I wish to express my strong support for the party leadership as they work to make libertarian principles relevant to the American people. It is past time for the LP to become a player in day to day issues. The American people need to hear new and different solutions on then the R's and D's are capable of proposing. Keep up the great work.

I'll second Don's comments. This plan was a smart move by the LP and what we need to be seen as A. credible and B. willing to take on tough issues.

I totally agree with Don. This proposal is practical, LIBERTARIAN, and appeals to the general public.

I google'd the words "iraq exit strategy" and the LP's plan came up around the 13th match! That's very good advertising. Now, if we just spent money to make it the number one match...

I sincerely hope that the LP weblog becomes known throughout the country as a source for reasonable solutions to counter the problems largely created by Republicans and Democrats.

Eminent Domain is the next domestic issue in the spotlight. Here in Arlington, Texas all local elected Republican politicians came out in favor of raising taxes and using eminent domain to kick people out their homes to build Jerry Jones, billionaire owner of the Dallas Cowboys a new stadium. This is almost a carbon copy of what President George w. Bush and his fellow Republican (Bushwackers) did 15 years ago in Arlington for his corporation at the time, the Texas Rangers Baseball Team, Inc.

Most people on this blog know about the effort to seize Justice Souter's home in Weare, NH thru the process of eminent domain to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel" with a "Just Deserts" cafe. I can imagine of chain of such "Lost Liberty Hotels" with the next franchise as the current home of Jerry Jones in Dallas (Highland Park), Texas.

For all of you who have written intelligently both for and against the plan, I encourage you to expand your writing beyond the blog.

I have sent a letter to The News Tribune, which is a large, general circulation paper in Tacoma, Washington. Here's my letter (posted without copyright for opponents to use), and I encourage proponents to send something similar with their thoughts.

By calling attention to the plan, and by fomenting a public discussion pro and con, we will greatly enhance the public visibility of the LP. That, of course, serves all of our interests.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to start a large-scale discusion by all the pundits of the merits of the LP "Exit Strategy"? Writing thoughtfully in opposition will endear us to the anti-war crowd; writing in support will endear us to the supporters of the Iraqi government over the insurgents. Both are large groups that could easily be persuaded to join the LP.

Again, for those who wish to use this as a template, here's my letter:

July 2, 2005
Editor
The News Tribune
P.O. Box 11000
Tacoma, WA 98411

The national Libertarian Party recently posted a detailed plan for phased withdrawal from Iraq on its web site, www.lp.org.

The plan generally calls for a reduction in force over a year, coupled with military and financial assistance to help the Iraqi government build its own policing capabilities.

Most Americans now agree that the War in Iraq was a mistake. All thoughtful Americans agree that we need to find a way to end the fighting. But, the Libertarian plan is just a bad plan.

First, any gradual withdrawal is a bad idea conceptually because it means we have a slowly dwindling force left behind by design.

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

It's just wrong to leave a force behind that's incapable of adequately defending itself. If the LP plan were adopted, how would you like to be assigned to the last brigade scheduled for departure in late 2006?

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

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

So, a gradual, or incremental, withdrawal is just a bad military idea. Once it's time to leave, we should do so as rapidly as it's possible to move, getting everyone out together.

Second, the plan's reason for staying another year is to provide a military defense of the current Iraqi government.

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

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

So, what we have is a current government run by the majority Shiite clerics who have a long-standing dispute with minority Sunnis and a reason to abuse and oppress the Sunnis, yet we have decided to train, arm and protect the Shiites. Why?

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

The LP's plan is designed to assure that the current Iraqi regime gets its hands on an effective military force. Why, why, why should we do that again, thus earning the enmity of whoever is abused by one more military power weпїЅve created?

The existence of a plan, any plan, is encouraging, but a thoughtful argument for adopting the Libertarian plan must address these essential objections.

Very truly yours,
J. Mills

I find it unfortunate that the Libertarian Party leadership feels the need to promote the Libertarian Party with an initiative embracing two policies (stationing military abroad, and foreign aid), which are contrary to the logically consistent LP platform and the basis of the platform, non-aggression.

If the Libertarian Party leadership feels the need to abandon such core positions for a shot at political gain, why not just disband the LP and roll it's resources into other, compromise, groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus or the Democratic Freedom Caucus?

I'm sure the Libertarian Party leadership is not out to "fool" the voters with a bait-and-switch by trying to garner votes with such proposals as this exit strategy, only to then show voters what the LP really believes. That really wouldn't be ethical, would it?

John Teschky:

As Libertarians, we should - above all - recognize that "The Truth" has not yet been discovered. There is not "THE Libertarian" dogma, but rather an evolving message, slowly being discovered, as we seek out The Truth.

Even the party platform is an evolving message, subject to change, hopefully for the better.

As with every other large organization, there are things you will like, and things you will dislike. Our job, as opponents of this plan, is to continue the dialogue, and to PERSUADE our fellow travelers (both inside and outside the party) of the errors of their ways and how to make the future BETTER.

The issue now is not whether the plan will be posted - it will be. Rather, how to use the posting to further our mutual objectives of spreading liberty around the world.

Writing to your local Congressperson, or newspaper, or discussing with neighbors your objection to implimenting the plan and explaining why you believe an alternative plan would be better is something you can do to advance the cause.

If you use the posting of this plan to continue the discussion about how to better society - either by supporting or opposing its implementation, or by presenting a more favorable interpretation of the plan - then you can use even something you dislike to your advantage.

J. Mills

The following comment came from a previous posting:

Important Notice! for the LP HQ

When ever someone comes up with an idea, plan , a rebuttal etc. Do not, repeat do not do anything until it has been approved by the voting members of the Libertarian Party in Convention. Nothing is that important that couldn't wait for two years until we have an answer or we could call for a special convention.

Posted by: Bill Wood at July 6, 2005 05:31 AM

Bill,

This thought process runs counter to the mission of the LP. If a political party is so restrained that it cannot operate in real time, it may as well cease to exist. Running statements though the LNC would cause great delay - and waiting every two years is absurd.

There is no way the LP can engage in politics with such restraints - unless that is indeed your goal.

I like this new practical approach, where the LP takes on issues in a realistic manner that neither the R's or D's are handling appropriately.

At least there is a more detailed plan, a public one, unlike what the current administration has shared. Americans are getting tired of the "war", even those that originally supported it.

If the plan worked and we gave the aid and brought home the troops over the course of a year, would that be so bad? Or would principles dictate putting something more extreme forward that is unsellable to the public, and thus will never have any effect? If the LP is to ever have real results on a national level, it must support real solutions that are better than the other parties, while moving in the direction of the party platform.

The plan promotes something that will save huge amounts of money, even with the aid included, would pay for damages that our government (which operates with the implied consent of the people) committed, and would save American lives and suffering. Overseas troop numbers would drop considerably. What is more important - steadfast, uncompromising ideals or real results? At least the plan would move us in the right direction, and it may even create some credibility amoung independents, conservative republicans, and liberals.

I'd also put more trust in the new Iraqi government with the aid money (and the plan oversight) over our own entangled beaucracy (or that of the UN). Iraqis are also more likely to spend the money employing Iraqis, where possible, to fix their infrastructure, which will drop unemployment rates, which will quench some of the fire fueling the opposition, which will help support our goal of saving American lives, and successfully getting out of Iraq.

When I first read the Exit Strategy, I was concerned about the compromise nature of it. I still have those concerns, but after the reasoned explanation from Stephen Gordon I am a little less alarmed.

The main concern I have is how this Exit Strategy was devised and presented. I certainly do not want to handcuff HQ when they need a quick response to a news item and need to get a press release out. We should put good people in our leadership and staff that can respond quickly and appropriately.

For example, when the Kelo ruling was announced, I had our media relations people get a press release out within 3 hours of the ruling. We have also had an opportunity to testify on a moments notice before the Texas legislature on bills to address emminent domain abuse. This was also fortunate as I was able to meet the owner of the seafood business in Freeport, TX that was comdemned the day after the Kelo ruling, and we may have him as a speaker at our state conference (www.LPTexas.org). As chair, I would not be able to respond to these opportunities if I have to call a committee meeting for approval every time.

Clearly, the Exit Strategy was not an urgent response to a breaking news item. I am surprised that not only was this not presented for approval from the LNC, but LNC members knew nothing about it until it was posted on LP.ORG.

I have confidence in our national leadership and staff, but I think it is important that such non-urgent endeavors be handled with appropriate inclusion and oversight.

Patrick Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas
www.LPTexas.org

Patrick, while I appreciate your comments, I have to point out that you may not have been paying attention to the news cycle last week. Bush made a major, prime time talk that changed the scope of the war in Iraq. The next day, LP released an exit strategy while addressing the change in scope. THAT IS TIMELY!

Additionally, you should not further a rumor regarding the LNC not being informed of the exit strategy. As a state chair, you should discuss that privately and get to the truth of the matter BEFORE posting negative public comments to a blog.

Stephen Gordon,

I was trying to make a point. Your right, we could not function if the National HQ would have to run everything past the membership. I have faith and I trust what the LP Leadership does. Keep up the good work for Liberty, you have my full support.

If the Libertarian Party ever expects to play the game of politics, it must acknowledge the real world circumstances we are in. For example, Libertarians often oppose foreign intervention, but they never explain how they will get us out of the mess we are in.

I like the exit strategy because it is realistic and yes it does compromise WITH REALITY. It is important that we are not so bent on our ideology that we can't look at the surroundings and think of how we are going to get America through these times.

I applaud the Libertarian Party and I call for more practical solutions that apply to our current circumstances. I want a Libertarian Party that doesn't scare everyone away but instead makes people nod in agreement.

I think right now the LP is trying to sell a philosophy, one of the hardest things to do. Let's sell our politics, and in the process we can promote our philosophy. It has to be done if you want to play politics. I hope the LP is starting to realize this and every member needs to look at the history of the LP and ask yourself if continuing on the no compromise mentality is actually going to get anyone elected.

We can promote a philosophy on the side and we can actually attract people that KNOW our government is out of control. We have to bridge the gap between acknowledging the government is too big and the solutions. Practical compromise is the only way.

There is one very important thing left to do - and that is to GIVE to the LP so they are in a position to be able to make a difference and be able to promote future plans on the table.

I congratulate Chairman Dixon on his words. Becuase of them I will donate yet again to the LP today, and I will spring for some newspaper ads to promote the Plan itself and therefore the LP.

I hope everyone will follow me in doing so that agree not so much that it was a "great plan" but that having the guts and vision to finally try to appeal to mainstream america in a way that benefits us as a party and does not leave liberty behind.

Libertarians often forget that the LP cannot be both the titular head of the entire libertarian movement and an effective political party at the same time. The two are at odds with each other and have different purposes. It is not the proper job of a political party to attempt to get people to agree with us about the platform or the principles. Those are inter party items, for us to solve as a body.

Look at the world around you. We suffer blows to freedom on a regular basis. 9-11 made it fashionable and even desirable to give up freedom in the name of safety. Our REAL enemies, the R's and the D's, have swiftly taken what they can. The Supreme Court with Kelo vs. New London has showed they care nothing about property rights.

We dont have time to argue about the proper use of the word "force" any longer. We dont have the luxury of being able to follow a rigid path set in stone. Our National Debt is approaching 8 trillion dollars.

The US desperately needs an politically effective LP to counter these measures. We cant get there unless we give up libertarian macho flashing as a body and allow ourselves to widen what being a libertarian means with things like Zero Dues and Platform Reform, we will NEVER MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE IN OUR COUNTRY.

I dont want to spend the rest of my life rooting for my team that never crosses the 20 yard line every time they get the ball.

Stop being afraid. The LP is not going to become Republican Light or Democrat Light. What we might become if we try is THE third party, not A third party.

Break out yer wallets and show your pride. Your LP is growing up and it's not afraid of it's shadow anymore.

I'd just like to say thank you to Michael Dixon for putting out this statement. It is great to know that he follows what we say on here, even if he doesn't have time to take part in the discussion. I'm also glad to hear that party leadership is looking to work towards a Libertarian Party that participates in the political process and plans on winning.

Chris,

Pat Dixon was at the Travis County LP meeting last night which I chaired. During the meeting we discussed this matter with LNC member Rick McGinnis. Furthermore, there have been several responses on this blog with additional evidence that the LNC did not get an adequate chance to vet this document.

Gary Johnson also discussed how the LP used to handle this sort of thing in the past. (Press releases did not require LNC approval, but position papers were run by an LNC subcommittee that had to raise objections quickly or else the National office could assume the paper was acceptable. This subcommittee no longer exists.)

Right now it is safe to characterize the relationship between the LNC and the national office as "strained". In my view both sides can share the blame for this. (I will not discuss the details here. Talk to your LNC rep if you need to know more.)

My proposal is that both the LNC and national office agree not to use the posting of this paper as a matter for accusations or recriminations, but instead agree to once again set up a process for vetting that is fast and effective. (Yes, the current paper should be vetted and refined as a first use of this new process. Of course an LNCer can jump on that now if they wish. (Have you contacted your LNC rep with constructive criticism yet?)

In no circumstance should the LNC try to dissuade the national office from performing this kind of activity as it is the very essence of politics. (Some argue that the LNC has already done this. If they are right, then the LNC has misserved the interests of the party members.) At the same time the national office must work to ensure that their communications and outreach efforts are more acceptable to the membership at large.

I consider myself a very pragmatic and non-dogmatic Libertarian who is willing to engage in the political process and even consider small compromises or concessions in order to move things in the right direction. But it seems to me that some of the concessions of our principles in this document were due more to a lack of imagination and experience with the application of our ideas than anything else. A few more eyeballs from experienced Libertarians could have made the document a lot better and generated a much larger groundswell of support from the rank and file.

The bottom line for me, however, is that it is almost always better to do something than to do nothing. Take that to heart if you think the LP needs a better exit plan. Or perhaps you can get started working on some other key issue of the day. Maybe you can become the next proud Libertarian to be vilified for making something happen.

Chris,

Pat Dixon was at the Travis County LP meeting last night which I chaired. During the meeting we discussed this matter with LNC member Rick McGinnis. Furthermore, there have been several responses on this blog with additional evidence that the LNC did not get an adequate chance to vet this document.

Gary Johnson also discussed how the LP used to handle this sort of thing in the past. (Press releases did not require LNC approval, but position papers were run by an LNC subcommittee that had to raise objections quickly or else the National office could assume the paper was acceptable. This subcommittee no longer exists.)

Right now it is safe to characterize the relationship between the LNC and the national office as "strained". In my view both sides can share the blame for this. (I will not discuss the details here. Talk to your LNC rep if you need to know more.)

My proposal is that both the LNC and national office agree not to use the posting of this paper as a matter for accusations or recriminations, but instead agree to once again set up a process for vetting that is fast and effective. (Yes, the current paper should be vetted and refined as a first use of this new process. Of course an LNCer can jump on that now if they wish. (Have you contacted your LNC rep with constructive criticism yet?)

In no circumstance should the LNC try to dissuade the national office from performing this kind of activity as it is the very essence of politics. (Some argue that the LNC has already done this. If they are right, then the LNC has misserved the interests of the party members.) At the same time the national office must work to ensure that their communications and outreach efforts are more acceptable to the membership at large.

I consider myself a very pragmatic and non-dogmatic Libertarian who is willing to engage in the political process and even consider small compromises or concessions in order to move things in the right direction. But it seems to me that some of the concessions of our principles in this document were due more to a lack of imagination and experience with the application of our ideas than anything else. A few more eyeballs from experienced Libertarians could have made the document a lot better and generated a much larger groundswell of support from the rank and file.

The bottom line for me, however, is that it is almost always better to do something than to do nothing. Take that to heart if you think the LP needs a better exit plan. Or perhaps you can get started working on some other key issue of the day. Maybe you can become the next proud Libertarian to be vilified for making something happen.

Rock

To JMills in re.: july6, 5:49pm: Those of us who oppose the plan(myself included)keep alluding to an alternative plan. I even offered, somewhat facetiously, to formulate one myself. As I commented in an earlier posting,the debate seems not to be between proponents and opponents as much as between opponents and apologists(at least amongst those in favor who have bothered to read and contemplate the ramifications of the plan). I suggest that we in opposition have said our peace, it would now be incumbent upon us to present an alternative. But quite frankly, I find myself inadequate to the task. I respect the good intentions of those who formulated the plan,however, in my judgement, it is an unacceptably fundamental contradiction to principle that I simply cannot abide. I cannot fathom the attitude I sense from the plan's supporters that those of my perspective should just go along inspite of our grave reservations. for my part, I cannot countenence this plan. If it's promotion continues to go forward, I will have to join those who have disassociated themselves from the party. Of course the further along the promotional process evolves, the more difficult it would become to switch to an alternative.I'll continue to watch this process, hopefully, an alternative plan strategy will be put forth to which I would at least lend support, if not positive input.--Thank You,The Bikemessenger

Mr Dixon,

Thank you for trying to turn the LP into a real force in politics and not just an activist group. The plan is NOT perfect, but it's a plan. It is far more Libertarain than any other plan I have heard.

Mr. Dixon,

Thank you for putting out your statement on the road ahead. While as a recently retired Air Force Lt Col and long time libertarian I tend to agree with J Mills, but I am thrilled that we are at least getting in the game! I also agree with Timothy West's last post on getting the ball past the 20 yard line, and DONATING!

Rock, points taken. Some time of review should take place but that's for our leadership to handle. We voted for them so let's trust them. For now let's take the chair's advice and put out a positive and consolidated message for the nation.

Gotta say, I did like this comment,

"Maybe you can become the next proud Libertarian to be vilified for making something happen."

From Taylor:

"If the Libertarian Party ever expects to play the game of politics, it must acknowledge the real world circumstances we are in. For example, Libertarians often oppose foreign intervention, but they never explain how they will get us out of the mess we are in."

Excuse me (or indulge me). I know that the question of what will be posted seems for now to have been decided, and little is gained by denegrating good faith opponents, but really . . .

Isn't "leave as fast as possible keeping uppermost the safety of our troops" an explanation for getting us out of the mess we're in? I mean, could there be a clearer plan for getting us out?

To Robert Noval: I agree that it's easier to criticize than to create. Ergo, here is the plan I propose as an alternative (somewhat shortened version):

Keep all of the background information set out in the current "exit plan."

Strike the "gradual" withdrawal and 11K or so per month troop withdrawal language, substituting that we should "withdraw as promptly as the military can reasonably move, keeping paramount the safety of our troops at all times."

We strike all reference to training, equipping, or aiding the current Iraqi government in favor of an assertion that it purports to be supported by the majority Shiites, apparently is, and therefore ought to be able to survive on its own, but if not, it is the provence of the Iraqi people, not American politicians to decide who governs Iraq.

We should strike all reference to a foreign aid program by the government, calling instead for free private aid as successfully worked regarding the Tidal Wave in Indonesia.

We should strike all reference to placing troops in neighboring countries, citing the fact that we have not been asked, nor should we intervene if asked in other countries' affairs.

We should then close with a reference to the fact that Saddam has been deposed, a new government in Iraq has been elected, that our job there is over and we should declare victory and bring the troops home. We should assert our willingness to engage aggressively in trade with all Iraqis seeking peaceful trade agreements, and express our hope that Iraqis will soon settle their differences, and reorganize their country in a way conducive to joining the peaceful nations of the world as important members of the world community.

There it is - the alternative exit strategy in a nutshell.

If I find time, perhaps this weekend, I will try to redraft the full document for discussion.

J. Mills

I agree with Tim.

We're not going to become Democrat Lite or Republican Lite if we soften some of our more RADICAL positions.

I know not very many people agree with 100% of their parties platform but here are some areas in which I -suggest- some tweaks to:

- Immigration
- Taxation
- Education
- Regulation

1. I cannot lie. Many immigrants are good, decent people who come to America to escape tyranny abroad but I support the minimal amount of immigration controls needed to prove that somebody crossing is not either a) a terrorist or b) a criminal

2. As a Libertarian, I realize that high taxes esp. income taxes are counter-productive to hard working citizens trying to support their family but completely abolishing taxation is a bit too extreme. I'm sure even Thomas Jefferson, if alive today, would say we at least need excise taxes and revenue tariffs.

3. I, myself, do not agree with the complete privatization of schools. Many will tear me apart on this but I tend to lean more toward vouchers.

4. If I understand correctly, some Libertarians advocate the end of business regulation. I see the need for OSHA and other agencies to ensure workplace safety but in the same breath, see the need not to OVER-regulate. Minimal amount of regulation needed to ensure safety.

Great! the fuse is up to 1,000. We have alittle over three weeks to go before the end of July. We need to average alittle more than 1334 new members a week to reach this goal. This effort by the LPHQ has been outstanding!

Has the website advanced since last report of 10,000 spots?

"Isn't "leave as fast as possible keeping uppermost the safety of our troops" an explanation for getting us out of the mess we're in? I mean, could there be a clearer plan for getting us out?"

It does not give the Iraqi government anytime to establish its police powers that it needs to handle itself. You want to leave as quickly as possible because you believe it was a mistake to enter Iraq (and I firmly agree it was a mistake), however we are inside Iraq, and leaving as quickly as possible could actually be worse overall for the U.S. and the Iraqi people. I know it is not our responsibility to protect the Iraqi people normally, but we just knocked out their government and believe it or not this brings up complex questions. We should leave as quickly as possible with respect to the Iraqi security forces mobility and stength. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't leave if there are still car bombs going off, we should put down a time as the LP has and stick to it and say "look Iraq, you either have things together by this time or else because we are leaving at a steady pace and you will be taking over. Our plan is reasonable and gives sufficient time. "

This is what I mean by ideology. You don't want to recognize what our policies have been and you don't want to reach compromise to widen our umbrela because you believe it is wrong period. I understand where you are coming from, I feel you, but I think it's time we as members be as open as possible to new blood. It's unreasonable to just say let's pick up and leave even though it was unreasonable to go in. They are distinct and the fact the LP recognized this looks promising for the future of this party. I urge you to take a firm look at the situation. A gradual pullout would give us a chance to provide some additional training to the Iraqi security forces all the while would let the Iraqi people know we are not occupying their nation.

Thomas Jefferson in fact supported taxation.

"I like the power given the Legislature to levy taxes, and for that reason solely approve of the greater house being chosen by the people directly. For though I think a house chosen by them will be very illy qualified to legislate for the Union, for foreign nations, etc., yet this evil does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME

"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:423

Yet many libertarians would cite Jefferson as a example of support of the LP. I think Jefferson would have laughed at the current platform of this party - and called it a flight of fancy at best.

Study a bit and find what Jefferson REALLY thought.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

Mr. Dixon,

As a new member of the Libertarian Party let me just say that I heartily agree with your message and wanted to offer words of encouragement from at least one more member who feels these kinds of solutions that move us in a more libertarian direction are EXACTLY what the LP really needs. I commend you on your leadership in these kinds of initiatives.

Bill:

Site Stats for lp.org:

* Traffic Rank for lp.org: 18,886 (up 14,171)

* Speed: Fast (70% of sites are slower), Avg Load Time: 1.2 Seconds (what's this?)

* Other sites that link to this site: 861

* Online Since: 09-Mar-1994

From Alexa.org. We are now up 14,171 spots. A healthy increase from the 10,000 we had.

Many of us have pointed out that the 'strategy' is an abomination, and I resent Mr. Dixon's smugly presumptious paraphrase of all this criticism into 'not perfect'.

The trend of public opinion is against the war, and on many war-related questions the polls show pluralities or majorities on the anti-war side. Yet the 'realists' insanely insist that the LP must declare itself for the war, to pander to public opinion!

It is increasingly clear that the Libertarian Party is a sick, pathetic joke.

David Tomlin

The plan just had it's 1,000th supporter sign!

Yes, this plan for Iraq is indeed reasonable. The common ordinary anti-war Republican, Democrat, or even progressive would probably find it quite pleasing. It is mild mannered, attempts to please everyone by freely giving out more US tax dollars, and does not call for any significant change in our relations with other nations other than Iraq.

It is reasonable. It is thoughtful. It will probably even be downright ACCEPTABLE to many, many people.

However, it is not being reasonable that makes the Libertarian Party stand out.

Additionally, it is not being thoughtful that makes the Libertarian Party unique among all other political parties.

Most importantly, it is not attempting to be acceptable that makes the Libertarian Party worth of the title, "The Party of Principle".

What makes the Libertarian Party the one true and consistant force for liberty and freedom is that for so long our party has no qualms about being bluntly, obviously, and In-Your-Face....

UNREASONABLE!

We have our values.
We have our principles.
We have our standards.

Up until now we have stood firm on all the above. We have been unafraid to shock, offend, push away, or even scare those that don't recognize the value and sense the urgency for a restoration of true freedom in this nation.

As a wrestler once stated during a match I was watching, "If you don't like me, BITE ME. If you want some, COME GET SOME!"

We challenged all other parties to match our consistancy. If the Republicans or Democrats trashed us, bashed us, or slandered us we would counter with unwaivering pride in our standards. As the party of principle we may not attract quite as many members due to the fact we pander to no one for temporary political gain. But our stead fast, fully truthful, and always honest attitude has helped us grow and become a significant force for freedom!

Now, it seems the LNC has for the first time I can specifically remember pandered to the other parties for temporary political gain, given up on the principles of the LP, and presented a plan that contradicts what libertarianism stands for in a myriad of aspects.

Libertarians don't beg for our troops to be brought back home slowly from Iraq. We boldly DEMAND that all troops from around the world be brought back, IMMEDIATELY!

Libertarians don't support supplying other nations with weapons and training their troops. For obvious reasons, the idea of doing so should be terrifying to anyone! We demand that all such programs stop and case immediately!

Libertarians don't support the giving away of US tax dollars to other nations. It does not matter if the politicians that govern the USA have made mistakes that hurt people around the world. It also does not matter if in some sense these politicians have a global debt to repay for the harm they have caused. Millions of Americans DID NOT SUPPORT THIS WAR and it is downright CRIMINAL to steal tax dollars from them to be given to Iraq or any other nation!

GET THE FOLLOWING CONCEPT IN YOUR HEAD, L-N-C.

Libertarians DO NOT SUPPORT US tax dollars being given away to other nations!

It is BAD ENOUGH if my own government taxes me to gain money to spend on all kinds of projects here in the United States. That is horrible.

It is EVEN WORSE when they tax my actual INCOME with a completely invalid 16th ammendment to pay for all kinds of big government projects here in the United States. That is even worse than horrible!

It is completely UNACCEPTABLE and a true ABOMINATION for my government to GIVE AWAY the tax dollars they have TAKEN FROM ME to support ANOTHER NATION! This is wrong, downright THEFT, and should make every US citizen fume with anger!

For the Libertarian Party to call for the US to give such money away is completely shocking to me.

It is beyond my comprehension!

Once again, the LNC has gone beyond not abiding by the letter of our platform. The LNC has violated it in a hideous manner.

All Libertarians should be appauled by this action and seek for this "plan of action" to be repealed.

I immediately urge all Libertarians to speak up about this.

If there are additional "plans of action" about other issues in the works then we have a lot to fear, because if the LNC will compromise in these things then who knows what other principles they will violate in the future.

David,

how can you say that providing an EXIT plan makes us FOR the war???

that's like saying that presenting a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 16th amendment makes us For Income Taxes.

the logic is absurd

"Up until now we have stood firm on all the above. We have been unafraid to shock, offend, push away, or even scare those that don't recognize the value and sense the urgency for a restoration of true freedom in this nation."

Yes.....as can be seen by the current ratio of registered libertarians (253,000+) to actual party members, (23,000) we seem to scare a lot of libertarians away as well.

When you cant even get people in the same party registration to join, somethings wrong. Maybe we should go ask them what it is, and act on it?

Kinda perverted to be so happy about how many people we have shoved away from us, isnt it? :/

William,

libertarians also believe in personal responsibility. the republican administration (legally elected representatives of the US government) has commited a crime against iraq and the US government has a responsibility to make reparations. The plan presented by the LP seems to provide adequate support and appears to make adequate reparations. immediate withdrawal would be irresponsible. the republicans broke it, but we as americans own it. we have a duty to put iraq back on its feet during our withdrawal.

if you're going to present libertarian principles, make sure you don't leave out the pertinent ones.

From Taylor:

"It [leave as fast as possible] does not give the Iraqi government anytime to establish its police powers that it needs to handle itself. You want to leave as quickly as possible because you believe it was a mistake to enter Iraq (and I firmly agree it was a mistake), however we are inside Iraq, and leaving as quickly as possible could actually be worse overall for the U.S. and the Iraqi people. I know it is not our responsibility to protect the Iraqi people normally, but we just knocked out their government and believe it or not this brings up complex questions. We should leave as quickly as possible with respect to the Iraqi security forces mobility and stength. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't leave if there are still car bombs going off, we should put down a time as the LP has and stick to it and say "look Iraq, you either have things together by this time or else because we are leaving at a steady pace and you will be taking over. Our plan is reasonable and gives sufficient time. "

This presupposes that it IS our responsibility to "give the Iraqi government anytime to establish its police powers."

Historically, in the Middle East we gave the Shah power to establish his police powers (turned out badly). We gave Osama Bin Laden opportunity to establish his army (to fight the Russians) . . . turned out badly. Gave Saddam Hussain assistance in building his police state (to oppose the Iranians who overthrew our boy the Shah) . . . turned out badly. So now, you want to give the Shiites power to establish their army to defeat the insurgent Sunnis. OK. But, what assurance that we won't be turned on by the Shiites (who seem to have close ties to Iran and their nuclear programs)?

The advantage of politics is that it is so long-term, no one ever has to say "I'm sorry." Who took the fall for the Vietnam disaster? For Korea? For Somalia? Who will take the fall for Iraq if it just results in thousand of American dead and a radical Islamic republic run by the Clerics (as seems to be happening now) allied with Tehran?

Leave as quickly as possible could have bad consequences . . . for some in Iraq, but it assures minimal casualties for Americans. And, it is the American troops I care about.

Finally, if the gradual withdrawal leads, as you say, to "Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't leave if there are still car bombs going off, we should put down a time as the LP has and stick to it," I'd love to see how you discuss this strategy with the mother of those 500 or so who will surely die at current rates over the next year pursuant to the policy you advocate, for absolutely NOTHING (since we leave without accomplishing anything of value).

I think one cannot so casually dismiss the prospect that our continued presence for a year will lead almost assuredly to a) 500+ American dead, many thousand wounded, b) the prospect of the Shiite majority seizing control with an effective military machine trained, and equipped by the Americans, and c) the prospect that this Shiite majority may end up aligning with Iran, and turning on America (as has happed so often in the past).

If all these bad things come to pass, how will you accept "responsibility"?

I, on the other hand, will accept responsibility for my plan of immediate withdrawal because that will a) certainly lead to fewer American dead and wounded, and b) as to what happens in Iraq, I don't care; it's a problem for the Iraqis.

J. Mills

Just a thought.

To JMills in re.: july 6, 1001pm:Thank you for taking the lead in this matter. Already, your modifications would allow me to live with this plan. While I can go along with the background information (it certainly is more accurate than what I would surmise the average American believes) In all fairness, the inaccuracies are probably only glaring to us DSM fanatics!(Don't discount us, we have the information and determination to precipitate Bush's down fall, a prerequisite to the implimentation of any exit strategy("The only way our enemies can succeed is if...we abandon the Iraqi people...this will not happen on my watch"---from June,28 2005 address to the nation).With reference to the Shiite support of the Iraqi government, I think it would be useful to mention the Kurds as well.The only area you cover where I would strongly disagree with you is on the substitute for the original plan's foreign aid. It had been suggested early on in this discussion that rather than standard foreign aid(the most pernicious aspect of the plan, which to me more than any other, gives it it's unacceptable fundamentally antilibertarian quality),we be prepared to make reparations.I later expounded on the advantages of reparations vis-a-vis foreign aid;It would constitute a clear sign of respect of Iraqi autonomy, as it would be simple compensation for harm done, rather than the degrading, dependency fostering standard foreign aid program. Moreover, I question the validity of your tsunami analogy; as that was what some(not me!) would call an "Act of God", whereas,the current calamity is clearly the result of the actions of the U.S.Government. Far be it from me to decourage charity. But true charity, as you imply, must by nature be strictly voluntary.This is a situation,as implied by the foreign aid references of the original plan (with which, ironically, I concur)in which we bear material responsiblity,therefore charity aside, we have a material,not merely a moral obligation in this matter.--Thank You, The Bikemessenger

To "Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2005 10:21 PM"

Will you send me a note at johnsmills@gmail.com?

I would like to discuss immigration with you, but don't want to clog this already busy blog with that issue.

J. Mills

William, and others who think we aren't obligated to financially help Iraq: Do you believe that we should also default on our national debt simply because this was the fault of past politicians, and citizens shouldn't be forced to pay for their mistakes?

If so, you'd be in agreement with the LP platform. But have you ever thought about the ramifications of such a decision?

In the case with Iraq, our leaders haven't only caused damage to their residents, but also created more hostility towards our country. No matter what strategy we use for exiting, there'll continue to be hostility and use of terrorism upon us and the new Iraqi government.

One negative effect an immediate pull-out and no financial assistance may have on a country like Iraq is a greater amount of hostility towards us for leaving their damaged country in chaos. This type of policy may actually make a bad situation even worse by attempting to sweep this all under the rug, so to speak.

To William; in re.: post of july 7,12:25am : THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!! you are an inspiration!!!! It's that kind of fire and intensity that may save us yet from the drab socialist maise upon us! But please do not disparage reason,for it is through reason that the human mind arrives at the place there human nature and liberty display thier unique harmony and all other ideologies are exposed as frauds that must be imposed coercively.

To nameless; in re.: 1;01am post-- But the foreign aid proposed, rather than reparations is the most severe problem with the plan; please read my 1:38am post-- Thank You The Bikemessenger

Robert Noval,

Thank you for your kind words.

I have not at all given up on reason. It was the ability reason and see past the propaganda of the Republicans and Democrats that allowed me to recognize the truth the LP had to offer.

You see, the LP's principles are very reasonable. They are logical, rational, and make sense. However, for those that do not understand that yet they are unreasonable.

We must not make our policies less logical (to us) just to make others see them as more reasonable (to them).

I have a lot fire in me when it comes to big government. I am sick and tired of watching this nation slide deeper and deeper into a tyranny. However, what the LNC has done is give away what makes the LP special for temporary political gain.

Even though what they have already done is horrible it is only going to get worse.

Giving in to the "political wind" to gain political support is a slippery slope. Think of it this way...

They give a little more away about the drug issue to get backing for simply "fewer" or "less severe" drug laws.

They give away a little more away about this issue or that issue.

They are getting a measure of support. Perhaps they have gained another 50,000 members. But they have sacrificed what made the party truly unique from the Reps and Dems.

Lets say that by some chance they gained even more support this way. By giving in on this and that they finally get into a position to start gaining even more members.

By the time they reach 100,000 members 80,000 of them realize that there is not really a whole lot of difference between the LP candidate (that by this time is barely a Libertarian) and the Republican candidate as an example (who has finally decided to slightly lower spending, reduce some beauracracy, and perhaps bring half our troops home from around the world).

All the LP'ers then realize their candidate is so close to the Republican candidate that why not vote for the one that has a chance to win! The LP party is not so unique after all! Candidate X is calling for freedom too, so why hurt his chance of winning by voting Libertarian?

You see, right now, voting Libertarian is the ONLY CHOICE WHATSOEVER if you value liberty. If we stray from our principles and positions then we will become so close to a slightly more freedom leaning Rep or Dem (actually one that is just claiming to be so to get elected) that there would be no purpose in voting for us!

Once again, all LP members need to openly oppose the LNC's new plan for Iraq. It is taking the LP in the totally WRONG direction.

First of all, I nearly flipped out of my chair when I read Dixon's promise for more practical libertarian solutions. This prospect is incredibly exciting - as a founding member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, it proves to me that the LP leadership is willing to do what it takes to salvage this party's chances of success.

If they put out a few more like this, I'll become a dues-paying member to keep them coming.

If we look at the reality of the situation, the LP has cornered the market for anarchocapitalists but realized how truly limited it is when it comes to expansion. Now they realize that the only direction to grow (both in size and funding, thus success) is out, and that a political party needs to appeal to a diverse and relatively accessible set of interests. We have to sell the concept of liberty to the Average Joe.

Even the most moderate I could possibly imagine the LP ever becoming, we would still be the Party of Principle, because everything we would do should move us towards liberty and not away from it - this is the important thing to remember.

Secondly, to William/other "unreasonable" libertarians:
Being unreasonable neither wins elections nor advances liberty. If the purpose of the LP is to be unreasonable, we have certainly succeeded. If the purpose of the LP is to win elections or advance liberty, which is why most of us joined and take it seriously, you are absolutely wrong, proven by our utter failure at partisan politics. Politics is the art of being reasonable (i.e. compromise) and if we want to succeed in politics and convince people to accept more liberty, we damn well better be reasonable.

Also I'd like to point out that "principled" and "unreasonable" are distinctly different. Being principled means that you know what you stand for and you will not settle for less.

This does not mean you would not take more imperfect liberty if it were offered - it just means you won't compromise on your long-term agenda.

This does not mean you would rather have nothing and be unreasonable than move gradually towards actually attaining your principles. The Rothbardian approach to politics is counterproductive, and thus unprincipled, if you ask me.

Finally, to Dixon/leadership: you're simply the best. Thanks for working your hardest and, despite the flak you undoubtedly catch, for doing your job to make the LP a relevant political party. Don't stop.

Jnice,

We are not obligated to help Iraq. I did not support the war on Iraq. I did not make up lies to justify a war on Iraq. I did not terrorize a whole nation, kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and devastate a nation.

Our politicians did that. We did not!

Our government made a huge mistake. It was worse than a mistake. It was a horrible tragedy.

But the millions and millions of American's in this country did not cause this to happen. Our leadership did!

This war was illegal. There was NO DECLARATION OF WAR. Additionally, it was based on LIES.

If anyone should pay money to Iraq it should be those government officials who lied to get this war started.

The citizens of this country should NOT have their money stolen from them to be given to another nation.

Once again, it must be stated that this plan is NOT the work of the LNC, it was formulated in secret, behind the backs of the LP leadership.

To quote former National Chair and current LNC member Dr. James W. Lark, III:

"I didn't know anything about the preparation of an "exit strategy" until I saw it on the LP webpage. As far as I know, no one on the LNC saw the document prior to its release."

To jnice in re.; 1:43am post: If you live in Madrid pre-Iraqi troop withdrawl, you never knew when you would take a hit, now the only terrorists you have to worry about are the ones that speak fluent Euskara and they're kind enough to call ahead before they detonate! How would the same fail here? Oh, it might take a little longer for the negative feelings to subside,but the only effective way to protect our selves from terrorists,(and far more scarier to me, the patriot act and Real I.D.)is to stop pissing them off by getting our soldiers out of their face! Even your silly "exit plan" in an uncharacteristic fit of daring admits that!First things first,get out number one no conditions, no qualifications (except logistic constraints, as determined by military command)and then discuss reparations. How you can justify foreign aid, given it's history ,is beyond me! Thank You The Bikemessenger

'A commonsense strategy for success is the first mandatory step to end this conflict.'

'Ensuring a stable, democratic Iraqi government will not be accomplished without difficulty.'

'. . . the United States is now obligated to make sure Iraq becomes a stable, independent, and functional country.'

The policy advocated by the 'strategy', and by its supporters on this very thread, is the same as that of the Bush administration, except for being more optimistic about how soon it will achieve 'success'.

The withdrawal is only a 'plan', and plans can change. Support for the war is expressed in much stronger terms.

Despite its title, the most salient feature of this strategy is its expression of support for the war, a 180 reversal of LP policy. That it also expresses a wistful hope that the war may go well enough to declare victory in a year, is quite secondary.

David Tomlin

Tim West,

You consistantly seem to be willing to sacrifice Libertarian principles for political gain. Therefore, you are the one that really scares me, because if the LP starts following your guidelines we may very well grow much larger (even though we could do the same without giving up any of our principles if we worked hard and smart enough), but in the end we would be so close to Republican or Democrat that the LP would be nothing unique, special, or truly principled.

Do you really think that we can gain 100,000 new members by watering down our philosophy, principles, and values and truly call them Libertarians?

We can't! Because they won't be Libertarians. A freedom leaning Dem or Rep is NOT a Libertarian even if they have officially on paper become a member!

The Libertarian Party and Libertarianism has a strict philosophy because we believe in standing by our principles. We realize all the other parties sway back and fourth and pander to every single group they can because they don't care about values! They only care about political gain and whatever pet projects they want to support.

Libertarians and the LP on the other hand don't sway back and fourth on the issues. We have a firm foundation. We are unchanging because TRUTH does not change. The truth's we have recognized ground us in our positions.

What makes us special is that since we are so firmly rooted in our positions we may not end up growing as fast as some other party that would put their collective fingers up in the air, test which way the political wind is blowing, and then trot in that direction.

As Libertarians we recognize which direction we must go in and disregard the political wind. If it's hitting it from the side we live with it, if it's coming from directly infront of us then we push even harder, and if it happens to be pushing us along for a moment then so be it. But we strive toward our goals regardless if we offend others, bend them out of shape, or scare them away!

But by being bold, daring, and unchanging we allow our uniqueness to be noticed. Some may notice and not care, others may notice and be offended, but a few will notice and dig deeper into what we believe in. They will recognize that we are making sense and that our values are logical. These individuals become facinated and then join up with us!

If it takes ten months or ten years, or a hundred years for us to gain 100,000 members we will have the same values then as we do now.

But if we took your advice and watered down our principles to gain members, temporary support, and so fourth at some point along the way we would loose our identity. Once it's gone, it will NOT be coming back!

The LP is the ONLY TRUE BEACON of LIBERTY and FREEDOM left in this nation. Even if we don't grow as quickly as we would like growing at a slower rate would be better than growing, but loosing everything that makes us unique.

testing

A few responses,

First of all, if the LNC did not know about this proposal and it was done behind their backs then I hope all appropriate action is take to remove this proposal and make sure something like this never happens again.

Second of all, some people here don't realize how slippery of a slope the LP would be sliding on if they continued to compromise on their principles go gain political support. Once you do it once and you gain a little support you would want to do it again and again, but each time giving away a little bit more in order to gain even more support. Before long the LP would be nothing more than a slightly liberty leaning Republicratic Party. You don't think this would happen? How can it not happen? Even if we gained a hundred thousand members from years of sacrificing our values and principles do you really think all these new members would even comprehend what libertarianism really means? Today, members join the LP because it is so principled when it comes to Liberty and Freedom. In such a future people would join not at all because of what the LP stands for but because of this issue or that issue, and not for it's PRINCIPLES!

Also, some things are more important than success! Ones values, principles, and morals should be more important than personal gain. When it comes to a political party it's core values and principles should never be sacrificed to gain members, support, government recognition, etc. The LP cannot and should not call for the government to do anything that contradicts true libertarianism. Having troops around the world, keeping troops in Iraq for even one day longer than it takes to bring them home, giving money to other nations, and building up another nation's military are all completely anti-libertarian concepts. We must stay true to ourselves and resist the tempation to compromise.

Before I close, I have heard that politics is the art of compromise. If that is the case, then look what compromise and "the art of politics" has gotten us! Big government, troops around the world, US tax dollars going around the world, our rights violated, less freedom, insanely high taxes, social programs that redistribute wealth, and probably ten thousand or more uneeded government programs.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope the LP does NOT begin to "play politics".

Playing politics, compromising, and sacrificing your principles will only make us no more significant than the Reps or Dems. In the end, even though it *might* provide us with more generalized support, it would be the downfall of our party.

Is a Libertarian Party with a hundred thousand members of which 80,000 don't truly understand, recognize, or support our true principles and values really a "Libertarian Party"?

I think not!

Nick Wilson writes:

"Being unreasonable neither wins elections nor advances liberty. If the purpose of the LP is to be unreasonable, we have certainly succeeded."

See, I don't understand this as an ARGUMENT. It's just name-calling.

"Withdrawal as soon as possible keeping uppermost the saftey of our troops" seems to me "reasonable," and has in fact been defended by a raft of reasons.

The "gradual" withdrawl policy is also defended by a raft of reasons.

We need to debate the accuracy and sensibility of the "reasons." It just adds ZERO to the debate to call some "unreasonable." Just as it adds nothing to the debate to call some "purists."

In fact, "immediate withdrawal as fast as is militarily possible" clearly has the advantage of minimizing American loss of life.

That is a REASON to adopt that policy over "gradual withdrawal for the purpose of giving the Iraqi government time to arm itself," which - really even proponents admit - will come ONLY at the expense of American lives, currently running at about 855 a year.

So, please, whatever ARGUMENTS are advanced pro and con, let's refrain from just name-calling.

J. Mills

Tim,

Oh, and I am happy if the LP is scaring away potential members. Why? Because it means we are sticking to our values and principles NOT MATTER WHAT!

Now, I totally agree that we can grow, expand, and reach out far more than we are doing now. But we can do that without sacrificing our principles and values.

The LP can grow, expand, and be successful and keep every single principle intact!

I personally think that many individuals such as yourself have just given up on the power of the Libertarian message!

For those who have asked for an alternative plan, I offer this:

"The primary plank of a libertarian foreign policy program for America must be to call upon the United States to abandon its policy of global interventionism: to withdraw immediately and completely, militarily and politically, from Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, from everywhere. The cry among American libertarians should be for the United States to withdraw now, in every way that involves the U.S. government. The United States should dismantle its bases, withdraw its troops, stop its incessant political meddling, and abolish the CIA. It should also end all foreign aid which is simply a device to coerce the American taxpayer into subsidizing American exports and favored foreign States, all in the name of "helping the starving peoples of the world." In short, the United States government should withdraw totally to within its own boundaries and maintain a policy of strict political "isolation" or neutrality everywhere.

The spirit of this ultra-"isolationist," libertarian foreign policy was expressed during the 1930s by retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler. In the fall of 1936, General Butler proposed a now-forgotten constitutional amendment, an amendment which would delight libertarian hearts if it were once again to be taken seriously. Here is Butler's proposed constitutional amendment in its entirety:

1. The removal of members of the land armed forces from within the continental limits of the United States and the Panama Canal Zone for any cause whatsoever is hereby prohibited.

2. The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed service, are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy, more than five hundred miles from our coast.

3. Aircraft of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps is hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States."

Murray Newton Rothbard

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty13.asp

To William in re.: 2:18am post What you describe is nothing new, indeed the LP ignores history: At the turn of the 20th century German Chancellor Bismark instituted the first Social Security scam. His main purpose was to co-opt, and therefore blunt, the rising appeal of the Socialists. In addition, the compromise of principle is hardly an externality; in compromising principle,one cannot help but subvert one's own moral resolve, and ultimately one's character, In the political realm, one can observe this effect as it manifests in small increments, until one day the individual wakes up, looks in the mirror, and realizes he sees less than what was once there. he has acquired all the political power he set out to acquire but lacks the resolve to apply it as originally intended, rather, he is more tightly bound to his accumulated vested interests.This same phenomena can be seen as a cumulative effect in an organization as well-just imagine; John Kerry's party was once Thomas Jefferson's party. Who would be Jefferson's party today? Will he have a party tomorrow?

Unnamed post-
This argument is simply not based in reality. First of all I would argue that the conflict in Iraq is not an illegal action. The commander and chief is giving the authority of the miltary. The Congress has the abilty to A) Declare war B) Fund or not fund miltary action C) Impeach and remove the president. The Congress funded the action and did not make a declaration. This does not mean the president can't fulfill his role as commander and chief because the congress failed to live up to it's role. The fact that Congress didn't declare a war on Iraq only means that we didn't have a "legal war" not that the president acted outside his enumareted power. In other words the Commander and chief used legal authority to determine immediate threat (bs I know) and acted on this threat. If this threat was a complete fabrication then Congress has the ability to stop funding for this conflict and remove the president from office. They won't because although to most Americans the president made a bad decision based on bad intelligence most of that intelligence came during Clinton's Adminstration so it makes it hard to argue that Bush fabricated the intelligence. He did ignore alot of intelligence that stated Iraq did not pose an immediate threat. But this can be explained as a bad President making bad decisions but still working within the authority giving to him by the constitution, dumb but legal.I mean if your argument is that the conflict was illegal this gives even more merit for legal tort.
Second the argument that somehow the government is not responsiable to make legal tort ( which the plan erroneously calls foriegn aid)because some voters didn't support the war is not logical. I made the statement earlier with this logic we wouldn't have to pay back the national debt because the Republacrats spent this money on unconstitutional programs. The result of not paying back that debt would be economic collapse (Ask Venezuela) even if you don't think it's fair, it's the reality of the sitution. We talk about making gradual steps to build a more libertarian country. I think a good way to do this is to fix the problems that the Democrats and Republicans made while staying within the framework of the Constitution. Forcing the government to stay within this framework. After we do this we can work on ideas that I agree with but currently are legal under the Constitution like having troops stationed outside of our borders (nothing in the Constitution prevents this) or replacing taxes with user fees. Since nothing in the plan is unconstitutional and it moves us closer to the ideal libertarian solution, I support it.

There has been a lot of talk about "realism" and "being practical" here. Consider who the true realists are:

"The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in "limited government" who is the truly impractical utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yourself"; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."

Murray Newton Rothbard

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

William,

What you say has a element of truth in it. It is caused by a almost 5 year misunderstanding of what the Pledge actually means, versus what I thought it meant. I thought it meant force as in "armed revolution" - imagine my surprise when I found out almost 5 years later when I was informed the true meaning the Pledge. I was shocked to learn I had agreed to be a anarchist! :D

So I joined the LP not understanding the true nature of what I had pledged. I'm sure many others have done the same. I dont support any form of anarchism, but I dont want to throw them out of the party. I simply want a equal place at the table without compromising MY principles, or substituting the principles I dont agree with and have no pretense of supporting ( like not paying back the National Debt, or elimination of ALL taxation) LP principles I cant in good consience agree with. If that makes me unprincipled, so be it.

Principles are part of something you have inside you that makes you the man or woman that you are, not something that you get from a politcal party.
The LP is the best match for my principles, but not a perfect match. If you cant accept me as a member with over 20 years actual LP involvement, membership, and voting for LP candidates, How the hell are any of you ever going to accept and welcome any newcomers to the party?

Everyone is going to have 1 or 2 things they dont agree with, and seek to change. Only the LP among political parties in this country seeks 100% compliance amongst it's members. No other.

William, you have absolutely no clue for how politics is carried out this country. Thats a bad thing for a political activist.....but you're not really a POLITICAL activist. You hate politics becuase it makes you question yourself, and that makes you very upset, judging by how agitated you get.

"In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:235

Just for those who accuse the proponents of immediate withdrawal of being "unreasonable" and advocating for an "unworkable" plan that isn't in concert with the "real world" - what has elsewhere on the internet been called advocating "Libertopia" - I point out that - excepting the U.S. and Great Britian - most of the countries of the world are practicing "libertopia."

Recently, Spain adopted the "immediate and unconditional withdrawal" strategy, and it seems to have worked out well there. Train bombings have stopped, and last month there were zero Spanish deaths in Iraq.

Just a thought.

J. Mills

I take it, Mr. Dixon, that you have given your approval to the exit strategy. That's certainly an improvement over previous news. I hope that you and the HQ staff have learned an important lesson though...get proper authorization before putting out a major issue iniative statement.

I also would like to see the LNC draft a simple resolution that says something to the effect that all official announcements coming from HQ that might be considered by some party members to be at variance with the platform must be approved in its final form by either the party chairman or the LNC prior to release.

Libertarian TV, how about not buying into the rumors. They were obviously a political hit put forward by those who do not support this plan in order to change the topic away from the content of the plan as they had no arguments based on reality.

This is politics boys and girls and factions within our own party are putting forward these issues to distract and bring down the leadership.

It's a typical game played within the LP to push out the chair and bring in a new one that they conrol. It has nothing to do with the party, just personal egos.

DON'T BUY INTO IT!

I very much agree with Mr. West's views on this issue. To suggest that there is only one, true "Libertarian Way" is rather fallacious. Just check out wikipedia.org for all the various flavors of libertarianism that exist.

In all, however, I would ask that folks remember the "slippery slope" argument runs both ways. To suggest that we simply back a plan of legaliing medical marijuana, to these folks, means we fall down the slippery slope of not legalizing any other drugs. Of course there flip side is that by legalizing medical marijuana you also give yourself room to say "See? The world didn't fall apart, let's try legalizing marijuana now?" In other words you are showing the "slippery slope" to the opposition and suggesting that the more liberties we have the better off we become as a society. In this way we are not compromising our pricipals, we are simply stating that in order to show the merit of our priciples we may well need to take a few extra steps to get there.

Rejection of taking steps has left the Libertarian Party with virtually no gains in the political world that we all simply live in. Over 30 years of trying to get the American people to jump into the deep end simply has not worked. I think "compromise" positions will help show the reluctant that greater freedoms can be a GOOD thing and I think this will move us in a more positive and libertarian direction.

Is it wrong to move things in a more libertarian direction? Maybe if you agree with Mr. Rothbard, but I reject the notion that only Mr. Rothbard's view of libertarianism is the "One True Way". If that means I am not a libertarian in the view of some, so be it, but it will not stop me from believing in libertarian principles nor from working towards a more libertarian society even if I think doing it by steps will be more productive than what the LP has tried so far.

Sorry, but I won't compromise MY principles by stating that the Rothbardian way is the only way.

Good god! I'm RUNNING back to the Republican Liberty Caucus. There is no way I can be convinced to renew my membership after reading through this garbage.

Give me a good candidate and I'll vote for him/her. But I'll never join this party again if I have to take the "Libertarian Purity Test" to qualify.

I had to vote for George Allen for Senate a few years ago because the Libertarian candidate was a complete whack-job. Remember the guy who smeared Harry Browne because he wasn't "pure" enough. I would have voted for the Larouchian running for the seat before voting for that guy. George Allen was the only candidate close to me politically in that race. That's scary.

Chris,

They were not just rumors. They were based on comments by members of the LNC.

To: Nameless Republican Liberty Caucus Runaway

If I'm not mistaken, the candidate you are referring to was write-in candidate Robert K McBride. Mr. McBride has served on his local government's budget committee, on its road bond committee, has worked in local civic associations, and is part of a committee aiming to preserve a local park. I don't know the man, but he seems at first glance like a pretty decent, civic-minded person to me.

Please explain to me why you think Mr. McBride is a "whack-job." Given his record, I think you'd have to have a pretty good reason to refer to him using such a mean-spirited slap as that. So what's your reason?

I totally support the exit strategy 100% and I signed the exit strategy and I left a good message. The Libertarian Party strategy is very realistic and should be considered by all americans. The Republican Party and The Democratic Party just wan't more troops in Iraq and there is a possibility I heard from news reports that If the military stays in Iraq the United States could bring back conscription. I support leaving Iraq before any conscription is imposed upon us.

To: Nameless Republican Bound Runaway

Why are you going to a party that is full of hypocrisy and does not truly believe in smaller government. The Republican Liberty Caucus is not going to be accepted by mainstream Republicans because they are too loyal to Bush and his war on terror it's no different than Imperialism. The war on terror has been used as excuse by the Bush Administration to turn the United States into Communist Police State.

Been trying to post all morning. Trying again.

Libertarian TV, did Jim Lark post those comments or are you relying on a third hand rendition of the facts?

This "Exit plan" is just pandering. Why does the national LP feel it is necessary to pander? The LP made a name for itself by telling the truth and always basing its positions on the core principle of non-aggression.

The United States government is the aggressor in this war; the invader, the violator, the occupier, the initiator of force. The only libertarian solution to Iraq is to get out immediately, and then get out of every other country where we are meddling and intervening.

If Libertarians no longer believe in the non-aggression principle, how do we expect to convince others?

The bombings in London today serve as a reminder that any country that continues to stay in Iraq puts itself at risk of domestic violence. The strategy to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here at home" is now officially a total crock. My heart goes out to the British victims today, and as a Libertarian I urge the British government to read our exit strategy and take it to heart, lest this happen again.

Chris,

I posted Mr. Lark's comments. They were from an email he sent to me. Also, please see the comments of Greg Clark, member of the 2006 platform committee.

Isn't it odd that we are seeing people
claim that they are quiting the LP for
being too radical because they are reading
posts by Libertarian radicals complaining
about a recent LP policy initiative?

Now, if the radicals are able to stop
future intitiatives, then perhaps it
would be a reason to give up on the LP.
But that hasn't happened yet.

So what is up? I believe the sad reality
is that there are Republicans whose greatest
fear is that the LP will become effective by
finally giving up on Murray Rothbard's
strategic vision.

Carl,

I count you as a friend. The question you raised certainly goes to the heart of the controversy over the exit strategy proposal. That question is: does the proposal violate the non-aggression principle? I can see the argument that says that it might. Can you see the argument that says that it might not?

Aggression has already been initiated by the U.S. Nothing we can do at this point can change that basic fact, no matter what. So how do we know that a withdrawal in stages initiates aggression?

It's easy to point fingers and resort to labels like "pandering." Let's avoid that sort of thing and deal with the facts of this horrible mess known as the War in Iraq directly, you and I.

We know each other from when I lived in Connecticut. Talk to me.

Walt Thiessen

It's clear that there is still something wrong with this blogging software. Every time I try to make my post it tells me:

The page, /cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi, has moved.

Although if I click the preview button it works just fine. If I'm doing something wrong, a more informative error message would be helpful.

A fair criticism of the opponents of the "Exit Strategy" is that no alternative is proposed.

Here is one: How about we endorse House Concurrent Resolution 35 ?

Full text is available at:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.CON.RES.35.IH:

HCR 35 already has the backing of about 25 or so Congressional Representatives, including former (D) Presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich. Accordingly, it has more "Credibility," I would think, than the LP "Exit Strategy," that currently has zero elected members of Congress backing it.

And, because it already has substantial Congressional backing, getting the Congress to adopt it seems more likely than getting Congress to adopt the LP plan. Accordingly, it is more "real world," "practical," and "politically pragmatic" to just endorse the House resolution.

HCR 35 calls for "immediate" withdrawal.

HCR 35 does not assign to the military the role of defending the Iraqi government.

HCR 35 does not call for repositioning troops in surrounding countries.

HCR 35 calls for a reconstruction "plan" but at least does not overtly call for federal aid, and the plan could entail private business ventures.

In short, HCR 35 is more closly aligned with our platform than is the LP "Exit Strategy."

Too bad some prominent (D)s have got the jump on us and are now apparently are going to really take the lead in the anti-war movement.

GregD,

Just wait a few minutes when that happens. Submitting it again will result in double posting. Your message WILL show up after a while.

"If the Republicans or Democrats trashed us, bashed us, or slandered us we would counter with unwaivering pride in our standards."

If they even recognized and trashed the LP, it would be a great thing - currently, neither D's nor R's need to address the LP viewpoints, because the LP is generally ineffective. If the LP is not willing to play in the political arena, then there is no chance of obtaining success. Keep the principals, but understand that politics requires compromise. If you don't want to play politics, why bother being a political party - there are plenty of uncompromising activist groups out there.

"But our stead fast, fully truthful, and always honest attitude has helped us grow and become a significant force for freedom!"

Significant in what way? One of the ways the LP has made headway is in local elections, where there is no party identification attached to the name. Where the party affiliation is recognized, it is often to the detriment of the candidate. The LP is hurting by turning away potential members that believe in greater liberty through smaller government (taxes, intervention, regulation, etc.).

"Yes.....as can be seen by the current ratio of registered libertarians (253,000+) to actual party members, (23,000) we seem to scare a lot of libertarians away as well."

I have registered libertarian ever since I could vote. I keep going back and forth on whether to officially join the LP or not. I am a libertarian, even though I may not agree with the "100% without compromise" stance in all aspects of the platform.

My personal hesitation for joining is based on several things:

1) I won't join if I feel there is no chance to affect policy and restore liberty, due to the position of being unwilling to compromise.

2) Certain vocal members are alienating potential supporters of liberty, whose support IS necessary to obtain any goals. Does it matter that they are only 90% supporters of the platform?

3) Some LP members will stick to their ideals, despite whatever REAL consequences we will face. The "Iraq War" is a great example. In this situation, the goal should be to return troops home and un-do the damage our military and political policies have caused to the Iraqi infrastructure and economy. I agree with Robert Noval that "foreign aid" may not have been the best term to use, due to our history of perpetual funding, and the implication that it is a hand out, rather than a reparation to a nation we invaded. Trying to roll pulling back all troops from all countries ignores

5) The use of absolute terms also scares me. The world is not black and white. You're not either with us or against us. IMMEDIATE and UNCOMPROMISING do not help further the goals, unless the goal is to be the party of principles, rather than live in a country more free.

6) Like Mike posted above, I also take issue with the extremes of some of the libertarian issues.
- Immigration (we first need to remove to social handout incentives before opening the borders)
- Taxation (some is needed, particularly in support of the constitutional functions of the government)
- Education (I actually support public education, but would severely cut out the beuracracy, and allow for school choice/vouchers. Public schools would also have to compete)
- Regulation (some is necessary to protect the liberty of individuals - but not nearly as much as we currently have)

Many of my viewpoints are based on the current reality we face, and the reality that any changes that are too extreme and fast will have undesired consequences, or will never gain enough support to go anywhere.

One way the LP can make a name for itself is by capitalizing on the weaknesses of the D's and R's, by offering real solutions that advance liberty and personal freedom in manner that the public can swallow.

Will I join the LP as a dues paying member? I am giving consideration to this - if the leadership embraces publishing and promoting actual practical solutions and keeps up the momentum, it will likely persuade me. If vocal members continue to follow the path of absolutes, like legalizing RPGs, SAMs, and dirty bombs, I have my doubts.

"If the Republicans or Democrats trashed us, bashed us, or slandered us we would counter with unwaivering pride in our standards."

If they even recognized and trashed the LP, it would be a great thing - currently, neither D's nor R's need to address the LP viewpoints, because the LP is generally ineffective. If the LP is not willing to play in the political arena, then there is no chance of obtaining success. Keep the principals, but understand that politics requires compromise. If you don't want to play politics, why bother being a political party - there are plenty of uncompromising activist groups out there.

"But our stead fast, fully truthful, and always honest attitude has helped us grow and become a significant force for freedom!"

Significant in what way? One of the ways the LP has made headway is in local elections, where there is no party identification attached to the name. Where the party affiliation is recognized, it is often to the detriment of the candidate. The LP is hurting by turning away potential members that believe in greater liberty through smaller government (taxes, intervention, regulation, etc.).

"Yes.....as can be seen by the current ratio of registered libertarians (253,000+) to actual party members, (23,000) we seem to scare a lot of libertarians away as well."

I have registered libertarian ever since I could vote. I keep going back and forth on whether to officially join the LP or not. I am a libertarian, even though I may not agree with the "100% without compromise" stance in all aspects of the platform.

My personal hesitation for joining is based on several things:

1) I won't join if I feel there is no chance to affect policy and restore liberty, due to the position of being unwilling to compromise.

2) Certain vocal members are alienating potential supporters of liberty, whose support IS necessary to obtain any goals. Does it matter that they are only 90% supporters of the platform?

3) Some LP members will stick to their ideals, despite whatever REAL consequences we will face. The "Iraq War" is a great example. In this situation, the goal should be to return troops home and un-do the damage our military and political policies have caused to the Iraqi infrastructure and economy. I agree with Robert Noval that "foreign aid" may not have been the best term to use, due to our history of perpetual funding, and the implication that it is a hand out, rather than a reparation to a nation we invaded. Trying to roll pulling back all troops from all countries ignores

5) The use of absolute terms also scares me. The world is not black and white. You're not either with us or against us. IMMEDIATE and UNCOMPROMISING do not help further the goals, unless the goal is to be the party of principles, rather than live in a country more free.

6) Like Mike posted above, I also take issue with the extremes of some of the libertarian issues.
- Immigration (we first need to remove to social handout incentives before opening the borders)
- Taxation (some is needed, particularly in support of the constitutional functions of the government)
- Education (I actually support public education, but would severely cut out the beuracracy, and allow for school choice/vouchers. Public schools would also have to compete)
- Regulation (some is necessary to protect the liberty of individuals - but not nearly as much as we currently have)

Many of my viewpoints are based on the current reality we face, and the reality that any changes that are too extreme and fast will have undesired consequences, or will never gain enough support to go anywhere.

One way the LP can make a name for itself is by capitalizing on the weaknesses of the D's and R's, by offering real solutions that advance liberty and personal freedom in manner that the public can swallow.

Will I join the LP as a dues paying member? I am giving consideration to this - if the leadership embraces publishing and promoting actual practical solutions and keeps up the momentum, it will likely persuade me. If vocal members continue to follow the path of absolutes, like legalizing RPGs, SAMs, and dirty bombs, I have my doubts.

"If the Republicans or Democrats trashed us, bashed us, or slandered us we would counter with unwaivering pride in our standards."

If they even recognized and trashed the LP, it would be a great thing - currently, neither D's nor R's need to address the LP viewpoints, because the LP is generally ineffective. If the LP is not willing to play in the political arena, then there is no chance of obtaining success. Keep the principals, but understand that politics requires compromise. If you don't want to play politics, why bother being a political party - there are plenty of uncompromising activist groups out there.

"But our stead fast, fully truthful, and always honest attitude has helped us grow and become a significant force for freedom!"

Significant in what way? One of the ways the LP has made headway is in local elections, where there is no party identification attached to the name. Where the party affiliation is recognized, it is often to the detriment of the candidate. The LP is hurting by turning away potential members that believe in greater liberty through smaller government (taxes, intervention, regulation, etc.).

"Yes.....as can be seen by the current ratio of registered libertarians (253,000+) to actual party members, (23,000) we seem to scare a lot of libertarians away as well."

I have registered libertarian ever since I could vote. I keep going back and forth on whether to officially join the LP or not. I am a libertarian, even though I may not agree with the "100% without compromise" stance in all aspects of the platform.

My personal hesitation for joining is based on several things:

1) I won't join if I feel there is no chance to affect policy and restore liberty, due to the position of being unwilling to compromise.

2) Certain vocal members are alienating potential supporters of liberty, whose support IS necessary to obtain any goals. Does it matter that they are only 90% supporters of the platform?

3) Some LP members will stick to their ideals, despite whatever REAL consequences we will face. The "Iraq War" is a great example. In this situation, the goal should be to return troops home and un-do the damage our military and political policies have caused to the Iraqi infrastructure and economy. I agree with Robert Noval that "foreign aid" may not have been the best term to use, due to our history of perpetual funding, and the implication that it is a hand out, rather than a reparation to a nation we invaded. Trying to roll pulling back all troops from all countries ignores

5) The use of absolute terms also scares me. The world is not black and white. You're not either with us or against us. IMMEDIATE and UNCOMPROMISING do not help further the goals, unless the goal is to be the party of principles, rather than live in a country more free.

6) Like Mike posted above, I also take issue with the extremes of some of the libertarian issues.
- Immigration (we first need to remove to social handout incentives before opening the borders)
- Taxation (some is needed, particularly in support of the constitutional functions of the government)
- Education (I actually support public education, but would severely cut out the beuracracy, and allow for school choice/vouchers. Public schools would also have to compete)
- Regulation (some is necessary to protect the liberty of individuals - but not nearly as much as we currently have)

Many of my viewpoints are based on the current reality we face, and the reality that any changes that are too extreme and fast will have undesired consequences, or will never gain enough support to go anywhere.

One way the LP can make a name for itself is by capitalizing on the weaknesses of the D's and R's, by offering real solutions that advance liberty and personal freedom in manner that the public can swallow.

Will I join the LP as a dues paying member? I am giving consideration to this - if the leadership embraces publishing and promoting actual practical solutions and keeps up the momentum, it will likely persuade me. If vocal members continue to follow the path of absolutes, like legalizing RPGs, SAMs, and dirty bombs, I have my doubts.

J Mills,

Regarding HR35: it is not an exit strategy. It is a call for an exit strategy. The two are not the same.

The part of HR35 that is devoted to the withdrawal proposal says only the following:

"(1) develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;"

That's all it says about their withdrawal plan. Notice that their plan is to request a plan of withdrawal. That's not a strategy. It's a call for strategy.

Notice also that (1) sets no time frame. The LP plan establishes a time frame, but HR35 does not. A withdrawal staged under HR35 could take years. There are no time limits stated in HR35 to prevent this from happening.

Finally, notice that (1) does not define the word "immediate." That word "immediate" is really the crux of the whole problem. How long should an "immediate" withdrawal be expected to take? Is immediate one day? One week? One month? One year? How long do we have to wait before we've exceeded "immediate"? HR35 doesn't say. This makes it fertile ground for abuse.

Finally, note also that HR35 calls for an ongoing UN occupation of Iraq with no timeframe for withdrawal. How is that better than the one-year limit imposed by the LP plan?

If you're arguing that HR35 is somehow more principled than the LP plan, I think the wording of HR35 belies that claim.

GregD,

I find that when I get the error, I have to go back, repost, then wait about 20-30 minutes for my entry to appear.

(I'm going to try doing this in two parts)
I oppose the LP's Iraq Exit Strategy. I oppose this plan for practical as well as philosophical reasons.

In areas where libertarian philosophy is consistent with the popular vie