NOT BACK DOWN on what we REALLY WANT!

We must be BOLD, DARING, and not be scared to tell people what we really want!

That is HONESTY and sticking to our PRINCIPLES.

For some reason this does not seem to be working.

Okay, this is working now.

What I was trying to get at is that it is okay to call for just less government, bring our troops back home soon, fewer taxes, and so fourth in GENERAL. But when we talk about SPECIFICS such as in PLANS of what we want done then we must be honest and bold about what we really want.

When we have the chance to tell people what we really want to have happen we must not sacrifice our principles.

I don't consider myself a hardliner or an anarchist. I believe in very, very small government. I also believe in being bold about what I want.

You see, if you truly are a Libertarian, asking for small gradual shifts in our government is completely anti-libertarian. If you call for a smaller government over a long period of time you are actually calling for more government over that period of time.

I refuse to ask for just "smaller" government when I really feel that anything other than TINY government is completely unlibertarian.

William,

What are your general feelings about medical marijuana legislation?

Steve

I am so profoundly happy to see that the national party has decided to come in out of the wilderness and actually engage American voters with a series of profile-raising issue advocacy campaigns. For those of the purist stripe, I find your arguments compelling and consistent, I also find myself living in a nation that is less free every year.

We can quote Rothbard and Rand until the last memory fades and we can clutch our cherishes principles close to our breasts as the soldiers march and the last freedom slips away, but we will have achieved nothing. Our efforts will all be for naught. To allow this outcome is irrational.

I want to win. I want the bastards who are using my beautiful Constitution as a rhetorical device (to distract us from their malfeasance and ineptitude) to lose. That will never happen if the Libertarian Party does not take a more pragmatic stance.

It seems the national leadership has come to the same conclusion and I applaud the exit strategy just as I applaud the death tax effort and the web site redesign (although there is still a ways to go) We stand at one of those rare moments in time where disgust with the major parties has many people looking for alternatives. (Last weekend, the LP booth at Seattle's Pride Festival was mobbed for two solid days!)

This nations sorely lacks a party that stands for personal and economic freedom. That may not be good enough for the most intractably rigid objectivists, but they have had their chance and made nothing of it.

With a new vision and a realistic platform, we can win. By picking high profile issues to raise our credibility and name association, we can re-establish ourselves among a new generation of young voters disillusioned with the hypocrisy and false promises of the major parties.

Libertarians have got to get over our fear of success and begin to actively and pragmatically plot our ascension into positions of real political power. The obtainment and retention of political power is the only reason for a political party to exist.

So let's argue about the details. Heck, we can go to the convention and have a good old fashion floor fight, but at the end of the day let's remember that we are all libertarians and we all want the same things. Then let's present policies and candidates to the American people that are viable and consistent with where the American electorate is.

I choose to win and I am emboldened by the fact that the national party is showing some life and so many libertarians that I talk to express this same desire and a new found willingness to compromise to achieve our broader goals.

I am so profoundly happy to see that the national party has decided to come in out of the wilderness and actually engage American voters with a series of profile-raising issue advocacy campaigns. For those of the purist stripe, I find your arguments compelling and consistent, I also find myself living in a nation that is less free every year.

We can quote Rothbard and Rand until the last memory fades and we can clutch our cherishes principles close to our breasts as the soldiers march and the last freedom slips away, but we will have achieved nothing. Our efforts will all be for naught. To allow this outcome is irrational.

I want to win. I want the bastards who are using my beautiful Constitution as a rhetorical device (to distract us from their malfeasance and ineptitude) to lose. That will never happen if the Libertarian Party does not take a more pragmatic stance.

It seems the national leadership has come to the same conclusion and I applaud the exit strategy just as I applaud the death tax effort and the web site redesign (although there is still a ways to go) We stand at one of those rare moments in time where disgust with the major parties has many people looking for alternatives. (Last weekend, the LP booth at Seattle's Pride Festival was mobbed for two solid days!)

This nations sorely lacks a party that stands for personal and economic freedom. That may not be good enough for the most intractably rigid objectivists, but they have had their chance and made nothing of it.

With a new vision and a realistic platform, we can win. By picking high profile issues to raise our credibility and name association, we can re-establish ourselves among a new generation of young voters disillusioned with the hypocrisy and false promises of the major parties.

Libertarians have got to get over our fear of success and begin to actively and pragmatically plot our ascension into positions of real political power. The obtainment and retention of political power is the only reason for a political party to exist.

So let's argue about the details. Heck, we can go to the convention and have a good old fashion floor fight, but at the end of the day let's remember that we are all libertarians and we all want the same things. Then let's present policies and candidates to the American people that are viable and consistent with where the American electorate is.

I choose to win and I am emboldened by the fact that the national party is showing some life and so many libertarians that I talk to express this same desire and a new found willingness to compromise to achieve our broader goals.

Bill Woolsey and I apparently agree that we want all American troops out within a year.

He writes: “Anyway, if Mills really supports a more rapid withdrawal to give the insurgency a fighting chance of taking over (and surely putting some bigtime retribution on the Shia and Kurd "traitors," then I would suggest that such a strategy is politically impossible in the U.S.”

I do not support a more rapid withdrawal “to give the insurgency a fighting chance to take over.” Whether the insurgency takes over, or the current government survives, or whether something else in between happens, is to me irrelevant.

I support a unilateral withdrawal – one that is driven by military considerations about how to best, and most rapidly, get our soldiers out of harm’s way. That may or may not take a year.

The LP plan does not call for a withdrawal as rapidly as is militarily possible, it specifically calls for a gradual withdrawal, and we have to ask: Why? Why NOT move as rapidly as possible militarily?

Bill Woolsey writes: “When the U.S. military decides to actually start leaving in large numbers--just go to safe areas of the country. The Kurdish areas are very safe. And the south isn't very dangerous either.”

How about moving to Akron, Ohio, or to Newark, New Jersey, which are even more safe than the Kurdish areas or Southern Iraq? In short, why not leave in large numbers when the military can do that safely?

Bill writes: “Whether the Iraqi government creates an effective military is their concern and responsibility.” Of course, we agree on this point. But, if so, why wait around for a year to leave?

Bill, I think, answers that as follows: “Since the U.S. is currently fighting the Sunni insurgents, moving to an approach that simply protects the Shia and Kurds for a time [is a good idea].”

The idea of moving slowly to protect the Shia and Kurds is central to the LP plan, which says: “Ensuring a stable, democratic Iraqi government will not be accomplished without difficulty.” And, also: “Allowing a year for the withdrawal will give the Iraqi government time to train and deploy a sufficient security force in trouble areas.”

Thus, on the one hand, Mr. Woolsey is saying security is the problem of the Iraqis; on the other, it seems that the point of staying a year is so the American military ASSURES Iraqi success.

And, my point is: What if the Iraqis are unsuccessful at the end of a year?

I really don’t particularly object to a one-year time line. (I mean, really, how much faster could we get out even at top speed? Six months? Four months?) Our differences reallly have to do with what we do in the event our one year plan for withdrawal doesn't result in a smooth transition to peace.

Bill finds concerns about a reduced force’s ability to defend itself “unpersuasive” and writes: “And, of course, the U.S. forces can defend themselves.” I concede that he may actually be right.

If we implement the LP plan and some 11 thousand troops come home every month, and the remaining troops all just enjoy a vacation in Iraq, fine. But, what happens if – as we slowly reduce our fighting force – we find the insurgents step up attacks and the level of bloodshed rises? What will be our response to commanders on the field asking for more troops (as some are asking for right now)?

Do we simply continue the draw-down according to plan in the face of those events?

It is irresponsible to simply “plan” for success. Good planning takes into account all kinds of possibilities.

The idea of a slow draw-down of forces, coupled with a gradual turn over of control to the Iraqis, all of which leads to successful transfer of power to the Iraqis in one year is fine – if it happens.

But, the key question is: What do we do if things don’t play out that way? Do we continue our withdrawal anyway, or do we go back in, beef up our forces, quell the insurgents and take over the job of providing security?

This question really has to be answered by the proponents of the LP plan. This question is NOT answered by the plan.

If Mr. Woolsey is arguing for gradual withdrawal IRRESPECTIVE of what consequences that has in Iraq, well then we really don’t have any substantial differences because a year is certainly an acceptable timeline.

However, my reading of the plan, Bill Woolsey’s comments in defense of the plan, and the stated reasons for a “gradual,” rather than expedited withdrawal, lead me to believe the unstated answer is that if, after a few months of gradual withdrawal, things start going badly for Americans or for the Iraqi government, then the withdrawal will halt, and we go back in – in force.

That’s what really troubles me about this so-called “exit” strategy.

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY TO THE *TRUE* PATRIOTS HERE ON THIS WEBSITE!!! GOD BLESS US.

William,

I would suggest that those intersted in moving in a more libertarian direction are not, in fact, non-libertarian. They are simply non-Rothbardian libertarians. Much like most philosphial viewpoints there are many different subsets of philosophies that all fall under the term "libertarian". Often that classifacation seems to fall to two primary sects, moral libertarians and practical libertarians, from what I have seen as the most generally used terms.

It seems to me that to your viewpoiut if any member of the Libertarian Party is not a moral libertarian, then they are not any kind of libertarian at all. I would simply refute that statment as being too narrow. That we can, in fact, be , small l, libertarians even if we do not agree with your (or Rothbards' for that matter) particular view of lbertarianism.

I would also suggest that the Libertarian Party is a political entity by it's very nature, and as such may very well be a better place for "practical libertarians", if you will. So just as you refute our place as , big L, Libertarianas I would refute in turn that ALL of us have our place as, big L, Libertarians. If you feel that the LP is simply too inclusive of other viewpoints contrary to your own, then perhaps you are correct that the LP is NOT the party you thought it was.

I just think that if the LP sticks to a strictly moral libertarian view that it stands to be nothing more than social philosophy club with absolutely not relevance or pull in the American political arena. If that is what you are looking for, then I think that's great! But I also think the Libertarian Party is probably not the best venue to use for that purpose, IMHO. Obviously that doesn;t mean I would ever intend to stop you from using it for that purpose, but all I can say is that so far your arguments simply don't persuade me that a more practical viewpoint would be more productive for the LP in the current political environment.

J Mills wrote: "However, my reading of the plan, Bill Woolsey's comments in defense of the plan, and the stated reasons for a 'gradual,' rather than expedited withdrawal, lead me to believe the unstated answer is that if, after a few months of gradual withdrawal, things start going badly for Americans or for the Iraqi government, then the withdrawal will halt, and we go back in ? in force."

I understand your fear, but is it truly grounded in reality? Sure, anything is possible, but if we allow our fears to stop us from taking constructive action in the right direction in large steps (I refute those who claim this exit proposal is a small step. It's not.) then our fears will prevent us from taking ANY steps. And that would be a tragedy.

William wrote: "However, when we talk specific we MUST NOT BACK DOWN on what we REALLY WANT!"

Well, I think we can all agree that's been missing. The LNC came up with their proposal in great detail. If you're going to claim that we need to have a proposal that is more consistent with LP philosophy (in your opinion), then I think it behooves you and all others in your corner to come out with a similar, alternate proposal.

It's easy to criticize the work of others. It's much harder to do the work itself. If you guys can band together and come up with a proposal that matches the thoughtfulness and acuity of the LNC proposal, but which you believe is more consistent with Libertarian principles, I think you'll gain respect from the more moderate and less hot-headed elements in the party for your position.

But if you simply snipe at what the LNC has done, you won't get anywhere.

I recently took the smallest political quiz test, and to my surprise I rated as libertarian. I say suprise because I consider myself a centrist. Despite this I have my reservations about your philosophy and I shall explain further.

I fundamentally believe that all political ideologies exist as simplifications of our understanding of human nature. For example, socialists and communists believe that all humans are fundamentally good, therefore you can take their property and redistribute because we all want to do what's best for the collective. Now, while there is a tiny kernel of truth to this, it is very obvious that this is a drastic over-simplification of humanity. But what I have always found ironic, is that free-market capitalist ideologues have never seen the same error in their understanding of humanity.

I am very certain that Austrian economics is without doubt the most efficient allocation of limited resources for a society. But the problem with this is that it doesn't take into consideraiton the variety of human concerns, (culture, religion, patriotism). Human society cannot be reduced to economics. People are pretty conservative, and free-markets are chaotic and changing. Hence, we have regulation of markets, to curtail the change that accompanies absolute free-market capitalism. Just like socialism, free-market capitalism in ideal doesnt acknowledge all of the truth of human relations. The argument is to what degree we should regulate, not regulation yes or no, (though less regualtion is without doubt much better).

Now, pertaining to Iraq. While I am no supporter of this war, one has to acknowledge that it can be read as an act of defence. The question of foreign interventionism is always one of whether it is effective defence policy or not. Iraq is not effective policy, (I actually believe it was ideologically motivated, like many people here I am sure). But to rule out all interventionism is simply extremist and only a tiny percentage of Americans would agree.

The politics we have today, (medium to high taxation, oscillating welfare state, fluctuating rights to privacy, etc) are a perfect reflection of where we, as a society, are now. It may be abhorrent to many, paradise to some or whatever, but this is what America is right now. Societies do change, just very slowly. Hence all of the additions to the constitution. Our world changed and so did our laws and governmental politics. A return to the tiny government advocated by your membership totally ignores the fact that conservatives and liberals and centrists all want to co-opt governmental power to protect those things we value. And that is the debate that happens day-in and day-out in our nations politics. Now government is trying to protect the things we hold dear as humans, be they morals for conservatives, social welfare for liberals or pragmatism for centrists. If one really does believe that governmental power is evil, I would like to ask when in human history has a government ever surrendered such power, as the Federal government has, unilaterally?

Please feel free to respond. While I remain skeptical of such ideologogy, I am always open to hearing new arguments. Thanks.

Hi Brandon,

First of all, thank you for checking out our party. I appreciate your willingness to consider what we have to offer, given your reservations.

I'd like to address some of your points one at a time, if I may:

"...to my surprise I rated as libertarian. I say suprise because I consider myself a centrist...."

My guess is that you are a centrist-leaning libertarian, and that's fine. You may find that you disagree with us on some issues. That's fine too. But let me ask you...do you disagree with the Republicans or Democrats on any issues? If so, does that prevent you from voting for them? If not, I should think you would be willing to apply the same reasoning to Libertarian candidates. We don't ask that you agree with us totally. We only ask that if you agree with us at least 70% or so that you support our candidates.

"...socialists and communists believe that all humans are fundamentally good..."

I disagree. Socialists and communists believe that humans cannot fundamentally be trusted to do good, that given their nature humans will unwittingly tend toward evil. That's why they advocate so much state intervention. Libertarians believe that individual rights are supreme, even above collective interests. That's why we advocate smaller government as it is literally defined under the U.S. Constitution. We believe that smaller government is nearly always better than larger government and that our country's experience and history bears out this observation.

"...therefore you can take their property and redistribute because we all want to do what's best for the collective..."

The greatest difficulty with this logic is that the government will almost never do what you want or expect them to do, and the results will nearly always be the diametric opposite of what you originally intended. Even if you propose some great new program, it is a 99% guarantee that by the time the government is done with it, the positive results you sought will have disappeared and been replaced by the worst results possible. As examples:

1. Welfare has led to greater poverty.
2. Social Security has led to less personal savings toward individual retirement.
3. Medicare has driven the cost of health care through the roof and made it nearly impossible for the elderly to afford good medical care.
4. The American government's foreign intervention policies generally lead to greater world instability and war.
5. The War on Drugs has led to skyrocketing drug usage.
6. Pro-labor laws have led to the demise of labor unions.
7. The War on Terror has made Americans more of a target of terrorism, not less.
8. Government schools dumb down students, rather than making them smarter and better educated.
9. Eminent domain laws and their recently expanded interpretation in favor of private developers have made private property less secure, not more secure.
10. Free speech zones instituted at the 2004 major party conventions undermined and reduced free speech, rather than encouraging it.

The list goes on and on and is nearly endless. Nearly every "good government" program ends up producing results that are diametrically the opposite of what was originally intended.

"Now, pertaining to Iraq. While I am no supporter of this war, one has to acknowledge that it can be read as an act of defence."

Defense against whom? The War in Iraq was mainly justified by the Bush administration on the premise that our country was in imminent danger of being attacked with Saddam's WMDs. It turned out that there were no WMDs, and it has also turned out that the Bush administration were deliberately manipulating the facts to present a case that we now know they knew to be false at the time they were making it.

I reject the idea that we should be attacking despots justified by the War on Terror as a matter of self-defense. If we were to apply that logic consistently across the board to all countries that fall into that category, we would be at war with most of the world in a very short period of time.

"I would like to ask when in human history has a government ever surrendered such power, as the Federal government has, unilaterally?"

Only via revolution. And that, of course, is why our party is so important. I want to see change, but I'd rather not see it happen via revolution.

Now, I have a question for you. Do you support the whole Constitution, or just pieces of it like the Supreme Court and like most government officials do? Because to my mind, if one says he supports the whole Constitution as written, he supports small, limited government.

One more comment. You wrote, "A return to the tiny government advocated by your membership totally ignores the fact that conservatives and liberals and centrists all want to co-opt governmental power to protect those things we value. And that is the debate that happens day-in and day-out in our nations politics. Now government is trying to protect the things we hold dear as humans, be they morals for conservatives, social welfare for liberals or pragmatism for centrists."

Actually, there's another way to look at the same electorate. Survey after survey shows that the vast majority of Americans believes that government is too big. Surely there's a disconnect between what you're saying and this basic fact, because if what you're saying is true, then a majority of Americans should be supporting larger government, or at least government that is the same size. But they're not.

Since today is July 4th, Independence Day, I'd like to remind everyone what this day is all about.

-------

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ?Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Said Libertarian TV at July 4, 2005 10:12 AM

If you're going to claim that we need to have a proposal that is more consistent with LP philosophy (in your opinion), then I think it behooves you and all others in your corner to come out with a similar, alternate proposal.

TerryResponds:

The 'counter' proposal is already there, in the LIBERTARIAN Party platform!

The LIBERTARIAN Party damages its credibility by promoting 'plans' that contradict its own avowed positions. The so-called 'exit plan' calls for 're-deployment' of 30,000 US troops from Iraq to invade/occuppy other middle east countries. Thus, this new 'plan' repudiates the LP's long held
non-intervention 'principle'
that, even now, continues to be advocated in the party's platform:

"We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad,
including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America
and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional
military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We
call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf
of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military
intervention"
at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#milipoli

AND...

The 'plan' which was advertised prematurely to the public as 'LIBERTARIAN' also would have the USA govt force those of us who protested these interventions actually pay for alleged 're-build' damages via Iraq govt let contracts (Haliburton?)

LP Platform on Foreign Aid:

The Issue: The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of influencing
the policy of other sovereign nations under the guise of aiding needy people in
those nations. This forces American taxpayers to subsidize governments and
policies of which they may not approve.

The Principle: Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into funding a
foreign nation or group.

Solutions: All foreign aid should be voluntarily funded by individuals or
private organizations.

Transitional Action: Eliminate all tax-supported military, economic, technical
and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations. Abolish
government underwriting of arms sales. Abolish all federal agencies that make
American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the Export-Import
Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. End the participation of the U.S.
government in international commodity circles that restrict production, limit
technological innovation and raise prices. Repeal all prohibitions on
individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to any foreign
country or organization, unless such provision constitutes a direct threat to
the people of the United States.

at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#preswarp

Hypocrisy hurts us!

-Terry Liberty Parker
'AustinLibertyInterNet' Radio/TV
at www.PeerCast.org

Libertarian TV writes: "I understand your fear, but is it truly grounded in reality? Sure, anything is possible, but if we allow our fears to stop us from taking constructive action in the right direction in large steps (I refute those who claim this exit proposal is a small step. It's not.) then our fears will prevent us from taking ANY steps. And that would be a tragedy."

This is not a question of "fear," but of planning.

The LP "exit strategy" of gradual withdrawal is PREMISED implicitly, if not explicitly, on the idea that it will allow the current Iraqi government to cement its hold on Iraq. The "exit strategy" is PREMISED implicitly, if not explicitly, on training and equipping a large military/police force for the Iraqis.

It seems to be that GOAL which drives the idea of a gradual withdrawal.

Absent that GOAL, no other reason is advanced to justify a gradual, rather than expeditious, withdrawal.

Thus, the essential dispute between those who support and those who oppose the plan is whether the GOAL of developing an effective Iraqi military machine OUGHT TO drive our strategy.

In short, opponents of the plan argue that we should not stay around to accomplish the GOAL of building an Iraqi military. (With training, equipping and with foreign aid.)

Proponents of the plan assert that "compromise" or "pragmatics" drives the need for a gradual withdrawal.

If so, then (I guess) we stick to the one-year timetable even if that results in just abandoning the Iraqi government a year from now.

Still, the plan does not SAY that.

Bill Woolsey, who is an articulate and intelligent proponent of the plan (along with others) has never actually SAID we should stick with the plan even it it means leaving an Iraqi government crumbling or falling to the insurgent Sunnis.

I believe the "exit strategy" does not say: "We stand down in incriments of 11,500 a month regardless of what consequences that has in Iraq," because such a plan would be seen as OBVIOUSLY inferior to a plan calling for prompt, immediate, and unilateral withdrawal.

Instead, our "plan" panders to those who really want the U.S. to nation-build by promising to stick around for at least a year, all the while trying to salve those who want to get out by promising to be out in a year.

In that regard, it will please neither side. It seriously jeopardizes the LP alliance with the anti-war groups in America.

Worse, it appears to care nothing for the dwindling numbers of troops left behind because it appears to leave them in harm's way without a real committment to any mission, or reason for leaving them in the line of fire.

A "real world," practical, thoughtful and useful plan recognizes that either defeating the insurgency and defending the elected Iraqi government is worthwhile and must be accomplished regardless of how long it takes and how expensive it is . . . or, that this is not our proper mission - in which case, we should just leave as promptly as possible.

If - by calling this "politically pragmatic" and "doable" - we merely mean it constitutes politics as played by the Ds and Rs; in short, pandering to both sides without really delivering to either, well then I guess it is "realistic."

But, engaging in that kind of behavior will do nothing (my estimation) to attact us to all the Americans who aren't willing to throw in with the Rs and Ds. And, therefore, will do nothing to actually build the party or advance our image as thoughtful, practical politicians.

J. Mills

Libertarian TV writes: "It's easy to criticize the work of others. It's much harder to do the work itself. If you guys can band together and come up with a proposal that matches the thoughtfulness and acuity of the LNC proposal, but which you believe is more consistent with Libertarian principles, I think you'll gain respect from the more moderate and less hot-headed elements in the party for your position."

This, of course, is right on. As a long-time activist, and former state chair who remains very, very active in the party, I agree whole-heartedly.

The alternative plan I propose is that we use all the background analysis contained in the current "exit strategy" paper, then substitute:

In place of the one-year phased withdrawal, "withdrawal as fast as is militarily practical keeping in mind that safety of our troops is the paramount objective."

In place of commentary about training, and equipping the Iraqi military, we substitute "without regard to whether the current crop of Iraqi politicians succeeds or fails to cement its hold on Iraq."

We strike the language about placing troops in neighboring countries, like Afghanistan.

We strike entirely any provisions calling for a foreign aid program to the current government.

Then we wrap up with something like "Americans look forward to the Iraqis finding their own method of self-governance now that Saddam is gone, and remain willing to work peacefully with and to trade aggressively with all Iraqis interested in working to bring about a more peaceful world. Moreover, America remains committed to hunting down anyone, anywhere, who commits crimes in America."

There you have it - the alternative "exit strategy" I think we should try selling that to the American public instead of what is currently posted by the LP.

J. Mills

Since today is July 4th, I thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone what today is all about.

-----

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing inv