test

845 signatures of support (as of the morning of June 5th)! I'm pleased to see so much support of the plan. It won't be long before we have our 1,000th signed supporter. Great work, LP!

Garfield-
I think you are feeding into to some libreal re-write of history. I throw two challanges at you. First show me one quote frm our founding fathers concerned about the growing power of someone recieving money from a 100% voulantary caplastic system. Second show me one company that was able to get more then 50% of a market share without government handout or government charter. The anti-trust laws were once again a reaction from a problem created by government. The so called rokerfellows were companies that were giving Federal charter or government grants. To no suprise these were the same companies that were used as the reason for the anti-trust laws. Before the government got involved we saw no monoply. The problem is the government should only be makin anti-fraud laws and protecting property rights not giving coperate welfare. Then once again like we had before the government created rockafellers, monplies would be a thing of the past.

A few years ago, the LP launched a web site to combat Congress' "Know Your Customer" banking law. In a matter of a few days, 280,000 people signed up and sent emails to Congress.

Those people were driven out of the party and replaced by people who get excited if they can get 1,000 people (5% of our membership) to support their ill-conceived plan.

What a wonderful sign of progress!

Terry Liberty Parker made a very interesting charge regarding this exit strategy on an earlier page of this blog. He claimed that it was not released by the LNC, but was put together instead by Joe S. and some staffers.

I contacted former National Chair Jim Lark about this matter. Mr. Lark is my region's representative on the LNC. I won't reveal everything he wrote back, because I believe some of it was written in confidence. However, here are the relevant parts that he wrote that I think it is reasonable to share with the public.

----------------------

"I have seen the 'exit strategy' to which you refer. I did not know anything about its preparation, nor did I see it prior to its release. Shortly after reading it, I contacted Michael Dixon to ask several questions about the strategy; specifically, I asked:

(a) Who was involved in preparing the document?
(b) Was a draft of the document provided to any LNC members? If so, who?
(c) Was anyone on the LNC involved in approving the document?

"I asked the questions because the strategy is a major pronouncement of the Libertarian Party about a very important public policy issue. This strategy has the appearance of being an ex cathedra statement, and thus will be seen as 'the' Libertarian Party position. I believe major statements about important public policy issues should be reviewed and approved in some manner by the LNC. I indicated that I was uncomfortable with allowing staff to issue important statements about LP positions on controversial issues without some type of LNC review. I also noted to Mr. Dixon that while I believe there are legitimate questions as to whether certain aspects of the proposed strategy are in conflict with the LP platform, I was not attempting to criticize either the proposal or the staff members who prepared the document.

"In his response, Mr. Dixon indicated that the strategy was put together by members of the staff,...and that it was supposedly reviewed by people with some type of military/strategic expertise (he didn't name these purported experts). He said that he was supposed to get a look at the strategy before it was released, and that this was not done. I assume that he means the strategy was not sent to him prior to its distribution. I also assume that no one on the LNC saw the strategy prior to its release, although I don't know this for certain. Mr. Dixon agreed with me that there should be some type of LNC review prior to distribution of such important statements. I shall endeavor to ensure that such reviews take place in the future."

------------

I must say that I am very unhappy with this state of affairs. Since the exit strategy was posted on LNC letterhead, I (like most people) concluded that it was a pronouncement by the LNC itself. Apparently, there is strong reason to believe it was not.

I must therefore withdraw my support for the exit strategy. I still believe that a similar strategy should be issued by the LNC, perhaps addressing some of the concerns raised by others in this blog. However, I cannot continue to support what amounts to Joe Seehusen authorizing staffers to write policy papers without first consulting with the LNC. As LP Executive Director, it is Mr. Seehusen's duty to carry out LNC policy, not to formulate it and distribute it without their knowledge. It is responsibility to manage what the staff at headquarters are doing. If this is an example of Mr. Seehusen's management, I think the LNC should rethink its recent decision to renew his contract.

GregD,

Mind sharing your info so we can all know about this? When was a few years ago, and what was the site called? I'd like to go to the Wayback machine and find it.

To get 280,000 signatures in a few days is unheard of LP circles.

GregD, Tim, here's some information about the anti-"Know Your Customer" campaign:

"More than 48,000 people have logged onto the Libertarian Party's "retooled" DefendYourPrivacy.com website in its first month, and signed an electronic petition to permanently kill the Know Your Customer regulation, LP National Director Steve Dasbach reported."

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9906-kyc.html

48,000 in one month, compared to 280,000 in a few days, is quite a difference.

It would be great to get 40,000 people showing their approval to this Iraq plan in one month's time.

Go to Google, type in:
"Know Your Customer" Libertarian

See what turns up.

GregD, Tim: I found some info about the anti-"Know Your Customer" campaign here:

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9906-kyc.html

From the site: "More than 48,000 people have logged onto the Libertarian Party's 'retooled' DefendYourPrivacy.com website in its first month, and signed an electronic petition to permanently kill the Know Your Customer regulation, LP National Director Steve Dasbach reported."

48,000 in a month and 280,000 in a few days aren't quite the same thing.

It would be a great achievement to get 25,000 people signing their support to the Iraq plan. We should be emailing the links to our friends and family!

I, too, am concerned that this is promenently posted, and appears to be a major policy statement, all without any approval from the LNC (apparently).

It is subject to serious objections (I think) which have been posted by myself and others.

Maybe the best learing experience is to leave this sort of thing to our candidates, rather than to the National Party, but I'm not sure about that if there can be concensus among the party officials.

With respect to some arguments in tending to justify aspects of the plan which seem contradictory to other libertarian statements of principal, I offer these responses:

As is often the case in these kinds of complex issues, no one seems to disagree as to the goals (mostly), but only on the correct strategy for achieving goals.

I agree with Stephen Gordon that America has some responsiblity for reconstruction, having gone in (against all our wishes) and wreaked havoc.

This, however, does not imply some foreign aid. In that respect, the authors of the plan have fallen victim to what we generally criticize other politicians for - the notion that if something “has” to be done, the Government has to do it. This is false.

Either we endorse some massive federal foreign aid/reparations scheme, or we allow America to step up in the way it responded to the recent Tidal Wave disaster in Indonesia. Seems to me the former a) punishes taxpayers, many of whom are struggling just to get kids through school, and b) is almost certain to engender the kind of abuse we saw in the “oil for food” scam.

The non-governmental plan on the other hand, provided billions in real aid and - to my knowledge - has never been accused of large scale corruption.

I agree with many having military experience that a timeframe is required. The question is whether the military commanders set that time frame or politicians impose one. Seems to me - again based on our core belief that politicians should butt out of things they know nothing about - the military should set a time frame based on criteria politicians tell them to impliment.

Then, the question is whether the criteria for departure is: a) “get out as quickly as possible keeping paramount the safety of our troops,” or b) “stick around to protect the Iraqi government until you can leave and they are ready to assume their own defense.”

As to criteria b): There is a kind of irony in the assertions that the current government is democratically elected, has the support of the majority of Iraqi people, is being set upon by a minority of crazys, and also will crumble and disintigrate if we leave.

Aside from that irony, the theory of stay and defend the Iraqis impliedly asserts that the current government there SHOULD survive, and that we should hand over to them the means of survival, including an effective and efficient fighting machine capable of “putting down” its enemies.

Our history of choosing wisely who to back militarily in the Middle East does not suggest we should do that. American politicians and American policy should not dictate who wins control of Iraq.

When Bill Woosley says the problem is that our assistance will allow the Iraqis to focus on “secondary” problems, well, that’s where we disagree. The problem (my opinion) is that it assumes WE decide who wins and loses control of Iraq.

If France decided it was going to dictate (with its military) that someone or some group got to run America, how would we respond? Why expect the Iraqis to be different?

It may be that we leave expeditiously and the current government is replaced - even by old Ba’athists. So what? Why is it our job to assure that does not happen?

American polticians should not dictate any timeline, the military commanders should do that. American politicians should not dictate who controls Iraq, Iraqis should do that.

If we can agree on these principles, then doesn’t the existing plan fail to further any of these? Indeed, isn’t it in conflict with these principles?

J. Mills

Walt,

I note with interest that it has been considered normal practice for major events for policy NOT to be overseen by the LNC itself. I have to agree that it should have been seen by the Chair first, but there's no way the LNC should be able to review every single press release and new action item beforehand. We would never get anything done.

I dont recall anything ever reported as having to be run by the LNC in past inititives that were larger than normal. I'm curious to know why this one is being held to a different standard of conduct.

My concern with the Exit Strategy is that becuase National is SO BROKE, they cant publicize the plan well enough to where it would have the greatest support and impact - NON-LIBERTARIANS. National appears to be running on fumes at the moment.

There's just not enough money to run ads in the MSM to get more people aware of it.

Lib TV writes: "I believe that copyright and patent laws should be rewritten to reflect this simple fact regarding their lack of real scarcity... They should not be transferrable to anyone else, including a corporation. Further, they should not confer the ability to limit who gets to use the idea to just one corporation or person"

Libertarian TV

Wow, you guys are pretty amazing. If you are talking about amending copyright law as property law, my God, I am definitely into new territory here.

I will be honest and say I have no response to that! I always considered copyright law to be vital as it incentivises innovation, and rewards a company for inventing products. But if you are throwing this at me, well shit! I have to get back to you on that one. You got me! But first impression is, that's a damn good idea. A new idea to me, but good.

Umm, To Matt et al: let me just say this. I am not a conservative, I am a 'centrist' whom would get on more with liberals than conservatives, if you get what I mean. When I argue for our democracy, it is because I think that it is an accurate reflection of humanity, and as such has a 'legitimacy' that is quite astounding. As I said before, humans are bizarre creatures and politics is the most accurate demonstration of that truth. That's why I say most people want to control other people in some way, its endemic to us as humans.

The democracy we have perfectly reflects the tendencies in our country, and in humanity. From collectivism to individualism. From authoritarianism to libertarianism. And that is your real challenge! While everyone wants to talk libertarian (ie. small government, personal freedom), the vast majority of Americans dont want to give up on their policital protectionism and related coercive power. In this sense our current democracy IS legitimized by its constituents. The people have decreed that this is 'constitutional' if you will allow my extrapolation. It is exactly what they want.

I believe, if you are talking about such a radical proposal, that you are facing a mighty, mighty uphill task, because overall people want; massive welfare state, small or no welfare state, authoritarian government, libertarian government, market regulation, no market regulation, etc...

Essentially you are arguing for something that the people really dont want, in their heart of hearts. They like the status quo.

Please feel free to respond.

PS. Thanks for the very sensible response. You dont often get such informed opinions on blogs.

J. Mills: In response to your second point, I'm led to believe the "one year" timeline wasn't just a random number picked, but probably the result of discussing the plan with some people with a military background. You're right that people with no knowledge of our military should be very careful setting military policy, but I'm sure this was taken very seriously and studied by the writers.

As for your point about voluntary contributions vs. mandatory tax for foreign aid, I'd be all for your idea, except I'm not sure how many Americans would willingly give to help rebuild Iraq. As you said earlier, we have a "responsibility for reconstruction", and we probably need to accept there are consequences to our actions (even if many of us never supported going into Iraq in the first place). I see it as a penalty, in a way, for having elected the officials who we elected.

The tsunami damage was something Americans could've just sat back and ignored, but many of us willingly gave to aid the places affected. In the case of Iraq, I think we have a little more responsibility for what has occured. That's just my opinion, though, and it probably contradicts something in the LP platform. By the way, I think we also have an obligation to pay off our national debt, for similar reasons, but this also runs contrary to the platform.

Libertarian TV,
It is people like you who want to keep the LP as an Old Man's Philosophy Club. The exit strategy is a rational and realistic step in a libertarian direction. Just take it for what its worth and do not remain stuck in the "old man's club" syndrome.

I'm not sure what past practice is as to LNC oversight, but when we post something front-and-center on the National web-site that purports to present LP policy on a major issue confronting the nation, and which has deliberate "compromises" with the platform, one would hope that sort of thing is "cleared."

From the very outset, the War in Iraq has been divisive. There was the whole initial discussion about whether we were simply engaged in "self-defense," or whether this was an offensive engagement, contrary to the non-aggression principle. So, the idea of a comprehensive national plan should at least raise red flags.

As can be seen from posts on the LP blog, this policy itself is quite divisive. Posting divisive things doesn't help build the party. (I note, for example, some who have said on the blog that they intend to quit the LP because of objections by "purists" to the proposal.)

Accordingly, this is (I think) different from a press release pointing out pork-barrel spending in the national budget.

Just a thought for future guidance (since I know the line between routine press release and major policy pronouncement may be a little vague), the following sorts of things should probably be cleared with the LNC:

1. A "compromise" abortion policy paper calling on Northern States to allow free and unrestricted abortion, in exchange for allowing Southern States to outlaw the practice.

2. A "compromise" drug paper calling for longer jail sentences on offenses for dealing drugs EXCEPT medical marijuana, in exchange for eliminating laws against marijuana possession by prescription.

3. A "compromise" position on immigration calling for a complete shutdown of immigration from Mexico, in exchange for an "open borders" policy as to Canada.

4. A "compromise" plan for taxes calling for elimination of the estate tax, coupled with a commensurate increase in income taxes.

There are probably many others we can imagine. In short, it is probably wise to let our candidates "compromise" or take positions that are more "real world" or more "workable," leaving to the National Party the job of exploring where concensus lies, resolving disputes over announced policy via LNC action, or even better by convention action; and focusing National's attention and resources on the job of party organizing.

Again, I want to say that the proponents of this plan have done yeoman work, and I recognize that it is always easier to criticize rather than actually go out and do something. I reject any call for a "purge," and really am not interested in blaming anyone for anything. I just think next time, we need to do better, and as to this effort, maybe it should be quietly withdrawn from the National Website. (Of course, many candidates might find it useful.)

J. Mills

Actually, Walt has a very valid point: the policy should have been seen by the Chair of the Party first before release. The LNC, no. The Chair, Yes.

If the LNC has to vote on every single inititive before it appears in public to check for philosophical purity, then God save us all. That will end the ability of LPHQ to respond or do anything.

Walt: I would rather maintain my support for the plan and make known my disapproval ( if this is the case ) that it was not run by the Chair beforehand. The Plan is still the Plan. The fact that it may have not been guided through proper channels is another issue, one of proper management, not one of the right direction to go to broaden the LP base of support.

I fully support the plan, but it should have gone through the Chair for review beforehand. That I do agree with. Make sure that future policy statements do that, and move on.

The members of the LNC itself did not vote on this plan.

However; the name of the LP is also the "Libertarian National Committee." When you go to the national office in DC the sign on the door reads "Libertarian National Committee" -- so although the question of should the LNC or Chair, etc, have reviewed the document remains but I do not believe using the term "Libertarian National Committee" was done to indicate that the members of the LNC approved the document.

I think the point, Tim, is that there must be review. I think it's up to the LNC to decide whether full LNC approval is required or simply chair approval. That's their call.

Either way, we're in agreement that policy must be reviewed by proper authorities before it is released.

I'd also like to know what the heck Joe Seehusen was thinking when he took it upon himself to authorize this little venture.

Mark,

I am not stuck in any "old man's club." My complaint is legitimate and has nothing to do with "old guard" or "new guard." In fact, it should be noted that Mr. Seehusen is not representative of the "old guard," which has long since been removed from LPHQ.

If we were to take your opinion as the basis for LP policy, then any staffer, whether they be a secretary, a receptionist, or even a cleaning person can take it upon himself to issue policy at any time on behalf of the party. All they have to be is on the staff. That's the logical conclusion of your argument.

He probably thought he was doing the right thing as the Ed. Walt. Maybe bad judgement on his part, maybe not. Right now all I know about it comes from a ADMITTED FOE of the policy, who seeks to undermine it's legitimacy by not attacking the plan, but attacking the people who put it forth. Smells like sour grapes to me.

Full review of stuff before the LNC would paralyze HQ. Nothing would ever get done and the ability of the ED to run the office would be severely undercut. I am NOT in favor of full review. The process is ponderous enough as it is. The happy compromise seems to be to be a review of major inits by the Chair I think. Then the LNC can act as they wish as usual at normal LNC meetings to address concerns or desire other action, etc.

All told, I'll wait until I know all the actual facts before I make any final judgements, but I think review of things like this by the Chair (which I also assumed had been done on some level, having no info to tell me otherwise) is best for the future.

I've posted my thoughts on this development on the blog.

http://libertyforsale.com/?p=167

Firstly, I would like to thank my former state chair and US Senate candidate, J. Mills, for all of his thoughtful comments.

Secondly, for the record, Terry Parker was quoting me pointing out that this "exit strategy" was not authorized by the LNC or the national officers. This appears to be confirmed by the quote attributed to my friend Jim Lark.

I made the original statement after reviewing the draft minutes of the last LNC meeting and the report of the LNC executive committee meeting held afterwards, neither of which made any mention of this.

Greg Clark
2006 Platform Committee member
LP of Washington state

Tim,

I don't care whether or not it's sour grapes from an admitted foe. I care whether or not the original proposal is coming from the legitimate, elected leadership of the party. Joe S. was not elected by the membership, and there is reason to suspect that he didn't care enough whether even the party chair (let alone the LNC) approved the message before he authorized its release on LNC letterhead. This fact undermines the policy statement and removes legitimacy from it.

It also raises unanswered questions about Mr. Seehusen's motivations and intentions in the matter. Perhaps it was an innocent mistake, but I want to hear it from Mr. Seehusen's lips if it was. I also want to know what he's going to do about it to fix it in the present and to prevent something similar from happening again in the future.

We need all policy statements from the LP to have legitimacy. This means unified leadership. Messages from divided leadership only serve to further divide.

I appreciate that you want this exit strategy proposal to fly. I already indicated that I was willing to support it until I found out that it wasn't from our elected leadership. Surely, we're close enough on this issue that you'd be willing to insist that this very important defect be changed. It's not like this is something that can't be fixed! Once it's fixed and the policy is established as coming from the LNC (or from the chair if the LNC establishes policy that the chair can make such a determination), I'll be happy to reinstate my support for the plan.

Mr. Clark,

I think the real question here is not whether this was reviewed by the LNC. Rather I thnk the real question is was it required that this kind of "web content/press release/policy statement/whatever you want to call it" be required to have full LNC Committee approval? Is there a policy requiring that?

If not then who did or did not see it is rather irrelavent. It only becomes relavent to see about determining if LNC policy should require such oversite and, if so, to what extent.

Lenny,

I can hardly believe what I read. Are you saying that it isn't relevant whether or not LP policy comes from elected party authority? If so, what's the point of having elected officers?

Walt: Read my LIPS dude. :D

Not having the Chair review the policy before posting it on the website was a mistake for sure, and I hope the LNC will address the issue at the next meeting. I am also interested to see if the ED has ever had to do this before or if there is even any formal advisory at all. If there is not, then he cant really be blamed for not following a policy that does not currently exist yet, can he?

Does anyone know if there are any guidelines on this issue at all, as of right now? If not, then I guess beating him up over this is a bit raw. Lets fix the problem and move on - YES, stuff like this SHOULD be run by the Chair of the party first. On that we agree. The issue is: is there any rules in place regarding this, and if not, how can you crucify the man for not following the rules?

I can separate my support for the plan with non support for the way it came about. There's nothing inconsistent with that approach.

The Zero Dues Proposal is about 1000X more important to the future of the LP than this. I hope everyone understands that and acts accordingly.

Said by: Timothy West at July 5, 2005 06:31 PM

Does anyone know if there are any guidelines on this issue at all, as of right now?

TerryResponds:

To make a public statement that is a MAJOR change
of long standing policy set by MEMEBERS in convention and expressed in LP Party Platform planks, SHOULD need more than perfunctory review by a few officials; else why do we bother to have national conventions?

Is LP policy set by convened members or by apparently semi-independent elites?

-Terry Liberty Parker
VoiceCall (512)462-1776

1. While major LP policy is set by convened members
after due process (debate?) the LP HQ staff has issued
a PUBLIC LP Statement that contradicts member set policy
without even review by the LNC or LP Chair
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38896

2. the 'plan' calls for 're-deployment' of
30,000 Iraq based US troops to 'other'
middle east countries for 'the War on Terror'
in violation of the National LP member voted
platform plank on military intervention.
at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#milipoli

3. the 'plan' calls for US govt to force taxpayers,
even war protesters, to pay for Irag govt let 're-build'
contracts (Haliburton style?) in violation of the LP
platform plank on 'Foreign Aid'
at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

-Terry Liberty Parker
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
VoiceCall 462.1776

1. While major LP policy is set by convened members
after due process (debate?) the LP HQ staff has issued
a PUBLIC LP Statement that contradicts member set policy
without even review by the LNC or LP Chair
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38896

2. the 'plan' calls for 're-deployment' of
30,000 Iraq based US troops to 'other'
middle east countries for 'the War on Terror'
in violation of the National LP member voted
platform plank on military intervention.
at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#milipoli

3. the 'plan' calls for US govt to force taxpayers,
even war protesters, to pay for Irag govt let 're-build'
contracts (Haliburton style?) in violation of the LP
platform plank on 'Foreign Aid'
at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

4. Can the issues generated by this National LP incident
by brought before the TCLP body politic for an official
response that may take the form, perhaps, of calling for
retraction and repudiation of the apparently un-authorized,
unprincipled prematurely public statement?

-Terry Liberty Parker
VoiceCall 462.1776

1. While major LP policy is set by convened members
after due process (debate?) the LP HQ staff has issued
a PUBLIC LP Statement that contradicts member set policy
without even review by the LNC or LP Chair

2. the 'plan' calls for 're-deployment' of
30,000 Iraq based US troops to 'other'
middle east countries for 'the War on Terror'
in violation of the National LP member voted
platform plank on military intervention.
at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#milipoli

3. the 'plan' calls for US govt to force taxpayers,
even war protesters, to pay for Irag govt let 're-build'
contracts (Haliburton style?) in violation of the LP
platform plank on 'Foreign Aid'

4. Can the issues generated by this National LP incident
by brought before the TCLP body politic for an official
response that may take the form, perhaps, of calling for
retraction and repudiation of the apparently un-authorized,
unprincipled prematurely public statement?

See- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38896

-Terry Liberty Parker
VoiceCall 462.1776

My apologies, not all of the responses were the result of the LP web site.

A total of 253,000 emails/comments were generated. 170,000 of them were due to the LP's web site, http://www.DefendYourPrivacy.com/.

The web site was launched on February 17, 1999 (http://web.archive.org/web/20001113055019/archive.lp.org/rel/19990217-kyc.html).

The end date for comments was March 8.

Within 5 days, the web site had received 24,500 hits (http://web.archive.org/web/20001003075041/archive.lp.org/rel/19990222-kyc.html).

The FDIC killed the rule sometime in March and the LP announced success on March 24 (http://web.archive.org/web/20000920013922/archive.lp.org/rel/19990324-kyc.html).

Over a period of 19 days, 170,000 emails were generated.

I had to get this information off of the Wayback machine because Shane Cory has removed much of our history from the web site.

What I want to know if there is a established rule for the ED and the HQ staff to follow regarding matters like this. The ED and staff of any organization usually has guidelines to follow in the course of their duties.

If there is not, then the worst thing they did was releasing a policy document that some feel is'nt "libertarian enough". Since the measure of what's libertarian and not libertarian is totally subjective, then this is nothing more than a vehicle to attempt to beat down the people that drew up the policy.

The fact is that Joe and the HQ staff ARE, in practice, semi-independant of the LNC. They have to be to effectively operate the office and deal with things that must be dealt with in between LNC meetings. That's what they do. Their moves are subject to oversight by the LNC as they should be, and that's a good thing.

Not sending this the to the Chair was a serious mistake, but compounding that mistake with anything other than making sure it cant happen again in the future would make it much worse.

The facts will out soon enough. Calling the HQ staff and the elected Chair of the Party "elites"
isnt very smart. :D

Libertarian TV wrote:
" can hardly believe what I read. Are you saying that it isn't relevant whether or not LP policy comes from elected party authority? If so, what's the point of having elected officers?"

Huh? How did you get that from the questions I was positing? I asked what the extablished policy, if any, is for this situation? And if there is not such policy then perhaps it should be set. In other words are there party bylaws or corporate policy within the LP HQ to cover these situations?

How can we jump to any conclusions on any of this without knowing the fact first. Or am I not supposed to ask the kinds of questions that might provide legitimate background to the surrounding issue?

Said by: Timothy West at July 5, 2005 07:56 PM

I want to know if there is a established rule for the ED and the HQ staff to follow regarding matters like this. The ED and staff of any organization usually has guidelines to follow in the course of their duties.

TerryResponds:

The question is under what authority may the
Libertarian Party issue public policy statements.

The general authority appears in Article 3 of the
Bylaws which authorizes "public information
activities."

[Quoting]
ARTICLE 3: PURPOSES
The Party is organized to implement and give
voice to
the principles embodied in the Statement of
Principles
by: functioning as a libertarian political entity
separate and distinct from all other political
parties
or movements; moving public policy in a
libertarian
direction by building a political party that
elects
Libertarians to public office; chartering
affiliate
parties throughout the United States and
promoting
their growth and activities; nominating
candidates for
President and Vice-President of the United
States, and
supporting Party and affiliate party candidates
for
political office; and, entering into public
information activities.
[Close quote]

In Article 4 the Bylaws authorizes the basis for
such
activities.

[Quoting]
ARTICLE 4: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND PLATFORM

The Statement of Principles affirms that
philosophy
upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by
which
it shall be sustained, and through which liberty
shall
prevail. The enduring importance of the Statement
of
Principles requires that it may be amended only
by a
vote of 7/8 of all registered delegates at a
Regular
Convention.

The Party Platform shall include, but not be
limited
to, the Statement of Principles and the
implementation
of those principles in the form of planks.
[Close quote]

Therefore all such activities must be based on
the
Platform adopted by the National Convention which
in
turn must be consistent with the Statement of
Principles.

The Bylaws also authorizes presidential
candidates to
submit a Campaign Platform which must be ratified
by
the National Convention.

[Quoting]
ARTICLE 5: THE NATIONAL CAMPAIGN PLATFORM
The National Campaign Platform of the Libertarian
Party shall serve as the campaign document of the
Party during presidential election campaigns.
This
platform shall consist of proposals consistent
with
the Statement of Principles and the Party
Platform.
The National Campaign Platform shall focus on
issues
important to the electorate. Each candidate
seeking
the presidential nomination of the Party shall
provide
the delegates with a copy of a proposed National
Campaign Platform at least 48 hours prior to the
delegates selecting the nominee. Immediately
following
the nomination of the presidential candidate, the
delegates shall, by majority vote, ratify each
plank
of the National Campaign Platform, without
amendment.
If the convention fails to ratify any plank of
the
National Campaign Platform, that plank will not
be
used. The National Campaign Platform of the
candidate
nominated by the convention shall be in effect
until
the next presidential nominating convention.
[Close quote]

There is currently no Campaign Platform in effect
as
Michael Badnarik declined to submit one.

The Bylaws also authorizes the National
Convention to
pass resolutions via the Convention Rules.

[Quoting]
RULE 8: RESOLUTIONS

Resolutions must be approved by a 2/3 vote.

Resolutions must not be in conflict with the
Statement
of Principles. Challenges of such adopted
Resolutions
believed by 10% of the delegates to be in
conflict
with the Statement of Principles shall be
referred in
writing, during the Convention, to the Judicial
Committee by the delegates requesting action for
consideration. The challenge shall specify in
what
manner the Resolution is believed to be in
conflict.
The Judicial Committee shall consider the
challenge,
decide whether the Statement of Principles is
conformed to, and report their findings and
reasons to
the Convention. If the Resolution is vetoed by
the
Judicial Committee, it will be declared null and
void
but can be reinstated by a 3/4 vote of the
Convention.
[Close quote]

The Bylaws authorizes the National Committee to
adopt
a Program.

[Quoting]
ARTICLE 6: LIBERTARIAN PARTY PROGRAM

The National Committee shall adopt and report the
LP
Program to the membership.

The Program recommendation by the National
Committee
shall be comprised of:

a maximum of 10 issues;

issues which are currently receiving widespread,
national public attention;

issues which are readily identifiable by most
individuals as matters which affect them
personally
and directly; and

interim or transitional proposals which move
toward a
libertarian society, which are clearly identified
as
interim or transitional proposals.

The National Committee shall appoint 3 or more
individuals to submit draft program planks to the
National Committee.

Motions to approve planks require a 2/3 vote of
the
entire National Committee.

No proposal shall conflict with the LP Platform.
[Close quote]

These are the sole authorizations in the Bylaws
for
the basis of public information activities in the
name
of the Libertarian Party.

While the National Committee is authorized by the
Bylaws to control the Party's "affairs," there is
no
further authorization for it to modify the public
policy positions of the Party.

[Quoting]
ARTICLE 10: NATIONAL COMMITTEE

The National Committee shall have control and
management of all the affairs, properties and
funds of
the Party consistent with these Bylaws. The
Libertarian National Committee shall establish
and
oversee an organizational structure to implement
the
purposes of the Party as stated in Article 3. The
National Committee shall adopt rules of procedure
for
the conduct of its meetings and the carrying out
of
its duties and responsibilities. The National
Committee may delegate its authority in any
manner it
deems necessary.
[Close quote]

Officers, particularly the Chair, also have
certain
authorized powers to direct the Party's "business
and
affairs," but nowhere do the Bylaws grant them
the
authority to modify the public policy positions
of the
Party

[Quoting]
ARTICLE 9: OFFICERS

The Chair shall preside at all Conventions and
all
meetings of the National Committee. The Chair is
the
chief executive officer of the Party with full
authority to direct its business and affairs,
including hiring and discharging of National
Committee
volunteers and paid personnel, subject to express
National Committee policies and directives issued
in
the exercise of the National Committee's plenary
control and management of Party affairs,
properties
and funds.
[Close quote]

Therefore it is quite clear that while the
National
Committee, its delegated persons, and the
officers
have the power to conduct the Party's affairs,
which
include entering into public information
activities,
they have no authority to modify the basis of
such
information other than through the adoption or
modification of the Program, which in turn must
not be
in conflict with the Platform. Any statements
issued
by the National Committee, the officers, or the
employees of the Party which are in conflict with
the
Statement of Principles or the Platform are
unauthorized by the Bylaws and are thus invalid
as
official positions of the Libertarian Party.

To LibertarianTV:I don't mean to imply that we should'nt present an exit strategy because it would have no chance of being implimented by Bush, on the contrary. As far as any exit strategy being "flawed" because he would not employ it, well that's not an intrinsic flaw of any given exit plan, but rather a flaw of his. Which brings me back to my basic point, that any exit plan however good or bad, is rendered moot by his continuing to hold the position of President. So while we most certainly should present an exit strategy, we should recognize that until a successful impeachment is carried out, not only will the conflict in Iraq continue, BUT THE RECENTLY COMMENCED WAR WITH IRAN WILL CONTINUE(Check with Scott Ritter if this is news to you). I think it's rather telling that this debate is not between proponents and opponents of the plan; but between opponents and apologists.Why do you all insist that we accept the current plan, warts(cancerous tumors???)and all, as though to repudiate it is to give de facto support to the ongoing crime against the Iraqi people? I say give them liberty and stop giving them death! Start treating them as responsible adults by getting out of their way, letting them rebuild on their own, and being prepared to pay restitution,not maternalist handouts to their so called "government",(or Bush's sock puppet,more accurately) I CHALLENGE any and all of you to find in the current plan,the satisfaction of any,let alone all of the the demands I have just enumerated. I suggest that it is incumbent upon us to fulfill ALL of these demands.The current plan fulfills NONE of these requirements, so why are we expected to support it? Because the the upper echelons of our party present it to us? Is this merely where we come to behave as quiescent sheep? I guess I'm a bit over my initial anger, I apologize if I've offended or hurt anyone those time and energy was expended in preparing the exit strategy, but this plan just does'nt cut it. Please recognize that you've committed an error, and simply try again. To reiterate,while an exit strategy is important, as it's implimentation is necessarily prefaced by a successful impeachment, support for the ongoing effort towards that end is currently more urgent.Start by reading the DSM it's just one of myriad dots to be connected,BUT IT's THE ONE IN THE CENTER OF THE PICTURE!!!!!! Thanks, Robert Noval

Terry,

Thats the biggest ball of avoidance I've ever seen.

All you have done is confirm to me that you cant find a specific policy in the LP regarding the clearance of policy before it is released to the public. The rest of your post is just unrelated to the question.

Give me a specific instruction or rule that was broken, instead of one you justify out of the whole LP platform and by laws.

It just MIGHT be that this issue has never come up before, and will have to be addressed at the next LNC meeting.

To Timothy West:

This isn't just "policy". "Policy" would be whether to get one or three bids before getting a computer repaired, or whether to pay vendors net 30 or net 45.

This, on the other hand, is something completly different. This is a major new PR offensive by the LP, and as I've posted before on one of these pages this new "plan" (IMHO) totally contradicts a number of planks in the current LP Platform.

To me this is a no-brainer example of something which absolutely should have been vetted by the Chair and/or the Executive Committee and/or the LNC.

Said Timothy West at July 5, 2005 08:53 PM

Give me a specific instruction or rule that was broken, instead of one you justify out of the whole LP platform and by laws.

TerryResponds:

You've got it backwards; just like statists who claim powers not authorized by the US Constitution!

It's up to YOU to show that an LP elite can ALTER long standing major policy set by convened members via using said members facilities to make public statements that contradict the LP's principles and platform.

-Terry Liberty Parker
VoiceCall 1.512.462.1776

Said Timothy West at July 5, 2005 08:53 PM

Give me a specific instruction or rule that was broken, instead of one you justify out of the whole LP platform and by laws.

TerryResponds:

You've got it backwards; just like statists who claim powers not authorized by the US Constitution!

It's up to YOU to show that an LP elite can ALTER long standing major policy set by convened members via using said members facilities to make public statements that contradict the LP's principles and platform.

-Terry Liberty Parker
VoiceCall 1.512.462.1776

No, that's not policy. That's operations.

I agree that it should have been run by the Chair before release. What no one seems to be able to answer is DID THE ED OR THE STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS BREAK ANY LPHQ RULES OR GUIDELINES OR HQ POLICY IN DOING SO?

If so, then they should be disciplined according to whatever manner the Chair or the LNC sees fit. If not, then measures should be taken to make sure future policy thrusts are run by the Chair before being released. You cant punish someone for violating a non-existant policy or guideline ex post facto.

If there's NO GUIDELINES regarding this, then they cant be taken to task for it. Perry Willis resigned back in 2000 not becuase he did something the LNC *might not approve of*, he resigned becuase he SPECIFICALLY knew of LNC votes to do things a certain way and chose to disregard them.

There's a big difference there. Bad judgement is bad judgement, but conspiracy is something else.

Timmoty West writes: "the worst thing they did was releasing a policy document that some feel is'nt "libertarian enough."

The question is not whether this particular policy is "libertarian enough," whatever that means.

Aspects of the plan comport with the LP platform and with long-standing LP policy. Other aspects contradict long-standing LP policy. So, it is partly "libertarian enough," and in other respects "not libertarian enough." Again, ranking policy by reference to its degree of "purity" isn't helpful. The useful inquiry is whether this policy pronouncement makes sense and helps to build the party.

At issue here, somewhat, is the purpose of the LP National. Is its purpose to issue statements of policy, tempered by "compromise" or considerations of "pragmatism"? If so, to what extent can "compromise" of core principles be allowed? Could/should staff (with or without LNC approval) - for example - issue an "exit strategy" including a call for attacks on Iran, if the Iranians move against the current Iraqi government? What about a ten-year phased "withdrawal" to begin after complete destruction suspected insurgents by nuclear attack on their stronghold cities? The whole idea of a "compromise," or so-called "politically pragmatic" plan is really (I think) the provence of politicians.

For the "pragmatists" out there. Let's be honest, there is ZERO chance of President Bush announcing that he's decided to adopt the LP plan. And with ZERO members in Congress, it's not like the U.S. Senate is going to adopt our plan.

Accordingly, the PURPOSE of issuing any statement is to engage in party-building and to gather (small l) libertarians and other opponents of the war to the party.

The issuance of highly divisive, "compromise" position papers is likely to harm, rather than help build the party. That's the worst that might have happened.

J. Mills

Oooops!!!!

A for initiative. F for execution. If the National Chairman and his staff did not read this before its posting on the web, then that was a major misfire. This kind of thing will not get you called up to the big leagues! :-)

Rule #1: Nothing ever leaves the HQ without the boss knowing about it. Ever!

Is it recoverable? Yes. Should it be thrown out because of minor league staff practices? No. Learn from the mistakes and move on. There is a mission to complete. That mission is to gain experience in translating Libertarian principles from disembodied ideals into practical plans of action to move the country closer to those ideals.

Rule #2. Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough!

You will not achieve a landslide victory on all of the party positions overnight. Live with it. Pick a few and FOCUS!!! Get a foothold and then move to the next ACHIEVEABLE objective.

Terry Liberty Parker,

As you pointed out is Article 6:

"interim or transitional proposals which move
toward a
libertarian society, which are clearly identified
as
interim or transitional proposals."

coming up with an idea on how to end a war the Libertarian party disagrees with seems to be a perfectly valid function of the National Committee staff. As noted, the boss needs to see it first. From where I sit, this hasn't changed a program, plank or platform. It is an attempt at a plan that might just ACHIEVE a program, plank or platform. If it gets the Libertarian party TAKEN SERIOUSLY then it is successful regardless of outcome!

In response to Terry saying:

It's up to YOU to show that an LP elite can ALTER long standing major policy set by convened members via using said members facilities to make public statements that contradict the LP's principles and platform.

Said Timothy West at July 5, 2005 09:27 PM

No, that's not policy. That's operations.

TerryResponds:

So you assert that LPHQ 'operations' includes ALTERING or ABOLISHING long standing LP principle set as 'policy' by convened members and expressed in the party's platform?

I see NO mechanism in this, or even most, MEMBER driven organization(s)

I see a USURPATION of National LP resources by some who don't want to be accountable to the membership; the REAL 'Party of Principle'

There is a process for actual 'debate' of LP policy at LP conventions; else why should MEMBERS bother to show up?

We can also debate this issue here AFTER the unauthorized prematurely public statement is retracted with due public repudiation. It is currently fraudulent to have it be represented as the 'LIBERTARIAN' position while in violation of long standing LP 'Principle' and platform.

In other words, a usurpatious crew of self described 'do gooders' does NOT get to play with other peoples resources in violation of those people's expressed conditions!

-Terry Liberty Parker
VoiceCall 1.512.462.1776

In my mind, the only thing it goes to show is how incredibly BAD the current platform is.

Among the great things it contains:

Approval of state & local government defaulting (not paying back) rightful debts it has incurred to private institutions.

Approval of ending committment of the insane to mental institutions.

Approval of open borders and unrestricted immigration (9/11 seems to have not happened).

Approval of ending of all taxation.

Approval of ending of all public education, without any sort of realistic plan for how to get from where are now to where we say we want to go.

Approval of the ending of the Post Office, never mind the fact that that's one of the constitutional things government does.

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

right from the document.

Using the platform to justify something that does not exist does not make it correct. We call for the abolition of the Post Office, yet it is there in our Constitution plain as day.

I think the current Platform SUCKS. It's one of the reasons why this party cant get any traction in the real world, and it needs a total overhaul. It was written by people who understand freedom but have not a single clue how to go about political involvment in this country. Thats a bad thing when you are a political party.

The LNC meets soon, and they can decide what the heck to do about it.

I have a question for Terry, Robert, and other absolutist libertarians who feel the Iraq plan "totally contradicts" the LP platform: Do you find the transitional action planks in the party’s “Statement of Principles” to be offensive? Do you believe that, by not asking for immediate and complete change on the issues, we’re somehow advocating positions not addressed in the transitional period?

I personally reject the idea that this new LP exit strategy plan for Iraq is somehow NOT libertarian, when it’s calling for removing troops and limiting aid in Iraq. A few of you may argue that, by not calling for an immediate and complete pull-out of our troops and ending of foreign aid, we’re somehow using an “initiation of force” on the Iraqis and ourselves. To claim this, however, would be ignoring the fact that the Republicans and Democrats were the ones who “initiated” the mess already!

The other disagreement I have with the absolutist libertarian approach is that, somehow, your “pure” exit plan might somehow gain more support with the American citizens (although I suspect gaining support for the LP is low on the priority lists for some of you). Which would you believe the typical American would find more acceptable:

a) An immediate removal of our troops, leaving an unstable Iraqi government, military, and police force without any short-term support (training or foreign aid). We accept no responsibility for any wrongdoing by our country’s politicians. Even though we destroyed their old system of government and damaged several residents’ property, our country has no obligation to help the new Iraq government and its people. In essence, we will simply pretend this whole ordeal never happened.

b) To end the indefinite status of our troops’ occupation and foreign aid towards the nation of Iraq, we propose to set limits on each of these issues. We will gradually pull all of our troops out of the country within a year’s time, which would allow a fair amount of time to give the new Iraq government, military and police force to stabilize. The Iraqis will have to fend for themselves after a year in this regard, whether ready for the task or not.

Again, which proposal do you feel would generate more support from non-LP members to move our country in a libertarian direction? Isn't that what a political PARTY is REALLY supposed to be about?

This plan should never contradict LP principles. To rob me to pay for a war that was unjust and to rob me again yo pay for their foriegn aid after we pull out is absurd!

To relocate troops to another country or any country is a direct violation of our platform.

Those elitists at HQ have no right to change the LP platform, we as members have that right at the convention.

Yes our platform is a bit flawed BUT if you don't like the structure go to Portland in 2006!

This is one issue Tim where you are WRONG!

Dont forget, your elected reps. on the LNC hired those poeple. They interviewed Joe and decided he was the right man for the job.

So he is only as 'elitist' as the folks who approved his hiring...namely, your LNC and Officers.

As for you Terry, dont take my posts out of context. That passage you quoted was not a response to you, but to Robert Hanson's post.

Being as I completly agree wih the fact that major policy inititives need to be cleared with the Chair before they are posted on lp.org, and have clearly stated so and numerous times, I have a problem seeing as to what I am WRONG about. I hope the LNC does in fact act on this at the upcoming meeting, and we get a concrete motion that any future missives will be cleared by the Chair and / or the Exec committee. That is as it should be. If it turns out that this was not, then I will condemn the way it was presented without condemning the plan. There is no reason to throw the good out with the bad.

What I dont think I am wrong about in the least is that some members who opposed the plan decided to take the low road and attack the people instead of the plan. Those are tactics that Democrats and Republicans would use in getting rid of political enemies.

If you want to call me wrong for being for the policy, which I still am, do so. I wont back down becuae my stance may be unpopular among many libertarians. It is still what I think needs to be done. Real outreach as a political party does not seek to gain members into a club of believers but seeks to gain votes from the people outside it's movement, and by that mechanism, gain the popular favor of the american people along with their votes for our candidates.

I also want to take issue with the notion that I for the plan so much becuase I personally spprove with what was in it. I approved of the plan becuase for the first time in recent memory, the LP put forth a actual outreach document expressely designed to appeal to NON-LIBERTARIANS. The importance of this is supreme. Only by the successful appeal and outreach to people who are not yet libertarian can we ever grow the LP to the point where it is not crippled by a lack of money and resources. If all we ever do as a political party is attempt to convert people to a belief system, no one, absolutists and reformers alike, will ever see this party flourish or grow. and as a result, you will never see liberty in your lifetime.

Badnarik was entirely correct when he stated that it is up to the Libertarian Party to do this. He is entirely incorrect that he or the LP do this 'one heart at a time'. It must be done by appealing to those who have not yet become libertarians. There is no other way to success, success being measured as having our candidates win elections and move public policy in a freedom direction.

The worst threat to the LP now is that this issue will take the lions share of the agenda at the next LNC meeting and Zero Dues, which could shape the entire LP for success in the future, will be put off. If Zero Dues does not get acted upon in such a manner that ot does not expose MANY MANY more people to fundrasing efforts and expand the numer of those people considered to be active in the party at the same time, none of this will matter.

Someone will come along with money and fill this political hole that is being created by Kelo vs. New London and other bad decisions by the court, they will occupy the political space of the LP, and drive it under or into bankruptcy. I would rather the LP occupies that space instead.

"This plan should never contradict LP principles"

What principles are you referring to? Bullet point them please, because this vagueness when talking of principles kills me.

Are you referring to the "All taxation = theft" principle? That seems to be what has been pervasive and widely accepted of this party in the past. But our founders weren't anarchists, they were clearly for limited government. Limited government = Small government = small taxes = what we should represent. The LP finally shows some seriousness by trying to move us in a libertarian direction and acting like a political party for a change, and you go ahead and bash them for putting out a paper that pisses on anarchists cheerios.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS. When do you ever speak of the process by which we can change the Constitution? The founders weren't perfect. I hardly see any purists aknowledging this fact because that would mean they might have to think outside the box. It's sometimes hard trying to come up with classical liberal solutions for some of today's complex problems. But it can be done, and the LP can be the vehicle for those solutions if you let it be. Principles and a knowledge and understanding of the great contributors of freedom are a part of which should guide us, but it's not the be-all end-all.

This war wasn't waged under a Libertarian government (and wouldn't be if the LP was an actual major force), so how can you entertain a purist Libertarian solution when most don't even know what the heck libertarianism is? You want to pull the rug out from under people just so you don't have to wait any longer and hope they'll "get it"? Well, we've seen what the shock and awe approach has gotten us...a reputation as stubborn libertine individuals. We're Libertarians, and a key part of our philosophy is responsibility to ourselves and others. Let's start showing that we're responsible as well as principled when we try to tackle political issues.

jnice writes: "I personally reject the idea that this new LP exit strategy plan for Iraq is somehow NOT libertarian, when itпїЅs calling for removing troops and limiting aid in Iraq."

I guess one of the problem opponents have, jnice, is whether this is a real call for removing the troops.

There is a call to START removing troops.

But, the REASON for gradualism is to give the Iraqi government time to build its own defense.

Neither the plan, nor supporters of the plan that I have heard, are prepared to say that the 11K or so troop reduction per month happens COME HELL OR HIGH WATER.

If we start "gradually" reducing troops, and the result is more violence, dozens of Iraqi legislators assasinated, increased killing of the remaining Americans, increased attacks on the Iraqi police force, a dwindling of Iraqis willing to serve as policemen, and a general descent into chaos, (by the way, a scenario that I hope we agree is completely plausible) then - according to the plan's supporters - do we simply continue the gradual withdrawal unabated?

Or, as seems logical given the REASONS for moving slowly, do we go back in force and fix the problem, saving the Iraqi government from insurgents?

The plan is somewhat fuzzy on that question. It APPEARS to call for the gradual troop withdrawal IRRESPECTIVE of consequences in Iraq. But, then there is the pesky rationale, and also the assertion - built into the plan - that the Iraqi WILL be able to defend themselves. All of which implies that if the gradual withdrawl does NOT coincide with the Iraqi government's ability to defend itself, then we stop and do whatever it takes to assure that the Iraqi government gets the assistance it needs to actually defend itself.

From the proponents: Bill Woolsey, jnice, and others, what's your read on this . . . or, your proposal for interpreting the plan?

Are we talking about an unconditional, unilateral withdrawal of troops at the rate of some 11,000+ a month, or is that conditioned on the state of the Iraqi military/police?

What I read in this plan is nothing more than George Bush's plan "We stand down when the Iraqis stand up." But, I could be wrong.

If we are calling for an unconditional 11,000 a month stand down, then why all the stuff about the Iraqi ability to defend itself?

Again, proponents: Do you read this to mean troop reduction REGARDLESS of the consequences in Iraq? And is this really then an unconditional promise to withdraw . . . or not?

J. Mills

"This plan should never contradict LP principles"

What principles are you referring to? Bullet point them please, because this vagueness when talking of principles kills me.

Are you referring to the "All taxation = theft" principle? That seems to be what has been pervasive and widely accepted of this party in the past. But our founders weren't anarchists, they were clearly for limited government. Limited government = Small government = small taxes = what we should represent. The LP finally shows some seriousness by trying to move us in a libertarian direction and acting like a political party for a change, and you go ahead and bash them for putting out a paper that pisses on anarchists cheerios.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS. When do you ever speak of the process by which we can change the Constitution? The founders weren't perfect. I hardly see any purists aknowledging this fact because that would mean they might have to think outside the box. It's sometimes hard trying to come up with classical liberal solutions for some of today's complex problems. But it can be done, and the LP can be the vehicle for those solutions if you let it be. Principles and a knowledge and understanding of the great contributors of freedom are a part of which should guide us, but it's not the be-all end-all.

This war wasn't waged under a Libertarian government (and wouldn't be if the LP was an actual major force), so how can you entertain a purist Libertarian solution when most don't even know what the heck libertarianism is? You want to pull the rug out from under people just so you don't have to wait any longer and hope they'll "get it"? Well, we've seen what the shock and awe approach has gotten us...a reputation as stubborn libertine individuals. We're Libertarians, and a key part of our philosophy is responsibility to ourselves and others. Let's start showing that we're responsible as well as principled when we try to tackle political issues.

jnice's proposal "a" is seriously flawed and shows obvious bias towards his preference for proposal "b".

"a) An immediate removal of our troops, leaving an unstable Iraqi government, military, and police force without any short-term support (training or foreign aid)."

The US Government has been giving Iraq short-term support for how long now? It's not helping! The presence of the US Government in Iraq is having exactly the opposite effect. The situation is getting worse by the day and as long as our soldiers are on their soil, the situation will continue to deteriorate.

"We accept no responsibility for any wrongdoing by our country's politicians."

The entire nation should be ashamed by the President's adventures in Iraq, but this in no way means you and I and generations to come have to pay for his imperial designs. I personally will accept my constitutional responsibility at the next election by voting against any politician who supported this invasion of a sovereign nation, and I invite every American to join me.

"Even though we destroyed their old system of government and damaged several residents? property, our country has no obligation to help the new Iraq government and its people."

WE didn't destroy anything. The US Government and GW Bush did, hijacking our tax dollars (as well as our children's and grandchildren's tax dollars). They should be held personally responsible, in courts of law or war crimes tribunals. Once the US Government gets out and admits they screwed up and never should have invaded a sovereign nation in the first place, I dare say the rest of the world will get in and help. Most of the nations of the world are on the sidelines because of Bush's "go it alone" mentality (yeah yeah, Moldova sent about 12 guys; so much for the "coalition") and once we're out, the rest of the world will happily get in and help rebuild Iraq just to prove GW Bush wrong.

"In essence, we will simply pretend this whole ordeal never happened."

Absolutely not - this will be a valuable moral lesson for generations to come.

Our platform says it so well:

"The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations." Can that be any clearer? Get out of Iraq NOW!

Mr. West seems to think the people he labels "purists" or "absolutists" are attacking the LP staff at HQ instead of attacking the plan. I think the reasons many libertarians disagree with the plan have been made very clear. So, Mr. West is wrong.

Comparing an initiative such as this exit plan to an ordinary press release is absurd. This is much more far reaching and purports to be a Libertarian plan. The problem is that the plan does not reflect the principles in the LP platform, whether you like them or not.

The principles in the LP platform reflect libertarian (small L) principles. For the life of me I cannot understand why the people in the neolibertarian movement who disagree with libertarian (small L) principles and the LP platform are so hell bent on discarding these long held principles. If you believe in libertarian (small L) principles, you are not a conservative or a liberal, but a libertarian. To insist the LP abandon these principles because certain conservatives don't agree is ludicrous.

The fact that many libertarians (small L), including some of the best libertarian writers and thinkers, have distanced themselves from the LP should raise some concern.

To discard these principles because you THINK that the average American disagrees or can't understand them is wrong. It also shows a lack of leadership.

To argue that people reject the LP platform is to argue that people actually know what the platform says - which most people (including Libertarians) don't.

Just because some people don't know or don't agree with libertarian principles does not mean the principles are wrong. That some people have internalized misinformation, disinformation or outright lies does not mean they are right.

For example, on the issue of troop withdrawal, the exit plan acknowledges that the continuing American military presence is, in fact, fueling the continued resistance by Iraqi citizens. If this is true, why should the troops remain there?

If the occupation is creating a terrorist training ground as the CIA and State Dept. contend, why should the occupation continue?

In light of the poor performance of the US in achieving security in Iraq, why do the Iraqis need to be trained by the US?

The very notion that Iraqis must be "trained" by the US is absurd. Baghdad is a huge metropolitan city with universities and plenty of intelligent people - we are not talking about teaching goat herders who live in tents to use magic "fire sticks".

The longer the US remains in Iraq, the liklihood is that we will see more attacks and more insurgents - especially given our heavy handed approach such as in Falljah.

So, the "common sense" notion that we can't just pull out until the Iraqis can be trained is not convincing to me and many others. Whether the US pulls out in 12 months or 2 months, a civil war may break out.

Today, Zarqawi announced a new militia to fight the Shia militias that support the US. Are we to occupy Iraq forever to prevent a civil war that is already underway?

The fact is that we are in a bad situation that was created by Bush in a deceptive manner. I have been calling for his impeachment for sometime. This idea is extremely unpopular with neolibertarians because that is a "kooky" idea that Neal Boortz (who supported Bush) wouldn't like.

Frankly, I'm a little tired of being defined by the political opposition and I'm tired of seeing libertarians jump to change their views because talk radio listeners are offended by libertarian ideas.

To jnice: in re. your 10:31PM questions. I am opposed to the plan, not because of what it fails to advocate, but pimarily for what it does advocate. It must be understood that what we are observing in Iraq is not merely a mismanaged process, but a misdeed of monumental proportions. You cannot correct a misdeed through adjustment, rather, you must cease and desist. It does no good to misrepresent the fundamental nature of the ongoing conflict, simply because Bush's lap dog MSM has successfully put that misconception over on most Americans. Again, this a wrongdoing, not a mismanagemnet, it is morally, ethically, and most importantly to you I suspect, PRACTICALLY wrong. There is no point to leaving a critical misconception unchallenged, when we know what's really going on; that is engaging in hypocracy, and rest assured it would come back to haunt us.I appreciate you asking these pointed questions, by the way. But you seem to imply that gaining support is something of the nature of an end in itself.I am all for adjusting our message to make it more platable, I only suggest that we act with reason and caution.In regards to your reference to "absolutism", as opposed to "practicality": If this was some other political party , such as the win-at-all-costs Demo/Reps, or the Greens, with their naive, mutually contradictory ten green values or whatever, I could understand agonizing over that dicotomy, but I would suggest that for us, it is a false diccotomy. Why? Simple: Liberty works. That's all. Socialism does'nt, Fascism does'nt. Why? Again,Simple: Libertarianism is consistent with human nature, the others all must be coercively enforced. Man's economic default setting is free market capitalism, don't like it? Well you'll just have to muster up an army to stop us! We can debate policy and ideology all we want but this "absolutist" or "purist" vs."moderate" or "realist" scenario is overly simplistic and fundamentally impertinent.(Oh, and by the way, that's Absolutist with a capital "A" if you don't mind!!!)---hey, just kidding,ok? Now, with regards to your comment of 3:15PM to JMills: I agree with your conclusions about our shared responsiblity for reparations.However, in the vain of a paradigm of individual responsiblity, freely accepted, you remark: "I'd be all for for idea, except I'm not sure how many Americans would willingly give to help rebuild Iraq." Were it a matter of individual responsiblity (and mind you, I concur with you that it is'nt),then you would not be entitled to such surety, you would then have to follow your own conscience, and leave the rest of us free to do likewise.You, of course, would be free to (and limited to) trying to convince us to do otherwise if you disagree with our choices. Lastly, you ask:"Which proposal do you feel would generate more support from non-LP members to move our country in a libertarian direction? That's a very good question; it certainly puts the ball squarely in the court of us "absolutists"! WELL PLAYED! as I believe the British say(??) The ball BELONGS in our court and instead of wining, we should be coming up of our own to try to convince you of the "any plan is better no plan" perspective. I Hope someone more capable than I will take a crack at it(YES!YES!THAT WAS A HINT!!!)But if not(gulp) I'll try stick my foot in my own mouth.-Thanks, From The Bikemessenger

To jnice: in re. your 10:31PM questions. I am opposed to the plan, not because of what it fails to advocate, but pimarily for what it does advocate. It must be understood that what we are observing in Iraq is not merely a mismanaged process, but a misdeed of monumental proportions. You cannot correct a misdeed through adjustment, rather, you must cease and desist. It does no good to misrepresent the fundamental nature of the ongoing conflict, simply because Bush's lap dog MSM has successfully put that misconception over on most Americans. Again, this a wrongdoing, not a mismanagemnet, it is morally, ethically, and most importantly to you I suspect, PRACTICALLY wrong. There is no point to leaving a critical misconception unchallenged, when we know what's really going on; that is engaging in hypocracy, and rest assured it would come back to haunt us.I appreciate you asking these pointed questions, by the way. But you seem to imply that gaining support is something of the nature of an end in itself.I am all for adjusting our message to make it more platable, I only suggest that we act with reason and caution.In regards to your reference to "absolutism", as opposed to "practicality": If this was some other political party , such as the win-at-all-costs Demo/Reps, or the Greens, with their naive, mutually contradictory ten green values or whatever, I could understand agonizing over that dicotomy, but I would suggest that for us, it is a false diccotomy. Why? Simple: Liberty works. That's all. Socialism does'nt, Fascism does'nt. Why? Again,Simple: Libertarianism is consistent with human nature, the others all must be coercively enforced. Man's economic default setting is free market capitalism, don't like it? Well you'll just have to muster up an army to stop us! We can debate policy and ideology all we want but this "absolutist" or "purist" vs."moderate" or "realist" scenario is overly simplistic and fundamentally impertinent.(Oh, and by the way, that's Absolutist with a capital "A" if you don't mind!!!)---hey, just kidding,ok? Now, with regards to your comment of 3:15PM to JMills: I agree with your conclusions about our shared responsiblity for reparations.However, in the vain of a paradigm of individual responsiblity, freely accepted, you remark: "I'd be all for for idea, except I'm not sure how many Americans would willingly give to help rebuild Iraq." Were it a matter of individual responsiblity (and mind you, I concur with you that it is'nt),then you would not be entitled to such surety, you would then have to follow your own conscience, and leave the rest of us free to do likewise.You, of course, would be free to (and limited to) trying to convince us to do otherwise if you disagree with our choices. Lastly, you ask:"Which proposal do you feel would generate more support from non-LP members to move our country in a libertarian direction? That's a very good question; it certainly puts the ball squarely in the court of us "absolutists"! WELL PLAYED! as I believe the British say(??) The ball BELONGS in our court and instead of wining, we should be coming up of our own to try to convince you of the "any plan is better no plan" perspective. I Hope someone more capable than I will take a crack at it(YES!YES!THAT WAS A HINT!!!)But if not(gulp) I'll try stick my foot in my own mouth.-Thanks, From The Bikemessenger

For the record, that long post by Terry Parker at 8:28 this evening was quoting me. It was from a message to Tom Knapp (which I copied to Terry) who requested the reasoning for my opinion that this "exit strategy" was an invalid and unauthorized statement. Tom and I are both former members of the Judicial Committee. This is why the message looked like a legal brief.

To answer Mr. West's question: The LP Bylaws were violated, and that is a far more serious matter than the violation of any internal office policy.

The real question here is: Who or what establishes the Party's positions on public policy in accordance with the Bylaws? The answer is: The National Convention through the Platform, the Campaign Platform, and resolutions; and the LNC through the Program. That's it, period.

The LNC is authorized to engage in "public information activities," such as printing literature, issuing press releases, or developing a web site, and it can delegate those tasks. But all of that activity must be based on positions actually passed in accordance with the Bylaws.

This is an organization with 51 affiliate parties and over 20,000 members. We have rules. They are known as the Bylaws. They cannot be ignored. Not by the LNC, not by the National Chair, and certainly not by employees of the Party.

So it would not have mattered if the National Chair or the LNC had approved this "exit strategy," which apparently they did not, since the whole concept of foreign aid to the government of Iraq is in direct contradiction to the Platform, not to even mention the concept of "redeployment" of troops elsewhere than the United States.

Mr. West implicitly questions whether this situation has arisen before. We have had candidates who have formulated all sorts of bizarre policies before, and often they have been disavowed and/or removed from the ballot. Fortunately, this has only happened rarely, and only on the local or state level. But no, to my knowledge, the office staff has never before attempted to speak on behalf of the Party in contradiction to the Platform. No one before has ever been that foolhardy.

Mr. West is entitled to his opinion of the Platform, and so are the employees of the Party. What they are NOT entitled to do is speak in the name of the Party in contradiction to the Platform.

Greg Clark
National Secretary, 1975 - 1978
2006 Platform Committee member

To jnice: in re. your 10:31PM questions. I am opposed to the plan, not because of what it fails to advocate, but pimarily for what it does advocate. It must be understood that what we are observing in Iraq is not merely a mismanaged process, but a misdeed of monumental proportions. You cannot correct a misdeed through adjustment, rather, you must cease and desist. It does no good to misrepresent the fundamental nature of the ongoing conflict, simply because Bush's lap dog MSM has successfully put that misconception over on most Americans. Again, this a wrongdoing, not a mismanagemnet, it is morally, ethically, and most importantly to you I suspect, PRACTICALLY wrong. There is no point to leaving a critical misconception unchallenged, when we know what's really going on; that is engaging in hypocracy, and rest assured it would come back to haunt us.I appreciate you asking these pointed questions, by the way. But you seem to imply that gaining support is something of the nature of an end in itself.I am all for adjusting our message to make it more platable, I only suggest that we act with reason and caution.In regards to your reference to "absolutism", as opposed to "practicality": If this was some other political party , such as the win-at-all-costs Demo/Reps, or the Greens, with their naive, mutually contradictory ten green values or whatever, I could understand agonizing over that dicotomy, but I would suggest that for us, it is a false diccotomy. Why? Simple: Liberty works. That's all. Socialism does'nt, Fascism does'nt. Why? Again,Simple: Libertarianism is consistent with human nature, the others all must be coercively enforced. Man's economic default setting is free market capitalism, don't like it? Well you'll just have to muster up an army to stop us! We can debate policy and ideology all we want but this "absolutist" or "purist" vs."moderate" or "realist" scenario is overly simplistic and fundamentally impertinent.(Oh, and by the way, that's Absolutist with a capital "A" if you don't mind!!!)---hey, just kidding,ok? Now, with regards to your comment of 3:15PM to JMills: I agree with your conclusions about our shared responsiblity for reparations.However, in the vain of a paradigm of individual responsiblity, freely accepted, you remark: "I'd be all for for idea, except I'm not sure how many Americans would willingly give to help rebuild Iraq." Were it a matter of individual responsiblity (and mind you, I concur with you that it is'nt),then you would not be entitled to such surety, you would then have to follow your own conscience, and leave the rest of us free to do likewise.You, of course, would be free to (and limited to) trying to convince us to do otherwise if you disagree with our choices. Lastly, you ask:"Which proposal do you feel would generate more support from non-LP members to move our country in a libertarian direction? That's a very good question; it certainly puts the ball squarely in the court of us "absolutists"! WELL PLAYED! as I believe the British say(??) The ball BELONGS in our court and instead of wining, we should be coming up of our own to try to convince you of the "any plan is better no plan" perspective. I Hope someone more capable than I will take a crack at it(YES!YES!THAT WAS A HINT!!!)But if not(gulp) I'll try stick my foot in my own mouth.-Thanks, From The Bikemessenger

To jnice: in re. your 10:31PM questions. I am opposed to the plan, not because of what it fails to advocate, but pimarily for what it does advocate. It must be understood that what we are observing in Iraq is not merely a mismanaged process, but a misdeed of monumental proportions. You cannot correct a misdeed through adjustment, rather, you must cease and desist. It does no good to misrepresent the fundamental nature of the ongoing conflict, simply because Bush's lap dog MSM has successfully put that misconception over on most Americans. Again, this a wrongdoing, not a mismanagemnet, it is morally, ethically, and most importantly to you I suspect, PRACTICALLY wrong. There is no point to leaving a critical misconception unchallenged, when we know what's really going on; that is engaging in hypocracy, and rest assured it would come back to haunt us.I appreciate you asking these pointed questions, by the way. But you seem to imply that gaining support is something of the nature of an end in itself.I am all for adjusting our message to make it more platable, I only suggest that we act with reason and caution.In regards to your reference to "absolutism", as opposed to "practicality": If this was some other political party , such as the win-at-all-costs Demo/Reps, or the Greens, with their naive, mutually contradictory ten green values or whatever, I could understand agonizing over that dicotomy, but I would suggest that for us, it is a false diccotomy. Why? Simple: Liberty works. That's all. Socialism does'nt, Fascism does'nt. Why? Again,Simple: Libertarianism is consistent with human nature, the others all must be coercively enforced. Man's economic default setting is free market capitalism, don't like it? Well you'll just have to muster up an army to stop us! We can debate policy and ideology all we want but this "absolutist" or "purist" vs."moderate" or "realist" scenario is overly simplistic and fundamentally impertinent.(Oh, and by the way, that's Absolutist with a capital "A" if you don't mind!!!)---hey, just kidding,ok? Now, with regards to your comment of 3:15PM to JMills: I agree with your conclusions about our shared responsiblity for reparations.However, in the vain of a paradigm of individual responsiblity, freely accepted, you remark: "I'd be all for for idea, except I'm not sure how many Americans would willingly give to help rebuild Iraq." Were it a matter of individual responsiblity (and mind you, I concur with you that it is'nt),then you would not be entitled to such surety, you would then have to follow your own conscience, and leave the rest of us free to do likewise.You, of course, would be free to (and limited to) trying to convince us to do otherwise if you disagree with our choices. Lastly, you ask:"Which proposal do you feel would generate more support from non-LP members to move our country in a libertarian direction? That's a very good question; it certainly puts the ball squarely in the court of us "absolutists"! WELL PLAYED! as I believe the British say(??) The ball BELONGS in our court and instead of wining, we should be coming up of our own to try to convince you of the "any plan is better no plan" perspective. I Hope someone more capable than I will take a crack at it(YES!YES!THAT WAS A HINT!!!)But if not(gulp) I'll try stick my foot in my own mouth.-Thanks, From The Bikemessenger

I keep hearing this argument that somehow the fact that some Americans were against the war or that the war was not declared so that the American government should not be held accountable for arguably legal tort. This does not follow logic.This logic would lead to the conclusion that we should not pay back the debt that our government has rung up over the years because the spending was on mostly unconstitutional programs. The reality of not payimg back our debt would be total economic collapse. The point is the Democrats and Republicans have put us in the postion that we will have to pay for their mistakes in many differant ways.

I have a question for those people who seem to think getting votes is an end in itself. Why do you bother with libertarianism?

If you want a 'third party' that will get as many votes as such a party can, the way to go is centrist/populist, like Ross Perot. Why not form or join such a party, and leave libertarianism alone?

David Tomlin

To jnice: in re. your 10:31PM questions. I am opposed to the plan, not because of what it fails to advocate, but pimarily for what it does advocate. It must be understood that what we are observing in Iraq is not merely a mismanaged of process, but a misdeed of monumental proportions. You cannot correct a misdeed through adjustment, rather, you must cease and desist. It does no good to misrepresent the fundamental nature of the ongoing conflict, simply because Bush's lap dog MSM has successfully put that misconception over on most Americans. Again, this a wrongdoing, not a mismanagemnet, it is morally, ethically, and most importantly to you I suspect, PRACTICALLY wrong. There is no point to leaving a critical misconception unchallenged, when we know what's really going on; that is engaging in hypocracy, and rest assured it would come back to haunt us.I appreciate you asking these pointed questions, by the way. But you seem to imply that gaining support is something of the nature of an end in itself.I am all for adjusting our message to make it more platable, I only suggest that we act with reason and caution.In regards to your reference to "absolutism", as opposed to "practicality": If this was some other political party , such as the win-at-all-costs Demo/Reps, or the Greens, with their naive, mutually contradictory ten green values or whatever, I could understand agonizing over that dicotomy, but I would suggest that for us, it is a false diccotomy. Why? Simple: Liberty works. That's all. Socialism does'nt, Facsism does'nt. Why? Again,Simple: Libertarianism is consistent with human nature, the others all must be coercively enforced. Man's economic default setting is free market capitalism, don't like it? Well you'll just have to muster up an army to stop us! We can debate policy and ideology all we want but this "absolutist" or "purist" vs."moderate" or "realist" scenario is overly simplistic and fundamentally impertinent.(Oh, and by the way, that's Absolutist with a capital "A" if you don't mind!!!)---hey, just kidding,ok? Now, with regards to your comment of 3:15PM to JMills: I agree with your conclusions about our shared responsiblity for reparations.However, in the vain of a paradigm of individual responsiblity, freely accepted, you remark: "I'd be all for for idea, except I'm not sure how many Americans would willingly give to help rebuild Iraq." Were it a matter of individual responsiblity (and mind you, I concur with you that it is'nt),then you would not be entitled to such surety, you would then have to follow your own conscience, and leave the rest of us free to do likewise.You, of course, would be free to (and limited to) trying to convince us to do otherwise if you disagree with our choices. Lastly, you ask:"Which proposal do you feel would generate more support from non-LP members to move our country in a libertarian direction? That's a very good question; it certainly puts the ball squarely in the court of us "absolutists"! WELL PLAYED! as I believe the British say(??) The ball BELONGS in our court and instead of wining, we should be coming up of our own to try to convince you of the "any plan is better no plan" perspective. I Hope someone more capable than I will take a crack at it(YES!YES!THAT WAS A HINT!!!)But if not(gulp) I'll try stick my foot in my own mouth.-Thanks, From The Bikemessenger

David,

That's always an option on the table. I still believe that a LP that can bring itself to step about 3 positions up toward the centrist part of the Nolan Chart would be the way to go, but many people like being exclusive.

Every day I dread turning on the news. Every single day this summer it seems, more and more liberty gets taken away. Legislation, proposed Constitutional amendments, court rulings, etc. has darkened the prospects for a libertarian future. I've been feeling pessimistic about the state of the nation, nearly to the point of depression.

Every day I'm getting more and more frustrated with the blindness of the LP's Rothbardian sector. ARE YOU IDIOTS?!?! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT LIBERTY IS SLIPPING THROUGH OUR FINGERS EVERY DAY, YET YOU ARE REFUSING TO STOP IT, BECAUSE THE MOST PRACTICAL WAY TO DO SO IS LESS THAN PERFECT OR LESS THAN IDEAL?!?!

It makes me want to scream and pull my hair out at the pure unadulterated idiocy that is posing as "being principled". It's not principled at all to continue to allow opponents of liberty to win, because we decide to take the most ridiculous and least pragmatic route to stopping them.

Not to mention the fact that gradualism has absolutely nothing to do with compromising principles and everything to do with compromising the timeframe and implementation of a plan, in order to get things done in the most stable, reasonable and most widely acceptable manner possible.

Thus, I can't tell you my joy at seeing this statement. It's exactly that - ensuring that we can accomplish peace and freedom by getting out of Iraq, but realizing that the way we pull out is important too.

This is exactly what the LP's plan does - it ensures that our troops pull out safely and efficiently, as soon as possible, while stabilizing the benefits for Iraq (like the end of the dictatorship) and for our national image (that we got out as soon as possible but still "secured the peace" as best as we could and transferred power over to the new government, like Bush promised.)

I could give less of a crap about who saw the memo before it was posted. I could give less of a crap if it violates our platform (which it doesn't, by the way.)

I just care about the fact that somebody in the upper ranks of the party realizes that SERIOUS changes need to be made if we are TRULY serious about wanting liberty in our lifetime, and not just strutting about like proud peacocks over our principledness, not realizing our feathers are getting plucked out one by one by those who hate liberty.

Every day I dread turning on the news. Every single day this summer it seems, more and more liberty gets taken away. Legislation, proposed Constitutional amendments, court rulings, etc. has darkened the prospects for a libertarian future. I've been feeling pessimistic about the state of the nation, nearly to the point of depression.

Every day I'm getting more and more frustrated with the blindness of the LP's Rothbardian sector. GEEZ, PEOPLE?!?! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT LIBERTY IS SLIPPING THROUGH OUR FINGERS EVERY DAY, YET YOU ARE REFUSING TO STOP IT, BECAUSE THE MOST PRACTICAL WAY TO DO SO IS LESS THAN PERFECT OR LESS THAN IDEAL?!?!

It makes me want to scream and pull my hair out at the pure unadulterated idiocy that is posing as "being principled". It's not principled at all to continue to allow opponents of liberty to win, because we decide to take the most ridiculous and least pragmatic route to stopping them.

Not to mention the fact that gradualism has absolutely nothing to do with compromising principles and everything to do with compromising the timeframe and implementation of a plan, in order to get things done in the most stable, reasonable and most widely acceptable manner possible.

Thus, I can't tell you my joy at seeing this statement. It's exactly that - ensuring that we can accomplish peace and freedom by getting out of Iraq, but realizing that the way we pull out is important too.

This is exactly what the LP's plan does - it ensures that our troops pull out safely and efficiently, as soon as possible, while stabilizing the benefits for Iraq (like the end of the dictatorship) and for our national image (that we got out as soon as possible but still "secured the peace" as best as we could and transferred power over to the new government, like Bush promised.)

I could give less of a dang about who saw the memo before it was posted. I could give less of a dang if it violates our platform (which it doesn't, by the way.)

I just care about the fact that somebody in the upper ranks of the party realizes that SERIOUS changes need to be made if we are TRULY serious about wanting liberty in our lifetime, and not just strutting about like proud peacocks over our principledness, not realizing our feathers are getting plucked out one by one by those who hate liberty.

Every day I dread turning on the news. Every single day this summer it seems, more and more liberty gets taken away. Legislation, proposed Constitutional amendments, court rulings, etc. has darkened the prospects for a libertarian future. I've been feeling pessimistic about the state of the nation, nearly to the point of depression.

Every day I'm getting more and more frustrated with the blindness of the LP's Rothbardian sector. GEEZ, PEOPLE?!?! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT LIBERTY IS SLIPPING THROUGH OUR FINGERS EVERY DAY, YET YOU ARE REFUSING TO STOP IT, BECAUSE THE MOST PRACTICAL WAY TO DO SO IS LESS THAN PERFECT OR LESS THAN IDEAL?!?!

It makes me want to scream and pull my hair out at the pure unadulterated idiocy that is posing as "being principled". It's not principled at all to continue to allow opponents of liberty to win, because we decide to take the most ridiculous and least pragmatic route to stopping them.

Not to mention the fact that gradualism has absolutely nothing to do with compromising principles and everything to do with compromising the timeframe and implementation of a plan, in order to get things done in the most stable, reasonable and most widely acceptable manner possible.

Thus, I can't tell you my joy at seeing this statement. It's exactly that - ensuring that we can accomplish peace and freedom by getting out of Iraq, but realizing that the way we pull out is important too.

This is exactly what the LP's plan does - it ensures that our troops pull out safely and efficiently, as soon as possible, while stabilizing the benefits for Iraq (like the possibility for democracy) and for our national image (that we got out as soon as possible but still "secured the peace" as best as we could and transferred power over to the new government, like we promised.)

These things are important to the majority of Americans who oppose the war, think it was a mistake and want out troops home as soon as possible. They are with us on that. Then again, they don't want to see all the money and blood to go to waste, either. Sure, it was a war of aggression, a complete mistake and probably not worth it in th