I agree with Stephen 100%. However, I think there's one thing he diplomatically left out.

Like most political organizations, one of the biggest problems we have in the LP is sniping. Sniping destroys EVERYONE's credibility, both purists and pragmatists. Sniping is rooted in anger and a desire to be pugnacious and stubborn against all with whom one disagrees.

Purists want pragmatists to respect their views, but they often won't be respectful in return.

Pragmatists want purists to respect their views, but they also are often disrespectful.

Both sides use polarizing arguments and sarcastic commentary to back their positions. Unfortunately, this approach is nearly always hurtful to others...even when the harm is done subconsciously.

On the flip side of the same coin, people also need to grow a thicker skin. We all need to learn to disagree without taking offense and without giving offense. Among other things, this means giving due consideration to what the other side is saying, and not simply dismissing it because it doesn't square with your own beliefs 100%.

It's poignant how often people on both sides of the schism will write something hurtful on these blog pages, then claim they weren't intending to be hurtful. Writers on both sides should think once before they type and twice before they confirm and post.

Neither side will achieve their goals so long as they engage in sniping at each other and relying on snide commentary to boost their egos. Instead we will continue to lose as a party. Despite what some on both sides have said, the LP cannot succeed without the support of both sides.

Having said all that, I also want to take a moment to commend those many writers on both sides who have been taking more care with their commentaries and criticisms than before. However, we must not rest on our laurels. All of us could learn to be more diplomatic in our exchanges. I encourage us all to continue to learn the subtle art of courteous discourse.

I also agree with Stephen Gordon.

I'd add only some heavier ephasis on the fact that the LP is not the totality of the Libertarian movement, and ask the idelogues to stop trying to make it be the whole instead of the part that it is.

It's a political party; it's supposed to do politics!

From that point, Stephen makes the caes more than well enough for me.

A definitive and hearty "Bravo!" certainly goes out from me to both Mr. Gordon and Libertarian TV. Both excellent commentatries that poigniantly address the sometimes painful stage the LP memberships seems to be going through these days. While I suggest we may not always be able to keep the the laudable concept of reasonable, courteous discourse, it is certainly something we should all strive for.

If for no other reason then because we see far too much mudlsinging with little consideration for reasoned debate in politics from the folks we most disagree with... the Democrats and Republicans.

The ultimate goal we all want is for the libertarian party to gain enough power to influence national politics but also maintain our ideals so that this influence guides the country in the correct direction.

To do this, first we need to attract the attention and respect of citizens who are not yet libertarian. For this reason I feel pragmatism is more critical right now. Which is more likely to impress an average citizen, a party they view as radical unwaiveringly holding its ideals (PETA could be an example of this), or a party which offers a realistic, viable, and superior solution to the issue of the day?

I do also respect purism and feel that it is nessecary; it is what will keep us on the same forward path in the future without diverging too far.

I am heartened and excited to see the LP leadership giving this internal divide the attention and light of day that it needs and deserves. I don’t think being an absolutist is a necessary condition for being ideological.

Politics IS the art of compromise. To approach politics without a willingness to compromise is like trying to carve a turkey with a wrench, it’s just not the right tool for the job.

So let’s start with the things we all agree on. The government is to big and the nature of the beast is such that its natural tendency is self-perpetuation and growth with the rights of the individual being the most obvious victim of this fact. We are the last line of defense and we all want to be effective in providing that security to our liberties.

The history of the party has been, well, rich with opportunities for improvement. (I just blew all my tactfulness for the entire day in one sentence). I am excited that the leadership is doing things to make us a political force. With their efforts, I have grown more active within the party because it has offered me hope that my efforts will not be merely a futile exercise in self-delusion.

The R’s believe in economic freedom (so the conventional wisdom goes) and the D’s believe in personal freedom (ditto), we believe in both. That is a message that has resonance and is easy to articulate. It does not require a working knowledge of either The Wealth of Nations or For The New Intellectuals and it shouldn’t be controversial within libertarian circles.

The national media has begun to crack open the door to our way of seeing the world. Mentions of libertarianism have become daily staples on FOX and MSNBC, I can’t help but assume that the efforts of the LP to raise our profile has something to do with this. It is up to us to seize this momentum and do something positive with it.

Millions of Americans are disillusioned with their choices and ready for a new message. Are we going to embrace this opportunity or are we going scare all those people who haven’t studied the history of libertarian thought back into the abusive arms of the major parties?

It all starts with a united front. That doesn’t mean we have too sell out or we can’t disagree on the fine points, but it does mean that we must agree that the purpose of a political party is to obtain and retain political power. Short of that, everything else is academic.

PETA: 850,000 (international) radical unwaivering idealists, and growing over the past few years

ACLU: 400,000 radical unwaivering idealists, and growing over the past few years

LP: 25,000 (?) and shrinking over the past few years

Which of these groups seem to be employing the better model for attracting and retaining activists? Which of these groups seem to wield more "political power?" Which of these groups fairly regularly compromise their founding principles?

A political party cannot exist without active, precinct-level workers. What motivates precinct workers more, ideology or pragmatism?

You are absolutely right that activists are motivated by ideology, but you forget that voters are motivated by pragmatism. That's why a successful party needs both.

One thing that should be mentioned when using the R's are for economic freedom and the D's are for social freedom, is that both those parties are doing to best to take away the freedoms they stand for. The Reps are as big a liberal spender as the Dems, if not more since they have more power. And the Dems are slowly taking away our social freedoms with their "nanny" laws. So what does that really leave them with???

QUOTE: “Every time some sort of plan is introduced, ideologues of one variety or another attack it.”

I think Harry Browne said it best when he said, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Libertarians like to disagree, even with one another.” It’s part of our nature. We’re not Republicans or Democrats because we found disagreement with their positions. We weren’t prepared to just “agree” with what we’re told. We question things.

I’m glad that we have this dialogue, exchanges between purists and pragmatists. If everyone in the party was a purist, it wouldn’t get us anywhere—we need to build coalitions with other groups, even if we have some disagreements with other things they stand for. But if everyone in the party was a pragmatist, the party would be no different from the RepubliCrats, and who’s going to vote for a third RepubliCratic party? No one.

The back-and-fourth struggle, in my opinion, has its benefits. This doesn’t mean that the party can’t have a plan of action. But we should be open to hearing from all sides within the party.

QUOTE: “As a case-in-point, even the recent LP press release critical of GOP meister-puppeteer Karl Rove is drawing fire on the LP blog.”

Is this a bad thing? I don’t believe it is, really. :)

QUOTE: “Rockwell and many others do have a very important point to make. It is common for those in power to begin to abuse it. To my friends involved in the business of pragmatic politics, my message is that it is crucial for you to always maintain the ideals which separate the LP from other political parties. Once these important principles are disregarded, we become no better than our political opposition.”

Exactly.

QUOTE: “There is clearly room for both ideologues and political players within the libertarian movement. However, for movement to actually move, it is imperative that we work together instead of in opposition to one another.”

I’m not sure if I’m an ideologue or a pragmatist. There are positions that I disagree with the LP on. For example, I don’t mind the idea of having a minimum wage or an economic safety-net at the State level, just as long as it’s not at the Federal level. This goes against Libertarian purism. But for those things that I do agree with the LP on, I’m pretty much an ideologue. I think the government, for example, should get completely out of our retirements. I think every drug should be legal. Etc.

I don’t think that we’re necessarily working against each other, even when we disagree. Merely, we’re expressing our opinions, and trying to influence the others to agree with us. By disagreeing, by dissenting, are we “work[ing] in opposition to one another”? I honestly don’t believe we are.

I do agree with LTV, though, that when we work to offend our opponents, even those within the party, that it’s detrimental, not only to the movement, but alto to the argument he or she is trying to make.

Again, I’ve got to go. I’ll be back later, and read the rest of the responses then. :)

Pragmatism leads to compromise. I always thought the mantra of the LP was "We don't compromise." I agree that pragmatism has a certain lure. People love to seem "reasonable" and willing to "work together." However, whenever two sides decide to be "reasonable" and willing to "work together" the state expands, libery contracts, and we are all less free. As Barry Goldwater said, "I'd rather be right than be president." We should stick to our principals rather than become like the D's and R's.

I wanted to add that being ideological does not mean immediately jumping to the most extreme position. I know lots of people who are moderate AND ideological of every political stripe. It's cliche, but it take two wings to fly.

To Dave: If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always gotten. If the LP were a new party, I would be very sympathetic to your point of view, but we have over 30 years of real world observations that show the futility of this approach.

I also think you beg the question with the assumption that working together will necessarily expand the state. Why don't we try it first?

On Brian's point, I indicated the dubiousness of my own assurtion about the percieved utility of each major party. They are both corrupted beyond any consistency of message, but the perception of each as defender of their respective favored rights (personal or economic) none the less persists.

Dave,

If you're going to take the exclusively-purist approach and exclude pragmatists, how do you propose that the LP can begin to win elections?

Don said: "You are absolutely right that activists are motivated by ideology, but you forget that voters are motivated by pragmatism. That's why a successful party needs both."

That's an interesting point, and well worth thinking about, but is it always true? Weren't the "values" voters who put Shrub back in office voting their ideology?

Also, I'd argue that without first having activists in the precincts to get out the vote, we'd be spinning our wheels worry about what voters want.

Stephen -

If you want everyone to work together instead of in opposition to one another, then National has to stop issuing statements that contradict the platform and Libertarian principles. Let's be very clear that that is what is dividing the LP right now. If National can't or won't do this, then expect to lose more members.

You had it right in your second paragraph: "one can be simultaneously principled and practical". I agree. Here is an excellent essay that explains clearly and logically why truth and principle are indeed the most practical policy:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0997a.asp

Hypocrisy hurts us!

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

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

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

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

Someone once said Theory without practice is sterile and practice without theory is blind.

The LP obviously has a principle that many people agree with (Theory) but the practice has left something to be desired.

Gordon hit the nail right on the head that we need both the purist to keep the party's principles consistent and pragmatist to translate those

Can purism and pragmatism coexist?

It depends on what you mean.

The "pragmatist" vision of the Libertarian Party sees the Libertarian Party as a movement for change. Not any kind of change, but rather change in a particular direction--more personal and more economic freedom.

From that "pragmatic" perspective, there are many different variants of libertarianism. Different libertarians have different visions of the ideal, perfect libertarian society. Some libertarians might not even have a very clear view of exactly what a perfect society would be like.

The "pragmatic" vision of the Libertarian Party, is a "big-tent" approach. People who insist that their vision of the ideal society is more "pure," perhaps based entirely on the ideal liberty without any intrusion of unjustified "statism," are as welcome as any other libertarian. All that the "pragmatists" request is that every libertarian agree to work with all the other libertarians to expand personal and economic liberty.

The "pragmatic" vision of the Libertarian Party is often described as incrementalist. While there is some truth to that description, it isn't entirely accurate. In the "pragmatic" view, candidate positions and platform planks don't pretend to implement anyone's version of the ideal libertarian society. The immediate point of those positions and plans is that they will be seen by most libertarians as an improvement relative to the status quo. While it is possible that some libertarians will see some such change as ushering in their personal utopia, many libertarians will see them as incremental--steps towards their ideal society. A second, and in the long run, more important purpose of such positions is their appeal to the majority of Americans--including those who aren't libertarians, at least not yet.

Clearly, the term "incremental" implies that people who would like to see more radical changes--immediately or eventually--are welcome in the Libertarian Party. All that the pragmatists request is that libertarians support proposals that they believe are improvements relative to the status quo. They are welcome to have a set of further expansions of personal and economic liberty that they would also like to see implemented sooner or later.

So, what are the concerns of those who share this "pragmatist" vision of the Libertarian Party regarding what is sometimes called the "purist" vision for the Libertarian Party? Perhaps the most important concern is the impression that so-called "purists" demand that candidate positions and platform planks reflect what they personally find most appealing. This is why "pragmatists" sometimes accuse "purists" of political masturbation. The accusation is that they are interesting in exciting themselves. They want plans and proposals that will generate the loudest cheers at the Libertarian convention. They refuse to think about what will most appeal to the millions of libertarians who want more personal and economic liberty, but who aren't there at the convention. They aren't willing to think about what will best appeal to the millions of Americans who aren't libertarians--at least not yet.

Perhaps, more fundamentally, the concern of those who share the pragmatist vision of the Libertarian Party with so-called "purists," is the impression that the "purists" want to have their ideal vision of a libertarian society given official sanction by the Libertarian Party. More important, is a concern that they either explicitly or implicitly insist that those who dissent from that vision are not real libertarians and don't belong in the Libertarian Party. In other words, it involves various techniques that have the effect of keeping the tent small.

To sum up, those sharing the "pragmatic" vision of the Libertarian Party, welcome libertarians who support radical change, immediate or eventual, into the Libertarian Party. However, those sharing the "pragmatic" vision will oppose any effort to chase away those libertarians who favor more moderate change. This includes efforts to enshrine a vision of the final, ideal libertarian society in official party documents. And more importantly, those Libertarians with a "pragmatic" vision of the Libertarian Party will be disinclined support platform planks or candidates with positions whose primary benefit appears to be the emotional charge they provide to those attending Libertarian conventions. The argument that we think (or know, is how it is put) that some such radical change would really be better, just doesn't make it.

Why? Because it is those elements of the "purist" vision for the Libertarian Party, that will keep it from uniting everyone who wants more personal and economic liberty, appealing to most Americans, and actually begin expanding personal and economic liberty by reducing the size and scope of government.

Stupid computer cut off my last sentence.

Gorden hit the nail right on the head that we need both the purist to keep the party's principles consistent and pragmatists to translate those principles into working policies.

Why are you here, if not 'purely' for 'liberty & justice for ALL'

'Real world' experiment in LIBERTARIAN community became famous
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569

Pragmatism is everything. If mere good ideas were sufficient, the Libertarian takeover would have occurred in the early 1980s.

As it is, bad ideas coupled with significant organization and action are what rule the day.

It we take our excellent ideals and put them into the kind of organizations that you find in the Rs & Ds, we'll have our takeover in short order.

Purist absolutism is what allows us to fail to build bridges with people who actually agree with us more than they do with the other parties. We create our own dealbreakers unnecessarily.

Carl Vassar is right when he says that the staff is violating the LP Platform. Here's to the staff! The platform stinks!

The platform calls for defaulting on the national debt! The platform calls for anarchy. The platform calls for wide open immigration despite the fact that we currently have a welfare state.

We don't need to fix the staff; we need to fix the platform. The platform needs to be a viable plan for moving this country in a libertarian direction DURING THE NEXT 4 YEARS. Instead, we have a platform that attempts to outline the ideal future libertarian society.

The result: we are always the party of the future -- the far future. If we wish to ever arrive at that future we need to talk about what to do next, and to have some sensitivity for the price of change.

For those of you who agree with me, please go to www.ReformTheLP.org. There, we are working on building a Libertarian Party platform that our candidates can proudly quote and still win.

Millions of Americans are libertarians. They want more personal and economic liberty. According to Gallup polling 20% of Americans fit into that category.

The Republican Party promises more economic liberty and delivers less. Worse, much worse, the Republican Party promises less personal freedom. And recently, it has come to promise a never ending global war to remake the world in America's image.

The Democrat party promises less economic freedom. It promises to oppose the efforts of Republicans to reduce personal freedom, but then, advocates reductions in personal freedom in other areas. And worse, the dominate faction of the Democrats wants to provide more troops to the global war to remake the world in America's image (or maybe they really aim for Sweden's image.)

The Republicans are no good. The Democrats are no good. What is a libertarian to do?

Well, there is a political party called the Libertarian Party. It does appear devoted to increasing personal and economic liberty. It is even opposed to this futile global crusade to remake he entire world in America's imgage.

Sounds good! And so, there are many people who want more personal and more economic liberty who are Libertarians--part of the Libertarian Party.

Of course, they find out that there are others in the Libertarian Party who insist that the Libertarian Party is only for what they call "real libertarians." Sure, like the rest of us libertarians, they do want more personal and more economic liberty, but there is something more. They insist that to be a libertarian one must agree with their particular version of complete and perfect personal and economic freedom.

Well, there are a lot of libertarians in the Libertarian Party who disagree. They don't insist that only those who agree with their ideal society are libertarian. They welcome everyone who wants more personal and economic liberty into the Libertarian Party.

And they are in the Libertarian Party to increase personal and economic liberty.

I will not be renewing my membership when the time comes. Stephen's "If you agree with us, come work with us, and if you don't agree with us, shut up and get out of the way" attitude proves there's no room for principles anymore in the LP.

Interestingly it is commentaries like Mr. Gordon's and the latest posting from Mr. Dixon along with things like the Exit Strategy that have drawn me to actually become a paying member of the LP. Perhaps the "principles" espoused by the LP are simply changing from one that suggests immediate implementation of the libertarian ideal is the only truly libertarian response, but I firmly believe that such action is not the only truly libertarian response. I belive that it is more principled to be aware of how pushing for the immediate repeal of such a humongous beast as the government has become would have devastating consequences that, IMHO, may well be even less libertarian than our ultimate goals.

Pushing for steps to move in a more libertarian direction is quite principled, IMHO. And pushing for those steps will in no way deter me from continuing to push those steps ever further, should we finally be more successful, to ever enhance out liberties and seek out that ever illusive "libertopia". I am principled and I do want the same end result you want, most likely, I just have no problem with finding the most politically successful, yet justifiable, route with a political party to get there.

To some that means I believe that "The Ends Justify the Means". I categorically deny that response. The ends never jutify the means IF the means are unjust. I suggest that the vast majority of poltically successful means that the LP can and should employ are most certainly just. My principles suggest that they are most likely even more just than simply pushing to the instant gratification of those ends "right now".

Thus I suggest my principles are intact. And the LPs principles are no less intact, either. Just read the Statement of Principles to see exactly what those principles are. I think Mr. Gordon's comments fall well within the parameters of those principles.

Thus you have new members like me, and several of my friends, who would never previously consider being members of the LP before, becoming members. And those new members still want the same minimalist government the "purists" seek. We just accept there may be more than one "proper" way to skin a cat.

"I will not be renewing my membership when the time comes. Stephen's "If you agree with us, come work with us, and if you don't agree with us, shut up and get out of the way" attitude proves there's no room for principles anymore in the LP."

The LP is a political party and should be operated as such. The Libertarian Party as it has been operating for the past 30 years was approaching politics by trying to sell a philosophy and it got the Libertarian Party nearly no where. The party should try to sell its politics and that would include compromise. What you are not considering is that with the compromise comes more liberty, and once Americans get a taste of Liberty, perhaps they will want more. We have to crack the door open before others will want to walk through. Most Americans do not want to open that door instantly as you can see from the party's history.

There is room for Libertarian principle. The one thing a purist that disagrees with trying this approach has not answered is "How are you going to get elected when we have failed with this strategy for 30 years?"

There is no solution to the failure with the current paradigm. I declare it an impossibility as it currently stands in this political environment.

The principles exist behind the politics, but the politics come first since this is after all a political party. It is NOT giving up your principles, it is applying your principles to the real world political environment. Stay with the LP if they are serious about starting this.

The LP needs to:
Rewrite positions that appeal to the majority of Americans.

Be political! Learn to play the game. Let's start with FEWER taxes! On the drug war, let's talk about legalizing marijuana on the state level, and allowing states to decide on medical marijuana on the Federal. Let's talk about looking at harm reduction instead of saying everyone should be able to buy your drugs at the local 7-11.

It's time to get serious about politics. NEVER forget the philosophy, but remember the philosophy can never be implemented without a political strategy, and that strategy involves a practical outlook to GET ELECTED!

You have to compromise between purist and pragmatist. If only purist then you'll have a party of about 100 people who are clones and everyone else will be somewhere else entirely. If only pragmatic then you will lose ground to the more established parties until the party dissipates entirely.

All of this is secondary to the fact that no one knows who the frack the LP is. 90% of the time I say I'm a Libertarian they think I'm mispronouncing Liberal. Review our issues section, post some alternative stances that have strong support from within, and then publicize it until Americans bleed from the ears and eyes. Be viral and aggressive. Find some marketing talent.

Stephen Gordon writes:

'While the article was written about the LP Exit Strategy, I'd like to move beyond that specific issue to illustrate something more important that Rockwell revealed - that he, and many others, do not "get it" with respect to the proper role of the Libertarian Party.'

Arbitrary, smug, arrogant assertion.

'The last time I checked, POTUS was still considered a powerful position.'

Much too powerful. If a Libertarian is ever elected to it, reducing its power should be at the top of his agenda.

'On the issues where you disagree, please don't impede the progress of the party.'

The leadership is not the party. The activists are the party.

I certainly hope activists will 'impede the progress of the party' when it is progressing in the wrong direction.

Your request for a blank check to take the party in any direction is more insufferable arrogance.

'We will never reach total agreement on any issue . . . we will likely be closely aligned allies in whatever the issue may be - even if we disagree with each other on some nuances.'

I'm getting really tired of this belittling insistence that a major issue is really a minor one.

I will illustrate this by quoting myself from another forum on a single aspect of 'Iraq Exit Strategy' - foreign aid.

"Unlike the 'redeployment' section of
IES, the 'foreign aid' section does
give an explanation for the policy
itself.

"'A direct aid program will give
Iraq the best chance of becoming a
stable, democratic, free-market-
oriented country.'

"'By creating a direct aid program
for Iraq, we give them the necessary
funds to become an advanced,
industrialized, democratic nation.'

"These statements are not true. The
'best chance' for a nation's
development is freedom, secure
property rights, and the rule of
law. Nations that have these
things, even to a limited degree,
become advanced and industrialized
without any foreign aid funds, as
Britain did when it became the
first such nation. Nations that
don't have these things, languish
in poverty despite being showered
with aid.

"As for democracy, foreign aid
most likely hinders development
in that respect as well, as I
argued earlier in this thread.

"This is not a 'platform issue'.
The platform deplores foreign aid
because of the injustice to the
taxpayers. I don't think it
mentions the often negative impact
of such 'aid' on the peoples of
the 'aided' government. Perhaps a
sentence or two on the subject
might be added at the next national
convention.

"In an earlier post I wrote about
'the three most outrageous
aspects' of IES. The third was
that it 'not only advocates
foreign aid, but rhapsodizes
about its virtues'. I suspect this
part of the document may be the
most harmful in its impact.

"Long after the Iraq war is over, the
'Iraq Exit Plan' may be remembered as
a crucial turning point, when 'even'
the Libertarian Party conceded the
effectiveness of foreign aid. In
particular, IES concedes the
effectiveness of foreign aid for
nation-building and democracy-
building, thus making wars for
those purposes appear more attractive.
This is the price we are asked to pay
for a slim chance of bringing the
present war to an earlier close. That
trade-off doesn't appeal to me.

"There is one more thing that I think
needs to be said. I, and I suspect
many other people, are reluctant to
'sign on' to a document that makes
claims about the world that we do
not agree are true. The 'realists'
seem quite deaf to this point."

Mr. Gordon, do you understand that the above is not a 'nuance'?

'Wouldn't it be preferable for us to fight a common enemy as allies --'

'Iraq Exit Strategy' supports the Iraq war, foreign aid, and 'nation building'. I call that joining the enemy.

I'm not a member of the LP, but I have long considered myself a supporter. I no longer support the LP. I am opposed to it, so long as 'Iraq Exit Strategy' is presented as its policy.

Is that sufficient to make clear that this isn't just another 'disagreement'?

I see no conflict between the two sides here.

Every political movement needs its pragmatists... those who practice the art of politics to push forward the movement's goals; as well as the purists or idealogues, who keep reminding us of why we became a movement in the first place.

A perfect example is the Fair Tax. (HR/SR 25). Why, in the name of all that is Libertarian, haven't we gotten behind this idea? I know that the idealogues will scream that it is still too much taxation and still leaves "big government" intact. And that is correct.

But it also: 1) Ends the Income Tax; 2) Ends Payroll Taxes; 3) Ends the "Marriage Penalty"; 4) Ends the Death Tax; and most importantly, 5) Closes up the IRS as we know it.

All are goals of the LP, all are highly desirable, and all can be achieved within the next 12 to 15 months. Why are we not out in front on this?

I am a purist/idealogue. But I like winning one now and again too.

Those that will not be renewing their memberships: Keep in mind that you dont stop being as member of the LP as long as you once were a member unless you specifically resign your membership in writing to the party. If you dont, you simply get placed on a 'inactive' member list and are still considered a member of the party.

So if you really want to quit, you have to follow through with it and write that letter or email. Otherwise, you're still with the rest of us.

Thanks, Timothy West, for the advice. That's what I will be doing today.

John Shuey, you are a voice of reason. However, I think you're wrong about the fair tax. I know of nothing in the fair tax bills that have been introduced in Congress that actually insures the elimination of either the income tax or the IRS...let alone both!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Advocates of the fair tax are blind to it, but what they're pushing for will actually result in us having both a national sales tax AND an income tax.

Fellow Libertarians,

Take comfort in this; the fact that we are even having this passionate discussion is good! That's more than I can say for political parties that have no principles in the first place.

I believe that "The Party of Principle" is what we are about. Without our principles, we are just like the other guys. There will always be disagreement about how these principles apply to current policy. Principles define where we want to go. Policy is how we get there. In the past, I feel Libertarians have been good about stating our destination but not good about saying how we will get there.

I have concerns about the Exit Strategy, and the process used to present it. However, I believe all involved have the best intentions.

In my position on city council, I do not object to everything that is not perfect by Libertarian standards. I want to move the ball toward liberty. If I can't do it with a 99 yard touchdown pass, I will take a short gainer and move the chains. However, my fellow council members will know where I stand. That is why the first thing I did was give each of them "The Law" and "Good to be King". It has not been easy (see PatDixon.org), but I think that when my term ends I will have defended the rights and property of the residents of Lago Vista, TX.

Patrick J Dixon
Councilman, Place 1, Lago Vista, TX
www.PatDixon.org
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas
www.LPTexas.org

Those that will not be renewing their memberships: Keep in mind that you dont stop being as member of the LP as long as you once were a member unless you specifically resign your membership in writing to the party.

Well damn, that sure shot down our intention to lapse all our memberships due to the lack of pragmatism or relevance in the party leadership (at the time).

If the party keeps moving the way it is right now, trying to play ball in the national arena and adopting a more pragmatic and relevant approach to topics (along with the platform), my wife, myself, my brother, and about ten other members of my family might just get back on-board. (I was also a pledger monthly.)

In short, it's the "all or nothing" game that's ripping this party into shreds. There's a place for both the purists and pragmatists (as captured in several comments above), but to shun thousands of libertarian-leaning voters in the face of "purity" is political suicide.

There is true compromise, in which each party forgoes some of what he or she wants in order to walk away with at least something of value. Then there is false compromise, in which one party gives up what is valuable to him or her, in order to secure something that really isn't valuable at all.

All too often, the compromises that politicians arrange will begrudge a little liberty with one hand, while snatching it back -- and more besides -- with the other. That is to say, your income taxes may go down temporarily, but your sales taxes go up permanently. Local government may put pot-law enforcement on the back burner for a year or two, but add a few more designer drugs to its list of felony contraband in the meantime, so that when it ratchets up the drug war again, more people will be in the cross-hairs, and they will have more to lose. "I'll vote with you on freedom of the press, if you'll vote with me on the military spending bill that includes the RealID provisions." And so forth.

We have to become good at judging the "net change in liberty" to be expected from political compromises, and stubbornly rejecting false compromises that reduce the amount of net liberty that citizens enjoy. We have to explain the issues to the people, we have to frame our principled stands in terms of those issues, and we have to stick to our guns. Compromising in the sense of picking our battles, winning where we can, and living to fight another day is a good idea. "Compromising" in the sense of giving up power to government, when what we want is for government to have less power, is foolish.

I am reminded that government is described as a "necessary evil." Of course, there is no compromise with evil. You either control it, or kill it (or it kills you). The compromise IS to let it live under control, wouldn't you think?

If the party stays in the direction it seems to have found of late, I will sign on as a lifetime member, as will my wife and mother.

Congrats on moving from activism to politics

There seems to be an assumption that some sort of dove position is ideologically correct, and those who call for US military actions abroad are sacrificing ideology for practical political considerations. Au contraire, there is nothing in the non-aggression principle that requires a non-interventionist foreign policy. The assumption was smuggled into the LP platform over 20 years ago by the radical caucus. Inspired by Rothbard's ideology, this coup de etat went unnoticed by most LP members. Gradually, this started a self-accelerating process, whereby new members get the impression Rothbard's foreign policy is required by libertarian ideology.

Rather, this foreign policy debate should be empirical, albeit within the non-initiation of force principle. Whether or not Saddam aggressed against the US sufficiently to justify the invasion, properly should be a factual question. Rothbard cannot tell us if Saddam is the aggressor or what a wise response would be.To answer such questions, we will need to read what others say, including those who may not be libertarian on every topic.

For example, Jayna Davis wrote "The Third Terrorist", documenting Tim McVeigh's connections to neo-Nazis and Iraqi intelligence, and Terry Nichol's connections to al Qaeda. Whether or not her book is true, cannot be know "a priori".

On this and other foreign policy topics, libertarians may disagree. That's why staffers shouldn't pose as experts, and presume to tell us what THE libertarian position is.

Libertarian TV...

The way HR/SR 25 are written, the institution of the tax is dependent on the repeal of the 16th Amendment. I would urge all to visit and CAREFULLY study the info @ http://www.fairtax.org/.
It is our chance to take the lead on an issue that is important to our agenda, and to contribute to making sure it gets done right.

One other thing it accomplishes, Congress will be far less susceptible to most of special interest groups who only exist now to manipulate the tax code.

If a party less ideological than the Libertarian Party, but less statist than the majors, would gain so much support, then it would already exist or could be created independently of the LP. Why do the people who want such a party think they have to start by taking over the LP?

The link to fairtax doesn't work unless you drop the final period.

http://www.fairtax.org/

I looked over the site and didn't find the text of HR/SR 25.

Never mind. I found it.

Click on 'learn more' at bottom right.

David, I'm sorry, but I cannot support the "Fiar Tax". I don't think it will be an improvement. Sorry.

Fair* Tax

Sorry for the typo.

Alex...

I don't see how repeal of: the income tax, the payroll (Soc Sec and medicare) tax, and the death tax isn't a heck of a lot better than we have now.

Additionally, economists project a solid economic impact, there will be a reduction in lobbyists engaged in tax code manipulation, American business will be more competitive overseas, and the IRS will cease to exist in its present form.

The only reason I can see for anyone opposing it is either if they are a tax accountant or Washington lobbyist.

QUOTE: "Additionally, economists project a solid economic impact, there will be a reduction in lobbyists engaged in tax code manipulation,..."

Can we be sure of this? It seems much more likely to me that the Fed politicians will want to make exceptions for this person and that person, for this profduct and that product, etc. The only way to ensure that they don't boggle us down with regulation after regulation is to repeal the 16th amendment. Rather than getting a sales tax to replace the income tax, I personally think we should just focus on repealing the income tax, etc. That's just my opinion; sorry if you don't agree.

The plan is an abandonment of libertarian principle. The plan is not a step in a libertarian direction. It is like saying that you are ok with someone stealing $100 from you instead of $300. The amount is not the issue. The issue is that someone is stealing from you.
The issue is not the number of troops in the Middle East. The issue is that the troops should be on U.S. soil protecting the U.S. to favopr foreign aid is like favoring a flat income tax. Is the LP going to issue a statement in favor of a flat income tax or national sales tax in order to be "pragmatic"? What is the point of having a Libertarian Party if the LP is going to become like the other parties? And you say don't impede the progrees of the party. Abandonment of principle is not progress.

H. Rearden $

John Shuey wrote: "The way HR/SR 25 are written, the institution of the tax is dependent on the repeal of the 16th Amendment."

Hollow laugh! There is no way that they are going to pass legislation like that, fail to repeal the 16th Amendment, then not find a way to institute the sales tax anyway. It's just too tempting for tax-and-spenders and other big government types, like Republican and Democrats.

And if you think they will succeed in repealing the 16th amendment, then you and I have two entirely different views on the mood of the electorate and the state governments at this point in time.

And the likes of you, dear Alex, is why the LP will never elect a President or control either House of Congress. Which makes all of this just so much hot air and a pile of bullshit.

If we end the income tax, I personally favor replacing it with a pollution tax on corporations. There's many people who have had misconceptions about the LP thinking we want ZERO business regulation and want corporations to trample the environment.

I think we should institute a pollution tax on the corporations. As I see it, the corporations that are most at odds with the environment would go out of business because the taxes would be levied heavily on them which in turn would make them lose business due to increasing costs.

I believe it would be a way for the market to truly take its course. In order to ensure lower pollution taxes and low costs, which would ensure sensible environmental protection, corporations would have to be more environmentally friendly.

To Timothy West:In re.: (4:29pm) I frankly don't give a DAMN about your proceedures for getting permission to leave the party. I have my own proceedures for leaving, I know it's hard for you obedient sheep to grasp, so since it's the only type of interaction that seems to appeal to you;I'll put it to you in the following terms: please be advised that you, or anyone else, including your masters, who to my knowledge were to hereafter refer to me as a libertarian party member can expect to have me call them a liar. You, or any other individual person can e-mail me at bikemessenger1984@yahoo.com . Any employee or officer of the libertarian party may of course, also e-mail me there, but their e-mails will be deleted unread. Hereafter, all correspondence sent by mail to me by the libertarian party including l.p. news will be thrown in the trash unopened and unread. It doesn't matter that you don't like it, it only matters that I, as far as I can tell, can make it happen. If there are obstacles that I don't foresee then I will have to deal with them when they become apparent. Again, I can't stop you or those in control of the party from refering to me as a member, I can only use such claims as incontrovertible evidence that you are liars. If I'm not willing to just bow down to your master's shut up, pay your dues get in the back if the bus and do as your told edicts, what makes makes you think I'd be willing to beg permission to leave? I could call this statement a defiant act of self-defense; rather,I will leave you, and the rest of your flock, to celebrate the departure of a troublesome voice of dissent by hurling insults and expressions of good riddance. They'll bounce off my obliviously deaf ears,but hurling them will provide you with additional salve of rationalization. Hope to never hear from any of you again.---The Bikemessenger

I don't support the so called fair tax. What an oxymoron that is. A better option is a national lottery. Lotteries are voluntary.
I have a question for those who support 30,000 troops being redeployed to another part of the Middle East. Are you willing to sign up and serve in the Middle East?

H. Rearden $

I'm a captain in the US Army Reserves ... yes.

"I have a question for those who support 30,000 troops being redeployed to another part of the Middle East. Are you willing to sign up and serve in the Middle East?" H. Rearden $

" On the issues where you disagree, please don't impede the progress of the party."

- Stephen Gordon

Hmm, that sounds sort of familure. I recall hearing someone say, " you're either for us or against us".

H. Rearden $

My friend Pat Dixon has hit the proverbial nail on the head. "Principles define where we want to go. Policy is how we get there." This is why the "purists" must always be the intellectual force behind the L.P., and the pragmatists must be the ones to "execute" these principles. The purists must understand that some level of gradualism must take place in implementing the principles, and the pragmatists must understand that the ultimate goal must not be forgotten. With every pragmatic "plan", the ultimate goal must stated in clear, concise terms so that not only do Libertarians understand, but so do the voters.

Oops, I should have typed "the ultimate goal must BE stated . . ."

Steve LaBianca writes: 'This is why the "purists" must always be the intellectual force behind the L.P., and the pragmatists must be the ones to "execute" these principles.'

I don't think so, given what a lousy job the 'pragmatists' are doing.

Adamson,

I did not say, "If you agree with us, come work with us, and if you don't agree with us, shut up and get out of the way" -- but you just did.

What I am trying to do is open conversation about how we all may better work together, and dedicate our energies to engaging the enemy, instead of each other.

I hope you will reconsider - and engage in open dialogue about how to fix some the problems which are evident in the party.

I really don't understand the distinction between a "purist" and a "pragmatist."

Seems to me the "pragmatists" are willing to compromise LP Platform positions because they believe doing so will more quickly bring about a libertarian society. "Purests," on the other hand are unwilling to compromise platform positions because they believe doing that will more quickly bring about a libertarian society.

As to "purists" holding back the party - I have been involved actively (more or less) since the Roger McBride campaign. There have ALWAYS been so-called "purists" and so-called "pragmatists." It is unclear whether the uncompromising position of so-called "purists" or the willingness of so-called "pragmatists" to compromise is what's "held us back" (assuming that you believe one or the other is holding us back).

Was Carla Howell's proposal to end entirely the income tax in Massachusettes a "purest" proposal to entirely end the income tax, or a "pragmatists" proposal to cut only a small part of overall taxes in Massachusettes?

If it was a "purist" strategy, did it help or hurt the party overall (proposal failed). If it was a "pragmatist" policy, did it help or hurt the party overall? And based on studying this project, what's been learned about whether it would it be better to be more "purist" or more "pragmatic"?

I think we need to start arguing about "good" or "bad" policy, and labeling one side "purist" or one side "pragmatist" does absolutely ZERO to advance the discussion. Moreover, because some people like to consider themselves uncompromising and others like to view themselves as compromising, these kinds of labels tend only to divide the party in ways that are unproductive.

For example, in the recent flap over the exit strategy "purists" (I guess) advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Is that "purist" because it calls for complete withdrawal from Iraq, or "pragmatist" because it only focuses on Iraq, failing to call for complete withdrawal from all foreign countries?

Is it "pragmatic" to advocate a strategy that might turn off large numbers of the anti-war population by compromising somewhat our anti-war stand?

For that matter, were those advocating staying around in Iraq simply "purists" about restitution for wrongs? Are the advocates of staying around in Iraq to defend the Iraqi government "purists" on the question of defending America against threats by terrorists?

Are those advocating we "cut and run" simply recognizing "pragmatically" that it's hopeless over there, and irrespective of ideals, we should just cut our losses?

Is it necessarily "pragmatic" to "compromise" on abortion, or will that turn off more than it brings into the party? Is it "purist" to advocate for laws against abortion (based on assertions that abortion is aggression)? Or is it "purist" to advocate for no governmental involvement in the question on the grounds that a fetus is not a human, entitled to the full panoply of rights we accord other humans? Advocating which side of that issue is more "pragmatic"? Which side is more "purist"? Will which "purist" or "pragmatic" approach bring about more quickly the society we all envision?

These labels are used derisively by those who aren't up to the challenge of presenting cogent argument about policy. (Used derisively BOTH by so-called "purists" and by so-called "pragmatists.")

The sooner we stop using these labels, the better off the party will be.

J. Mills

I joined the LP in 1981. I resigned today. My official resignation letter is in the mail. Best of luck to those of you who decide to stay and fight to take the party back from those who would rather get elected at any cost than have firm principles. I'm done. In short order the LP will simply be "Republican-Lite", and that's not a party I want any part of.

Yeah, firm principles that have gotten us nowhere. Good riddance.

Should the Libertarian Party "compromise?"

It depends on what you mean.

The Libertarian Party doesn't literally bargain with anyone. No one really cares what demands we make. No one has to get the Libertarian Party's agreement on anything. There is no one with whom to compromise.

The "debate" about so-called compromise is about whether the Libertarian Party should propose policies that the majority of Libertarian activists consider less than ideal, but improvements relative to the status quo.

Some describe these proposals as "compromises," but they are an odd sort of compromise. It doesn't involve giving up anything one has in return for something else. We don't have "libertopia." It certainly doesn't involve some commmittment to never propose other libertarian changes in exchange for actually achieving more modest changes. There is no guarantee that more modest changes will be achieved. If the aren't acheived, more modest proposals can be replaced by more extreme proposals. Or, if the more moderate proposals are implement, further modest or radical proposals can be made. No committment is made by making these proposals.

Most troubling, regarding this compromise language, is the assumption that all Libertarians agree on the "final goal." Some proposal or other involves something that is less than our agreed goal. Well, the reality is that there are different libertarians with different goals. What is a so-called compromise for one libertarian isn't a compromise for some other libertarian.

Anyway, I think that given the current membership of the Libertarian Party and the millions of Americans who aren't in the Libertarian Party but who want more personal and economic liberty, it would be wise to make proposals that are less than ideal for the current membership. The goal, should be to develop proposals that appeal to the vast majority of those Americans who want more personal and economic liberty.

So, if the is "compromise" for at least some Libertarians--great.+

By the way, I hadn't seen this gem posted by Libertarian TV:

"If you're going to take the exclusively-purist approach and exclude pragmatists, how do you propose that the LP can begin to win elections?"

Yes, we can't take an "exclusively-purist" approach.

And, of course, we can't take an "exclusively-pragmatist" approach, (unless,of course, the most pragmatic plan is to be "exclusively-pragmatic.")

I suggest that we all decide to be "pragmatically-purist."

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

"How can we win elections by being "purist"?

Implicit, but UNARGUED, is that "pragmatism" WILL win elections. That is not at all clear. (Nor is it clear, as I've pointed out, exactly what is "pragmatic" vs. "pure.")

It is not at all clear that, for example, arguing for reduced sentences, instead of ending the Drug War outright, is MORE likely to result in Ls getting elected.

By adopting the "reduce sentences" approach we will appeal to those who don't believe in ending the Drug War, but we will lose the support of those who do.

This problem, by the way, is not limited to the LP. For example, the "fair tax" proposal (discussed somewhat in this thread) argues for replacing the income tax with basically a national sales tax.

By arguing for complete repeal of the income tax, they win over those who really hate the income tax. Arguing for a reduction in the income tax, coupled with a new small sales tax . . . would that be more incremental. - a smaller, more gradual departure from the status quo.

Doing that would appeal to many who aren't willing to abandon wholesale a tax system they know has worked to fund the federal government.

Even recognizing all that, who can say for sure whether the "pragmatic" (really "more incremental") approach would be more, or less, likely to succeed?

Accordingly, I again suggest that labeling some arguments as "purist" and others as "pragmatic," then arguing about whether we must be more "pure" or more "pragmatic" is just sloppy argument, and more often than not amounts to little more than ad hominem attacks, rather than useful discussion of policy.

When Bush abandoned the "keep inspecting" strategy, and opted for "shock and awe," he abandoned "incrementalism" in favor of substantial and serious change. He was successful in persuading a large number of people to support that - again showing that incrementalism is NOT ALWAYS the most successful strategy.

In the end, the argument is not about "pragmatism" or "purity," but about whether proposals for more dramatic or less dramatic changes in the status quo constitute a strategy most likely to succeed in bringing about a more libertarian society and enhancing the visability of the LP.

J. Mills

"The plan is an abandonment of libertarian principle. The plan is not a step in a libertarian direction. It is like saying that you are ok with someone stealing $100 from you instead of $300. The amount is not the issue. The issue is that someone is stealing from you."

I'm curious. If you had a button you could push that would cut taxes by 66%, would you push it? Or would you sit idle and hope that one day a 100% tax cut button will appear?

To Jim Allison:

Cutting taxes is a completely different issue. I am for tax cuts but don't advocate a flat income tax.
Being satisfied with "only" 30,000 troops in the Middle east is like saying you are satisfied with a flat income tax of 15%. Would you be satisfied with a flat income tax?

H. Rearden $

I'm an independent libertarian, so bear with me if I seem a bit uninformed as regards LP insider issues, but didn't a variant of this debate surface during the Ed Clark presidential campaign of 1980?

Posted by: J. Mills at July 14, 2005 11:32 AM

Good point J. Mills. If we become "pragmatic" and don't start winning elections then what? We revert back to purism and look like we have no principals. I agree that it is not easy to belong to a party that hasnt won a major election. But, as this Country moves further and further to the left, we will inevitably have this government collapse under its own weight.

We cannot continue to fund medicare and SS without a major tax hike. The Supreme Court eradicated the 4th Amendment over the past 15 years, it eradicated the First Amendement when it uphelp teh Bipartisan Election Campaign Finance Reform Act which prohibits issues ads within 60 days of an election, the Court also recently eradciated the "takings clause" in the Kelo decision, and basically said that there is no limit on government power when it issued the Raich v. Ashcroft decision.

As for success via pragmatism...I think the most important step is getting Janice Rodgers Brown on the US supreme court. She has said the NEW DEAL was a "socialist revolution" so perhaps she can help reign in this government. Supporting her for the Court is a pragmatic solution to many of our problems without compromise.

QUOTE: “And the likes of you, dear Alex, is why the LP will never elect a President or control either House of Congress. Which makes all of this just so much hot air and a pile of bullshit.”

Why do you say that? Simply because I don’t support the “Fair Tax”?

QUOTE: “I'm curious. If you had a button you could push that would cut taxes by 66%, would you push it? Or would you sit idle and hope that one day a 100% tax cut button will appear?”

I’d definitely push it.

QUOTE: “Cutting taxes is a completely different issue. I am for tax cuts but don't advocate a flat income tax.
“Being satisfied with ‘only’ 30,000 troops in the Middle east is like saying you are satisfied with a flat income tax of 15%. Would you be satisfied with a flat income tax?”

I finally read the exit plan last night. On the one hand, I wouldn’t be “satisfied” with 30,000 troops in the Middle East. Certainly not. My sister is in the military, and I’m hoping she doesn’t get sent to the Middle East. On the other hand, I’d rather have 30,000 troops there than the number we currently have there. If I could push a button when cuts it back to only 30,000 troops stationed there, I definitely would.

I don’t think anybody, not even the people who wrote the plan, are “satisfied” with it, though; just as we aren’t satisfied with Bush’s small tax cuts.

To those thinking of leaving the party over this, I would say, you can still be a member and demand 100% withdrawal. You can still take a principled stand. You don’t have to say “I’m satisfied with only this” to be a member. :)

Or, you could do what I do. I’m not an official member of the party, but I support them in campaigns and such. :)

Whatever works for you, the individual. :)

QUOTE: “The Supreme Court eradicated the 4th Amendment over the past 15 years, it eradicated the First Amendement when it uphelp teh Bipartisan Election Campaign Finance Reform Act which prohibits issues ads within 60 days of an election, the Court also recently eradciated the "takings clause" in the Kelo decision, and basically said that there is no limit on government power when it issued the Raich v. Ashcroft decision.”

It eradicated the thirteenth amendment, too, by declaring that military conscription is constitutional.

It eradicated the thirteenth amendment, too, by declaring that military conscription is constitutional.

Posted by: Alex Peak at July 14, 2005 01:27 PM

Very true.

Kevin Bjornson says, "Au contraire, there is nothing in the non-aggression principle that requires a non-interventionist foreign policy."

I have heard that many times, especially since 9/11, and I don't understand it. I have read many postings and essays that purport to explain this, and I still can't agree that the statement is true.

What part of not initiating force to achieve social or political goals is compatible with 1) foreign aid, by which a nation's own citizens are forced to contribute involuntarily to payments to foreign governments and agencies; 2) using the threat or fact of military invasion to get foreign governments or agencies to behave as our foreign policymakers wish?

In my experience, most people who defend Kevin's statement justify intervention to help other nations, as one might intercede against a mugger on behalf of a mugging victim. The mugger would be responsible for initiating the force that started the fight; the good samaritan would only use force in response, to end it. But discussing international relations in such personal terms ignores the fact that nations are made up of citizens. An individual good samaritan "owns" his own body, and the resources he would use to intercede on behalf of the mugging victim. In some cases, national governments claim to own the property and productivity of their own subjects as well. In either case, there is at least formal (if not moral) justification to commit effort and resources unilaterally. But the case of the US is different. Our government doesn't own the citizens or their property, and is indeed supposed to be a humble servant of them. Commandeering citizen effort and property so that the US can be a "good samaritan" on behalf of some other nation or population is initiating force on the citizens of the US!

The ONLY thing that most people can agree upon is that the government has a need to appropriate effort and resources for the defense of the population, yet should minimize its appropriations unless and until we are under attack or in a state of war.

To summarize, if nations are viewed as "people," then under the non-aggression principle, one person should not initiate force against another. That sounds like non-intervention to me. If it is OK for one "person" to come to another's aid without violating the non-aggression principle, then we have to admit that the "personification" of nations is a convenient, simplifying fiction, and that by aiding another nation, a government necessarily coerces its own citizens into contributing effort and resources to the cause. Again, this is a violation of non-aggression, so the alternative of non-intervention seems indicated. I can't really see any wiggle-room for those who make the kind of statement that Kevin made.

Non-aggression principle aside, the bottom line in America is that We the People established the national government to help protect our individual abilities to call our own shots in life. To the extent that a government policy defeats those ends, the government needs a damned good reason to proceed. Defense against an actively hostile, external enemy is more or less universally acknowledged as one such reason. Aggression and other military involvement around the globe to "make the world safe for democracy," and foreign aid, to help create conditions amenable to democracy, are not.

Mills argued that if the LP proposed lighter sentences for drug offenses as opposed to ending drug prohibition, that the LP would lose the support of those who favor ending drug prohibition.

This is false. Nearly everyone who believes that drug prohibition is a bad idea would prefer that people convicted of drug crimes receive lighter sentences. Since our opponents favor the current harsh (or harsher sentences,) the plan of proposing lighter sentences will get more support. It will get the support of those who favor lighter sentences as well as the support of people who would really prefer ending drug prohibition but consider lighter sentences an improvement over the current harsh sentences or proposals for even harsher sentences.

There are hardly any people who refuse to vote for policies that they prefer to the alternatives being offered because the policies aren't good enough.

Personally, I have never really considered having the LP propose lighter sentences for drug offenses. Still, single peaked preferences are the norm and most people vote their preferences.

If it is really true that we have a substantial number of people in the LP who will only vote for a party if it advocates exactly what they believe, well then our marketing approach over the years has been a big mistake.

As for the notion that the LP has a reputation of every Libertarian walking lockstep. Well, any such reputation is false. Frankly, I don't think most people will find such a claim credible. And even if they did, I don't think most people would find it sensible or attractive.

In other words, changing our proposals to make them less radical and then more radical won't hurt the LP by making people think it is "Unprincipled." People understand that different libertarians believe different things. They understand that people can change their minds on what policies are best given their principles.

"Being satisfied with "only" 30,000 troops in the Middle east is like saying you are satisfied with a flat income tax of 15%. Would you be satisfied with a flat income tax?"

I would prefer a flat tax, but would not be satisfied at a 15% rate, I would work to lower it to 14%. I still would not be satisfied, so I would work to lower it to 12%. That still would not satisfy me, so I would push to have it lowered to 10%. Do you see a pattern here?

Now, lets go back to the button. We have ~140,000 troops in Iraq. If you had a magic button that would send 110,000 home to their families and the remaining 30,000 to less hostile nations, would you push it?

We should work towards inventing the 100% libertarian button, but in the mean time, we need to press the biggest libertarian button we have. And, perhaps, in the process of making that 75% libertarian button, we'll learn valuable ideas to use in that ever elusive 100% libertarian button.

As one who comes from a Christian background, this discussion reminds me of the conflict between the Pharisees (the purists)and Jesus's practical religion. By beginning to practice the principles Jesus taught, the indvidual is gradually transformed into a more spiritual being who does not need laws to guide his life. Without pragmatism purists will never be more than an intellectual elitist debate society. Pragmtatist will go much further in transforming individuals and government. Just as there is a role for both theological thinkers and for activists, there is a role for both purists and pragmatists in libertarianism.

I wish that all of us could adopt as a core principle of the Libertarian Party (not libertarian philosophy) that we will not attack other party members in public forums. The time for dissent or debate is during elections for leadership positions. Whether the "pragmatists" or the "idologues" win both factions should present a united front to the outside world and keep criticism private. The way to influence the Libertarian Party is by participating in local elections and supporting those of whichever camp you believe to be most effective.

We will lose some who are in the losing camp, but they may return later if we can engage in civil debate without threatening lawsuits and posting public ad hominen attacks. I would place myself in the pragmatist camp, but I also think it is essential to have ideologues who are the conscience of the party. Pragmatists are indeed, and justifiably, happy with incremental moves in the right direction. However, we should be constantly reminded how far we have yet to go.

I am going to paraphrase a comment that I think came from Joe Bast, but I do not know the original source: We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the practical. We have enough difficulty recruiting and retaining activists without the vehement internal strife. Please remember that the public is always watching and that all of these flame wars create research material for those who truly are the opposition.

Please spend less time posting criticism of those who are doing and more time engaging in activism. Armchair political generals are completely ineffective without a real support base. It is difficult to encourage and maintain activism when the reward is look over your shoulder at the angry mob and realize that they were once your supporters.

If we cannot govern our own party effectively, how can we expect the electorate to trust us with real power? Continue the debate about the best course of action, debate vigorously, vote, and be active, but do not attack our own once a decision has been reached. Purists are never going to be "happy" and that is a good thing. Pragmatists will rejoice in small steps forward and that is a good thing.

We are too few to alienate our own. We cannot expect perfection from our activists. A political party has to acknowledge that it is supporting "politicians" and that they will not always behave as we would like. When they stray from the will of the majority of the party, they will fail win elections. Lets stand behind those we have chosen to lead and support them. At a minimum, we should restrain from actual attacks and public flame wars.

Sean Concannon

The sad truth is that millions of small "l" libertarians who believe in smaller government in social and economic affairs will remain in the Democrat and Republican parties because the LP hasn't presented itself as a viable choice that's serious about being elected and putting forth an agenda that can be realized. It's ahistorical and unAmerican to believe there's something inherently evil in getting one's hands dirty through the art of compromise in the political and electoral process. If the Founding Fathers had adopted that narrow mindset, we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen" today. If you think the Constitution was wrangled out by ideological purists unwilling to compromise for fear of sullying their consciences, think again.

The ideologically purist wing of the LP has turned the name "Libertarian Party" into an oxymoron. Their approach is like the doctor who tells an overweight patient that he's going to tie him down and use a hatchet solve his obesity problem. And rightly so, the patient isn't going to sign on. At some point you begin to question whether the doctor is truly concerned for the health of the patient or is mired in misanthropic contrarianism. It appears intellectually dishonest to continue prattling about a sincere desire to set patients free, when your methods have a thirty year success rate of 0. The prudent approach is certainly not to continue feeding the patient Twinkies like the current pol parties, but you have to offer a working program that won't kill the afflicted in the process. Stop treating voters like they are stupid, and they might start listening to what you have to say.

Richard,

Right on. By far the worst tendency among libertarians is to call the people "sheeple", stupid, uneducated....."need to be educated"....etc. etc. People dont like to be told they are stupid unless they can see the truth that is so clearly put in front of them!

I wouldnt vote for such a person, libertarian or not. They just insulted me and demanded my vote at the same time! :D

"Practical" questions I pose to anyone in the party:

Under what circumstances would you order military action against an "enemy" of the United States?

How far would you be willing to go? Killing 1? 100? 10,000?

Would you execute a covert opertion to prevent a general war?

How many U.S. casualties would you be willing to absorb in accomplishing the strategic objective?

Do you even believe that it is necessary to maintain that military capability?

It is very easy to criticize from a position of NO responsibility.

These are serious questions that I believe the Libertarian Party has been able to ignore while surrounded by their cloak of unmuddied, self-rightousness. If you become politically viable, or expect to, you need some answers.

Something else to consider:

For the Libertarian Party, the war in Iraq could prove to be boom or a bust.

The exit strategy may simply serve to get the country's attention. But don't get bogged down in Iraq.

The Constitution affords NOTHING to other citizens of the world. It is an agreement (a compromise? The horror!)between Americans on how we will govern ourselves.

There are very real issues here at home, Constitutional issues. The LP strength is domestic issues. Play to it. Find a way to keep people from losing their houses because Wal-Mart tells a greedy govt that it will make it some money.

There is no such thing as a Federal Medical License. So why should a state not be allowed to certify substances used by those it has certified to practice medicine in the first place?

Should I go on or would you prefer to talk about Iraq some more.

Play to your strengths.

Well I hardly know where to begin. I used to be an LP member. Now Im largely an LP voter, but a lapsed party member. Id like to live in a free society, but that vision gets narrower and narrower all the time. The reason Im no longer an LP member is that Ive become a "Tom Alciere" Libertarian (very few of you will know what that means, but some of you will). And I have no real wish to harm the party, Purist or Pragmatist. What I can say is that since I signed on in 1986, with Ron Paul running...things havent really gotten much better in general, despite all the best efforts of the LP and its members...and all the infighting is just sad. This is a good debate, though...and its encouraging to see this kind of discussion.

I sometimes wonder whether pragmatists and purists can co-exist. These labels are false and devisive.

It seems that people who believe in libertarian principles (ones that have existed long before the LP) are labeled purists or absolutists. These people are often portrayed as destroying the LP and worse by the so-called pragmatists.

I fail to see anything pragmatic about attacking the core of the LP. It is the people labeled as purists that have kept this party alive for 30 years in the face of two major parties who will go to any length to smear the libertarian message.

Many of the activists that have worked year after year to advocate free-markets, limited government and liberty are precisely what the pragmatists label as purists or absolutists.

I disagree that libertarian principles are radical. They have existed for many generations. Our political enemies have defined libertarians as radical and some people only know this view.

To allow our political enemies to define us is political suicide. We cannot abandon core principles (such as noninterventionism) just because partisan hacks of other parties smear libertarians.

I also disagree that the public rejects LP candidates because of the LP platform. The vast majority of people have no idea what is in the platform and have never read it. That political enemies use soundbite rhetoric to say the LP supports giving heroin to children or other such nonsense is a given. This is what political hacks do.

I would point to Ron Paul as an individual who supports libertarian principles and is very respected for his principled stand on issues.
He is not a radical kook.

I understand the frustration that the pragmatists feel over repeated electoral failure. I only wish they put as much energy into fighting the good fight against the political machine we're up against as they do in attacking Libertarians for being libertarians.

We all want electoral success and we have a long way to go. The pragmatists always talk of compromise, but compromise requires opposing viewpoints reconciled by agreement. The question is, who are we compromising with? Libertarians can begin to compromise when elected to office and have Republicans and Democrats to compromise with. Until then, we are only compromising solid principles.

I hope those who call themselves pragmatists can understand why people who have been Libertarians for many years tend to get upset when long-standing principles are seemingly cast aside for some perceived political advantage - especially when it is done to appease talking heads who are intent on demonizing Libertarians.

The exit strategy is a prime example of a political initiative that compromises principles for the sake of political strategy. After 16 days, only about 1,300 people have signed on to this plan.

It seems this "common sense" plan that the so-called pragmatists support has not exactly set the world on fire. It has not brought in large numbers of nonlibertarians and it has divided the LP in general.

The pragmatists had their opportunity to put this plan out there, without the approval (and in some cases, the knowledge) of the LNC and the plan has failed to even break 2,000 signatures in over 2 weeks. Compare this to Rep. Conyers petition to review the Downing Street Memo which got over 100,000 signatures in a matter of days.

Perhaps the LP could retract this plan and replace it with a plan that does reflect libertarian principles. Give the so-called
purists a chance and see how much support
a noninterventionist plan receives.

Carl Milstead says:

"The platform calls for defaulting on the national debt! The platform calls for anarchy. The platform calls for wide open immigration despite the fact that we currently have a welfare state."

C'mon Carl, this is quite a stretch. I don't see anything about defaulting on the national debt in the LP plank regarding the debt. The platform does not call for anarchy.

The platform clearly states in the plank regarding immigration the following:

"We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons."

In effect, it conditions open immigration on ending the welfare state. In addition, the libertarian principle on nonintervention would help with the security concerns regarding open immigration.

I think folks need to read the LP platform a little closer.

www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

I would also suggest that a well reasoned approach be taken in arguing disagreements with the LP platform. Hyperbole, such as claiming the platform calls for "anarchy", does more harm than good.

I can understand when a partisan Democrat or Republican claims the LP platform calls for anarchy, but I don't get it when a Libertarian makes such a claim.

The platform clearly talks about the Constitution and even suggests making amendments to it as the founders intended. It is the radical major parties who feel amendments are not needed to go around the existing Constitution.

A constitutional republic is not anarchy.

I look at those who applaud going around the LP platform, without amending it, as rather radical. Should we excuse the politicians in Washington for ignoring the Constitution as merely being pragmatic?

Steve Gordon is looking at the right things. Here're other things to think about.

Let's remember the first job of change is restore the meaning of words. The definition of anarchy: a system of government based on natural law where order is maintained by public consciousness, punitive components being reduced to a vanishing minimum (as noted by Proudhon) In practice this means a society where voluntary relationships and organizations replace coercive ones (e.g. as noted in 10th edition Britannica). Don't accept conservative and government mis-definitions.

In classical usage limited government, anarchy or (as it was originally alternately called, ataraxy or self-discipline), libertarianism, republic are different forms of the same thing. Conservatives are attempting to portray our views as crazy and attacking the pledge even as they themselves attempt to adapt them and have their own pledge. They fear the Libertarian agenda of consistent action based on principle.

This purism-pragmatism, anti-anarchism, the LP has no plan and the platform is extreme, get rid of the pledge discourse, when not based on lack of awareness, is pushed by people, including people interrested in bowslerizing the LP, with their own agendas.

One lack of awareness is that it also reflects different ways in which people process information: some want to hear the principle, others the practical benefits, others examples, etc. You find this kind of discussion and divison in every political group ( I'm presently privy to a discussion going on in one of the mass parties where they're trying to figure out what they can learn from us--we're steadily growing and spreading and changing the cultural language--they're not, they moan), every company, and most organizations to some extent.

The Libertarian principle (in practice...) reduces to advocating and working for availibility of a non-governmental, voluntary alternative to every coercive government program. And libertarian practice means getting people aware of that principle and the voluntary options available, and bringing about action.

This week I holding a seminar on the pledge for 12 new people using the Libertarian Program Tools I'm helpind develop (see www.libertarian-program.org), meeting with local media to discuss an election reform coalition (see www.ERCPinellas.org) my local Libs formed with local Democrats and other community groups, and conducting part one of my seminar on applying libertarian principles and getting effective action to prosepective advisory board candidates--and also attending a meeting of the county Home School Board of which I'm a member, and hosting my radio show (www.theFreedomWorks.org). That's just what I'm involved in locally...in between medical treatments.

Gimme a break people. There is no magic bullet--just hard work. There is no conflict--except between those who are carrying on about pragmatism, mainstreaming, or out of context purism--and those who are actually out there leading change in their communities. Study Libertarianism and it's history and achievements, get out there and present the ideas, get active or even to be a light of liberty (http://www.theadvocates.org/lights-2004.html) , and your perspective will change.

Michael Gilson-De Lemos
Libertarian National Committee

PS:And what have these practical people done--screwed up the world? Created freedom? Don't take lessons from them. Do the opposite. In 2002 i led an effort that trained Libertarian State House candidates going for the first time out in Florida where they spent 160 hours in training--the first 24 in principles and principle application ( with plenty of practice and role playing). Result: libertarians got 16% of the vote, the highest ever in this country in State elections. No we had no winners (this was step one, remeber) but we doubled our people in office. We did contrarian things like refuse campaign contributions that made news. We need this kind of effort everywhere. The only people who say there are conflicts between Lib principles and practice are a) those who've done or know little; b) Enemies of Libertarianism; c) Those who either can't figure out--or don't want to--apply the principle of non-coercion to practice.

The Libertarian Party has a set of principles and values.

The Libertarian Party CAN BE INVOLVED IN REAL WORLD POLITICS without sacrificing ANY of these principles and values!

Do you want to know the problem with the Libertarian Party? Do you really? Are you really interested in knowing?

The LP has done little or nothing to truly grow the party in the past few years.

When it comes to outreach, internet communication, fundraising drives, membership recruiting campaigns, taking action in such a way to gain the party publicity, and many other things the LP has done LITTLE.

This blog is a START.

However, this new spirit of COMPROMISE when it comes to our principles is NOT acceptable.

I actually hate to hear the term pragmatic used in these forums.

That words makes me think that there are libertarians actually willing to sacrifice their values, beliefs, and principles in order to gain temporary political advantage.

WE DO NOT HAVE TO SACRIFICE ONE TINY BIT OF OUR PARTY'S SOUL TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN POLITICS, BOOST MEMBERSHIP, GROW, EXPAND, AND WIN ELECTIONS!

That's right. Not one itty bitty tiny bit of our soul.

What we need to do is utilize the many, many resources at our disposal!

Like I said before, this blog is a start. But the whole website needs to be revamped and should have been many years ago!

We need unique and creative membership drives, fundraising drives, peaceful and lawful protests, publicity stunts (again peaceful and lawful), etc.

But nothing unique and creative is being done by the LP.

From what I understand, certain individuals had to twist the LP's arm to even have this blog placed here!

It seems to me that some would rather sacrifice the LP's principles in order to have some quick temporary and false "growth" instead of doing what needs to be done to make the party grow SUSTAINABLY and without sacrificing any of our principles.

Now, to make another point.

I will NOT accept ANY LP position, call to action, proposal, article, open letter, or plan that actively calls for:

1) Anything less than the full legalization of all drugs.

2) Anything less than the full legalization of all firearms short of anything obviously so insane it would not be practical for safe defense (large explosives). If using it will probably kill you in the process then it's too dangerous, because even by using it AT ALL you could kill others as well.

3) Anything less than the total abolishment of the IRS and taxes on the income of US citizens. If there is to be a federal tax of some kind to support the government during the transistion from small government to hopefully even smaller government it should be the smallest possible tax possible. You see, a HUGE reduction in the size, scope, and cost of our government must take place at first. Then our bloated government would become a small government. From there, to support that SMALL government the lowest taxes possible should be issued. Perhaps in the form of a temporary MAXIMUM 5% national sales tax.

4) Anything less than a HUGE (not moderate or incremental) cut in both federal spending and taxation. I do NOT call for totally abolishing the government, ending EVERY government program right away, privatizing all roads suddenly, or disbanding our entire military. But in my opinion, it is obvious that the LP should call for the immediate abolishment of the IRS, FDA, DEA, FCC, ATF, and a myriad of other UNCONSTITUTIONAL programs that if they ARE going to exist at all and hopefully not they MUST be ran by the STATES and not the federal government.

5) Anything less than a full restoration of the Bill of Rights starting with the immediate ABOLISHMENT of the Patriot Act. The LP must NEVER call for anything less than the ENTIRE act to be repealed. Also, all other similiar legislation must be repealed.

6) The LP must call for nothing less than an END to Social Security, Medicare, and other welfare programs. It is an ABOMINATION to FORCE on person AGAINST HIS WILL to give his or her money to support another person. It is wrong, immoral, and completely unlibertarian. By selling off assets from all the unconstitutional government programs that would be abolished individuals currently depending on these programs (or soon to be) could be provided with a ONE TIME ONLY payoff to help them transition. However, after such a payoff the programs would be forever ended.

7) The LP must call for NOTHING LESS than the USA to bring home ALL our troops from around the world immediately. A few military troops should be allowed to stay where our diplomatic buildings are located to guard representitives and other personel from our nation. However, this number should be as low as possible.

8) The LP must call for the USA to withdraw from the United Nations, entangling treaties with other nations, and any agreements that are against LP principles.

---

The above are just a few ROCK HARD STANDARDS that the LP should NEVER compromise on, period!

They are solid and are based on legitimate rational principles. If the LP works hard utilizing EVERY TOOL at their disposal then we can be VERY SUCCESSFUL without sacrificing any of these or other standards.

Personally, I DO NOT consider myself a purist.

However, I REFUSE to be "pragmatic" (the word even offends me because it seems to indicate the FALSE belief you can't be successful without compromise), refuse to compromise the LP's core values, and refuse to support anything that would make the LP unprincipled.

I am somewhere in the middle. But I am in a spot where my beliefs may not be 100% purist Libertarian, but I am NOT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER sacrificing or violating the LP'