Shane,

I'll do my best to keep within the guidelines, and I urge everyone to GIVE to National for the new Forum server. This is another very much needed piece of the puzzle to get people under our tent and engage them.

I will donate tonight for the new WAREZ :D when I get off work in a few hours. Everyone else SHOW YOUR LP PRIDE and do likewise. It will pay off big.

To clarify a few personal points briefly:

1) I do not represent LP leadership (outside of position as a state vice chair) in any manner. Anything I post on this blog is my opinion, and does not necessarily represent the views of the national office, nor of the LNC. To be clear, I am sometimes in disagreement with these parties about one issue or another. I generally post such material on other websites. Likewise, I am often in agreement with the leadership.

2) I consider myself a friend with people on both sides of this and related debates. My primary concern is to learn how we may better cooperate, and I have absolutely no desire to shut anyone out of the debate.

3) I try to respond to reasonable debate over issues -- but refuse to respond to personal attacks directed against anyone, including myself.

Let me say thanks for letting us know that the lines of communication are open and ideas are definitely being heard there. I'd especialy like to say thanks for letting us know the things we can do to help.

Now if only I could find some extra money beyond what I've already donated... :/

I agree these guidelines were needed. I believe that most of these are already common curtisy. Keep up the good work.

I would also like to add my opinion that really long posts are just to much. Being concise makes the message more effective and increases the number of readers likely to take the time to check out the arguments contained therein and makes their understanding of your point more complete.

I know some arguments are multi-step and require establishing certain logical underpinnings, and that’s great, just don’t be unnecessarily windy.

I agree entirely!

The unnecessary quotes from various articles that add so much to posts.
I think links are just as good and are much shorter.

Attacking a postiion or a specific action does not require making adverse judgements about the persons occupying those positions or engaging in those actions.

While I'm dismayed by certain actions of the LP Admin, make no mistake, I'm always appreciative of anyone's (including their's) efforts on behalf of liberty and justice for ALL

My message is that we must have the courage of our conviction that the foundation of libertaian principles has already prevailed!

A truce on physical aggression by one person upon another or their justly held possessions is a foundational principle of libertarianism, and the LP. Without consistency to a 'physical agression truce' the common ground for 'liberty & justice for all' in the material world just vanishes!

While MOST people, MOST of the time, on MOST issues, consciously or
not, will abide by this 'truce' many seek 'exceptions' for their own
causes. So, they will claim that such a 'commonality' doesn't exist;
and that those who say otherwise are being absurd. Of course,
people, including these 'exceptors' would NOT be able to walk out
their door each day if there was no effective physical aggression
truce already working. But, that observation seems not to disuade
these exceptors from attempting to con other people about the
matter.

The truth is, that it is CONSISTENCY to this 'physical aggression
truce' (aka NAP 'non aggression principle, ZAP 'zero aggression
principle' and so on) which protects the 'self-ownership' autonomy of
virtually all persons. Most people DO seem to inherently understand
and usually apply the needed reciprocity; even if they don't know how
to spell that word, let alone consciously define it. This, in fact,
is the underlying principle for UNIVERSAL libertarianism;
aka 'liberty & justice for ALL'

So, a question to would be 'exceptors' is: what makes you think you
have the right to initiate, or do a credible threat to initiate,
physical force against the person or justly held possessions of
another?

We must be FOR a brave love of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as it trimphs over the tyranny of fear!

It appears alot of libertarians hate Karl Rove as much as the democrats. I don't understand all the people that feel he should resign or be fired because the media and liberals jumped to conclusions about the CIA issue. Now it has been reported that Novak told Karl Rove about Valerie Plame. Maybe some of the daily poll questions are premature.

I just set up an Invision board, I've got years of experience with this stuff... I could totally help you guys out with that.

To Tim McLane:

I quote:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120004

To the best of my knowledge, Novak is not currently being paid by the White House. If so, that will provide yet another interesting story.

Whether the law was broken or not, Bush made a promise and should be held to it.

Stuart, give me a call. We're always appreciative of volunteers who know what they are doing!

Best,

Shane

Gordan-
The fact is no one has said that Karl has made any leak except the political hacks that claims to be the victims.Joe Wilson had made suggestive comments about his wife being a CIA agent in a 2003 interview with National Review. In fact I heard that he also made suggestion about his wife's work in a book that he had written and she would go with him on book signings. Also Robert Novak said that he called The CIA to tell them he was writting the article and was told that she was not a covert agent so it was oked.So if these sets of facts are true ( which most of which come from the NY Times story in todays paper not a right wing spin machaine) it looks like the LP jumped to assumptions based on alot of hersay and not a whole lot of facts.If the NY Times story is correct;A)Joe Wilson already let it be known that his wife was a CIA agent prior to the supposed leak,B)Joe's wife sent her husband to Africa to debunk the M15 britsh intl report,she was correct but this does not change the fact that she was behaving like a political hack. So if she was not a covert agent for years before the "leak" took place, the CIA gave Novak the ok to run the story then why are we calling for him to resign or be fired. Let's not let are dislike for Bush policies lead us to irrational, non-factual, emotionlism that will make us look like libreal kooks. Pull the press release.

"Stuart, give me a call. We're always appreciative of volunteers who know what they are doing!

Best,

Shane"

I dropped an email to the info@lp.org address, is that what you meant? Otherwise I don't have your phone number... if you want to conduct an interview over-the-phone, email your number to princepsaugustus@hotmail.com and I can call you either tonight or tomorrow night.

I applaud and thank Mr. Cory for reading our suggestions on this blog and, as far as he was involved, getting a forum started. This is a much-needed improvement to the blog format currently used for discussion. I await its inception.

One question for Mr. Cory, though. You say that it will cost $300 per month for a good server to host the forums. If the national LP needs donations to get this thing started, will it need more donations in the future to keep it running? Just a thought. Thanks again!

Matt:

1) It sounds like you are buying into GOP spin.

2) Rove is not denying that he made the leak.

3) The White House promised to fire the leaker.

4) All evidence to date links to Rove - who is not talking.

I hold the same standards for the GOP, Dems, and even the LP.

There are two issues at play.

1) Did Rove break the law? IMO, the verdict is still out on this one, as I am not privy to grand jury testimony.

2) Did Rove leak? It seems pretty clear that he did, based on information available through the mainstream media. Rove does not confide in me, and our relationship is generally adversarial (i.e New Mexico with Badnarik campaign or even Ron Paul race with which I was not as closely tied). He has had time for a clear public denial, but I have not seen any such headline.

With Clinton, I didn't care about the legal issues if he got a BJ. That he lied was a political opportunity.

With this case, and without the testimony, I cannot state whether he actually broke the law or not. I'd like a series of verbatim quotes for that - and I only have the one relevant publicized quotation without supporting contextual information. It appears that he broke the law, but that is not my foregone conclusion.

That said, politics are also involved. If Bush/McClellan said he would be fired, they should be called on the carpet if he isn't. This is not about a libertarian message, it is about plain honesty and political opportunism.

Why don't we first make sure that the LP website itself is not used to promote policies that directly violate what our party stands for?

The Exit Strategy for Iraq calls for:

1) Keeping our troops in Iraq instead of bringing them home immediately.

2) Keeping our troops around the world instead of bringing them all home immediately.

3) Giving money (US tax dollars) to other nations around the world. In this case Iraq.

4) Building up another nations military and/or government.

These policies are DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY to EVERYTHING the LP stands for and should be OFFENSIVE to all Libertarians.

The LP owns this website and the blog so they have the right to do whatever they want. However, if the LP is going to abide by the same principles that are posted on their website the "exit strategy" MUST be removed.

Personally, I would rather have a slightly rowdy blog on the LP website than the "exit strategy".

[William, thanks for clearing that up. Best, Shane]

Sorry! Very Sorry!

It is very late at night and the previous post was by me, William, and NOT shane Cory!

I APOLOGIZE for that goof up.

I was trying to direct the post to shane cory, and I goofted up. It is my fault, and I am sorry. I apologize to you Shane, because I am NOT trying to falsely impersonate you.

I just came in from a six mile run and I was a little winded and tired.

Again, I apologize for that.

"Personally, let me say that this blog belongs to the members of the LP and we have no intent of censoring rational debate. If you want to see true censorship in action, check out the RNC blog that was launched yesterday. If you can get a thought on that blog that does not toe the party line then you should win a prize."

http://www.gop.com/Blog/BlogPost.aspx?BlogPostID=530

I got one on there as DuStJuNkY. I'm sure it won't last very long, but I did it for a short while. Do I get a prize now?? Please oh please oh please?? :)

You can't include the word "porn" on the GOP Blog.

A slightly better (or worse) BB is the one at Ted Nugent's site, which I have been infiltrating for years now. lol

First you have to get registered, meaning you have to pick a name (that THEY will like), then register under an ISP e-mail address, then wait a few days for their approval. Afterwards, be hounded from all sides with some of the worst things and namecalling in the world, then get kicked off after you mention the fact that Nuge dodged the Vietnam draft.

When I started, you could register with any active e-mail address (it has to be active because they send your password to it), and you were eligible to post as soon as you registered. I think I am the one who changed all that. lol

Anyways, here's the web page: www.tednugent.com
Go to Talkback and go from there. When you register keep this in mind:
-Pick a screen name they will approve of. To make it better, pick one having to do with saying the GOP is so great. (That way when your true colors come through, it'll REALLY piss them off.)
-If you don't want any part of your name to come through, start another e-mail address with your ISP (they usually allow, like, 7-12 e-mail addresses to be created), and make sure it has no sign of your name, and if you want it linked with Outlook Express, do not put your name in the header. (Remember they do NOT accept third-party or "free" e-mail accounts anymore.)
-Be prepared. You will hear some of the king of stupidity from these people. no matter what you write. These people are thoroughly convinced that the libertarians are pot-smokers (because we don't like the drug war) and cowards (because we don't start bombing other insignificant countries because they look at us the wrong way), and that we are all liberals (because they think like Ann Coulter and think anyone to the left of Jesse Helms is a liberal).
-DO NOT LET THEM GET TO YOU! That's the most important. Their goal is to give the moderators a reason to kick you off the board. Don't give them a reason to. Just be tactical with your responses, and sit back and watch the fun.

Anyways, if you like to have fun, just go and do so over there. You might have a blast. :-)

QUOTE: "I got one on there as DuStJuNkY. I'm sure it won't last very long, but I did it for a short while. Do I get a prize now?? Please oh please oh please?? :)"

I saw that. So far, seven of my thirteen posts have been deleted.

But I don't want to preoccupy this post with GOP stuff, so if you want to know the rest, here: http://p204.ezboard.com/faxisofjusticefrm2.showMessage?topicID=21289.topic

As for the idea of having a forum or message board, I think it's a great idea. I'm sorry I don't have any money to donate to this at this time.

As for the rules herein stated, I think they're fair.

Greg,

Here's your prize!

http://www.onlinerewardcenter.com/rd_p?p=103124&t=443&a=prize

Please be sure to read the terms and conditions which may including signing away your life savings, donating 8 to 10 pints of blood, and giving up your first born son. ;)

I agree, I think it would be a great idea to create a forum where participants could open discussions instead of just continuing what the leadership posts here. I think it would increase participation too if the people had more control over the discussions.

Tito, yes we will need the ongoing support. I have the "go ahead" when things clear if I can support a year of hosting. With that said, a monthly pledge would go a long way as Tim West pointed out (and thanks for backing your words with action, Tim).

I have always planned on putting together a forum but wanted to make access a premium for members. So I'll ask everyone this: open to all or active LP members only?

I setup a quick poll here:
http://www.lp.org/cgi-bin/vcenter/vcenter.cgi?topic=071605&action=vpage

Click here for the results:
http://www.lp.org/cgi-bin/vcenter/vcenter.cgi?topic=071605&action=show

Also, I have only a few moderator volunteers. We will need about 15 to 20 as to not overwork people.

Gordan-
Like I said before I got the info from the NY Times which is hardly a GOP paper. The point is you have as much evidence that Rove did it as I do that Rove didn't do it. We are both going on stories written in the press. Allegations by the press is not evidence. The differnce is the LP didn't put out press release saying Rove is innocent it came out with one saying he was the leak and should resign or be fired. If the NY Times story is correct;A)Joe Wilson had already expoused his wife,B)Rove was contacted by Cooper and Novak both of which already had the info about Wilson's wife and in both cases Rove replied with "That's what I heard to",C)Novak got clearnce from the CIA before writting the article,the CIA stated that Wilson's wife was not a covert agent. So if the Ny Times story is correct then Rove didn't leak because Wilson had already put her out there and the CIA gave Novak's aritcle OK. But I wouldn't put out a press release out on it. WHY? Because YOU SHOULDN'T PUT OUT PRESS RELEASES BASED ON RUMORS, media reports like these should not be trusted. Based on these contradictory media reports and the fact that the press release was based purly on just a few media reports and 0 facts the LP should do the right thing and pull the press release.

Matt, when Rove's own attorney says that he didn't "identify her by name" but as "Joe Wilson's wife" that's pretty clear.

Rove is now contradicting himself when he said that he didn't know Plame's name because Robert Novak just admitted that he's the one who told him.

We know definitively that Rove told Matt Cooper that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

The LP should stand by it's press release and you shouldn't buy into the RNC/White House spin.

yep, they're already gone. Man that was fast. Those Reps sure don't tolerate dissent.

Gordan-
But if Joe Wilson had already in a National Review interview in 2003 already made a statement about his wife being CIA and the CIA gave permission to print her name before the supposed leak then Rove didn't leak he just confirmed something that was already headed to the public realm.So I think the question is if you and th LP have been a victim of left libreal spin.

We can get it hosted for less than $300/month, easily. My friend pays for forum hosting that includes 50 GB of transfers every month for only $7/month. Hosting shouldn't cost us too much. In fact, if money ends up being an issue, invisionplus.com can always host us for free if we can tolerate a couple banner ads. It won't look as professional, but it'd serve its purpose.

And we probably won't need THAT many volunteers... 5-10 mods should be able to cover it, depending on how restrictive the rules are (simpler rules means less moderation necessary).

Stuart, you can always get a virtual account for very cheap. However, you are sharing the server with 100 or more other sites. If one of them has a high traffic day it will slow down the server.

Also, if the activity on this blog is any indication of load on the forum, we have to have a second dedicated server.

Sorry, but there cannot be too much compromise on the hardware. If we don't do it right from the start then we'll have to spend quite a bit for a content transfer immediately down the road.

True enough... well, I suppose $3600 a year isn't that much for a forum for a serious political party. Perhaps we could have a fundraising drive for it a la the Badnarik campaign's graphics? That way we don't have to dip into any pre-established funds.

Matt - If someone robs my home two years ago, and a different person robs my house this year, it does not make the second person any less guilty.

Again, I am not making any judgement on legal guilt in ths case - as the jury is still out on that, and I have not seen the direct evidence.

With respect to political opportunities, the time is ripe - IMO.

Posted by: Shane Cory at July 16, 2005 01:34 PM

Stuart, you can always get a virtual account for very cheap. However, you are sharing the server with 100 or more other sites. If one of them has a high traffic day it will slow down the server.

Also, if the activity on this blog is any indication of load on the forum, we have to have a second dedicated server.

Sorry, but there cannot be too much compromise on the hardware. If we don't do it right from the start then we'll have to spend quite a bit for a content transfer immediately down the road.

TerryAsks:

I really don't know enough to understand why using something like a YahooGroup forum wouldn't make for a cheap (free actually) implimentation.

I have no agenda on this (other than saving a little money maybe); just curious.

Btw, there is a Yahoo Libertarian forum that is general; not specific to the LP at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/

Terry, thanks again for letting us know about your Yahoo group. ;)

That's not a viable option as we'll need much more functionality and control over the forum.

Also, hosting anything with a free service is a bad move. Was it the Yahoo lists or MS's BCentral that all of the sudden stopped offering the service for free?

Additionally, the point of a forum is to build up interest in the website in general, gain visitor loyalty and increase return visits. If you do that on Yahoo, then we only increase Yahoo's presence who has no need for it.

Responding to
Posted by: Shane Cory at July 16, 2005 06:59 PM

Shane, I wasn't suggesting using the generalized YahooGroup Libertarian forum that I own and moderate as it's too genrealized for this purpose.

But, if you did create a YahooGroup forum as the official blog, a Yahoo feature is to provide a URL (link) at the forum's web site that refers people back to www.LP.org for more info; and, of course, you can provide descriptive content there as well. You can control it in any maner you want as Yahoo provides owner/operators with many options. It's hard to imagine that after this many years of their current advertising model, that they would actually go to a user pay system. But, if they did, you could always opt for what you're considering now, which actually might be cheaper by then (the usual IT trend) Using a YahooGroup forum that you create, own and operate means that you don't have to become experts at a lot of the tech and operational issues that Yahoo has already solved; you don't have to re-invent the wheel. And it's free of charge, at least for the forseeable immediate future.

At any rate, my only interest is in bigger bang for LP bucks; and have no expertise other than being an owner/operator of a YahooGroup forum among many other owner/operators.

Well, we don't have to worry about knowing the tech; I know how to make Invision boards work just fine and I can teach others, for free. Also, if we use Invision boards on a server we own/rent space at, we have no ads. It looks completely professional that way. Anyone with an hour to kill can set up a Yahoo group; we need to look a little more savvy than that.

Besides, if my proposal's followed, we wouldn't be taking from the general funds, we'd be raising all-new funds specifically for this purpose. And believe me-a messageboard is LOADS more convenient than a Yahoo group. Not only that, but there's plenty of added features that Yahoo groups simply don't have. (A private messaging system ranks pretty high up there-if we don't want people flaming each other on the forums as they almost certainly will, we'll need to give them a venue to "duke it out" while providing for privacy concerns, and a PM system solves that.)

And really-$3600 a year is peanuts compared to some of the silly things the LP spends money on and it'll accomplish a LOT. We can't fight the duopoly in the mainstream media, but we can absolutely TROUNCE them on the Internet if we try. Controlling the Internet means having a built-in advantage over the other two. No matter what they try in the MSM, our views will be heard online. Half the nation is online-and if we have an effective Internet outreach program in place, we can reach them and win them over to our side.

$3600-in some parts of the country, just REGISTERING a paper candidate costs that much. A billboard can cost that much or more, depending on where it is. A single television ad costs more than that. THE EXPENDITURE IS WORTH IT.

QUOTE: "Should the forum be open to everyone or only active LP members?"

Everyone. I'm not an active member.

I think Mr. Cory has made it pretty clear that he'd like to have a server set aside for a true LP.org forum, and it seems like a good enough idea for me. Yeah, it'll cost money, but like he and others have said, it'll be worth it in the long run.

On who can use it, I think we should make the forum open to anyone who wants to post there. Limiting forum usage to LP members will exclude nonmembers who may be attracted to our positions by discussions on the forum. If that much activity makes funding a problem, perhaps we could make people pay to use the system. I know I would, if the fee were reasonable.

The format of this blog is already adequate for a forum. The only complaint I have about the format is that the opening post needn't be by staff (or someone chosen by staff). Of course, for housekeeping issues like this thread, that would be different. But on substantive political issues, we could just as easily use the various sections of the platform. That would have more credibility than having the staff frame the debate or question with their comments. I see no evidence that LP staff know anything more about substantive issues than the average poster.

This blog is already forum-compatible, so I don't think we should pay extra for an off-site forum that wouldn't promote the lp.org website.
It just needs to be fine-tuned.

The forum needs to be separate from the blog because blogs and forums accomplish two different things in the online world. Blogs are for official pronouncements and punditry; forums are for wide, free-flowing discussion amongst the hoi polloi. Taking blog software and making a forum out of it is a recipe for disaster; usually there's dozens of active threads in any number of subforums; we obviously cannot establish this here.

And for the forums to accomplish their task successfully, they need to be free for anyone to use. The beauty of forums is that I can post something there, invite all my friends to check it out (both libertarian and not) and debate can flow freely. If we do it right, the non-libertarians will stay on the site for a while, and slowly they'll come around to support at least some of our views, and even if they never join they might contribute to some of our specific projects (the Exit Strategy, for instance) that they do agree with. But most likely, they'll join or at least vote for us, and those are people that wouldn't have heard of us otherwise.

I do think it'd be a good idea to have at least two political debate sections, though; one for libertarian and inter-party debate (we can limit that section to Party members if you guys like) and one for general debate where anyone, even flaming Communists, can post their views.

I would like to see posters back up their statements with more information or facts.

For example, when someone claims the LP platform calls for defaulting on the national debt, they should reference that part of the platform which sets forth that plank.

The best decisions and policies are made when the actual facts regarding the matter being considered are known. It is often said you are entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Feelings or opinions are fine, but to persuade others, it is best to explain why you have reached a particular opinion.

Many people seem to have a hard time distinguishing between news, opinions, entertainment and partisan talking points.

When I read the same talking points verbatim on this forum that I've heard on talk radio, I know the poster has not put much thought into their statement.

Talking heads on TV and radio personalities are foremost entertainers. Their purpose is not so much to inform but to engage in emotionally charged diatribes which seem to entertain their listeners. Posters who rely on entertainers for news and information tend to have a limited grasp of actual facts.

For example, to merely state that to withdraw American troops from Iraq in less than 12 months will cause chaos or result in civil war, the poster should state why they believe this to be true.

Arguments based on name-calling, emotions, and "conventional wisdom" according to entertainers and pundits is not very persuasive.

Government Debt
The Issue: Government debt forces individuals to assume debt that they did not choose to incur; distorts capital markets and rates and ruins the economy.

The Principle: Government must not incur debt, nor should it be allowed to hold assets, for these are debts incumbent on and assets taken away from the individuals of this country.

Solutions: We support the drive for a constitutional amendment requiring the national government to balance its budget, and also support similar amendments to require balanced state budgets. To be effective, a balanced budget amendment should provide:

a. that neither Congress nor the President be permitted to override this requirement;

b. that all off-budget items are included in the budget;

c. that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes; and

d. that no exception be made for periods of national emergency.

Governments facing fiscal crises should always default in preference to raising taxes.

Transitional Action: The Federal Reserve must be forbidden to acquire any additional government securities, thereby helping to eliminate the inflationary aspect of the deficit. At a minimum, the level of government should be frozen.

According to the platform, we (as libertarians) would have allowed the US to default on it's debts rather than than raising the debt ceiling ( which is just another method of borrowing more tax money )......so here's your fact, Blanton.

According to this, about 20 states and the Federal Government should have been allowed to go bankrupt in the past if we had been in charge. Just another platform item, one of many, that we force our candidates to skate around, and it totally undermines the rest of the words around it, making the whole plank unbelievable.

I got more if you want em.

Regarding using the blog as a forum, Stuart is correct. It is two seperate systems to accomplish two seperate goals. Right now the blog is being abused as a forum. It's not designed for this: It has no threading capabilities, inadequate backend capabilities, etc.

A blog is for comment, not discussion. Good forum software allows for comment editing (after posting), non-public crosstalk, polls, and an array of other features.

Also, there is no way that I would ever open a blog to the public to start their own topics. That is a recipe for disaster.

Shane,

There's nowhere else for the steam to go. I've done what I can to make a place for the steam; and Stuart knows how to handle the softwarez. Hopefully others will respond.

I feel strongly some parts of the forum should be only made available to actual LP members, while other sections should be open to anyone. Looking forward to it. The blog traffic will go down by a factor of 10X soon after it is online.

Tim, I'm not complaining about the traffic on the blog. I think it's great! "Abused" was the wrong word but applied in a technical sense.

However, we need a forum. I like your idea about member and non-member sections. That's the way to go.

You are correct about the traffic. Discussions will be redirected to the forum while the general public, new members, etc., will still comment on the bog.

Yes, it fits in very well with the future thrust of Zero Dues...that benefits accrue to donors more and faster than members and members before non-members.

Assuming Zero Dues passes, the future on line actions should be set up roughly along the same lines. Plenty of non member open areas but mo betta for members and even mo betta for members who donate x amount. Thats the way the big boys do it, and we should too.

You know how the schiznit be done. :)

So, I am to believe that the following phrase advocates defaulting on the national debt:

"Governments facing fiscal crises should always default in preference to raising taxes."

One must assume that the fiscal crisis referenced in the platform simply means that revenue is not sufficient to pay for items budgeted and the interest on the debt. The national debt has grown for about 40 years with no reduction in principle.

This phrase from the platform might also advocate a reduction in spending as opposed to defaulting on the debt. To simply state that the platform advocates defaulting on the national debt is not only misleading, it is somewhat intellectually dishonest.

I am aware that many libertarian opportunists (fka pragmatists) that support revenue neutral tax plans like the "Fair Tax" have no interest in reducing the federal budget, but small limited government has always been the main thrust of libertarian principles.

To pretend that when revenues are not sufficient to meet current spending and pay interest on the debt takes the option of reducing government spending off the table.

Even if the government were to default on the debt, would this be so horrible? Perhaps those who lend money to an organization that year after year proves itself to be fiscally irresponsible should know they are taking a risk.

Perhaps the result of a massive default would be that the government would no longer be able to borrow money. In the real world that exists outside the beltway, an organization that boasts 40 years of red ink would find it extremely difficult to borrow money.

The idea that continued deficits which add to a national debt that is approaching $8 trillion don't matter is morally, intellectually and fiscally bankrupt. The interest cost on the current debt amounts to about $1,000 for each man, woman and child in America.

I wonder, are the libertarian opportunists also opposed to a balanced budget amendment?

Posted by: Timothy West at July 17, 2005 09:20 AM

According to this, about 20 states and the Federal Government should have been allowed to go bankrupt in the past if we had been in charge. Just another platform item, one of many, that we force our candidates to skate around, and it totally undermines the rest of the words around it, making the whole plank unbelievable.

TerryResponds:

Before Austin TX became my hometown in the early 1970s, it was New York City!

NYC has defaulted more than once but, the investors were bailed out by govt gaurantees. That's ultimatley based on the 'full faith & credit' of the US taxable base; meaning everyone's property including their labor. Even if you buy into this concept of govt socialized capitalism (aka NeoMercantilism), the representation of each taxpayer is not sufficiently honest.

Austin TX was at the center of the mid 1980s US Federal Savings & Loan financial collapse of it's hyper inflated real estate promotionalism. Govt S&L bailout amouted to a $2,000 payback guarantee by every man, woman & child in the USA when computed as simple math division. That meant that even people who were too broke (or too young) to have ANY money in a bank were still going to pay aprx $2,000 each to make sure that people with thousands of bucks in each S&L acct did not lose a nickle.

There's something that is a more than a little obscene about US govt being used to 'privatize profits while socializing loss & risk' doncha think?

"I am aware that many libertarian opportunists (aka pragmatists) that support revenue neutral tax plans like the "Fair Tax" have no interest in reducing the federal budget, but small limited government has always been the main thrust of libertarian principles."

I want to thank Tom for explaining to me what I believe and why. All this time, I thought I was a small-government libertarian, but apparently
if I don't support his means, I am an opportunists who sectretly covets big government.

That's enlightning, thanks Tom, and thanks for sharing the interworkings of the mind of a REAL Libertarian. I stand in awe. I guess this party will just never be big enough for two people who don't see the world the exact same way.

>>Tom Blanton: I am aware that many libertarian opportunists (aka pragmatists) that support revenue neutral tax plans like the "Fair Tax" have no interest in reducing the federal budget, but small limited government has always been the main thrust of libertarian principles.

>Don: I want to thank Tom for explaining to me what I believe and why.

David Tomlin: Tom said 'many', not 'all' or even most.

Tom didn't say anything like:

'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'

Or:

'I don't blame people like Terry and David. . . . They need the LP to be an exclusive club or their voices will be diluted and their ideas discredited.'

On one issue: I wish that all of the local and state governments (plus the federal government) would adopt an amendment to their respective constitutions or charters stating that there must be a balanced budget and that all public debts get paid off as much as possible.

On another issue: You know how the GOP and their talking heads (Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, etc.) refer to all of their opponents as condescending? And how they include the French as their opponents? I personally believe that the GOP is so condescending, that they might as well be French.

By the way, what is the GOP blog?

Don says:

"I guess this party will just never be big enough for two people who don't see the world the exact same way."

Your words, Don, not mine. I'm sorry that so many libertarian opportunists feel this way. But it certainly is obvious. How else can you explain the personal attacks on principled libertarians.

Unfortunately, it seems many libertarian opportunists are no longer even able to debate. I notice that you didn't refute anything I posted above. Your glib attempt at being sarcastic was mildly amusing but you aren't ready to join the legion of radio talk show hosts that you model your dialogue after.

But, since you feel the LP isn't big enough for those with opposing views, there is always the Republican Party. I'm sure you would be welcome there and perhaps you'd find their politics more to your liking.

We're not debating because we're busy getting things done. Yes, we UNDERSTAND that the Exit Strategy goes against the platform, purist libertarian principles, etc. The point that all you fine people, with all your fine arguments, fail to grasp is that we couldn't care LESS. We're busy making the LP relevant to the real world so that we all can HAVE more freedom, instead of just sitting on our posteriors and talking about it.

How many natural rights can dance on the head of a pin?

Stuart writes: 'We're busy making the LP relevant to the real world . . .'

Please explain why withdrawing troops as quickly as militarily feasible is not 'relevant to the real world'.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. June 20-22, 2005.

"Should the United States keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or should the United States bring its troops home from Iraq immediately?"

Keep In Iraq 59%

Bring Home 37%

http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=845

Pew Research Center
June 3-13, 2004

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until a stable government is established there, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

Keep troops in Iraq 51%

Bring troops home 44%

Notice we're on the losing side of that?

What the ES is is an attempt to grab some of the people on the "yes" side of the issue and most of the people on the "no" side of the issue and put them in a brand-spanking-new "sorta" side of the issue. We're attempting to forge a majority here... that's how politics is done. And since we can't bring them home right away in the current political climate, we have a plan that will bring them home as soon as militarily AND politically feasible.

Stuart, are you suggesting that a political party can only be 'relevant to the real world' by taking positions that already have a majority?

Thats the only way you get people in your party elected en mass to where they can affect legislation, yes. You have to get 50.1% of the ordinary people in any district in the country to vote for a libertarian candidate in a two way race.

Anything else is just so much tripe. It may be relevant to internal party politics, but thats as far as it goes. If you wont put forth positions that those 50.1% ( or in the 3 way race, 33.4% ) will vote for, then there's just no way the LP will ever accomplish it's goal.

It's just simple math. The mission statement of this party at it's core is to elect party members to public office. I could just as easily make a charge that having such a crap platform to have our candidates fight against goes against the mission statement of the party. Some principles are more important than others it seems.

It's amazing to me that the membership couldnt even dispatch the ultra stupid "Childrens rights" plank to the depths of hell in one convention - it took years to get it off the platform, though the last time it was passed it was only by 53%. Somethings really wrong when a platform plank that opens it's candidates up to questions of advocating child sex takes YEARS to kill.

Being in favor of government defaulting on debt vs. demanding full repayment combined with spending cuts and government reduction - wonder how long that will take? :D I know which one is more politically sellable.

David Timlin wrote: "Stuart, are you suggesting that a political party can only be 'relevant to the real world' by taking positions that already have a majority?"

Tim West replied: "Thats the only way you get people in your party elected en mass to where they can affect legislation, yes. You have to get 50.1% of the ordinary people in any district in the country to vote for a libertarian candidate in a two way race."

This is false. You win majorities of 50% + 1 by putting together new majorities. If you simply go with existing majorities without attempting to form new majorities, you won't achieve change.

Where is the libertarian majority as a result of the last 25 years of principled action?

I dont see it. Point it out to me.

My example was a simplication of course - but any "new majority" will have to do the same. The path you desire would work under a parlamentary system like Canada has; or if we had something beside a winner take all election system. We dont have that. Winner takes all in this country, and if you're not the winner, you get squat.

Unless we get a majority libertarian district somewhere in the country, any other tactic besides
putting forth candidates and policy proposals that a majority of non-libertarians will vote for wont elect libertarians in large enough numbers to ever make a real difference.

This means EXPRESSLY that you have to compromise your final goals into bite sized chunks that non-libertarians will vote for. There's no other way to win, winning being defined as getting libertarians elected.

I can certainly understand having this debate in 1975 or 1976, but to still be arguing about what a political party is and how the electoral system works after 30 years is indicative of a much deeper problem.

This party has been controlled by uncompromising absolutists since its inception. Not libertarians, but libertarian fascists who believe in one truth, theirs, and all others are unacceptably compromised. This is the legacy of Murray Rothbard.

The problem is that history teaches us that fascists philosophies can only be implemented where the coercive power of the state is used to that end. Of course libertarian fascists disavow all use of coercion at all times for all reasons. Therefore, this worldview is structurally unfeasible. It is guaranteed to fail. Witness 30 years of the LP.

So others come along and say, "Look, we are loosing our rights, our property, our prosperity and our lives to an oppressive, out-of-control government and we need a mechanism to take it back."

The LP is the logical and obvious organization to serve that function, but this small, rabid group of absolutists call us names and attack us for suggesting we make structural changes that will allow us to move the nation in a direction consistent with the Constitution and the stated objectives of the LP.

I must, therefore, conclude that this small group suffers from psychological malady in order to hold that their highest ideal is consistency and not liberty!

If pointing this out means I am attacked and called an opportunist and a warmed over Republican, then I wear your derision as a badge.

I want my country back, I want my freedom back and I want my Constitution restored. If those are not your ends and you will not pursue those ends in a viable, pragmatic (yea, I said it) way then you are not my ally because you obstruct the interests of liberty even as you herald them.

"Stuart, are you suggesting that a political party can only be 'relevant to the real world' by taking positions that already have a majority?"

Why yes, yes I am suggesting EXACTLY that. You can only be relevant to the real world if you can CHANGE the real world. How do you do that? BY BEING IN POWER. Or, at the very least, by proposing reasonable solutions that the guys in power might go along with. How does this happen? BY HAVING THE MAJORITY BEHIND YOU.

It's Politics 101, really... this is the most basic of all basic concepts in politics. You have to have the support of the majority. In our case, how we obtain that support is by running on the parts of our (hopefully-to-be-amended) platform that have the support of the majority of the electorate. We win, and put in place everything we promised to do by focusing on it while in office. If we get some side stuff done, that's great too... but give the voters what they voted for. Once we successfully do that in local races, we move on to statewide races. After we can grab a couple states, we move on to national politics as a serious force.

But at every single step along the way, we need to foster majorities. If that means postponing some of our plans and feeding it to the voters piecemeal, that's fine. If that means offering compromises that don't perfectly fit libertarian principles but move public policy in a libertarian direction, that's fine too. So long as elected Libertarian officials are moving public policy in a libertarian direction, we are winning. When we fail to do this, say, by running on repealing all taxes, blowing up the UN and legalizing heroin, then we are losing.

I want the LP to be winning. How about you?

Stuart Richards writes:

"We're busy making the LP relevant to the real world so that we all can HAVE more freedom, instead of just sitting on our posteriors and talking about it."

I'm wondering how the latest initiative (the exit plan) is making the LP more relevant to the "real world". Is a paltry average of 65 signatures a day indicative of how relevant this initiative has been?

One wonders what the Bill of Rights would have looked like if it had been written by pragmatists living in their "real world". Free speech as long as it is from an approved free speech zone? Right to bear certain approved weapons, with reasonable controls? No warrants issued unless the officer has a pretty good hunch?

Tyrants must have a special place in their hearts for pragmatists. All the tyrant has to do is move the goal post closer and closer to totalitarianism and the pragmatists will follow, compromising all the way in order to get less freedom than they had before but a little more than they have now - in the "real world".

Tom Blanton asks: "One wonders what the Bill of Rights would have looked like if it had been written by pragmatists living in their 'real world'."

Actually, that's exactly what it was. The Bill of Rights was penned and presented to the first Congress by James Madison, who was repeatedly on record as opposing a Bill of Rights. He did it to save some face and to reach out in conciliation to his opponents on the question of the new Constitution. He did it because he was pressured into doing it by his friends and colleagues, including his close friend and neighbor Thomas Jefferson. He also did it because a number of the states predicated their approval of the Constitution on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

A better question might be, "One wonders what the Bill of Rights might look like if it had been written by its strongest advocates."

Shane, I think it's great the LP may soon have a forum. But it is a pet peeve of mine to see my money wasted.

As an experienced IT Pro, this $300 per month sounds like a completely arbitrary number. We need to leverage the market in our purchases, just as smart consumers and businesses do. Solicit quotations, specifying the service levels you expect, the penalties for breaking those levels, the reporting functions you want, and the response time. Ask for a cost based on bandwidth consumed. You will almost certainly find a libertarian-owned hosting firm in a second or third tier data center willing to do this at cost or less.

I also believe you have been misinformed on the issue of transferring to a new server. So long as the platform is consistent, backup and restore is not a complicated undertaking.