Mr. Seehusen,

Please state for the record whether you will get Chairman Dixon's approval (or alternatively the approval of the LNC) in the future before unilaterally issuing statements like you did with the exit strategy. I agree that such proposals can be good for giving hope to military families, but I think there's also something to be said for maintaining party unity to whatever degree we can. Don't you agree?

Just to say, I am a liberal-libertarian from London,England and I have just witnessed the carnage wrought by the scum-of-the-earth terrorists to my hometown.

Let me reassure you all, we Brits will not give into our fears and adopt any aggressive, defensive policy as good policy simply because we are scared. We will not accept cop-out wars like the war on Iraq. We will make sure our politicians live up to the one responsibility government truly has: to defend its people.

I hope you will support us in a GENUINE "War on Terror".

Here's to Liberty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To my fellow Libertarians:

I am going to announce sometime later tonight on my decision on whether I'm going to continue supporting the exit plan or not. After discussing this with an LP member on the phone yesterday, I've come to the conclusion that the LP's official Iraq exit strategy is totally counterproductive and at odds with libertarian principles.

While I do commend the LP for coming up with an exit plan (after all, we've been on the LP's case for not coming up with a plan to begin with), I now find that the plan is not going to work in the current structure and shape it's in. While I do support removing the troops incrementally, I do NOT support the relocation of our troops and the direct aid program -- two vital components of the plan which are at odds with libertarian principles.

Therefore, I will be saying, in my e-mail to everyone, that I will be withdrawing my support for the plan and that I will be working with other LP activists (like Chris Bennett and Terry Liberty Parker) on an alternative that will be much better and much more workable than the one currently touted.

I am also disturbed by the fact that the plan was issued without any input from the LP activists and the identity of the author (or authors) of the strategy. Who devised the plan? Who came up with it all the way? Why wasn't this plan discussed with the members at large?

I give the official plan a "C" at best, but I'm hoping that we can come up with a plan that we can proudly give either an "A" or a "B" grade.

For now, I will not support any other plans, but I am willing to listen to any alternatives people might come up with.

If people want to discuss this with me further, they can contact me at libertarianman@comcast.net. From there, I will decide whether I want them to call me or not.

Thanks for your attention.

Yours in Liberty,

Todd Andrew Barnett
Columnist, Liberty For All Online Magazine
http://www.libertyforall.net

Joe,

Congratulations on your success and thank you so much for all you're doing for the LP. The office is in better shape then it has been in a long time and that's largely thanks to you, and of course the staff which works so hard.

To our friend from England,

Our friends in London are certainly in our prayers today... I have some friends who live in England, a couple in London, I sent them e-mails as soon as I heard and hope that I hear back from them soon.

Thank you for posting Todd Andrew Barrett's comments. I was beginning to think that those of us disenting from the plan were being ignored or stonewalled. If you preuse the blogs you've provided for discussion of this issue, you will note that those of us opposed to the plan as it stands are most vehement. This is because we do not view the plan as merely flawed, but in direct contradiction to libertarian principles; while those who are in favor,will generally admit that it at least has it's flaws.As I put it,the debate is not between the proponents and the opponents of the plan, but rather, between it's opponents and it's apologists. For a clear understanding of both our thoughts on the ramifications of the plan, and to get a feel for the raw emotion to which this matter inspires us, please see the july 7 12:25am& the 2:18am postings by "William" on the "LP Chair Micheal Dixon on the Road Ahead" blog.It could not be put more eloquently or precisely.I believe those of us who are opposed to the plan as it stands have had our opportunity to express our dissatifactions. It is now incumbent upon us to present a viable alternative. I hope that as an alternative emerges through the efforts of Mr. Barrett and others, that it can serve as a basis of adjustment to what I now regard as an untenable plan.As presently constituted, not only can I not support the plan, but I cannot continue to apply my name to the membership list of an organization that does.--Thank You

Todd Barnett, why do you feel we actually care about your feelings on the matter? Support it or don't support it. Come up with your own plan with nuts Moore and Parker. Have fun. But don't work against the LP. The plan isn't the problem. People like you are.

Libertarian TV, you really need to get your facts straight. Dixon himself showed his support for the plan AND DIXON HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO RELEASE SUCH A PLAN.

You people need to grow up and be part of the solution, not the problem.

The happy face you're putting on the Exit Strategy is ignoring the apparent fact that the Strategy was created by staff and never compared to the Party Platform or vetted by the elected representatives of the membership.

Sorry, but I've got problems with the Exit Strategy. So do many libertarians. Ignoring them in the name of political expediency may very well make the party larger, but it will also turn it into yet another Democratic or Republican Party. When do you plan on dropping the "Party of Principle" tag line?

One of the ways that government grows is by the growth of the bureaucracy. The people that make the decisions are not elected, nor are they answerable to the voters. This sounds very similar to the method used to generate the Exit Strategy.

I've been a dues paying member for many years. If the staff take over the Party from the members, the Party may have to find another revenue source to make up for my yearly dues.

The post above from Chris C. is demonstrative of the type of belligerent posts made by the neolibertarians. The post contains no reasonable argument and makes no point - it merely serves to allow Chris to vent his rage at libertarians.

Like their neoconservative and neoliberal counterparts, the neolibertarians are quick to label and vilify others with abusive rhetoric.

The SCC voted to end the e-mail forum in Virginia after the rhetoric became so heated over the anti-libertarian ideas and coming from the neolibertarians. It was decided the forum had become unproductive. Of course the neolibertarians accused the SCC of being the purity police and censoring their ideas.

I can't understand why so many people who reject libertarian (small L) principles, who dislike libertarians, who disagree with the LP platform, and who hurl insults at libertarians are attracted to the Libertarian Party.

The neolibertarian debate over the LP exit plan is an example of their refusal to admit that the plan contradicts libertarian principles and their refusal to even comprehend why people are upset over the way the National LP staff handled it.

The neolibertarians will not debate the real isssues surrounding this. We have heard concerns over what Neal Boortz will say. We have heard arguments that the Statement of Principles are the only libertarian principles when the platform clearly has a "The Principle" paragraph for each plank in the platform. We are told that only the neolibertarians know what the American public wants - often in contradiction to poll results.

Of course, we have heard much name calling and strawman arguments.

Often the rhetoric of the neolibertarians seems to match the rhetoric of the LP's critics from the Republican and Democrat parties. It seems politically naive and counterproductive to allow the political opposition to define the LP.

To throw out libertarian principles based on our political enemies' spin is political suicide. To pretend that Americans reject the LP platform is patently absurd when the vast majority of Americans are not familiar with it.

The neolibertarians, if sincere about helping the LP, need to abandon the abusive rhetoric and employ some reason and logic in their debates. They need to do better than telling me that they and only they know what the people can understand, accept, or are ready for.

There really is nothing that radical about the LP platform - certainly no more radical than the U.S. Constitution. It is time to quit thinking that libertarian principles are radical and do a better job selling the idea of limited government and how interventionism is antithetical to limited government.

Tom, you're far off on that one. It is the purists who are destroying this party by sticking to unrealistic visions they have for America now, not in the future. As far as the neolibertarian remarks, you should not try and label people whom you know nothing about.

Why is "Neo-" so popular these days? Musta missed something.

You've got me. It's obviously meant to present a negative connotation such as with the neocons.

Regardless, people have to stop using the national LP website to air all of their complaints. It needs to be taken elswhere. If the blog moderators were smart they should start cleaning this up and banning users for LP bashing on their own website.

Any seconds?

I'm curious.

What would the LP replace the income tax with? I've read up on a 'pollution tax'. I feel that it could attract Greens and Democrats to the party because it could show that the LP is not anti-environment as we're sometimes accused of.

A tax on pollution would mean that the companies that are big polluters will be penalized and must raise costs to consumers. As I see it, a pollution tax would give corporations, middle-sized and small businesses the incentive to be more environmentally friendly yet provide low costs.

The most environmentally friendly businesses would survive and the big polluters would either have to reform or fold. Just a suggestion from a green Libertarian.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/fabbdb4a-ecf1-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html

Last night, before the bombing it was reported that the UK's Ministry of Defence had withdraw plans for Iraq.

1. Phased withdrawal over 18 months
2. Redeployment of troops to Afghanistan
3. Allowing time for Iraqis to build up their own defense

Looks like the LP did a great job in working up a realistic plan. While the UK plan is a softer version of the LP's strategy, the plans are in line with each other at the core.

This adds credibility to the plan that was presented days ago as a workable and realistic plan to get our troops away from the violence brought about by this war.

Good job NLP!

If we went back to direct taxing the states we would no longer need any income tax or pollution tax. Congress would ask the states for money based on population and the states would send congress the money.

The LP wouldn't need to replace the Income Tax because we would eliminate wasteful government spending... which would probably be about 80% of government spending... at least...

I know that some Libertarians want government chiseled down to a certain point.

As I see it, the 'federal government' would consist of military defense, a mint, post offices and a patent office and whatever else is constitutionally mandated.

Us dissenters of the plan do agree with most of the plan but want the LP to clean up or re-work on what is un-libertarian. Relocation of troops is a direct violation of the non-interventionist plank of our platform. If the plan had excluded "foriegn aid " and included reparations to the Iraq people it would change the focus a bit. I'm a pragmatic libertarian, I'm not completely dissing the plan....I, and many of my dissenters, disagree with some of the plan. I will withold my support and monetary donations to the LP until such action is taken..and I encourage all my fellow dissenters to do the same!

BTW, what kind of libertarian is one to make snide remarks about another...we call them hypocrites

To Chris C.: I've asked this question to hard line plan supporters before, and am still waiting for a response, perhaps if you don't mind lowering yourself to my level; Given that we hard line opponents of the plan are sincere in our objections( and not the vile, perverse, malicious cowards you know us be be )what would you have us do? Please correct me if I'm mistaken( of course, we know I'm always wrong),but it seems you would have us just shut up and support a plan we disagree with out of intimidation, as you offer no argumentation,(as do many on your side of the argument)you merely hurl epithets,and make demands. You may sincerely believe you would not resort to coercion to acheive agreement. Wait.--The(neo)Bikemessenger

Tim West says: Why is "Neo-" so popular these days? Musta missed something.

Well, Tim, I guess you did miss something. Try typing "Tim West" and neolibertarian into google and count the hits. I didn't invent the term neolibertarian. There is a whole network of neolibertarian websites: www.neolibertarian.net.
It is hard to believe you have never heard this term before.

The neolibertarians tend to be interventionists. The exit strategy is interventionist in that it calls for relocating troops to countries in the Mideast. Therefore, I don't think it is unreasonable to refer to the supporters of the plan as neolibertarians.

It is not meant as a smear, it is meant as a term to distinguish a group of people who call themselves neolibertarians from those who they have labeled as purists, absolutists, etc. - it translates into new libertarian. The new libertarians are also known as gradualists or pragmatists. The neolibertarians (or new libertarians) seem to come in many stripes and they have some good ideas as well as bad ideas, in my opinion.

In fact, the website www.libertyforsale.com discusses how to label the factions in the LP. I believe Tim West runs this site. Isn't it odd that someone who wants to formally catagorize libertarians would be bothered when someone else uses a label that some use to identify themselves.
I also find it odd that the term neolibertarian is thought of as some kind of smear when people use the term to identify themselves.

You may call me a LP basher and claim it is people like myself that are destoying the LP - my only complaint is that you offer no argument to back these claims up.

It would seem that it is those in the neolibertarian movement that seek drastic changes in the LP who are bashing the libertarian ideology without offering anything substantive to replace it other than ideas that the neolibertarians insist will appeal to vast numbers of people.

Perhaps you should try to explain to all of us plain old regular libertarians who seek no major changes of the LP platform why libertarians should abandon the principle of nonintervention.

But then I guess it is easier to call people names and claim they are destroying the LP. This is the whole point of the post I made earlier. Glib insults and rudeness rather than substance seems to be the typical way the "new libertarians" debate issues.

I don't see how calling for honest debate from those who call for abandoning long standing libertarian principles makes me a hypocrite.

All I am asking for is a little intellectual honesty and an end to the name calling.

I think the fact that the rather neolibertarian exit strategy has only gotten about 1,100 backers in over a week speaks to the notion that the gradualists have a monopoly on knowing what appeals to the public.

Chris C: Grow up, you say? Why are you insulting me? I haven't insulted you. In fact, of the two of us, I'd say I'm the one who is acting grown up.

And by the way...I do and did have my facts straight.

If you'll notice, I indicated my appreciation for the fact that Mr. Dixon had given his approval to the plan. But of course, that's not good enough for you, because you just want to be insulting.

Tom,

The remark was meant as comedy. I just find it amusing that so many "Neos" are coming out at the same time....not to pick on any particular Neo.

It was Stephen Gordon who put together the survey. I didnt have anything to do with it, other than take it like a lot of other people did. He has full posting rights on LFS and I trust him to pretty much do want he wants on there.

I frankly dont have much new to say things here, so I wont.

That's good stuff Libertarian Party! It's about time someone came up with a real plan to get us out of this mess.

I would certainly agree that any form of "name calling", or bothering to take offense because of it, is counter-productive.

I think the important thing to remember here is that as libertarians we all, basically, seek the same things. More personal liberty, more economic liberty, smaller government.

The difference is that there are many schools of libertarian thought on how to achieve those goals (and possibly where to stop or define exactly how small government should be.) This does not invalidate folks from being libertarian; it only suggests that the best way to achieve these goals may differ widely and that all of these views certainly have some validity to them.

I would suggest that the folks posting their various views here are not at all stupid. That they have each thought out, and though out well, their beliefs and consequences of their views. The difference is the weight they place on which of the so very many variables that are involved in complex issues. Unfortunately that difference can bring out some of the most defensive reactions we naturally have as human beings to validate that our own position must, somehow, be "right". It makes me think of two phrases David Brin uses in his book "The Transparent Society" where he espouses that:

"In all of history, we have found just one cure for error--a partial antidote against making and repeating grand, foolish mistakes, a remedy against self-deception. That antidote is criticism"

Which he immediately follows with:

"Alas, criticism has always been what human beings, especially leaders, most hate to hear."

At the base of the current schism over this "Exit Plan" is not who is a "real" libertarian. Such an ad hominem attack does none of our positions any justice. It is about how libertarian ideals are applied in the plan. While some may suggest that the plan does not directly follow the planks of the LP, others would suggest that it leads to accomplishing those very planks. The disagreement comes in those primary areas.

I think this schism is primarily waged between those who follow the philosophical beliefs of men like Murray Rothbard who firmly believed that the only truly libertarian way was to fully implement the libertarian ideal and that anything less would not be acceptable. Many others simply do not subscribe that specific philosophy, instead believing that by taking steps toward the libertarian ideal we can start the ball rolling to gather steam to help move our society into a more libertarian direction so that we may eventually reach the very same goals.

Is either view inherently flawed? To the believer in either of them certainly they can make a case for why the believe the other concept is flawed, but I suggest that does not make either side any less libertarian if we consider the final goals aimed for.
The Libertarian Party has been around for over 30 years now. During that time the Rothbardian view has been quite prominent and prevalent in the party. The LP is the third largest political party in America, by most, but not all, standards. However, there is an exceptional amount of evidence to support the validity that the LP has had, overall, only a small impact on the American political scene, despite general libertarian views being accepted by so very much of the American populace as preferable over the primary platforms of the two major political parties in the USA. Perhaps it is time to see if maybe, just maybe, there is some real validity to the incrementalist view to moving us in a more libertarian way.

It seems the Rothbardian notion of diving into the deep end has not fared particularly well, and it has had 30 years to try. Why not consider taking a look at stepping towards liberty in the name of REACHING THE SAME GOALS for a while. If it doesn't work then you will have proven the case that moving towards liberty will not achieve liberty and that we must move to that final goal as quickly as possible.

But please, if nothing else, no more bandying about being nothing more then Demopublicans or Republicrats, or that we are compromising our principles, because the only principle being compromised is the one that says we must go straight to a libertarian ideal, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, and that is a principle we simply do not all agree on. We do agree on that libertarian ideal, we simply differ on how to get there. So that libertarian ideal is a principal none of us want to compromise on. Please accept that we are all rational, intelligent, caring human beings here and that we should all be willing to work together the best way we know how to achieve our common goal of liberty.

I wonder if the people up in arms about the exit strategy would also be up in arms about a strategy to end the Income Tax within 12 months. Would they be opposing that plan as well because it calls for an income tax for 12 more months? Would these same people oppose a plan to end the War on Drugs within 12 months because it calls for 12 more months of the Drug War?

What are our alternatives in Iraq right now? The GOP plans calls for occupation for as long as 12 months. The Democrats, as far as I know, don't even have a plan. 12 years or 1 year, which is more libertarian?

Mr. Allison,

I think the opponents for the plan have offered their problems with the plan in several areas, only one of which may be the time frame. Some suggest that 1 year is longer that is reasonably needed to ensure a safe withdrawal.

Most of the other problem areas would appear to be providing government assistance for infrastucture rebuilding in Iraq. The point being that providing foreign aid is not something we should be doing. On the other hand I personally wonder about the differences we can see historically between a "leave them alone after we decimate them attitude", such as after WWI, and a "let's help THEM rebuild" attitude, such as using the Marshal Plan after WWII.

There is certianly an excellent argument to be made about leaving them alone and encouraging private citizens to donate to the cause or get involved should the feel the need. Obviously a very libertarian attitude. On the other hand since we have knowledge of situations where leaving them alone could allow more harm to occur to a society by leaving a power vacume that could be filled by authoritarian figures who seem to promise any kind of relief to those left devistated by the destruction to their lives and society I feel a relevant argument could be made that by not providing assistance that we would, in effect, be causing further and greater harm than what had already been done. That would be not taking responsibility for the actions of our own government (whether we personally put that government in place or not, which is also another side of the argument.)

Where do you weigh these factors? Do we interfere more by leaving them to their own devices, or do we interfere more by not helping them? Do we pull out as a rejection of the actions committed in the first place or as simply as a method of rejecting that we committed any wrong to begin with, ie it was a justified act of war and a response to force, not the initiation thereof? Are any of those reactions taking responsibility for our actions or is it shirking that responsibility? Is moving troops into other Middle Eastern countries (in American territory in those countries in most cases) little more than continuing to leave our troops in harms way or is it coercion by threat by having them nearby, or would it provide us the ability to respond quickly if the Iraqi people democratically request our further assistance and the willof the American people want to respond to them? Or is it a short-term preventative to help deter force?

And even beyond these, will any of these factors move us more towards a libertarian ideal than the current situation in Iraq? I think that we could declare we want the troops home now, without either further military, even if it is a restationing, or monetary support for the Iraqi people and government, and still be able to make the case that this is the "most" libertarian ideal to follow. But I also think that the plan, as offered (and I do NOT apologize for the plan, so please do not categorize me as somehow being an apologist), can move us more into a libertarian direction and that moving in that direction not only makes such a step more acceptable to the American people as a whole but also will make it that much easier to continue taking further steps to advance the cause of liberty and freedom to better attain the libertarian ideal in the long term.

Do I get what I want right now? Absolutely not, but I can see the great merit of taking those steps further and can only hope to convince others that not only am I a liberterain but that I do not compromise my principles in the process and that I think we can all agree that furthering the cause of liberty is our ultimate, and most important, goal. (BTW, the concept of the "ends do not justify the means" is only applicable if means are not just. I think the steps being advocated are not, in and of themselves, unjust and that some may even argue that an immediate withdrawal without support would be the more unjust means to attain a libertarian end. Please let us trust each other that we both believe that our means are, indeed, just. And only try to convince each other of how "more" just our solutions are over the others.)

I think there are many, many variables involved and it all comes down to which variable you think are more important as to which partions of the plan you might support.

Lenny:

Your comparison to Germany is inaccurate. After WWI, Germany was subjected to punitive reparations. After WWII, the substantial foreign aid of the Marshall Plan went to the other extreme. To imply that there is no alternative to taking money from Iraq or giving money to Iraq is inaccurate. I once again refer people to Cato's paper on foreign aid for Iraq at: http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-19-03.html.

In this paper, the author also makes the comparison to the Marshall plan. Specifically, the plan notes:

"A study by George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen found that rapid economic growth in countries that had been occupied by Germany during the war occurred 'irrespective of the timing and extent of Marshall Plan aid.'"

Please do not rely on the one paragraph that I quote above -- read the whole paper for yourself.

Foreign aid to Iraq not only moves us further from Libertarian goals, it does nothing to improve conditions in Iraq and may even slow down their economic recovery. Free trade is the answer to their problems.

I offered only a simplistic comparison. My point is only that there are MANY factors to consider and many viewpoints and conclusions that can be made based on how one weighs those factors. In any historical context factors can be pulled form experience in many different ways and we must simply try to fit that experience into modern situations as best we can. I don't mean to suggest that we must view Iraq in the stark terms of Germany from WWI or WWII, only that we have historical experience to provide many other factors to consider. How to weight those factors and the specifics of their applicability and how they should be applied is certainly something we all need to consider in our own views of what might seem to be more libertarian.

Maybe there is a "perfect" plan out there somewhere, but we have the infallability of being human and can only weigh the factors how we see fit to weigh them. I only hope that folks will remember that we all have our views but that we are really all working towards the same goals here.

Getting into the specifics. such as the CATO link you listed, are exactly the kinds of things we can use to keep things moving and do our best to improve things all the while working towards liberty. Constructive criticism is, I think, exactly how we move forward. Whereas some of the demeaning language some folks like to throw out in support of their views is just not that productive and is often concieved by outsiders as being destructive to the cause of liberty and freedom of individual thought and action that we supposedly revel in.

Reach per million users:

Today 1 wk. Avg. 3 mos. Avg. 3 mos. Change
65 55 43 up 21%

Page Views for lp.org: (what's this)

Page Views per user:

Today 1 wk. Avg. 3 mos. Avg. 3 mos. Change
12.1 13.2 9.1 up 160%

It's pretty plain to see that the controversy on the blog along with the Exit Strategy is bringing more people here, and they are staying longer as well. This is from Alexa.org.

I dont think this party has even scratched the surface of what we can achieve by taking a internet outreach approach to the next level. Making a full blown freedom portal is the next step.

The rapid back and forth between National and the membership together should be encouraged. As a result of the fuss I've been in contact with several members who vehemnetly disagreed with my support for the exit plan or some other tenet of libertarian ideology. As the emails progressed, an amazing thing happened.

We started to understand each other and realized that we were not arguing about where we wanted the country to be, but the best means to put it there.

Almost every single email started somewhat hostile on behalf of the writer, but the tone and temprement lessened as the mails progressed. Some agreed to disagrees, others came to understand my POV better, and still others decided maybe I wasnt such a statist after all.

All this has been good for us. Until we acknowledge that there is division within our ranks and stop papering it over or pretending it does not exist, I dont think we can move forward. I'd much rather lance that boil and then heal the wound. I think the boil has been lanced, now, how do we heal?

I honestly dont believe that there is a single member of this party that WANTS bigger government and more taxation. To declare anyone that seeks to identify with this party as un libertarian is putting very little faith in something that we are supposedly for - freedom of association.

We have a lot of very smart people in this party. I dont think there is single one of us that desires less liberty. What we dont agree on is how to do it. I say that a political party must be a political party first, and engage in what politics is all about, which is compromise and coalition building, not in your goals, but in your means of getting your goals.

IF you cant stomach that, you shouldnt even be IN a political party - ANY political party. Thats what they do. Thats their job. They have to have free rein to work, and they have to be supported.

I dont think a lot of folks here still quite understand why I am so gung ho over this. It's not that the plan was a superior plan. It's not that the plan goes against the platform. None of that *%&$ really matters to me that much. It's a deeper point I need to make plain.

What matters is this: this is the first time I can ever recall that your LP leadership actually used
"outreach" to gain a POLITICAL advantage, as opposed to trying to get a MEMBERSHIP gain. In other words, they didnt put the cart before the horse for once! They got their role correct within the greater libertarian movement.

The importance of this is absolutely SUPREME, regardless of your views on the plan itself. I would bet anything that at least half of the signers to the plan are NOT LIBERTARIANS. They are the voters our candidates are going to be asking votes of in 2006. These people have had POSITIVE interaction with the LP as a result. Will this one step give us libertarian victories in 2006? No, it probably wont. It will take time to snowball.

Look....there is a VERY easy way to tell if we will be successful doing this or not. If we start getting attacked by the majors, then we know we are having a impact. Right now, they dont care less what we do becuase we are no threat to them whatsoever. if that changes, we'll have all the proof we need that this works....or doesnt work, for that matter, if it doesnt.

I think it will, and I think your leadership deserves a chance to prove it. If it does not, they wont be around anyway - thier tack having failed, there's no reason for them to stay.

Everything will work out. Have faith in your fellow LP member and lets all take a deep breath and look around.

The self-described "neo-libertarians" supported the invasion of Iraq. At least some of them favor remaining in Iraq for an indeterminant period of time--whatever time is needed to reconstruct Iraqi society in order to make it sufficiently libertarian that the people there will not support terrorism against the U.S.

The exit plan doesn't say that invading Iraq was a good idea. I don't believe that anyone supporting the plan here believed that invading Iraq was a good idea. I certainly didn't support invading Iraq.

I wish it were true that the LP was reaching people who believed that invading Iraq was a good idea, but have now changed their mind and reject the Bush administration's policy of remaining in Iraq for an undetermined period of time. I even wish that the LP plan would be attractive to people who still think invading Iraq was a good idea, but believe it is now time to leave.

I am especially interested in reaching out to "neo-libertarians" who have come to their senses.

On the other hand, I have seen little evidence that this has happened.

It seems to me that the defining characteristic of "neo-libertarians" is that they have adopted the spectrum of foreign policy views generally described as "neo-conservative." In other words, policy views that run from moderately to extremely insane. But there is always hope that reality will cause them to come to their senses.

A majority of Americans answered polling questions that they would rather leave Iraq in one year than remain their as Bush has proposed. That is the LP opportunity.

Regardless of what that majority really beleives, the fact that they told pollsters that they prefered the U.S. to leave Iraq in one year is a good reason to use the one year timeline. In promoting the "LP's plan" in the media, the hook is that the LP is proposing something that the majority supports whereas Bush is going with what the majority opposes and the Democrats have a divided message--with many of the leading ones agreeing with Bush but insisting on more troops to implement the policy.

I think adding a proposal for foreign aid was a mistake. Similarly, I have no idea why the plan needs to spell out where the U.S. troops will go. And further, the issue of whether more troops should be sent to Afghanistan and what their mission might be there (stabilization or further efforts to hunt down Al Quaeda) is also a separate issue. (I would like to see a plan to get our troops out of Afghanistan too.)

Thanks for the reply Lenny. I'll try to answer your questions:

"Where do you weigh these factors? Do we interfere more by leaving them to their own devices, or do we interfere more by not helping them?"

The logic in the time frame also applies to the issue of giving aid. The LP plan's is a big improvement to the GOP's current plan in terms of rebuilding Iraq. The plan could have been better in terms of specifying an amount and how long though.

"Are any of those reactions taking responsibility for our actions or is it shirking that responsibility?"

Ideally, we should pull out and apologize for the unprovoked war. However, I don't believe Bush would ever apologize. Adding that into the plan would guarantee that it finds its way into Bush's trash can.

"Is moving troops into other Middle Eastern countries (in American territory in those countries in most cases) little more than continuing to leave our troops in harms way or is it coercion by threat by having them nearby, or would it provide us the ability to respond quickly if the Iraqi people democratically request our further assistance and the willof the American people want to respond to them?"

Holy-long question batman!
Harm's way: Same logic. Putting 30,000 troops in a dangerous region is better than leaving 140,000 troops in a dangerous region. It is an improvement, not perfection.

Coercion by threat: That is standard US behavior. The threat would be lesser though...110,000 troops less.

Assist Iraqis: Those troops would be able to assist Iraqis quicker than the 110,000 back home. Having a smaller amount of help available would make Iraqis more dependent upon themselves - which is a good thing IMO.

"I think there are many, many variables involved and it all comes down to which variable you think are more important as to which partions of the plan you might support."

I disagree here a bit. For me, the bottom line is this:

Is the LP's plan more or less libertarian than Bush's plan?

As long as the answer to that question is "yes", it gets my support.

I'm not going to get upset if the LP proposes to increase aid to Africa by $1 while decreasing aid to Iraq by $2. Others may like to rant about the increase to African aid, but at the end of the day, we'd be $1 closer to our goal.

Jim Allison:

I guess I am cynical, but Bush isn't going to adopt our plan and so whether or not he would want to apologize to Iraq is irrelevant.

The question is whether most Americans would want our President to apologize.

I don't believe that polling data showing that most Americans believe that the war was a misake and that Bush misrepresented the threat, and even that Bush is more responsible for the war that Saddam Hussein add up to majority support for having the U.S. acknowledge that it is an evil aggressor nation.

I think there is a huge block of opinion that believes that the U.S. liberated Iraq and the Iraqis are just typical ungrateful foreigners who don't appreciate all we have done for them.

They should have showered us with flowers and elected a pro-U.S. government, but instead they are being sullen, and troublesome, and killing a bunch of our heroic soldiers. The hell with them.

Are you getting it?

I think there is a huge block of opinion that didn't think going to war to help out the Iraqis was worth the deaths of American soldiers, tying up our military, or all the money. The cost has proven to be greater than the "benefit" of feeling we did a good deed for the Iraqis.

Stopping Saddam Hussein from giving weapons of mass destruction to Al Quaeda terrorists would have been worth the deaths of American soldiers, tying up our military, and spending all the money. But, it turns out, that Bush was wrong about those things, or worse, was deceiving the American people about those things.

It appears that we really went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqis from an evil dictator, provide a shining example of Arab democracy and liberty, etc. And that has not been worth the cost.

Now, probably most Libertarians don't look at it that way. The hardcore libertarians griping that this plan violates the platform and the like, almost certainly don't look at it that way.

They, and some of the hardcore left, believe that Bush and the U.S. government were evil aggressors. They see Iraq as a struggle of national liberation against the imperialists. They continue to support the forces of national liberation against imperialism, just like they did in El Salvador, Vietnam, etc.

Sure, the American people have moved a bit in that direction--away from being actively pro-war,anyway--but they aren't there yet, and probably never will be.

The debate here is between those Libertarians who want to lead the American people, getting our troops out of Iraq sooner than later, and those who want to make a point about how the U.S. government is an evil imperialist power.

Oh, just as a point of clarification...

All of those questions in m previous post were meant to be rhetorical. They can simply be viewed in many different ways by many different people who may come up with varying "libertarian" answers depending upon how they view all of the concepts and variables involved in any of those questions.

I'm sorry if it was confusing and seeming as if I was asking for answers to the questions. I was only hoping to provoke thought in how varying libertarians might view them is all.

I can not believe the amount of feet stomping by the most intelligent group of people I've ever found on one blog site. I think if we just take a deep breath and come together as a party we can amend the current exit plan to come up with a working plan that the great majority of us can agree with.
1) amend the section about foerign aid. I think debt relief and the amount of oil the nation has will prove enough to get the country back on it's feet. I think of it as legal tort therefore not a violation of our princples but I really don't think it is needed and does send the wrong message.
2) amend the section on the relocation of troops to "relocate troops home or to hunt down terriost"
I don't see how this amended exit stratagy would be less attractive to the public at large and I don't feel that the plan is any less effective. I think the LP may have some egg on their face having to reissue a slightly amended exit plan but that's what it gets for releasing a plan calling for foriegn aid. I also think members that are "burning their membership card" needs to put your shirt back on and calm down. So lets focous as members and DEMAND the leadership put these amendments forth.

Personally I supported the invasion of Iraq, and feel that it was not on the whole an initiation of force, because Saddam Hussein's regime had already initiated force against Iraqis and others. Assisting others in the overthrow of tyranny is a morally acceptable response to that tyranny.

I grant that there were aspects of the war which were initiations of force, such as the dropping of bombs in a manner likely to harm civilians. Other actions like the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib were simply wrong. War crimes trials should be held all the way up the chain of command for anyone alleged to have committed, authorized, or irresponsibly failed to stop or report such actions.

However, I recognize that the Libertarian Party platform supports a non-interventionist foreign policy for the U.S. government, and does so based on an honest (if flawed in my opinion) interpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Given that this is the party's platform position, I am deeply concerned that LP leaders would draft a plan including elements such as calling for a gradual withdrawal and for leaving troops in other Middle Eastern countries, in clear violation of our platform.

Even less excusable is the call for direct foreign aid. Whatever your view on the morality of overthrowing dictators, providing foreign (or domestic) aid indisputably goes behind the legitimate government functions of protecting life, liberty, and property.

This ill-conceived plan should be withdrawn immediately.

Yours in liberty,

>>
Outreach Director,
Libertarian Party of San Francisco

I am a bit perplexed over the opposition to aiding in the reconstruction of Iraq, even if and when we withdraw.

It seems to me that aid in rebuilding key infrastructure in this case is both warranted and in keeping with an important libertarian principle.

After all...like it or not, we broke it. Isn't it our responsibility to help fix it?

John-
I would say the biggest problem was the wording. Foriegn Aid is a nasty word to many libertarians. Although I agree with you that it represents legal tort ( we broke it) more then foriegn aid. But I don't think they need legal tort it needs free trade and debt relief.

"For those who want lives of freedom, normality, peace, prosperity, and harmony, there is but one solution: Dismantle the empire; bring the troops home and discharge them into the private sector; stop meddling in the affairs of other nations; stop trying to dominate and control the world; stop going abroad in search of monsters to destroy; stop trying to be the world?s policeman." - Jacob Hornberger

Van Martin,

I watched Bill O'Reilly, I quickly turned it off after he basicaly accused the BBC of supporting terrorists, he almost acted like he was glad London was attacked. I am sure he was not but he acted like he was.

Michigan Residents:

I was just at the theaters to see a movie when some of the employees asked me to sign a petition. It seems that Gov. Granholm is trying to enact a tax on movie tickets. This tax is needless at best. Please visit your local theater to see if they are participating in the petition to stop this tax! Thank you.

This is on the Drudge Report

SECRET PLAN TO QUIT IRAQ
Sat Jul 09 2005 19:16:16 ET

BRITAIN and America are secretly preparing to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq - despite warnings of the grave consequences for the region, the SUNDAY MAIL in UK is reporting.

A secret paper written by UK Defence Secretary John Reid for Tony Blair reveals that many of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq are set to be brought home within three months, with most of the rest returning six months later.

The leaked document, marked Secret: UK Eyes Only, appears to fly in the face of Mr Blair and President Bush's pledges that Allied forces will not quit until Iraq's own forces are strong enough to take control of security.

If British troops pull out, other members of the Alliance are likely to follow. The memo says other international forces in Southern Iraq currently under British control will have to be handled carefully if Britain withdraws. It says they will not feel safe and may also leave.

Embarrassingly, the document says the Americans are split over the plan - and it suggests one of the reasons for getting British troops out is to save money. Mr Reid says cutting UK troop numbers to 3,000 by the middle of next year will save GBP 500million a year, though it will be 18 months before the cash comes through.

The document, Options For Future UK Force Posture In Iraq, is the first conclusive proof that preparations for a major withdrawal from Iraq are well advanced.

The British Government's public position is that UK troops will stay until newly trained Iraqi forces are ready to take control of security. Less than a fortnight ago, Mr Blair said it was 'vital' the US-led coalition stayed until Iraq stabilised, and Mr Bush endorsed his comments.

Mr Reid's memo, prepared for Mr Blair in the past few weeks, shows that in reality, plans to get them out - 'military drawdown,' as he puts it - are well advanced.

It says: 'We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces two of the four provinces under British control in Southern Iraq in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006.

Developing...

To Lenny Zimmerman:

Have you actually read Rothbard's ideas on strategy? If you have not, please read what some of what he wrote about BOTH transitional and ultimate goals. Then you might give us some specific criticisms, rather than the very general ones you gave which appeared to be from second hand knowledge.

And it's online for free!

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

To Mr. Martin from London:

Most have us have learned to avoid Bill O'Reilly like the plague.

I heartily concur with your assessment of his character, or more accurately, the lack thereof.

I am amazed by the recurring references to "our" responsibility for making amends to the people of Iraq for the crimes committed upon them by the federal government. "We" are not the government.

All Americans, not just libertarians, are individuals, and none of "us" are morally responsible for the constant violations of rights which the government commits in almost every sphere of human activity unless we actually advocate those actions.

If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, it's not your responsibility to clean up the mess "they" made.

David Timlin wrote: "The complications in the LP 'Exit Strategy' are mostly empty verbiage and discussion of peripheral issues, like foreign aid. It gives almost no details for the withdrawal process itself."

You and I must have read different documents. From the exit strategy I read:

"The first step is immediately to begin the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. Currently American troop levels are at about 140,00011. Troops would leave gradually, in increments of approximately 11,600 per month, resulting in a complete withdrawal in one year's time. This will bring the troops out of harm's way quickly, preventing more unnecessary loss of life. Allowing a year for the withdrawal will give
the Iraqi government time to train and deploy a sufficient security force in trouble areas.

"As the United States removes troops from Iraq, 30,000 will be relocated to other Middle Eastern countries. Ten thousand troops will be placed in Afghanistan for peacekeeping purposes. Decisions regarding troop reallocation will be based on the
locations of existing U.S. military bases in the Middle East. The most likely candidates would be Turkey, Bahrain, Egypt and Oman. These countries were chosen based on current foreign military base information in the Department of Defense Base Structure Report12. All of the previously mentioned countries have U.S. military bases that possess additional acres to house more troops. The remaining troops, numbering approximately 100,000 would return home rather being relocated to other Middle Eastern countries. This would help reduce the strain on military reserves and free up military resources for the War on Terror."

You may not like the details they provided, David, but you are completely inaccurate when you say the strategy did not provide details of the withdrawal.

J Mills wrote: "'Immediately' means as fast as can be accomplished without endangering the troops themselves....It means acting UNILATERALLY in AMERICA'S best interest, without regard to what the consequences are in Iraq."

So I take it that you don't think we have any obligation as Libertarians to urge our government to make up to the Iraqi people for the destruction caused by Bush's unjustified invasion, killing of innocent civilians, and destruction of so much of the Iraqi infrastructure.

"BRITAIN and America are secretly preparing to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq - despite warnings of the grave consequences for the region, the SUNDAY MAIL in UK is reporting".

Just to say, Tony Blair has a habit of leaking memos like this to get a sense of how they would be received by the public before he publicly backs the policy. I am not saying that this is DEFINITELY the case here, but it has been long acknowledged as his modus-operandi.

I am not sure how to take this news. I agree with posters like Matt who argue that US Foreign Aid, and GB aid too, can be considered as legal tort, and that we have a responsibillity to Iraq. I know many bloggers have argued that they do not want to be held responsible for the actions of a right wing idealist administration, but that overlooks the acute damage that MAY have been done by our actions. It remains common-sense, long-term defensive strategy for us to remain to try whatever we can to alleviate what we, as sovereign nations, have done.

This is an unusual sitaution, that might require an unusal policy to rectify it.

Libertarian TV writes:

"So I take it that you don't think we have any obligation as Libertarians to urge our government to make up to the Iraqi people for the destruction caused by Bush's unjustified invasion, killing of innocent civilians, and destruction of so much of the Iraqi infrastructure."

No, I don't believe that we as Libertarians are _obligated_ to propose any particular thing. I don't believe the LP should ever propose increasing the size or scope of government. But, what particular reductions in government we propose is a matter of strategy--strategy aimed at actually getting government reduced.

In my judgement, the argument that the U.S. taxpayer owes the Iraqi people money because Bush's war was unjustified aggression against the Iraq government, will be very unpopular with the American people.

Regardless of whether or not it is right, the Libertarian Party is under no obligation to propose it.

Turn it around. The U.S. is already giving lots of aid for Iraq--training its army, humanitarian aid, and reconstruction. Give a bit less of that money directly to the Iraqi government. And then phase it down to nothing.

I think the total figure is $100 billion per year, but some of that is support for U.S. forces in Iraq. Cut it back to $75 billion next year, 50 billion the next year, then 25 billion, then nothing. Troops out in one year, financial aid done in four, 150 billion altother after the 200 billion spent. (Well, the troops in Iraq will cost something next year too.)

Wind our position down! Don't come up with a new libertarian theory of how foreign aid is just great!

My response to the plan is here: http://lifesbetterideas.blogspot.com/2005/07/lps-iraq-exit-plan.html

From David Aitken's response (above):

"Appeasement is not the answer and the LP needs to dump the yellow streak running down its back. If you want to be a purist, go join the monks, er objectivists. A national political party should serve the nation it purports to represent and we are not a nation of cowards. If the LP wants to be a respected player in national politics, we need to create realistic solutions to these larger problems."

I wonder just how he justifies yellow. From my personal case, it must be the 11 years I spent in the Army -- or Coast Guard and Army machine guns trained upon me during a peace march I recently led.

The "yellow streak" running down the Libertarian Party's back (David Aiken's phrase) is the same as the one running down the back of all freedom-loving Ameicans: It is the one adorning the road down which the tank of tyranny -- driven by statists -- is slowly approaching.

Accusing opponents of military intervention of cowardice is a cheap tactic unworthy of this conversation.

I recommend you listen to Harry Browne's weekly "This Week in Liberty." Harry addresses the concept of "gradualism" as a strategy for the Libertarian Party, and has other inspiring thoughts as well.

Available online for free at:

http://www.freemarketnews.com/portfolio/index.php

Who is the LP supporting for the Supreme Court Nomination? I think Janice Rodgers Brown is the best bet, the best bet with a shot at the nomination anyway. Any thoughts?

DC

* Tom Blanton says, "I can't understand why so many people who reject libertarian (small L) principles, who dislike libertarians, who disagree with the LP platform, and who hurl insults at libertarians are attracted to the Libertarian Party."

I've found that such people tend to come in two flavors: 1) People who want to be members of a "winning" team and who can't seem to get traction with the Demos or GOP, so they try to force a smaller group to adopt their ideas and take them into political battle; and 2) Clever political operators who have a candidate or ideology in mind and hope to hijack the LP's ballot access status to advance them. The first group pretends (perhaps, even to themselves) to be "libertarian" but pursues policies and uses rhetoric that is obviously non-libertarian. The second group doesn't care: they see the LP as a vehicle to be exploited and abandoned without regard to principle, just as the Reform Party was "taken over" long enough to squander its ballot access and federal matching campaign fund warchest.

* In the same post cited above, Tom also says, "There really is nothing that radical about the LP platform - certainly no more radical than the U.S. Constitution. It is time to quit thinking that libertarian principles are radical and do a better job selling the idea of limited government and how interventionism is antithetical to limited government."

Unfortunately, Tom, mainstream opinion polls have demonstrated again and again over the past few years that 1) most Americans are unaware of the tenets and principles of the US Constitution (thinking, for example, that the constitution includes the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each, according to his need"!); and 2) many Americans have no problem with limiting freedom of speech or of the press, gutting Fifth Amendment protections, etc. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are STILL radical documents, with which an unsettling number of Americans are unfamiliar, or do not agree. Even fewer are familiar with the LP platform, much less agree with its planks. I mention all this not to criticize Tom and his well-taken points (especially his defense of non-intervention, which I also endorse), but merely to suggest that we can't necessarily elicit popular support for our platform by linking it to the Constitution, as understanding and support for THAT document isn't as widespread in the US as we might suppose.

* As to whether the Iraq exit plan contradicts libertarian principle, I have come to judge such plans in terms of net gains or losses in liberty. When all is said and done, will Americans have more or fewer dollars in their pockets (and will those dollars be worth more or less) than had the plan not been pursued? Will Americans have more or less freedom to live their lives and use their property as they see fit? Will the government employ more or fewer people, spend more or less money, or have more or fewer laws on the books?

By that yardstick, I think the proposed exit plan will promote American liberty, though the ideas of merely moving soldiers around the world and not bringing them home, and of spending more foreign aid dollars -- many of which will never get to the people whom they are intended to help, are repulsive to me as a libertarian.

I think it is better to view the Iraq exit proposal not as a shining example of libertarianism -- as the way we would handle things if we were in charge -- but as the minimum sane policy that Libertarians could accept, given that our guys WON'T be in the driver's seat in this instance. In other words, it is a collection of actions that our government, as CURRENTLY organized and staffed, can take, which will move things in a more libertarian direction. I'd feel bad about libertarian candidates actually trotting out this proposal as an example of what we'd REALLY like. And I'd feel bad if the existence of this proposal, and the need to promote it, would discourage libertarians from making clear what they would really like to have happen. But if Libertarians say, "what we'd really like is X, but the minimum we'd accept is Y," I'm cool with the present proposal as an example of "Y."

To my Randian and Anarcho-capitalist friends:

Exactly what is principled about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Where is the principle in orchastrating a circular firing squad every time someone suggests we do something to connect with the American people? I have said it before and I will keep saying it, the only reason for a political party to exist is to obtain and retain political power. This is, principly, at odds with rigid objectivist philosophy. So why don't you guys quit the LP and start a social club where you can congratulate each other on your intellectual consistency and leave the business of politics to people that actually want to engage in politics. You have spent 30 years showing us that your way leads to obscurity. Why would any rational, principled person continue to subscribe to a philosophy that has UTTERLY FAILED to stem the tide of statism and the loss of human liberty? Respectfully, grow up or move on, but quit holding the party hostage to your rigid dogma.

Don: If you want to join a political party which bends to the winds and isn't intellectually consistent, then go join the D's or R's.

Dear Friends of Liberty:

Liber-doves have conflated "non-foreign intervention" with "non-aggression". The platform is contradictory on the matter, allowing for retaliatory military force and calling for world-wide liberation--while at the same time requiring policies that restrict US military actions to US
territory.

The "Exit Strategy" claims that "British intelligence erroneously reported that 'Saddam sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'" I tried to look up the Washington Post citation, unsuccessfully. However, I was able to track down a New York Times article for May 22, 2004 "US Announces it Intends to Move Tons of Uranium from Baghdad". This disclosed that 500 tons of uranium ore, and 1.8 tons of enriched uranium, were found in Iraq by US troops. Thus, the issue of whether or not the Niger report was false is moot--although I would like to add, there is suspicion that French intelligence forged the documents to embarrass the US.

The "Exit Strategy" calls for re-deployment of US troops from Iraq to other Middle Eastern nations--contradicting it's argument that such deployment of US troops incites resentment.

Libertarian hawks aren't "neo-libertarians". Further, we don't all agree that occupation of foreign cities, and foreign aid,are good policies.

The LP staff has no business broadcasting their detailed opinions about foreign policy,claiming theirs to be THE libertarian position. That's a job for the candidates, who speak for themselves. Libertarians don't all agree on foreign policy, so why antagonize each other unnecessarily? The hysteria of some liber-doves about the "Exit Strategy" (because it doesn't toe the Michael Moore line 100%) is revealing,but not useful for a political party that wants to be grown-up.

Please, join our discussions at:
fightforliberty@yahoogroups.com

Must one become a warhawk to "grow up"?

I would suggest that some basic knowledge of the subject you are trying to discuss would be a better indication of being a grownup.

The IAEA was aware for years that Iraq possessed uranium ore. It was tagged, monitored, and regularly inspected for years.

What Iraq lacked was the means to enrich it to a highly enriched state. Despite the phony claims about aluminum tubes, Iraq had no nuke program.

I would also suggest that it isn't very grown up to swallow every nugget of propaganda the government spoon feeds you.

Don says: Where is the principle in orchastrating a circular firing squad every time someone suggests we do something to connect with the American people?

I think the Iraq exit strategy demonstrates that the name-calling faction (that claims a monopoly on "common sense" and knowing what the "American people" want) is dead wrong.

In 13 days, the exit strategy has had 1,210 people sign on. This is not a success. This is not connecting with the American people.

The exit strategy reads like a GOP trial balloon. The main difference between it and what is now being considered is the timetable.

The failure of this initiative to garner more support indicates to me that libertarian principles trump neolibertarian political strategies every time.

One curious aspect of this discussion is the intransigence of the plan's supporters on this position:That regardless of whatever flaws the plan may have, it must be accepted as is, without alteration or amendment.I am at a loss to explain this attitude, as most who support the plan will concede that it is less than perfect. Why do you adamantly refuse to negotiate or compromise,for the sake of enlisting our support?(The numerous ad hominem diatribes aside, I direct this at those who have respectfully attempted rational debate)It must matter to you, or you would'nt bother to debate the issue with us.I,among others, have suggested that I would leave the party if the plan continues to be promoted as is; this is not intended as a threat, but rather an expression of conscience(however misguided it may appear from your perspective).I am genuinely perplexed,if those of us on either side of this issue could formulate a plan (or changes to the current plan), which would at least not reduce it's value to it's supporters and allow those of us who oppose it to at least cross over to acceptance, why are you all so adamant about giving us absolutely no quarter? Some illumination on this would be appreciated, even if it only consitutes a parting shot.---Thank You,The Bikemessenger

In re.: unsigned post of July11,2005 11:37PM : Point of information; What is your source for this statistic??? Even I'll concede it deserves better than that, and as it presently worded, the only way it gets my signature is forged with my last drop of blood!(Well ok, if not blood, then at least Pepsi)--Thank You,The Bikemessenger

Adamson - If you want to be powerless while those D's and R's dictate to you how to live your life, then far be it for me to say. Why is intellectual consistency so important that it is worth sacrificing liberty to maintain? Are we the Libertarians or the Consistantarians? Rothbard saw it your way and outside of libertarians and scholars, he's been religated to history. Hayak understood pragmatic libertarian ideas, won a Nobel Prize, advised a Prime Minister and is still taught and read in every mainstream university in the country. Why does being a Libertarian AND wanting to have the power to accomplish what we believe in seem like such a damning betrayal to you?

Check out the "US-Uk Exit Strategy" reported by Al-Jazeera. That ought to put this discussion in a different light.

If you like the exit plan, you wouldn't like this:www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/regime-libs.htm

Don: Nice to know you're in it for the power and not the intellectual consistency. Remind me never to vote for you.

Do "we" owe the Iraqi people reparations for the damage caused by "our" government's invasion and occupation?

I am sickened that money taken from me under threat of imprisonment (i.e. taxes) was used to invade and conquer a country that hadn't initiated hostilities against this country, killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Should the fact that the invasion has already happened, against my will, mean that it is now somehow morally okay for the US government to take more money from me to pay reparations to some of those it has injured?

I agree that Iraqis who suffered personal injuries, property damage, or lost loved ones due to the invasion have a legal claim against someone, though.

Who would that be? The obvious answer is the person responsible for ordering the invasion -- Mr. Bush. Any funds paid should come from his personal estate.

As Lysander Spooner argued over a century ago, any person claiming to act on the behalf of others has a legal obligation to show who those others are, typically with a written contract. Since Mr. Bush was elected via secret ballot, he can show no legal evidence that anyone else should be held liable for the damages his invasion has caused.

Neither can Mr. Bush claim that legal liability for damages caused by his invasion falls on the American people because they elected him under rules set forth in the US Constitution.

First, there is no legal evidence that the US Constitution binds the American people to anything, since they have never been asked to sign it, or given the option not to.

Government officials like Mr. Bush do take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but the invasion of Iraq was launched in violation of the Constitution, without a declaration of war from Congress -- i.e., criminally.

If Mr. Bush's supporters come forward and agree to accept some legal liability for his invasion and occupation of Iraq, they should of course be encouraged to help pay reparations to those their support of Mr. Bush has indirectly injured.

Abe-
You in affect sign the constitution when you remain here as a citzin. If you don't want to follow the highest law of the land you can go somewhere else.Also your logic would imply that the government doesn't have to follow the law either(which they don't).The constituion when followed correctly limits the power of the government and assures the freedom of the indvidual. Why would you want release the government from these chains makes no sense to me.I find it humorous that you bring up the constitution (that you claim have no legal standing because every citzin in america didn't sign it)to make the argument that the president acted outside his legal authority to enter the conflict. Of course if the first part of you argument was correct we wouldn't have to continue the debate.
The president has power of the military. Commander and chief has the power to defend the nation from threat. Congress has the power to A)declare war B)fund or not fund miltary action C) Impeach and remove the president from office. The president used his legal authority and Congress didn't make a declaration but did vote to fund the conflict. We don't have a "legal war" but that is not the same as saying that we have an illegal conflict. The president being elected via the process laid out by the constitution and all federal government elected via the framework of the constitution should be held accountable for legal tort. How they raise the revunee to pay this can be debated but I can't see a resonable argument why the federal government should be immuned to these torts.

Yes Adamson, only by wielding power can we make positive changes. If the idea of getting elected so we can implement libertarian reforms is debatable, why are you involved in politics? If we can't even agree that we want to win, then what is the point of having a party? Why do you bother to vote if you believe that? I can respect principled non-voters, but don't tell me you would never vote for me because I would actually try to accomplish the reforms that we all (I hope) believe in. That's nutty. If you honestly believe that compromise is equal to treason, I can only assume you have never been married.

I rise in support of Adamson.

I want to win as much as the next guy (and I've proven that in my two races for public office), but I refuse to forsake my libertarian principles in order to do so.

I would never vote for you because of your support for this heinous LP "exit plan" which forsakes 30 years of LP policy and which will result in even more dead Americans in the name of George Bush's quasi-religious imperial visions, and even more tax dollars stolen from each and every one of us and from future generations as well). You may think it's an acceptable "compromise" if they only steal $1 billion more instead of $5 billion more - but in my opinion, both are just as bad and just as unprincipled.

I would never vote for you because based on what you've said and what you've advocated, I could never be certain when or where you'd sell us out and forsake Libertarian principles in order to get (or stay) elected. I've seen it happen here in my home state to a local Libertarian elected official, and it's not a pretty sight.

I first joined the LP nearly 25 years ago. Sadly, the LP is now doing things and taking positions which cause me to be embarrassed to admit I'm a Libertarian. I can't justify and am embarrassed by this "exit plan". I can't justify and am embarrassed by a 100% dues increase. I am seriously considering ending my dues-paying membership. I'd still vote Libertarian most of the time (but not for you) but my active support of the party may be nearing an end because of this terrible proposal. My only hope is that the membership will rise up at the convention next year and toss out everyone responsible for this anti-Libertarian anti-freedom proposal.

Don, Why have a political party supposedly dedicated to promoting liberty, if it's going to put winning above all else? the problem is not whether or not to compromise, but what to compromise about.The recent exchange between Abe(10:51am) and Matt(12:51pm)are a perfect example of the beginnings of a compromise on a matter that is amenable to compromise, simply because it is relatively superficial. Fundamental principles are by nature not proper subject of compromise.This plan is not a compromise, it is not a "half way" measure that moves us toward liberty. Rather, it is a monstrous repudiation of those fumdamental principles.

I appreciate what you guys are saying, but go beyond the platitudes and apply this to the world we actually live in instead of the world you wished we lived in. Will our legacy be that we actively fought to increase freedom and decrease the expansion of gov't, or will our legacy be that we fiddled while Rome burned because we were so invested in our ideology that we were hamstrung by it?

Robert, I have read many of your posts and I hold your intellect in the highest esteem, but if we are rigidly devoted to the notion that ALL efforts to wield power, regardless of the objective, are inherently corrupting (a la Acton) then we are not a political party, we are not doing politics. That position is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of a political party.

What I really resent is this assertion that if you don't subscribe to the Rand/Rothbard philosophy, then you are not a libertarian. Never mind that most people have no idea who either of those people are, by setting this as the benchmark, we create a club that is so exclusive that it is absurd to call such a group a political party.

I am a political economist by trade and I have spent hundreds of hours reading Rand, Rothbard, Hayak, von Mises, Acton, Friedman, Becker and all the others and what I have come away with is the fact that libertarianism comes in more then one flavor. Hayak's incrementalist approach is thoroughly libertarian and has been profoundly impactful.

How do objectivists call themselves capitalists while denying any competition of ideas within their own party? The result has been a philosophical monopoly that, like all monopolies, has made us uncompetitive and unresponsive to the needs of our customers, i.e. American people.

I've been too busy at work recently to take much time to read these blogs or to spend much time with my post here. So pardon any duplication of other posts I have not read.

But I wanted to speak out that I think this "Exit Plan" is foolish and is not at all defensible by me as a Libertarian. I am VERY disappointed that this was published under the banner of the LP. It very much conflicts with our Platform for one. It seems to be some psuedo conservative statist approach. I could NEVER support this. Please retract it, or at least attribute it to "one members opinion" or the equivalent.

Lew Rockwell captures much of my view of this "exit plan" here - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/regime-libs.html.

Yours in Liberty,
Tom Freese
Chair, LP of DeKalb County Georgia
LP member since 1999 and former LP Georgia state officer/publications director.

Tom, I just read the lewrockwell article you posted the link to (above). I urge everyone to read it - I can't say it any better, and won't say any more. I can't improve one iota on what he said, and there's no point in responding to a person who refers to our party's principles and platform as "platitudes".

Don: I apologize if I gave the impression of questioning the dedication to libertarianism of you or anyone else who has disagreed with me. It is your methods, and not yourselves that I question.You mention Acton and his famous maxim about the corrupting influence of power;it seems reasonable to assume that that influence works on an incremental basis, so that someone who may start out with the best of intentions, would be corrupted by the time he achieved any significant position of power.I am merely suggesting that this corrupting influence addresses human nature at a very fundamental level, such that it would be erroneous to assume that merely being a sincere libertarian would serve to insulate one.The way I would visualize the matter culminating (and mind you,I try to imagine myself in the position)is that one day one realizes that one has the power in hand,but has'nt used it for it's original intent. And what is essentially definitive of the corruption, is that one either easily rationizes it away,or, simply no longer cares. So while it may be highly disirable to place a libertarian in a position of power, it is pointless unless the process by which he arrives leaves him uncorrupted.--P.S. thank you for the compliment, if you appreciate my postings, you might want to go back and read the postings of someone who identified himself only as "William" I thought he expressed our position with greater simplicity, clarity and forcefulness than I.--The Bikemessenger

To Robert Hansen: I read the Rockwell essay shortly after it appeared on the website(the daily postings usually show up at about 1:00am).I immediately e-mailed it to info@lp.org. I hope that was the right e-mail address, and that by now it's been read and discussed at HQ.

Libertarian TV:

What I said was 'almost no details'.

David Tomlin

Don: in re.: your query about "objectivists". A lot of libertarians seem confused by these people who are commonly refered to as objectivists. The answer is that they simply are not objectivists. Rather, they are traditionalists who have adopted objectivism as their dogma, but accept it strictly on an intellectual level. They never internalize it, that is, make it an essential part of themselves. If you examine objectivism, you find a complete and comprehensive philosophy that, as far as I can discern, starts at the most abstract, fundamental level within human grasp(or at least mine), you can study it, learn it, understand it, agree or disagree with it, but if you don't make it's metaphysical scenario the field upon which you play out your life; if you do not employ objectivist epistemology to understand the underlying nature of existants and the dynamics of their interactions, and to simply distinguish facts from falsehoods, well sorry dude, you ain't no objectivist. Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic Magazine wrote a comprehensive article on the cultification of objectivism:(see http://www.skeptic.com/#top on the left hand column, scroll down and click archives, then look for: Skeptic vol. 2 #2 1993 pp.74-81 "The Unlikeliest Cult of All". This might serve to explain,for example, the foaming-at-the-mouth lust for Iraqi blood ravings (complete with demands of appreciative thank you notes from the victims) of Yaron Brook ( as expressed in an interview with Bill O'Rielly).---Thanks, The Bikemessenger P.S.,That interview is a real jaw dropper, if anyone wants to see it I'll try to find it. Off hand, it's linked to a criticism of objectivism on Rockwell's website.

There presently appear to be 1249 signatures for 'Iraq Exit Plan'.

The signatures are listed in reverse chronological order. Oddly, the first page

http://www.lp.org/cgi-bin/plan/plan.cgi?marker=1

says 'Viewing Entry 1-10', while the last page

http://www.lp.org/cgi-bin/plan/plan.cgi?marker=1240

says 'Viewing Entry 1240-1249'.

Both pages do have ten entries. It would seem that, for some reason, one of the middle pages has only nine entries.

David Tomlin

Thanks for the info., David. Only 1249 signatures? Gee, thats really heart breaking is'nt? I don't know how I'm managing to hold back the tears!!!!!!!---The Bikemessenger

Posted by: Don at July 12, 2005 12:58 AM

If you want to be powerless while those D's and R's dictate to you how to live your life....
Why is intellectual consistency so important...

TerryResponds:

Hypocrisy hurts us!

The LIBERTARIAN Party damages its credibility by promoting 'plans' that contradict its own avowed positions.

Understand, that the nature of libertarianism's 'influence' is
derived from integrity to its ideal shown by its most visible
advocates.

the LP does NOT have poll watchers at every precinct to minimize
election fraud; which, btw, existed long before electronic voting.
That there are hundreds of Libertarians in public office is a
stunning achievement in the face of a corrupt establishment. It is
also a testimony to the 'power' of our advocacy with its integrity to
ideals that inspire not just us. We get help that we never will know
much about from people we won't usually know who are stuck
in that corrupt machinery.

PleaseSee:

Live&LetLive.1999.06.05:
Military intervention during US Prez Clinton's
administration opposed by libertarians at that time.
Surprise guest, Royal Masset was, until 1999,
Texas Republican Party Political Director for 15 years;
tells of working (sometimes behind the scenes)
with libertarians during those years to advance liberty
RealMedia Download/Playback at
http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/LL990605.rm

from AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links

I was just ruminating over the drippingly maudlin motto of the i.e.s.:"America's Path Forward"(how come statists always want to go "forward"?)and noticing how this reprehensible little smear of fabianesque shmutz has it's own cutesy-poo logo.Notice the Green,yellow and white motif?(even antilibertarian COLORS,how thoughtful!) Who does that remind you of? (Hint: no, not Green Bay Packers).And since they're determined to move "forward",maybe a vacation to the Grand Canyon might be a good idea.

Anti-libertarian colors?

Yeah, David, usually you see good old red, white and blue on this website, no? GREEN just seems ironicly apropriate,would'nt you say? Or as they might say in Havana, Caramba! Platismo estilo Iraqi!!(why don't these damned key boards come with upside down exclamation marks? How do they expect me to type en Espanol? And there's no enye either.

I'm not buying the assumption that the public can't be 'sold' on less than a one-year timeline. Opinion is already trending in that direction.

The LP should be part of the anti-war movement, taking a firm stand for unconditional withdrawal as fast as militarily feasible. To do less is not a 'compromise' but a unilateral concession, that relaxes the pressure on both the government and popular opinion.

'GREEN just seems ironicly appropriate,wouldn't you say?'

No. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I just read Lew Rockwell's piece anout the Iraq exit plan.

Let me make clear that Rockwell makes a good case, and in fact many of the things he said his way, I said my way in my earlier posting here. I am even going to start using his "Regime Libertarian" phrase, because he did such a good job of defining it and using it in sentences multiple times.

But those are all the props I am going to give him. Oh no. One more. I didn't think it was possible, but Rockwell found yet another way to skewer the Libertarian Party he has always chided for its marginal looniness: now we are even more marginal because of selling out to the mainstream.

UnbeLIEVEable! There is no winning with this guy. I don't know about the rest of you, but I remember listening to Rockwell's sniggering dismissals of the Libertarian Party as far back as the Andre Marrou campaign in 1992. Today, he wonders if it is too much to ask, for us to be part of the "radical opposition." In 1992, my impression was that he criticized us for being too radical, unrealistically radical -- as if he and the Mises Institute represented the voice of reason, while the LP led the tinfoil hat brigade. Indeed, it seems as if the LP is tailor made for Rockwell. If it didn't exist to absorb criticism that might otherwise come his way, he would have to invent it.

I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen Mr. Rockwell give the LP unqualified praise. Maybe he is a friend who is trying to thicken our skins with "tough love." But he's been doing that for a long time, now. Harry Browne claims to avoid sticking his foot out to trip someone who is going in the same direction as himself -- at least he says so often on his radio show. I have read and heard comments from Mr. Rockewll and columnists at his website, directed at the LP, which I would label as sticking out that proverbial foot. These comments have made me angry, because one would think that Mr. Rockwell and his associates would make common cause with Libertarians where he and they agree. But look at the kind of LP references you find at lewrockwell.com:

Eric Garris (2000): "I was recently taken aback when I read this item in the national Libertarian Party News: Jewish Defense League leader signs up with LP."

Karen deCoster (2000, interviewing Jacob Hornberger): "In your mind, why is the Libertarian Party failing miserably to pull in a decent following at the national level, while Nader can attract paying crowds of 15 thousand people?"

Lew Rockwell (2001): "At some point, you begin to get the feeling that the LP doesn’t understand much about the nature of government."

Bert Blumert (2002): "I might even contribute a few bucks to a worthy LP candidate, but PLEASE don't tell me that with more of my dollars, you just might win the election."

Alan Turin (2002): "For the rest of us, let us think of governments as criminals with flags. The libertarian movement is alive, well and nowhere in the LP. Now, let’s move on: there is nothing left to see from the LP."

Walter Block (2004, in what passes for praise of the LP): "...there really is no choice for anyone who favors peace, an end to imperialist ventures all around the world, limited government domestically, private property and free markets: The Libertarian Party, imperfect as it is, is simply the only choice."

Jerome Tuccille (2004): "The LP has blown yet another opportunity to have a genuine impact on the political life of the country. I hope I’m wrong, but come November, chances are it will once again settle for the usual 'less than one percent of the vote.'"

Man, I could go on and on. Damning with faint praise. Praising with faint damns. Damning with ... well, just plain old damns! Every now and then you get a column including a kind word for the LP from a Harry Browne or a Tonie Nathan. But mostly the website columnists and Mr. Rockwell seem to treat the LP as the ugly stepchild of the libertarian movement, in bad need of a pillow-smothering.

So, I won't go on. I'll close with just two things:

1. Rockwell asserts that nobody will pay any attention to us if we do nothing more newsworthy than point out the varieties of statism that will offend us least (which the Exit Plan seems to do). I agree with him on this. There is a big difference between standing for something and settling for something. If people are to pay attention to us at all, it will be on account of what we stand for, not what we'll settle for. We risk confusing people if we allow or encourage them to think that the Iraq Exit Plan is something we stand for.
2. As far as Rockwell's criticism of the LP for this latest "sellout," consider the source. Nothing the LP does is ever good enough, so simply understand that about Mr. Rockwell and take what he has to say with the requisite grain of salt.

Btw, here's part of the 'RealWorld' of resistance to military intervention:

Playback streaming Audio/Video
Russian intervention soldier beheading by Chechen Muslim resistance http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/chechclear.asf

Now, how long did you want to leave those USA soldier kids there again?

SeeAlso- LIBERVENTIONISM: Aggressors Promote LIMITED 'Libertarianism'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38935

David: Sorry I was bit too cryptic. It's just that the logo for the i.e.s. seemed remeniscent of the Green Party's website.I guess there nothing can be done about my keyboard.

This is in response to Tom Blanton's critique of my post:
(Tom) Must one become a warhawk to "grow up"?
(Kevin) No; I was referring to hysterical reactions of some doves to LP staff's "Iraq Exit Plan". It is, after all, a strongly dovish plan. If instead the staff had come up with a moderate hawk plan, I would have praised them for the areas where we agree and calmly pointed out where we differ.

(Tom) The IAEA was aware for years that Iraq possessed uranium ore. It was tagged, monitored, and regularly inspected for years.

(Kevin) The LP staff didn't refer to Saddam's possession of uranium ore, they merely dismissed allegations that Saddam tried to obtain such ore. The reader is left with the impression, Saddam had no such ore.

(Tom) What Iraq lacked was the means to enrich it to a highly enriched state.

(Kevin) Thanks to Gulf War I, which you probably also opposed, Saddam's nuclear program was defanged, and the remnants put on hold. However, once the sanctions/inspections would have been removed, Saddam would have had the ability to reactivate his nuclear weapons program.

(Tom) I would also suggest that it isn't very grown up to swallow every nugget of propaganda the government spoon feeds you.

(Kevin) Suggesting that all liber-hawks are brainwashed by government propaganda is equivalent to suggesting that all liber-doves are brainwashed by Murray Rothbard.

I know this is off-topic, but I just wanted to point out that the new poll isn't working. I tried to vote, but couldn't. Then I saw "(0 votes)", so I assume others may be experiencing the same problem. Just wanted to point this out so it can be fixed. Thanks. :)