The official blog of the Libertarian Party
July 13, 2005
Media Alert - Alan Colmes Radio Show
Libertarian Party National Chair Michael Dixon will be appearing on the Alan Colmes Radio Show tonight, July 13th, at 10 p.m. Eastern to discuss the Libertarian Party Exit Strategy for Iraq.
To listen in please see the details below:
Sirius Channel 143
XM Channel 167
Online: http://www.alan.com
For stations in your area see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130069,00.html
After listening, feel free to provide feedback below.
Posted by Shane Cory at July 13, 2005 04:11 PM
Reader Comments:
Sweet! We're taking it to the media... this'll get us a LOT of attention. We've been covered before, but now we've got something that a lot of people can actually support.
Sweet! XM Radio! There'll be like ten listeners!
Dude, where have you been? Alan Colmes is nationally syndicated on about a hundred radio stations across the country in addition to Xm and Sirus.
There might be more than ten listeners. :D
Yeah, but only three of them will agree with the plan (and none of them will be LP members).
Not to be a party-pooper, but the LP Iraq plan is a tip of the hat to big government and a blow to every libertarian-leaning voter in the USA.
You guys at National ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You're as bad as the Republicans and Democrats.
Oy Vey.
I just wish it would have gotten media attention before the british leak about a possible withdrawel by Bush. Now it might get a "johnny come lately" attitude.
But at least one party has had the guts to stop playing politics and put an option forward!!
In good conscience I cannot call myself a Libertarian as that exit plan foolishness remains the party platform. I support the Libertarian views on the domestic issues. I am concerned that topic is going to make us look very nieve. I would refer interested parties to current media releases concerning suitcase nukes.
Shoot, I wish I could hear this tonight, but the show starts at the same time I have my weekly garage band practice. Great job getting some media attention, though! I wonder what Alan will have to say about it.
wow ! very negative attitudes people. being libertarians you should have positive attitudes! what will negativity do for the libertarians cause? it will help the libertarians look like fools to the authoritative,controlling democrats and republicans. exactly what they want! any press coverage is a plus. wether its available to 10 people or 10 million! at least the libertarians have an exit stratagy for the outragish scam of a war in iraq.
suitcase nukes? what does that have to do with iraq? thats a fund. islam issue. if you go back to the first gulf war youll remember that osama offered his armed services to the saudis and kuwaitis to fight saddam...they said no. are you implying that there is a iraq-al qaeda connection? or that suitcase nukes are a higher priority? well if we leave iraq the odds of us being attacked again will go down! as they would if we stopped protecting israel. etc etc. the foreign policies of the u.s.,france and great(?) britain in the last 100 yrs have caused this whole middle eastern mess? remember the ottoman empire? well.....we should have left them alone!
I wish we had that show in SE Michigan (other than XM)
Any chance someone can do a Pod Cast?
Alan Colmes email is alan@alan.com
Remember that a lot of call in's, e-mails and other interest in a guest is what they would look for when deciding whether or not to have him back
The best way to win the war on terror would be to focus on capturing and defeating al Qaeda; ending our policy of foreign interventionism; set of an exit strategy or timetable for Iraq; withdraw our troops from Germany and South Korea and all the other places we’re stationed; ending the sanctions we have on other nations, like the ones we’d gotten the U.N. to impose on Iraq during the ’90s, which caused thousands of children to die from hunger; and stop giving aid to foreign nations, especially to foreign dictators like “president” Karimov of Uzbekistan.
I haven’t yet read the LP Exit Strategy, so right now I’m siding with Ron Paul’s solution of setting up a timetable. But, I’ll listen to this tonight, if I can, and I’ll consider it. I’ll listen to the argument and see if I like it or not. Thus far, I’m undecided. (I have problems reading .pdfs with this computer.)
Thanks, Rob. Didn't help, though. I tried to find the "Display PDF in browser" setting, but didn't really know where to look for it.
This is my grandmother's computer. If I want to see .pdfs, I can just hook mine up.
I did find a solution, though: Google. Went there, and got an HTML version of the exit plan: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:MSwtdEneiX0J:www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf+&hl=en
I'll read it soon. Thanks for the help, though. :)
Here's the link to Alan Colmes Show website
http://www.foxnews.com/alancolmesradio/index.html
You can click on Station Finder to find a station in your area.
Why isn't everytime the LP decides to do something relevant and engage in real politics people accuse it of selling out?
This is what a political party does, if you don't like then maybe you should reconsider your LP membership.
Why, exactly, is supporting the war more 'relevant' than opposing the war?
My God! We get national media coverage with a sympathetic host and audience and all some of you guys can do is complain about it!
"Gimme a break!" - John Stossel
"My name is Legion. I will be your server. Tonight's special is worms." - P.J. O'Rourke
Well, first there were complaints that even though this strategy didn't comply with the hard core Libertarian philosophy, it still was not getting us press, measning it was a failure.
Now, it begins t get press. It isn't just getting press, it is getting press with a sympathetic audience who's chosen leaders have not been able to put together a plan.
Tonights broadcast could help draw attention from Lefties and bring them here. It's just a shame they will be able to see all of this in-fighting.
Posted by: Libertarian TV at July 13, 2005 09:34 PM
Terry wrote: "the LP does NOT have poll watchers at every precinct to minimize election fraud"
I think that's something we need to change, don't you Terry?
TerryResponds:
By waving a magig wand in the 'real world' perhaps?
This IS our CURRENT situation; to which our stratagies and tactics must adapt. Please acknowledge that having several hundred Libertarians in office in spite of such obstacles is a stunning achievment; and testimony to the power of libertarian ideals that inspire not just us.
REALITY CHECK! :)
'Tonights broadcast could help draw attention from Lefties and bring them here. It's just a shame they will be able to see all of this in-fighting.'
I'm sure the lefties will be shocked, having never seen factional infighting before.
David Tomlin
Hey, I like this guy. He's making sense.
Hey Tomlin,
How's the weather in your nutball world?
You totally missed the meaning of my last comment.
Being relevant doesn't mean supporting the war, it means coming up with something reasonable that can actually work.
Terry, you've done your part to help destroy the LP today. Congrats. Do you plan on joining the Repubs or the Dems?
Yeah, Dixon is trying to garner support on a nation-wide radio talk show, and you try to make the LP look confused and hatefull of itself.
Posted by: Chris C. at July 13, 2005 10:40 PM
Terry, you've done your part to help destroy the LP today. Congrats. Do you plan on joining the Repubs or the Dems?
TerryResponds:
The LP is an important instrument in a large and diverse movement for liberty and justice for ALL
My loyalty to that cause is far greater than my loyalty to an instrument which I helped build. I will do what is reasonable to either reform its leadership; which is violating the REAL party, its membership. The will of the membership is expressed at conventions and their 'terms of use' for the party assets, including its name are recorded in its Statement of Principles and its platform.
No one has a legitimate right to use party assets in a manner that betrays the members will.
I am listening right now. I heard Terry Liberty Parker's call to the show. Terry is right. The exit plan is a betrayal of the platform and a betrayal of the members of the LP.
H. Rearden $
I think this is great. The LP is on the right track here. I have already written multiple letters to the editor about the Exit strategy.
I am glad that Terry Liberty Parker's call was taken by Colmes tonight.
H. Rearden $
Mikey, you ripped it up on there man that was awesome. That's the first time I've heard you speak, and I'm happy to have you as our National chair.
H. Rearden says:
"I am listening right now. I heard Terry Liberty Parker's call to the show. Terry is right. The exit plan is a betrayal of the platform and a betrayal of the members of the LP."
Is this a religious cult or a political party H. Rearden? Betrayal of the platform and its members? You don't speak for me and thousands of others who don't accept your "all or nothing" stance! How dare you place yourself and Mr. Terry there on a pedestal and claim you are the typical membership of this party. Who do you think you are?
Posted by: at July 13, 2005 10:43 PM
Yeah, Dixon is trying to garner support on a nation-wide radio talk show, and you try to make the LP look confused and hatefull of itself.
TerryResponds:
Oh, are some 'confused' about who is the REAL party (the membership) and just who gets to set policy about how its assets (includes LP name) are to be used.
Let me help you...
This is a membership organization, the governing board of which may act ONLY in accordance with the expressed will of the party membership via due process in convention. Ya know, sorta like the USA was supposed to be via it's Constitution. When admin acts in violation of the party's Statement of Principle and platform, it is theft of member assets and fraudulent representation to the public.
You may not like that but that's REALITY!
Michael came across as likeable, genial and understandable. He sounded like an even-keeled, reasonable statesman. This is something we can sell! Michael is MY Chair and I support him completely.
Terry, you stated on the show that the L Party said in a press statement that the troops were to be redeployed to fight the war on terror. Care to point that out to me?
Rearden, I'm glad that Mike Dixon did the interview to further a smart plan for the war in iraq. He's won me over.
So, because YOU and HRearden don't approve, the entire membership organization doesn't approve?
I missed the show but I can not believe that a LP member called in and opposed the plan on national radio. I ran for the VT house as a libertarian last year. We put a huge effort into it and ended up with over 30 articles on the campaign. Why would someone who is a member try to embarass the chair publicly? That is an internal debate. Keep it in the party.
I'm sorry I missed the show. It sounds like there was a fine dust-up. Terry, thanks for speaking up.
Posted by: at July 13, 2005 11:06 PM
How dare you place yourself and Mr. Terry there on a pedestal and claim you are the typical membership of this party. Who do you think you are?
TerryResponds:
Who do you think that YOU are :)
The official 'speaker for the LP membership' is the Statement of Principles and platform, both of which can be found on this website www.LP.org
Since the LP is a membership driven organization, the will of the REAL Party is expressed at convention and recorded in its Statement of Principles and Platform. The assets of said membership can only rightfuly be used in accordance with that due process expression of its will.
So, who the hell are YOU to say otherwise?
? writes: 'So, because YOU and HRearden don't approve, the entire membership organization doesn't approve?'
At the last national convention, the delegates re-affirmed the Libertarian Party's commitment to non-intervention and its opposition to foreign aid.
Posted by: at July 13, 2005 11:18 PM
So, because YOU and HRearden don't approve, the entire membership organization doesn't approve?
TerryResponds:
The LP 'exit plan' calls
for 're-deployment' of 30,000 US troops from Iraq to invade/occuppy
other middle east countries. Thus, this new LP 'plan' repudiates its
long held non-intervention 'principle' that, even now, continues to
be advocated in the party's platform:
"We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel
stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the
Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or
foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American
people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal
of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other
governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military
intervention"
at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#milipoli
AND...
The 'plan' which was advertised prematurely to the public
as 'LIBERTARIAN' also would have the USA govt force those of us who
protested these interventions actually pay for alleged 're-build'
damages via Iraq govt let contracts (Haliburton?)
LP Platform on Foreign Aid:
The Issue: The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of
influencing
the policy of other sovereign nations under the guise of aiding needy
people in
those nations. This forces American taxpayers to subsidize
governments and
policies of which they may not approve.
The Principle: Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into
funding a
foreign nation or group.
Solutions: All foreign aid should be voluntarily funded by
individuals or
private organizations.
Transitional Action: Eliminate all tax-supported military, economic,
technical
and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations.
Abolish
government underwriting of arms sales. Abolish all federal agencies
that make
American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the
Export-Import
Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. End the participation of
the U.S.
government in international commodity circles that restrict
production, limit
technological innovation and raise prices. Repeal all prohibitions on
individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to
any foreign
country or organization, unless such provision constitutes a direct
threat to
the people of the United States.
at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#preswarp
Understand, that the nature of libertarianism's 'influence' is
derived from integrity to its ideal shown by its most visible
advocates.
Go on a talk show and say that we should withdraw our troops from every country, esp. Iraq, and try to get a serious reaction and not get harrassed for being a "wuss" or "terrorist-lover."
Terry, you're really reaching on this one. Do you hate libertarians or do you just have a wanding mind and too much time on your hands?
The LP principle first off is worded like it was written in the 80's when the biggest issue was nukes. Secondly it clearly states that
"There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments"
There is a forseeable risk if we don't get more troops into Afghanistan. If we allow Iraq to crumble after we blew it up then there is a forseeable risk to the American people. A stable Iraq reduces our risk of attack and is good for not just americans but the world.
This exit strategy is in line with your platform whether you like it or not. Sending troops back to bases that are already there is not intervention or aggression, it's called smart.
Please, Mr. Parker, come back to the real world, I'm sure that someone here misses you.
? is right. We can't get traction if we aren't taken seriously. I want all US troops to come home yesterday, but in the current political environment that is not a serious position. It's unfortunate, but true. Wishing otherwise will not make it the case.
? writes: 'Go on a talk show and say that we should withdraw our troops from every country, esp. Iraq, and try to get a serious reaction and not get harrassed for being a "wuss" or "terrorist-lover."'
I've been called such things and worse.
If you can't take being called names, you're not ready for 'real' politics.
Dave -
If you can't come to the table with serious ideas, you aren't either.
Posted by: Roget at July 13, 2005 11:09 PM
Terry, you stated on the show that the L Party said in a press statement that the troops were to be redeployed to fight the war on terror. Care to point that out to me?
TerryResponds:
Glad to...
In apparent abandonment of integrity to its
long advocated non-intervention 'principle'
the USA Libertarian Party of http://www.LP.org
has announced an Iraq occupation 'exit strategy'
intended to:
"free up military resources for the War on Terror"
at http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf
Find it here by navigating in to the url referenced pdf (LP Exit Plan) and about half way into the pdf document at the end of the 2nd paragraph after and under the heading 'Iraq Exit Stratagy: Troop Withdrawl
Ben writes: 'I missed the show but I can not believe that a LP member called in and opposed the plan on national radio.'
You can't lie about people and expect them not to do what they can to correct the record.
The 'leadership' is lying about what the LP stands for. I applaud Terry for standing up to correct the record.
Everyone involved in releasing 'Iraq Exit Strategy' had to know how divisive it would be. They made their choice. I'd like to see them at least take the consequences like adults and stop the whining.
Terry you sure are picking and choosing.
I think you missed the main point:
"Above all else, the intent of this proposed strategy is to remove our troops from
harm’s way and, in the near future, return them to their families — who have been
supportive through these trying times."
Why do you hate this party that you have to dig for words to use against them out of context? Why don't you just leave if you hate them so much? I don't get it.
For those of us who missed the show, were there any other highlights of note? Did Dixon pile on any more outrages?
30 years of failure Terry, care to share with us how you want to make this party successful with your non compromising ideals? Why would you go on national radio and talk about something that belongs here on this blog and to private messages to the LP leadership. I didn't hear the show, but this is seriously disgusting.
I think it is healthy to talk about this on the blog, but it is NOT healthy for either side to speak up about internal issues on the national radio...some people are getting their first impression of libertarianism, and all you did was spell out that we are divided in certain ways.
Taylor, that was my original point. The people who aren't familiar with the LP will only be driven away by listening to one libertarian criticize the chairman on air.
I agree w/ Roget. I respect the diversity of oppinions w/in the party, but if you seek to sabotage the party's success and the efforts of our leadership, you have no business in the party. People like Terry derive their sense of self from the belief that they have gleened a secret truth. If the LP were to go mainstream, he would be less important and his sense of self less unique. He covets being special, a 1%er, a The best strategy for dealing with these kind of people is to ignore when we can and oppose when we must.
Don, you hit the nail on the head. I listened to the show, visited this site out of curiosity becuase I thought I heard something special from your chairman.
Now I see this and heard this Terry Parker on the show and I really don't think I want to be associated until you guys work out your issues and people like Mr. Parker leave to make room for folks like me who believe that this nation needs a real third party that has a reasoned message.
I wish you the best but it looks like it's going to be tough. Good luck, I'm gone!
Posted by: Taylor at July 14, 2005 12:00 AM
30 years of failure Terry, care to share with us how you want to make this party successful with your non compromising ideals? Why would you go on national radio and talk about something that belongs here on this blog and to private messages to the LP leadership.
TerryResponds:
Too bad that YOU regard as 'failure' several hundred Libertarians in puplic office DESPITE dishonest elections and a powerful authoritarian establishment that well knows we are there enemy; and that's just a little bit of what YOU consider to be 'failure' How insulting of all those people and their achievments.
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.
Taylor writes: 'Why would you go on national radio and talk about something that belongs here on this blog and to private messages to the LP leadership. I didn't hear the show, but this is seriously disgusting.'
What disgusts me is people appealing to party unity to shield themselves and their allies from well-deserved criticism.
Once again, people who lie publicly should be answered publicly.
The arrogance and cluelessness of you 'realists' takes my breath away. You expect the activist base to hand over their money, volunteer their time, and then shut up when they're getting f***ed over.
Terry Says - "Too bad that YOU regard as 'failure' several hundred Libertarians in puplic office DESPITE dishonest elections and a powerful authoritarian establishment that well knows we are there enemy."
How do you even take yourself seriously.
I can see George Bush in the White House with Karl Rove...
"Well, the Dems have millions of dollars, a large share of the power and the sympathies of millions of Americans and that's bad for us Karl, but I'm more concerned about those libertarians and their strangle hold on the Fort Wayne, Indiana beautification sub-committe seat 6.
I respect anyone who will work for greater liberty, but I cannot respect demagogues which goes to David's point. Paying dues and being active is not a ticket to hold the party hostage. I am a realist, I live in reality. How about you?
"Too bad that YOU regard as 'failure' several hundred Libertarians in puplic office DESPITE dishonest elections and a powerful authoritarian establishment that well knows we are there enemy; and that's just a little bit of what YOU consider to be 'failure' How insulting of all those people and their achievments. "
I respect those that have been elected and all they have done for the LP, that is not what my statement was about and you know it, quit trying to play off of your twisting of my words. You very well know the elected liberarians are widely elected to positions that the L doesn't even show up. They are small positions. If we had more state reps and senators, I could understand you saying that, but as of right now the Libertarian has failed to become a mainstream political party. I'm not saying it hasn't had a few successes here and there, but widely the party has failed to achieve any meaningful power and its drop in membership is a testimony. Recognizing that is important so that we can be more effective at reaching our goals.
Aren't you just copying and pasting over and over again? I already read those parts of your messages, and that doesn't solve anything. You have not given the LP a strategy using the no compromise paradigm that would put this party in the mainstream.
I measure success but the LP getting elected to many state wide offices, and to the house and senate. You measure success by 600 school board members and city council positions, which are great to have, but it is NOT a success measured by the LP competing with the dems and rep political parties. I want real change, and I know what this political environment is like. You seem to ignore the political environment and instead preach a philosophy which most of us agree on. Philosophies are a hard thing to sell, much more so than political positions.
You fail to realize that by preaching a philosophy nothing will ever change. By preaching politics, we could actually reach the philosophy quicker. Does that just not register to you?
I don't blame people like Terry and David. They are acting in their rational self-interests.
They need the LP to be an exclusive club or their voices will be diluted and their ideas discredited.
Like I said before, if you derive your identity relative to the exclusivity of your affiliation and that affiliation grows to the point that your voice is drowned out and people stop taking you seriously, where does that leave you?
I recommend both these guys read Seehusen's column in the new LP news. The ship has sailed. The leadership has decided it will no longer be held hostage to an unworkable and unrealistic philosophical straight jacket or people like you.
I look forward to going to the convention, fixing the platform and marginalizing the tinfoil hat crowd once and for all.
"What disgusts me is people appealing to party unity to shield themselves and their allies from well-deserved criticism."
If you think it deserves criticism, the do so in the blog and send messages to the LP leadership privately and voice yourself at the convention.
"Once again, people who lie publicly should be answered publicly."
Who is lying?
"The arrogance and cluelessness of you 'realists' takes my breath away. You expect the activist base to hand over their money, volunteer their time, and then shut up when they're getting f***ed over."
If you feel you are being screwed over, that doesn't mean you try to destroy the party, the only hope for salvation in this nation. You should be more aware of the effects that one call could have had. If you have a problem, then say so and articulate your message. If we don't have a clue, then by all means shed some light on how living in the real world is taking your breath away.
Once again, libertarianism is a philosophy. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are out to sell a philosophy. They have a wide umbrella for a reason, to try to appeal to most people. The Libertarian Party is in a position that we could take a HUGE piece of the pie if we would just start actually being a political party rather than be a place where people can read about the end goal of the libertarian philosophy and dream.
If we said we want to reduce taxes and government instead of eliminate, and so on and so forth, we could actually appeal to people and guess what, it wouldn't be so radical.
Take a step back and look at the politics objectively. The LP is a spec compared to the republicans and democrats. It hasn't made any significant ground since it formed besides getting a few state reps elected. But that is all in the past. The party membership shrinked recently. When you read the party platform, the goals seem distant. People recognize that and move on.
Instead of telling the realists that we are clueless, give us a way to make it on the big map by trying to sell a philosophy and tell us why doing the same thing as we did for the past 30 years is going to make this party as big as the Republicans and Democrats.
'How's the weather in your nutball world?'
'Please, Mr. Parker, come back to the real world, I'm sure that someone here misses you.'
'People like Terry derive their sense of self from the belief that they have gleened a secret truth. If the LP were to go mainstream, he would be less important and his sense of self less unique. He covets being special, a 1%er'
'I am a realist, I live in reality. How about you?'
'They need the LP to be an exclusive club or their voices will be diluted and their ideas discredited.'
'I look forward to going to the convention, fixing the platform and marginalizing the tinfoil hat crowd once and for all.'
What a lot of wasted words, making personal attacks and parading your arrogance.
Terry had a first amendment right to go on the show and air his view. I really wish he hadn't, but I will defend to the death his right to do it.
I'm no longer going to comment on the plan, the specifics of the plan have been thoroughly debated and there are very good points on both sides.
but I can't sit by and listen to Terry say we are successful with "hundreds" of elected officials (~600 last I saw). my hat's off to those who have been elected, but that is not indicitive of success for a national party after 30 years of activity. 6000, maybe. 60,000 YES.
30 years of ideology have given me the Patriot Act and "enemy combatants". unlike others, I do not demand that you march to the party line; neither the purity line nor the compromise line. But don't you demand that I march to your line either. I did not and will not join a cult of ideology.
We're libertarians for christ's sake! Give me liberty or give me death! And this is a politcal party, where we engage in politics to achieve our goal of liberty. If I had wanted purity of thought I would have joined PETA. if I had wanted simply political power I would have joined the Democrats and then switched to the Republican party with the changing tide. I don't want ideology and I don't want political power. I want liberty, damn it!
Purists: do something significant to advance my liberty and I will follow. Gladly. Put forth a plan or press release or get a member elected to a state legislature or get some air time to expand the party and I will will support you financially. show significant promise in these directions and I will support you financially. but 20,000 members after 30 years is not nearly enough.
Compromisers: this exit plan and the subsequent air time are very good signs. for now, you have my support. but you'd better show results. I expect party membership to be 30,000 by the end of the year. I might accept 28,000 but not much less. I also expect significant electoral gains.
who am I to demand such? just Joe Average. but I expect results. from either faction. since I have finacially supported both factions I'm not biased. I have been an activist and an active doner. if results aren't achieved... well, I really have no place else to go. I'll give the compromisers until the general elections of '06, if they don't show me significant results, I'll take my money and buy a Kaczynski shack in Montana.
Give me results, guys. the LP is insignificant because they can't show results. the membership will grow exponentially with results. my (and your) liberty will grow with results.
Good job on the press, Mr. Dixon.
and keep up the debates. it is a healthy thing. but please don't air our dirty laundry in public.
Good job Mr. Dixon.
Terry, I respect that you have put a lot into the movement to put libertarian ideas out, but you above all people should recognize that by every standard relative to the other two major parties, that LP has not gained the ground necessary to get elected and be a powerful force.
We need to reform the platform so that there are no inconsistencies. We can have the libertarian philosophy behind the politics. Give me a plan Terry. We need funding and numbers, but to get that we need ideas that APPEAL to people. Most moderate libertarian ideas would appeal to a significant portion of the population.
Raise your issues of contradiction, but do it here and with the LP leadership privately, and at the conventions. You have every right to go on public radio and say that the chair is betraying the membership, but that really isn't going to help things.
Posted by: Taylor at July 14, 2005 01:59 AM
Raise your issues of contradiction, but do it here and with the LP leadership privately, and at the conventions. You have every right to go on public radio and say that the chair is betraying the membership, but that really isn't going to help things.
TerryResponds:
You're apparently not aware of the supression of dissent that had been present off and on with this LP Blog.
Also, our definitions of what constitutes 'help' may differ.
Obviously our definition of help differ.
I am aware that there may be a little supression, but for the most part all the messages are left entact. Also I am aware that you can still email your views to the party leadership.
You still have yet to provide a way to grow the LP with the paradigm of no compromising with the purist libertarian views. You tried it for 30 years. If your idea of success is what has happened, I don't even know what to say. You have yet to provide a new revolutionary strategy to change things within the no compromise approach. Until you do I have no intention of taking you seriously when you say you want to help the party. The party needs fresh ideas.
Since when is there "suppression of dissent" within this blog? Last time I checked, the only post that has been pulled was a Carol Moore posting that had abusive & dirty language in it that deserved to be pulled 100%.
Parker, I notice you havent taken me up on my offer to give you space on LFS for a compromise solution on teh foriegn aid aspect of the ES. Since thats the worst part of the plan, I thought you might wanna help fix it - but I dont think that's really your goal since you dont seem interested in working with me or anyone else to make the ES palatable to your side. You just wanna broadcast.
If you dont want to engage those on the other side of the aisle on finding common ground in favor of fighting instead, then stop posturing. If you actually had the best interest of the LP at heart, you'd be engaging us directly on fixing the parts of the ES so they would be something you could support. I dont like the foreign aid aspect of the plan that much - how about you propose something better that does not demand 100% fealty to your view, but compromises the two approaches? Compromise to you means I accept your viewpoints 100%. Thats not compromise, thats demanding fealty.
I for one LOVE it when you do crazy things like berate the Chair of the LP over nationwide radio. Becuase you cant actually practice the art of politics and the methods used to succeed in convincing people (becuase the success in doing so invalidates your approach to selling the party), the more you rap, the more people you turn off.
Let me clue you in on something. When I took the pledge, to me meant something totally different than it did to you. To me it meant what David Nolan said it meant, which was to re-inforce that the LP would not engage in revolutionary activity or take up arms against the government. Thats what FORCE meant to me. So I never agreed to the non aggression principle - thats not what the pledge meant to me at age 22. When David Nolan says thats the only thing the Pledge meant, I believe him. YOU CANT ABANDON A PRINCIPAL YOU NEVER AGREED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I didnt sign onto this party so that I could be a ROBOT that abandoned MY principles in favor of adopting a new set, I signed on becuase the LP was the closest match FOR MY PRINCIPLES I ALREADY HAD.
When you say that I am unprincipled, to me, thats a COMPLEMENT. It means MY principals are still intact, and that I havent sold out MY principals in favor of someone elses version, your's, or anyone's.
Your principals arent something you adopt like a dog out of a animal shelter - they are formed from your life experience and your natural sense of reason. What you demand is that people throw away the values they have in favor of a new set of values they must adopt in total. I think people should hold onto the values they have that would naturally bring them to the LP table and get em in here, and then we can work on the rough spots better. And ya know what? Sometime's there's just things you are not going to be able to change in people. As long as they agree with the majority of the thrust of the party, thats not bad either. If we start attracting people that want TAX INCREASES or BIGGER GOVERNMENT, then we might have a problem with the tent being too big. But we damn sure dont have that problem now, so lets wait until it happens before we worry about it.
Wouldnt it be better for the LP if you saved your missionary zeal for all the new people this direction will bring into the LP over time? Once they are in the tent with us, they will be a lot easier for you to influence that way.
I dont want guys like you to leave the LP. We need people like you to be our conscience in case we ever do stray and start talking about how only a 1% increase in taxes isnt REALLY THAT BAD, or that a new government dept. wont really cost THAT much...THAT would be selling out. But if this is all you have to offer the LP when thing dont go your way for the first time in 25 years, then dont let the door hit you on the way out. For every one of you, we'll get 10 more lapsed people that used to be LP members in the past that come back to the LP because now it's actually doing something that matters. I'll take 10 'imperfect' libertarians with their hearts in the right place over 1 more of you anyday. If your methods worked after 25 years we would be a majority party right now.
Terry wrote: "the LP does NOT have poll watchers at every precinct to minimize election fraud"
I think that's something we need to change, don't you Terry?
TerryResponds:
By waving a magig wand in the 'real world' perhaps?
Libertarian TV responds:
No, by concentrating on finding volunteers to man the various posts at election time. Sure, I acknowledge the 100s of people who have been elected. Are you willing to acknowledge that certain basic changes in our approach to local politics, changes that require no change in our stands on the issues, could change the 100s of winners into tens of thousands?
Walt,
I brought this issue up when I ran for House in 2000. In West Virginia, you HAVE to be a R or a D to be a poll worker - you cant even be a independant! A weak spot that could be exploited for sure.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, foreign aid has never been particularly popular with Americans. I don't think it is at all plausible that 'Iraq Exit Strategy' needs to mention foreign aid at all to be acceptable to the public.
Foreign aid is a separate issue from troop withdrawal, so it doesn't fall within the scope of an 'exit strategy'. That is another reason why it should not be mentioned in such a document.
David,
Then address the valid concerns of how to fix the mistake we have made in practical and believable terms. Iraq is a very crapped out place, and it needs a lot of fixin becuase we went in there under FALSE PRETENSES and wrecked the joint.
Our government is guilty of a form of FRAUD against the citizens of Iraq. We went in there becuase of terrorism links that didnt exist and becuase of WMD's that also didnt exist. We share some measure of responsibility to fix what we broke as a result.
Propose a replacement part of the plan that addresses the valid concerns I've outlined, and lets take a look at it.
Republicrats ignore their platforms and principles. Why shouldn't Libertarians be free to ignore theirs? I think it's high time that we stopped being bound by that ancient garbage called the Constitution too.
Alan Colmes is a real nice guy. He's a liberal to be sure, but he's the kind of guy that you just know if you could get in a room for a few days, you could convert him to a Libertarian. When I've e-mailed him in the past he has actually responded in a courteous way. He's my favorite liberal.
That said, recent NBC polls showed that for the first time since they ever started polling party approval ratings, BOTH Republicans and Democrats had a majority "dissaproval" rating.
If the mainstream media were to start and take Libertarians seriously now, we could really take back the country. People are sick and tired of both parties, a MAJORITY of people no less.
While I disagree with most of Colmes political beliefs, I applaud him for giving Libertarians a mouthpiece.
Timothy West wrote:
Then address the valid concerns of how to fix the mistake we have made in practical and believable terms. Iraq is a very crapped out place, and it needs a lot of fixin becuase we went in there under FALSE PRETENSES and wrecked the joint.
Our government is guilty of a form of FRAUD against the citizens of Iraq. We went in there becuase of terrorism links that didnt exist and becuase of WMD's that also didnt exist. We share some measure of responsibility to fix what we broke as a result.
Propose a replacement part of the plan that addresses the valid concerns I've outlined, and lets take a look at it.
----------------------------
The plan calls for "giving" money to a (puppet) "government." Giving money to any government is like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenager.
The people of Iraq have sufferred. "We" did not cause the damages. Republicrats did. Let the people of Iraq sue the culprits under the foreign torts law. Personally. This is done all the time with class action suits.
When the various Republicrats declare bankruptcy and pass off their debts to the US government, "we" will get stuck with the tab but the reparations will go to the rightful victims.
And let's be more accurate with our word usage. It was not a "mistake" "we" made in Iraq. It was a calculated act of illegal war. It is not "aid" that the Iraqis deserve, it is war reparations.
Now, don't come back and use the same crappy language when "we" make a "mistake" in Afghanistan and have to give them "aid" for all of the innocent victims of our "War on Terror."
I hope the libertarian party gains more popularity
Americans are fed up with politics as usual. We need sweeping change in the very areas where the libertarian party proposes new policies and legislation. Americans should step out of thier comfort zone and vote to take a chance on real change for the good of all, not just the wealthy and privilaged. the exit plan for Iraq is at least a plan, not an excuse to continue justifing a mistake. We should focus on the terrorists we have allowed into our society.
TO: Posted by: Taylor at July 14, 2005 12:48 AM
VERY GOOD POST.
I am not suprised at the heavy debating/cat fights among us, nor am I surprised at the outcome of this regarding the exit strategy. We need to focus more energy on making a better progress otherwise the Voters will continue to put the Demicans or Repulicrates in office as usual and we will be left behind.
Again I will state, The LP party is very good with ideas on the Domestic issues, which I believe is your strongest stance. But certain other issues if not resoved and quickly we will be left behind.
I just officially joined the LP as a dues paying member. At first, I was a bit turned off by all the bickering. Primarily, I did not like the uncompromising stance that some have taken.
Is this a political party or not?
I support what the leadership has done, working for results. I agree that the EP was not perfect, but it got me excited to see a plan come from the LP that seemed to be carefully thought out.
I agree with some that "foreign aid" should have been phrased differently, as restoration funds or reparations. Either way, as a whole, it is a great plan, better than anything I have seen from the D's or R's. And it is important because it is an advancement in the direction of the LP goals, in a more practical manner than the LP is known for.
I joined so I can vote - and support those that are willing to play politics to achieve real advancement in liberty.
Thanks Mike.
Welcome on behalf of us who seek the same things.
I, too, resolve myself to join by the end of the day as well. This is my favorite political party, and I hope to run for city council someday. I'll be putting in my contribution to the membership recruitment drive when I get home from work.
I am the chair of the Travis County Libertarian Party where Terry Parker resides. Terry is not currently a member of the party. (He has been in the past on an off and on basis -- mostly off.) He did not show up at the last business meeting of the TCLP where the Exit Stratgey was discussed.
Over the years Terry has been instrumental in getting the word "libertarian" known and generally understood in central Texas. However the growing respect for the LP in our area has come about more for the increasingly savvy political work of people like Executive Director Wes Benedict; State Chair and City Councilman Pat Dixon; Geoffrey and Nancy Neale; and a number of people like Gary Johnson, Art Di Bianca, Bob Rulifson, Vince May, Steve Ravet, Debra Duke, Rick McGinnis and others who work behind the scenes to make things happen. (I am sure I am leaving out some important people - sorry!)
There are also many non-party members who make great things happen in the Liberty movement in central Texas. I count Terry in that number. But Terry has never been about achieving political success. Instead he is committed to the process of using logical arguments to try and convince one person at a time that the principles behind the non-agression truce are the end-all and be-all for running your life and running the world -- not that there is anything wrong with that.
I have never seen, nor ever expect to see, Terry Parker back down from his principles. Like Michael Badnarik, another great patriot from Austin, his life is so enmeshed with the concepts of liberty that he would sooner stop breathing than compromise. However unlike Michael, Terry sees squabbling with his friends in the movement and the party as at least as important as reaching out to others. That tendency has been the source of continual problems for the TCLP and has led to the situation where the local party does not depend on Terry in any capacity for media opportunities, quotes, or other outreach. (For many years he was a fixture on our local cable access show, but that relationship has been curtailed as well.)
The LP needs people who are ready and willing to defend our core principles, but in my way of thinking, making the committment to be _in_ the party and remain active in the ongoing activities of the party is just as important.
Bottom line, please join the LP today if you are not already a member!
Tim,
There's no doubt that WV has some awful laws that block the LP's progress. However, there are a great many other states...the vast majority in fact...where you don't have to be an R or a D to be a pollwatcher.
My point with Terry was to find out if there is any practical basis within his vision for the LP, while encouraging him to explore and share his own vision more fully than he has so far.
Unlike people like Pat McGann, I find that I make better progress with people if I demonstrate respect for them while I simultaneously try to explore their thought structure in ways that they might not have previously explored it. My purpose is not to embarrass or humiliate them, but rather to find common ground and be sympathetic as much as I can be, while simultaneously defending what I know to be true.
Activists like Mr. McGann prefer to humiliate, cast aspersions, and toss out people with whom they disagree like they were yesterday's trash.
What approach do you prefer, Tim?
Vincent May wrote: "The people of Iraq have sufferred. 'We' did not cause the damages. Republicrats did. Let the people of Iraq sue the culprits under the foreign torts law. Personally. This is done all the time with class action suits."
The big problem with this approach is that the President and the members of Congress are protected by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, a holdover from when we were subjects of England prior to the Revolution. American courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of this doctrine in regard to official acts by Federal officers acting within the scope and power of their roles in the government.
That's why there's a provision in the Constitution for removal from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors." In other words, the most that can be done to a sitting President, Senator, or Congressman who has used his powers to the harm of others is to kick him out...and it can only be done by the House impeaching him and the Senate convicting him.
So while I like the idea that the Republicrats should be open to lawsuit for what they do in office, in practice under current law it just can't happen. Thus, the approach you suggest doesn't work.
I agree completely w/ the need to reach out and the desirability of having both purist to serve as the conscience of the party and pragmatists to go about the business of politics.
That said, there is also a third group within the party that cannot be constructively engaged and cannot be counted on to act in the best interests of the party.
Last nights ambush of Michael Dixon by Terry Parker on the Colmes Show is a perfect example of how this third group behaves.
Of course he had a right to call in and say what he did, but that does not make it a less stupid or less counter-productive thing to do.
I believe that we all have an obligation to call a spade a spade and not be SO enamored w/ our desire to find common ground (as important as that is) that we refuse to go toe-to-toe with the people (marginally) within the movement who are beyond reason and beyond constructive engagement.
The R's & D's have a lunatic fringe too, but they have been effectively marginalized and rarely have an opportunity to harm their parties or highjack their agenda.
I thought Michael did a great job last night and I hope it leads to an interview of the big show, but I was disappointed that he tried to be tactful with Terry Parker rather then saying something like, "Alan, you ask me earlier why the LP hasn't gotten more traction, it is because for to much our history, our party has been held hostage by demagogues like Terry Parker. However, we are turning a corner and refusing to be held captive any more. I invite all Americans to join us in building a third party that supports BOTH economic and personal freedom, unlike the other guys."
There is nothing wrong with opposing those who oppose moving the LP forward, whether they are outside the party or within.
Again, I am not talking about purists or pragmatists, I'm talking about lunatics who lower the value of the hours and efforts that we all put in in order to make this party a force for freedom for their own murky reasons.
Walt,
I generally give what I get. I have been called a statist, a Nazi, a socialist, a communist, a liberal, unprincipled, self serving, a dictator, a fascist, a Clinton-lover, a big government toady, about 50 bad words you cant use on this blog, and gotten a few 3am hang up phone calls as well, all within the last week. Comes with the territory, I guess.
Walt, I wouldnt use Pat's words unless I was provoked into it. If someone walks up to me and calls me a F$*#*@@* D#&$^&%^&#, it's hard to smile and say nice things.
I can say this without reservation. As a small L or moderate or centrist libertarian, what have you, I have been subjected to more abuse from members of MY OWN PARTY than I have of either the representives of the R's or the D's. I was treated very well in 2000 at all my campaign stops and appearances by my opponents, excepting having the platform used against me as a weapon by a Democrat supporter. I cant say that for various libertarian activities over the years. Universally, the complaint was that I was not "libertarian enough", meaning I didnt agree with them on XYZ position...like smashing the state. :D
Years ago, one guy at the LP convention told me we shouldnt have any labor laws. I asked him how old his children were and he said 5 and 7. I then asked him if he would mind if I took his kids and put ewm to work down at the brick factory....after all, thats what kids used to do before those pesky child labor laws! :)
He got mad, but I made my point. Your kids used to be free enough to go to the cotton mills at age 4, but society rejected that kind of freedom in favor of education instead. They decided having kids learn to read and write in school was better than working 12 hours a day 6 days a week like a machine. Libertarians are very good about the upside of absolute freedoms, but often times dont have any answers when presented with the downside.
And sometimes, there are some. Total negative liberty is not a panacea. I for one like having things like civil and criminal court systems, the rule of law ( when not distorted by money and power by corruption), and such.
The thing is, from their view, I'm NOT libertarian enough compared to themselves, and I gladly admit it. I think a world based totally on the absence of coercion would be a life not worth living, filled with hardship and devoid of meaning. I dont share that ideal. But I do want to see the federal government reduced to it's constitutional boundries. That would be around a 80% reduction by my reckoning.
You would think that would be "libertarian" enough. But it never seems to be the case. There's no compromising with perfection, perfection being in the libertarian sense, no government. You fail the test if you dont agree.
Some people insist that withdrawing as rapidly as military feasible is something that 'can't be sold to the public', despite polls showing that is already the opinion of 35-40% of them.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=216
It seems some of the same people are speaking as if waiving sovereign immunity - making every kid who served in Iraq potentially liable - were something that *could* be sold to the public.
No one has addressed the question of why aid/reparations even needs to be mentioned in an 'exit strategy'. I think it obviously should not be, because it is outside the scope.
I am proud to say that I am now a dues paying member of the libertarian Party. I am 24 years old and I think I can convince many of my friends to join this party as well.
Myself, along with other people my age feel as though we are inheriting a country that very well might be on the decline. All we see is a pissing contest going on between two narrow-minded camps, the Republicans and the Democrats. While there are minor elements of both of those party's I agree with, without a doubt the party I agree the most with is this one. And I am not the exception. People my age crave change and we WILL bring it.
Libertarian ideals appeal to my generation. It's just a matter of SELLING them, and convincing people that we're right. Not through question dodging and lies like the other parties, but through truth and logic will our ideas reach the mainstream.
Also, there seems to be a debate in this thread about our compromising our ideals for political gain. Politics is the means, and our ideals are the ends. Baby steps people. Small compromises here and there to reach our ultimate goals are the only way to achieve the society we envision.
Michael Dixon went on the radio and presented his personal opinion as if it were some kind of official position of the LP. This was an extreme act, and Terry's calling the show to correct the record was called for under the circumstances.
THOSE OF US expect a person to be 100% libertarian will end up with nothing in the end. Instead of focusing heavily on the end point goals of Libertarians, I would suggest an incrementalist approach. Why not attempt to achieve realistic incremental goals which move the society in the right direction along one or more paramenters? It seems to me that in aruing over the feasibility of long term goals which we will never achieve while we disagree over them, why not agree on what we can agree on now? It's often said that the enemny of the good is the perfect. There is a lot of improve to be made before we reach the good.
I was elected and the reelected to the James Island Town Council. I certainly didn't win by promoting Terry Liberty's hardcore positions. I won by proposing realistic solutions to the issues in my community. I don't beleive that Terry Liberty's effort to keep the Libertarian Party "pure" has had any positive effect on electing Libertarian public officials.
There is substantial ancedotal evidence that Libertarian public officials oppose hardcore posturing by the LP. I know I do. Don Gorman, a former Libertarian state legislator who sought the LP Presidential nomination in 2000 would also agree.
I'm sure there are others Libertarian public officials who disagree. My view is that the Libertarian Party needs to focus on winning now, and that means local, nonpartisan office. But we also need to develop a realistic program, so that ten years from now, we will be in a position to win higher, partisan offices.
When you appoint someone chair of the party, are we not at the mercy of their views? Some Dems cringe at Howard Dean's comments others support him. It's a tough pill to swallow, but that is what an election is all about.
What we had on the Alan Colmes show was a great opportunity to put foward a positive foot to the American people. Even Alan was commenting on how this was not like our normal party. We were engaging in politics! I think when Terry called in, he a put a public face on the internal debate over whether or not we want to exist as a club for people who hate the state or a party for people who want to change the state.
Overall I think it went pretty well and puts the LP in a pretty good light.
The one thing that really caught my attention was when Mr. Colmes asked what Mr. Dixon was doing to get the plan "out there". Obviously, as Mr. Dixon mentioned, that very show was a good way to do that. However he mentioned he had not brought it up to his counterparts in the Reps or Dems, although he did mention that Dr. Ron Paul had seen the plan. It actually sounded like this was something of a new idea to him, and maybe that kind of thing is. Maybe it just isn't normally done, but even so I think it would be a pretty good idea for the LP to make sure the plan does get in front of the legislature and maybe even in front of the other parties to give them soemthing more to think about on the subject. I definitely hope that we don't just have the plan gaining e-signatures just so we can pat ourselves on the back for how well we did. :/
Frankly Terry, with your antics last night, as far as I'm concerned, you have forfeited any claim to legitimacy w/in the organization.
Excuse my lack of tact, but you aren't a serious person and you marginalize yourself every time you post or pull a stunt. Judging by what Rock Howard says, you have already marginalized yourself w/ many of your one time allies in Texas as well. I find that very instructive.
And for god's sake, quite posting the same things over and over. We got it the first time.
Terry,
Did you even read my psot above?
I NEVER agreed to the 'non aggression principle'. the way you interpret it, anyway. That's not what the pledge meant to me at the time I took it, that's not what the founder of the LP says it meant when he started the party, and I believe him. He's on historical record saying that it was used as a tool to make sure the LP would not be catagorized as a "revolutionary group or body" by Nixon. The meaning that David Nolan assigned to it is the reason I pledged to it: that I would not take up arms against the government.
Here's a little blurb about it:
"The certification has a long and interesting history which cant be summarized very well on the form.
When David Nolan started the party 25 years ago he was concerned that the FBI might see the LP as a revolutionary party because we hew so closely to the ideology of the founding fathers. To avoid the potential mis-perception of libertarians as "bomb-throwing anarchists" he created the pledge to make it clear that we seek reform through persuasion, not violence.
You may encounter Libertarians who want to imbue the "pledge" with a lot more meaning than Nolan intended. Some consider the phrase "non-initiation of force" as the essential distillation of libertarian theory, for example. ***I try to avoid arguments with them because they are unproductive.*** It's easier to observe that we can agree on almost all issues, though our reasoning may be different. A true statement can have many proofs, after all."
Indeed.
Since this meaning wasnt present at the founding the LP, when did it get inserted into it, and for what reason? It didnt come from David Nolan, so it must have come from someone else. Who was that masked man?
Timothy West says:
"Did you even read my psot above?
I NEVER agreed to the 'non aggression principle'. the way you interpret it, anyway. That's not what the pledge meant to me at the time I took it, that's not what the founder of the LP says it meant when he started the party, and I believe him. He's on historical record saying that it was used as a tool to make sure the LP would not be catagorized as a "revolutionary group or body" by Nixon. The meaning that David Nolan assigned to it is the reason I pledged to it: that I would not take up arms against the government. "
-------------------------------------
Vincent says:
Why not ask David Nolan to tell us exactly what he said. He will say that you are as wrong as rain in a two day flood.
Some men can go to war and kill women and babies. You probably can't, but you are willing to send in the killers. I, and 180K men, went to military prison rather than kill people during the time of the founding of the Libertarian Party.
David would call you a **** and me a man. You can't have peace in a world with yelping dogs of war.
Vincent,
I think some something was missed in context. West is adamantly opposed to the war.
Additionally, I applaud you for the stand which you took.
I like the "tin foil hat crowd" comment!
This type of groupthink is appalling from a freedom-oriented organization. Ideological purists and organizational bureaucrats with a fundamentalist attachment and fervor for our documents (including the platform but also the by-laws, policy manual, and Robert Rules of Order!) rule this party from the top to the bottom. The LP has fringe elements in its own mainstream and leadership. This type of "your not "Libertarian" enough for us attitude got the Objectivist movement in similar trouble a while back. Individualistic organization who suppress diversity of thought and hold to a set of religious-like principles are hypocritical at best and nauseating at worst. I think many people in LP are not interested in being individuals, just the biggest conformist on the block -- which gets them political capital and makes them feel important. I hope the LP and LNC work out their problems and issues. The potential in this organization is great, but every member will have to think for their own self and not let the platform or some other document do the thinking for them! We are not the church of liberty! We are political party, get on the train or get off at the next commune!
What good is accomplished by gaining more listeners if we don't deliver the message we believe in? Are we really "moving forward" in this case?
Why do some people assume that a party with individuals disagreeing on issues will scare away more prospects than a monolithic party of yes men?
Why is Terry assumed to hate the party simply by reminding people of what the party stands for in the first place?
Why is it bad for neocons to hush dissent with appeals to patriotism and unity, but good when Libertarians do essentially the same thing?
Why is dissent and "infighting" seen as so unhealthy? Have we forgotten why the 1st Amendment was such a good idea? What would it say about our party if such an exit strategy were proposed and no one complained?
How is it that certain posters know so well the inner workings of Terry's brain? How are they so certain he dissents because he likes our party small and therefore himself comparatively larger? Is there some special crystal ball that gives them this information, or is this a generic slander for anyone who dares dissent?
Does this exit strategy represent moving public opinion in our direction, or moving ourselves towards mainstream public opinion?
Is it more reasonable to ask Terry to remain silent about his ideals, or is it more reasonable to remind the DC Libertarian leadership that LP members are not going to give them a free pass to part with our ideals?
Terry and his allies, thanks for sticking to your ideals.
It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside to see Libertarians display such animosity and mean spirited slander because other Libertarians failed to march in step with party leadership.
Umm, Matthew, I agree with you that all voices should be heard, particularly when providing constructive input. But the same ire you attribute to the pragmatists is being shown on both sides of the table. Constructive criticism and debate are, I think, healthy, especially in an orginization with is a proponent of individualism. But the many cases in which BOTH sides of this particular issue have stooped to ad hominem attacks is pretty prevelant. Trying to make only one side look like the bad guys does not, I think, help the matter at all.
We're all the good guys here in wanting smaller government and more personal and economic freedoms, even if we disagree on the best ways to get there.
Whether you're a pragmatist or a purist, we are all gathered in this party for one reason: To bring freedom back to America.
We all have the same thrust: We want to end the counter-productive income tax that punishes hard-working people and we want to allow you to live your personal life as you please, as long as its consenting adults and peaceful.
The difference is whether we should do this overnight or over a course of time. Though I'm not a purist, I do have the utmost respect for them -- because they and I are both brothers in the movement for liberty.
I have converted 5 of my friends to Libertarianism.
-- Two Democrats, Three Independents
When they ask what Libertarianism is, I explain that its the kind of philosophy that the men that founded this country would cling to.
My Democratic friends were strong defenders of welfare, so I explained how we would repeal the income tax and discontinue the minimum wage and how that would destroy barriers to unemployment and how that the few remaining poor would be taken care of via private charities such as churches, salvation army, etc. and they now use the label 'libertarian'
Libertarianism is not just for 'republicans' as some have stated. I, too, used to be a Democrat until I realized something: Why should I have to choose between personal or economic freedom?
Lenny wrote:
Umm, Matthew, I agree with you that all voices should be heard, particularly when providing constructive input. But the same ire you attribute to the pragmatists is being shown on both sides of the table. Constructive criticism and debate are, I think, healthy, especially in an orginization with is a proponent of individualism. But the many cases in which BOTH sides of this particular issue have stooped to ad hominem attacks is pretty prevelant. Trying to make only one side look like the bad guys does not, I think, help the matter at all.
We're all the good guys here in wanting smaller government and more personal and economic freedoms, even if we disagree on the best ways to get there.
Response:
In viewing the posts, the ad hominem attacks do not seem to be coming from Terry like they are from the apologists. At any rate, that was only one part of my post.
At the end of the day, I think we are seeing the first steps of a Libertarian Party becoming more like the people we are supposed to stand up to.
Rock Howard, Chair of the Travis County LP, Texas writes:
I am the chair of the Travis County Libertarian Party where Terry Parker resides. Terry is not currently a member of the party. (He has been in the past on an off and on basis -- mostly off.) He did not show up at the last business meeting of the TCLP where the Exit Stratgey was discussed.
---------------------
Vince says:
Ask Rock to produce the minutes of the "discussion." It was mentioned, not discussed. Rock fails to mention that Terry is blind. Terry may not be a member of the party but he is better than many members - he actually upholds the Statement of principles.
----------------------
Rock continues:
Over the years Terry has been instrumental in getting the word "libertarian" known and generally understood in central Texas. However the growing respect for the LP in our area has come about more for the increasingly savvy political work of people like Executive Director Wes Benedict; State Chair and City Councilman Pat Dixon; Geoffrey and Nancy Neale; and a number of people like Gary Johnson, Art Di Bianca, Bob Rulifson, Vince May, Steve Ravet, Debra Duke, Rick McGinnis and others who work behind the scenes to make things happen. (I am sure I am leaving out some important people - sorry!)
------------------
Vince says:
The number of published Letters to the Editor is down in recent years. The party was more active in the 1980's. When local government is proposing billion dollar tax increases, we have, at best, 1 person show up to speak against it. We had more contacts and meeting with the public 20 years ago than today. (Terry's period compared to Rock's.) More people in Austin know and respect Terry Liberty Parker than the chair of the Travis LP.
-------------------
Rock says:
There are also many non-party members who make great things happen in the Liberty movement in central Texas. I count Terry in that number. But Terry has never been about achieving political success.
-----------------
Vince says:
Political success most often means killing people or stealing their property. Ron Paul would call Rock a good Republicrat, not a Libertarian. Ron Paul would call Terry Liberty Parker an outstanding Libertarian.
-------------------
Rock says:
Instead he is committed to the process of using logical arguments to try and convince one person at a time that the principles behind the non-agression truce are the end-all and be-all for running your life and running the world -- not that there is anything wrong with that.
--------------------
Vince says:
If you sell out the Statement of Principle, you don't care about the Constitution either. Indeed the Exit Strategy sells out the Constitution. You can't call for killing innocent people in a foreign land and call yourself an honorable man.
-----------------------------------
Rock says:
I have never seen, nor ever expect to see, Terry Parker back down from his principles.
----------------
Vince says:
They are NOT Terry's principles. THEY ARE THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY'S PRINCIPLES. We wrote them domn on paper. Look at them. If you don't support the LP's principles it's your problem. Nobody expects you to be 100%. But if you want to change the principles why not do that in convention like honorable men? Republicrats change the Constitution whenever they like. That's how we get into problems like Iraq. Do you see the problem of being untrue to your principles?
--------------------
Rock says:
Like Michael Badnarik, another great patriot from Austin, his life is so enmeshed with the concepts of liberty that he would sooner stop breathing than compromise. However unlike Michael, Terry sees squabbling with his friends in the movement and the party as at least as important as reaching out to others. That tendency has been the source of continual problems for the TCLP and has led to the situation where the local party does not depend on Terry in any capacity for media opportunities, quotes, or other outreach. (For many years he was a fixture on our local cable access show, but that relationship has been curtailed as well.)
--------------------
Vince says:
For more than 10 years Terry had a live cable call-in show that built the local party more than all other people combined. Rock Howard took that TV show away from Terry to try some new hosts. Now the show is dead, killed by Rock Howard. The local party has not grown an inch since then and the Exit Strategy will kill it. Bureaucrats can never accept their failures. Rock sees the killing of the most successful LP TV show on earth as an accomplishment. He stands on the backs of the founders of our party and says that they are below him.
-------------------------
Rock says:
The LP needs people who are ready and willing to defend our core principles, but in my way of thinking, making the committment to be _in_ the party and remain active in the ongoing activities of the party is just as important.
-------------------
Vince says:
The Travis County Party is no stronger today than it was 20 years ago. Rock may have an idea of how to run a party but it isn't working. He obviously needs to blame his predecessors.
-------------------
Rock says:
Bottom line, please join the LP today if you are not already a member!
Posted by: Rock Howard at July 14, 2005 02:01 PM
--------------------
Vince says:
If you want to join a party that is faithful to its founding principles .... check back next month.
man... if we could bottle up all of this effort and fervor over the exit plan and focus it into the '06 general elections then the LP will truely be a force to be reckoned with
now, more then ever, we need a charismatic leader to pull folks from both sides and advance the call of liberty.
who among us can be that leader??
I did not get to hear the withdrawal proposition for Iraq but did come to this page to see others opinions. I am totally shocked to see such vicious attacks on others who disagree. My thoughts are if we do not have insight to security meetings we should not be trying to run the military.
While on the subject of the Libertarian Party I was embarrassed by the tv ads being run for this reason. Nothing was said about the Libertarian party and what we stand for. The ads only attacked the existing parties, basically the
Republicans.
So we emulate the parties we are trying to replace?
I am a Libertarian and always will be but do not like the direction the Libertarian Party is taking...what I see is the liberals being copied.
I will not support this new tactic of only trying to put people and ideas down to a lower level...this is never a way to climb to the top. Lets get back to our message as we all see it and try to celebrate the difference of us all.
Stephen Gordon wrote:
Vincent,
I think some something was missed in context. West is adamantly opposed to the war.
Additionally, I applaud you for the stand which you took.
-----------------------
I stand corrected. I thought Timothy West supported the plan to send troops into Afghanistan. Only a warmonger would do that. Our troops would continue killing Afghanis just like they murdered Iraqis.
Our platform calls for bringing all of our troops home to stop the killings which leads to terrorist retribution and more war and killings.
I'm glad that you are against war too. Thanks.
Bill Woolsey wrote:
I'm sure there are others Libertarian public officials who disagree. My view is that the Libertarian Party needs to focus on winning now, and that means local, nonpartisan office. But we also need to develop a realistic program, so that ten years from now, we will be in a position to win higher, partisan offices.
-----------------------
Bill,
Wouldn't you think it the honorable thing to do to go to the convention, explain your ideas, and ask the members to vote on them. Republicrats have top-down decisions made in smoke-filled rooms with the members learning about it after the fact.
Or is that what you want?
finally was able to listen to the show. Thank's to Terry Liberty Parker for providing a feed.
It was good press. Good Job Mr. Dixon.
Let the record show that I supported ( and still do support ) the hunting down and bringing to justice of Osama Bin Laden and the removal of any support he may have for more terror attacks against the country as a legitimate response to the attack of 9/11, which Bin Laden has admitted to planning. The last time I checked, self defense of the country after an attack is not in voilation with any libertarian philosophy.
So your answer is yes, I supported sending troops to Afghanistan as a legitimate right of self defense - and I totally reject any notion that supporting the same makes you supportive of killing women and children. Thats a large leap.
As for the Iraq war, my opposition to it and all other wars in modern times excepting WW2 and the response to 9/11 ( the only two times we were attacked on our soil ) is well known.
Vincent, if you want to know what I believe, just go read my considerable writings on the subject or ask me.
Terry parker posted a message in which he discussed the ad hominem fallacy and made some other remarks. That post is now gone.
On another forum Terry remarked that it 'showed on the blog for a few minutes before being deleted'.
I don't know how long it was there, but I do recall seeing it and it is there no longer. (I think it was on this thread, though it's possible it was on the 'purism/pragmatism' thread, which I've also been following. It is not now to be found on either.)
I wonder if anyone knows if this was a technical glitch, or if the post was intentionally deleted for some reason.
I sure won't be listening to this individual directly contradicting the principles of our party on the radio with this exit strategy.
He has violated the LP belief that we should not have troops around the world, not give tax dollars to other nations, and that we should continue this war and build up the army of another nation.
All these things are NOT Libertarian.
A true Libertarian would be calling to bring all of our troops home from around the world immediately and to withdraw from the United Nations all other such organizations.
We are murdering Iraqi's every single day in Iraq and every day we keep our troops in that nation the more we will be hated.
However, even if all the violence suddenly ended and our troops were singing and holding hands with the former terrorists which suddenly started to become best friends with our troops due to a mutual interest in WWE wrestling we would STILL have no business using US tax dollars to keep troops in another nation.
All our troops must come home immediately. The only use of US troops should be to defend our nation. Right now, if our nation was attacked, we would barely have a military here to protect us!
If there is nedded any censorship going on here based on political concerns, I condemn same. I need no censorship to assist me in my efforts, it is un-amercian and I condemn it in the strongest fashion.
I call upon HQ staff not to start expunging posts for any reason excepting those that may be considered actionable in a court of law or otherise advocate illegal actions.
NO CENSORSHIP IS NEEDED HERE, BY ANYONE ABOUT ANYONE!
William, I respect for your beliefs and your passions, but you reveal yourself when you say a "true" libertarian would do x or believe y.
I guess that those of us who are willing to slowly draw down the troops aren't "real" libertarians. So we don't "really" donate to the party or "really" man the booth at outreach events or "really" log hundreds of hours educating, informing and advocating for liberty.
To tell me that I must believe exactly as you or I am not a "real" libertarian is not libertarian but rather totalitarian. To deny alternate views is not libertarian, it is monopolistic.
You may have the right idea my friend, but you have not cornered the market on truth. Nor have I, I am just suggesting that we try being a political party and go win some elections for a change. That this is a controversial idea indicated to me that we have a long way to go.
But I'm not going anywhere, even if advocating limited government and the maximum individual liberty consistent with order doesn't make me a "real" libertarian.
Vince,
I few factiods. Gary Johnson selects the TV shows hosts. I have nothing to do with that.
In the late 80s when I arrived in Austin the typical party meeting consisted of a few people informally discussing what it means if a US flag has a yellow fringe on it. Typical candidate slates were three candidates long -- one good, one embarrassing and one not particularly libertarian.
The letter writing was more important in the 80s since the word "libertarian" never appeared in the paper otherwise. Now the press calls us fairly regularly for opinions. Even the state legislature bill researchers call us for opinions.
Finally I have never stated that I support the Exit strategy. I have had major qualms with it all along. However I am primarily focused on getting the process fixed so that this and future policy statements can be developed with wider consensus.
As I have stated in previous threads, I think that the uncivil bahaviour of the LNC towards the national office of late created an environment where the national office felt compelled to go forward and post this without full LNC review. That was a mistake, but understandable in light of the recent irresponsible proclamations emenating from the LNC.
Now you can rail at me about principles all you want, but first get something straight. I have never called for an abandonment of principles on this issue! I want to get this matter fixed too.
The difference is that I am unwilling to attack the national office for doing its' job. In my view it was the LNC that failed us all by adopting instructions to the national office not to do any work outside of fixing the database. How stupid is that? No wonder the national office struck out on their own to do this task without LNC input!
So now I make my second call for the LNC and the national office to patch things up. Revive the LNC subcommittee that used to be in charge of quickly vetting policy papers. If that is impossible, create some other committee to do it. Heck, maybe a few of my fellow Judicial Committee members would be up for the task.
You see, until there is a workable policy for reviewing policy statements like the Exit Strategy, spewing off about it does no good. There is no way to make things right until we ensure that such a process (which was standard operating procedure for the LP for decades) is revived!
So keep attacking me if you want, but at least I am trying to do something about the situation. I don't see that as appeasement. I see it it as working to make things right.
Rock,
the proper way to do that is to require that such things get seen by the Chair of the Party, Elected by the membership, They got rid of that committee (the LNC) for good reason - it was and is an affront to libertarian beliefs that censorship of party documents of the only party that supposedly stands for freedom of the press and totally against censorship of all forms in the media.
Why have government censors when we can do the job ourselves? The Chair of the LP is THE BOSS. He needs to know what the sam hill the Party is releasing under his aegis. But having the APRC brought back form the dead is a very un-libertarian way of dealing with this.
I can just see ourselves putting out press releases on freedom of the press issues that have to be vetted to make sure they can pass muster. Dont you think the prospect of that in the last political party in the world that represents freedom is rather hypocritical? I do. I could not keep a straight face if it was me that had to do it.
The Party Chair is the boss. He can be turned out if the membership demands it and someone else put there, if they will it. But making him and the rest of the office staff subject to the LNC secret uber leet spy committee of the LNC Central Committee is something I would think would be required from the American Communist Party.
It's also very interesting that those that are bringing up the idea that this blog is getting censored to prevent the free flow of discourse are probably also the first ones who would like to see the APRC back in business. Censorship is WRONG and UN-AMERICAN, on this blog or in the LP. If you only want it applied to muzzle the voices of your perceived enemies, then you have a weak argument.
I need no censorship of any kind in this party for me to get my point across, and the same freedom it allows ME to speak also allows those with which I do NOT AGREE to do the same.
NO APRC, NO CENSORSHIP IN THE LP, AND NO CENSORSHIP ON THIS BLOG! In a FREE PARTY thats not afraid of itself, we need none of these things.
Please dont get suckered into actions based on fear. Make them based on hope instead.
Tim,
This is a busy blog! I just saw your example about child labor laws. I just wanted to point out that your example is flawed.
First of all, brick factory owners (or any other owners) never did put children to work against their parents' wishes. It was the parents who put the children to work (regardless of what the children wanted to do), not the factory owners.
Second, I notice that you don't seem to include any sense of childrens' rights in your discussion. I would suggest that that's the biggest problem where children are concerned. So long as children don't have rights, any approach (including child labor laws) is going to be second-rate at best.
Third, child labor laws also usually prevent minors from going to work who have chosen to leave home and live on their own. Oh, it's possible for them to do it, but they have to jump through an awful lot of bureaucratic hoops to do it. It's truly unjust. By supporting child labor laws, you are essentially opposing the right of children to leave homes where they are abused by denying them the right to earn a living. You are ensuring the continued detrimental effects on minors of being forced to live in dysfunctional homes.
By the way, Tim, I notice you didn't answer my question regarding your policy as to how you treat others with whom you disagree. Instead, you complained about the way you've been treated by others
Walt,
I posted an entire answer both on here and cross posted it on my blog. Not sure what you want me to say.
The child labor law piece is quite accurate. There were actually people that specialized in rounding up little kids and selling them into the cities as a result of death or disease of the parents, there were indeeed parents who sold their own kids, and there were plenty of orphans who didnt have parents to object for them. Since 6 year old kids quite rightly dont have the wherewithal legally to make those type of decisions, becuase they are not adults, your example is a moot point. We already allow minors to work at the age of 14 with parental consent, today, and at age 16 with no consent, at least here in WV.
May I ask what kind of non dysfunctional homes you would have the free market provide for these children in order to escape their dysfunctional homes they are in now? Where are they? Can a 12 year old handle running their own apartment? How about the bills and the rent?
They were called orphanages back in the day, run by the government in most cases. Since there was no profit in it, only the churches provided anything outside of government. The "Free Market" didnt have any interest in it becuase there was no profit motive.
Children do have rights, Walt - but limited ones, subserviant to their parents desires as they should be unless abuse or neglect is assumed and proven. Children are NOT little tiny adults, and to treat them as such undermines your argument. If they should have full rights as adults, why do they even need to stay with their parents in the first place? There's a reson why the LP pulled the "childrens rights" plank form the platform. It STUNK. Maybe you want it back in the platform?
Oh wait....thats how they got into the brick factories and cotton mills to start with.....they had the "freedom" to work there, 6 days a week, 12 hours a day.
Only wish for other peoples kids what you | 
Sweet! We're taking it to the media... this'll get us a LOT of attention. We've been covered before, but now we've got something that a lot of people can actually support.
Posted by: Stuart Richards at July 13, 2005 04:24 PM