That is impressive that no money has been spent promoting the exit strategy!

As far as membership, I'd like to join, but reading the blog, it doesn't seem very attractive. There is so much infighting, it's crazy. I don't want to be attacked for forming my own opinion.

I don't think you should let the rants of a few bloggers affect your decision to be a part of this party. The principles the LP stands for are enough for me to join. There is no other political party out there that fights for absolute freedom for Americans. Some people are afraid of the responsibility and loneliness freedom entails, though. I say that if you are afraid of freedom, then this party is not for you.
Otherwise, welcome aboard!

How does the LP strategy for exit from Iraq claim to represent me? We should not leave Iraq until we clean up our mess, and have a reasonable expectation that the elected government of Iraq can handle security and other functions. I do not like my Party misrepresenting me. My opinion on this issue was never asked.

I agree with Brian on this, very much. Most online communities will have some heavy vocal activity in some areas that may be rather vitriolic at times. Usually you shouldn't let that be an indicator to you of some massive divisiveness in that group, it's just the views of a few vocal folks who often feel strongly about certain positions or actions. I can't think of too many online communities that don't have that particular problem.

Besides, do you think the Dems or Reps are any better? If anything they seem to be even more public about their in-fighting. ;) Vote for freedom, join the LP!

Lenny & Brian,
I've been thinking about it and agree with you.
I'll probably join tonight (if my connection is working right)

I forgot to join the L.P yesterday. Instead the game known as "World of Warcraft" had its iron grip on my computer. I'll try to remember today.

As for your question, Roland, I agree the government should not leave any messes in Iraq, but I think the exit platform makes a convincing argument that incremental withdrawal would provide enough time for the Iraqi government to stabilize and at the same time reduce insurgency. I wasn't sure on it myself, but the sources from the platform article convinced me that Iraq is fastly growing to be able to handle itself.

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 are still waiting for answers on who came up with the "Iraq Exit Strategy" and how this plan was vetted. Did anyone check it for compatibility with the party's platform? If so, exactly how was this check performed and who performed it? Did anyone actually sign off on the plan being in compliance before it was publicly adopted? If so, who was that person?

When the national party adopts as a major initiative, a policy which is widely perceived to be in violation of the party's platform, this is a matter of the utmost seriousness. If platform violations were allowed to go unchecked in such cases, it would mean that the members of the LP have lost control of the party and it is being run from the top down. There needs to be an immediate investigation conducted with full transparency.

Joe Seehusen? Mike Dixon? Other responsible individual(s) in the national office? Please respond publicly ASAP!

I agree with Starchild on this issue. If the members want to change the platform they are free to do that, otherwise, officers and staff are obliged to follow the platform and they are exceeding their authority if they do not.

People can argue gradualism and pragmatism if they want, but if they want to take a different approach, they need to change the platform not take these unilateral, renegade actions.

I agree w/ Greg, we DO need to change the platform.

Go to reformthelp.org and become part of the solution.

Terry, you are still posting the same thing over and over, what is the utility of making us read the same comments repeatedly?

The dual post was not intended by me.

There had been a problem with my posts getting thru on this blog. Shane was attempting to solve the 'hyper-blocking' problem. In the process he posted a copy of what I was attempting to post in a different thread.

But hey, those words of mine should be very inspiring and of great comfort when repeated :)

I have to ask, if the Exit Strategy is our effective flagship right now, shouldn't we go all out in promoting it to increase visibility? I don't know, it just seems like a worthwhile expenditure.

And Don, support the Reform Caucus! www.ReformTheLP.org

The LNC executive committee has voted that no funds can be spent, including on promised pay raises to employees and other office matters, until Raisers Edge is 100% operational. The HQ budget and spending authority was frozen in place by the LNC Exec. Committee in a telephone vote.

In other words, that are actually forbidden to spend money to advertise the plan.

Don:

Please do not misrepresent my statements. I did not say that we need to change the platform.

If you think the platform should be changed, there is a procedure for that and you are free to try. I like the platform and don't see a need for changing it. What needs to be changed is the office staff that refuses to abide by the platform that the membership has put in place.

I was supporting your assertion that the there IS a process to change the platform and that process is the correct mechanism for our (pragmatists) efforts, not that YOU supported changing it. Sorry for the ambiguity.

I have some serious problems with this plan. Since when is foreign aid a part of our platform or principles?
"Even though the direct-aid program will be a substantial cost to American taxpayers, the United States is now obligated to make sure Iraq becomes a stable, independent and functional country."
Perhaps I am alone in noticing this, (altho I know that I am not) but someone truly needs to explain this serious departure from our stated policy. As Starchild said. Who vetted this? And how does this make us any different than Republicrats?
As a dues paying member and officer in my state I would like to see someone address this.

Greg: Don knows what you intended, and was making light of it. Chin up, lad, you'll make it through.

Michael: It's a matter of reparations. We destroyed not just their political structure, but much capital and industrial capacity. It is entirely within the libertarian philosophy to give reparations to the amount of our own crimes. And although a political structure has no market value, there is absolutely no libertarian ground for abandoning the country into chaos.

You break it, you buy it.

I have been a libertarian for several years now and am glad to see the party come up with a policy issue that people can identify with.[exit stratetgy] I even made copies of it and would like to see it in local newspapers across the country such as an ad or guest editorial. I think this would help to get the libertarian message out to the general public in a very positive way. Why don't we come up with a statement or policy concerning the patriot act and get the word out before congress sneaks this one through? I would hate to see the kind of country my children would have to deal with if this passes[which, at this point, probably will]. In order to be effective as a party we need to "fit" ourselves into the political discussion in order to advance our positions as a party.

Touche Travis Thomas, I have been made. All in good fun.

"We are still waiting for answers on who came up with the "Iraq Exit Strategy" and how this plan was vetted. Did anyone check it for compatibility with the party's platform? If so, exactly how was this check performed and who performed it? Did anyone actually sign off on the plan being in compliance before it was publicly adopted? If so, who was that person?

When the national party adopts as a major initiative, a policy which is widely perceived to be in violation of the party's platform, this is a matter of the utmost seriousness. If platform violations were allowed to go unchecked in such cases, it would mean that the members of the LP have lost control of the party and it is being run from the top down. There needs to be an immediate investigation conducted with full transparency.

Joe Seehusen? Mike Dixon? Other responsible individual(s) in the national office? Please respond publicly ASAP!"

Dude, you wear fairy wings to LP conventions.

Just sayin' is all.

Travis Thomas: where do you see "reparations" referred to in the i.e.s.? The i.e.s. calls for standard, government-to-government foreign aid, I imagine you're familiar with the track record of that winner.Oh, but don't worry! The L.P. will "monitor" it this time! Reparations would'nt work. That would require injured individuals to bear responsibility for presenting their case, accept,(gasp!)monetery compensation and (horror of horrors!!!) actually make decisions for themselves about how to spend their own money!!! Individual decision making? Can't have any of that sort of thing going on! Why how are we going to be sure they'd make the right decisions? That's why we're giving them foreign aid, so since it's the government that will be handling the expenditure of funds we won't have to worry about some silly individual making a "wrong" decision for themselves!Mangement accepts your apologies in advance, but watch your step from now on mister! Kidding aside,take foreign aid out, put reparations in, and I'm back in. Of course you might find some prohibitively immovable egos inthe way, so I won't hold my breath.---The Bikemessenger

The reason why the Republican Blog wants pledges and registration because their self-fish. They want money and try to spam people who register with their propanganda to get people join, so they can make more money. The Republican Party has never been hard-up for money neither has The Democrats. I like the LP blog it's free and very professional. That's why I like the Libertarian Party and a proud Member

Josh, everything you say is true....but the LP needs money 10 X worse than they do. Like it or not, politics runs on money, and until we can get a good foothold and start to elect folks who, like, digs all this political crap :D , we gotta give ourselves.

You guys that hate long blog posts, have you kicked in 20 bucks to get the new forum server? It's easy safe and painless online. Lets get some happening forums going so we can make libertarians like me one step more satisfied and give us one less thing to rail about. We've needed Forums for years but better late than never.

As long as the new politically outward direction does not get stopped by the LNC, I am going to set up a monthly pledge. I like the fact you can tell HQ the money is for the Forums only and it will be held just for that purpose, thats a big item. People give more if they are sure the money will be used the way they want, instead of buyin more paper for the fax machine....not that we dont need paper, but still...

QUOTE: "Both are unacceptable. We'll keep you informed on the issue so be ready to fire off e-mails and letters when the time comes."

I've already been writing to my representatives telling them to repeal the USAPATIOT Act.

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=31

QUOTE: "If you think the platform should be changed, there is a procedure for that and you are free to try. I like the platform and don't see a need for changing it."

I agree with Greg.

The comment by Stuart Richards regarding "fairy wings" seems to be in violation of the recently posted blog policy. Is somebody going to clean that up or does that policy only apply to people who hold opinions contrary to the blogmaster's view?

Greg,

Blog policy violation? How's that? I'm assuming Stuart was simply taken with the beauty of my post, which in turn prompted him to recall my fairy wings. Perhaps he was hoping to find out where to get a pair of wings for himself, but was too shy to ask.

No worries Stuart, they're easily obtainable online -- for instance at the Starr Fayre site (http://www.fairywings.com/). I'm sure California State Chair Aaron Starr would appreciate your patronage.

Peace, love & liberty,

>>

Greg, possibly valid point but I think Starchild put it into perspective.

Starchild, thanks for the link, I'll be grabbing a pair for my daughter.

http://www.fairywings.com/wing2.html

I think the most important thing the Libertarian party needs to do is define itself in terms of its own policies and sell these policies hard. I think most Americans see third parties mainly as dissenters who aren't part of one of the major parties because of disagreements over such and such. Slamming the major parties only perpetuates this image. I didn't like the attacks by this party on Carl Rove, regardless of how justified they may have been, because it portrays this party as contrarian, and that's not what we should be. We don't have enough publicity. The way to fix this is to come up policies on major, visible issues, make sure they are 100% consistent with our ideals, and sell them hard. I don't think you should have more than 2 major issues at a time, and that's another problem with this party at the moment, we have too many issues (drugs, education, health care, Iraq, etc). Major parties can afford to be vocal on many issues because those parties are well established in everyone's mind. In order to create an inset though, we need to concentrate your efforts. I think the Iraq exit strategy was a good idea (even though I don't like all the content) because it's a major issue and we put forth an original, comprehensive strategy on it. I think another good issue for us to campaign on would be social security privitization, because it's something that affects everyone (unlike drugs or education), and it's been getting attention.

PEOPLE DO you really think the planners at the Army war College had overlooked the idea of an exit strategy. Isn't it likely that they developed numerous exit strategies and scenarios? After all that is what they do. Maybe it's just more likely that they don't want these made public right now. And that which strategy, they choose and how long it take to pursue that strategy is a dynamic, field condition-dependence variable. You don't just arbitrarily choose a workable strategy and stick with it no matter what the response of your enemy. The battle field is a constantly changing set of variable, not a snap shot. You adopt a set of tactic, your enemy adjusts and employs a set of counter measures, you in turn adjust your tactic and the cycle repeats. A good strategy takes into account current and anticipate battlefield tactic. I would guess that none of the individuals involved in preparing Libertarian Quote exit Strategy Quote has the slightest battlefield experience.
THE EXIT STRATEGY IS COMICAL AND INSANE.
How did you propose comming up with a one year time for withdraw of troops. Why not eleven months, why not 15 months, you're preparing the schedule in a vacum. Where is the grass showing the relationship between insurgent strength and troop present? I'll wager you had no such information on which to base your proposal. In fact, this exit stragegy appears to be based mostly on wishes and hopes. The proposal states that Quote it is feasable, that given a year for training, the iraq security forces would be able to control the insurgency. Quote
And where did that one year figure come from again? Because the iraqi security forces were not trained at one time, we can assume that many of them will have less then a year experience at the conclusion of the one year expiration date specified in the exit strategy. This sound a little shaky to me.
I want to add that some of the TERRIORIST are LIFE trained.

I must say that I hope the LP never becomes "pragmatic" enough to make Starchild dress in a boring suit and tie.

I think Stuart was going for the comedy. He doesnt really care what he wears. It was a gag.

There's some things about the LP that really need changing, and theres some things need to be left alone.

While there's no room for mean spirited personal attacks, let's not be PC. There's a difference.

I hope that Starchild gets to flap his wings around as long as he wants. May all of us be as comfortable in our lives as he seems to be.

I've been reading all these comments, and I can't help but notice that the big picture is being overlooked. There may be sections of this strategy that don't adhere to party doctrine, but I for one signed it anyway because I feel the presence of ANY exit strategy is very necessary at this time. It's very important for the LP to say something here, because our primary doctrine is international non-interference. We're hovering on the edge of a very prolonged occupation, and the Libertarian party needs to express the desire to get troops out in an orderly fashion before that happens. If we don't show some solidarity on this, people are going to think we don't mind that America is setting up a big police station in the middle of an oil field to secure resources that we should be moving past anyway. We need to face the facts here. The current administration has no intention of withdrawing from the middle-east. Ever. They want to get their hands on these resources before developing eastern economies can, and they want to hold onto them. We need to show our collective disapproval for that sort of foreign policy.

Yeah, just going for the comedy... apologies to any I've offended, and Starchild's quite a classy guy, fairy wings or no. :)

Chance,

It hasnt been overlooked here. The reason the ES is such a big deal is not becuase it's the GREATEST UBER PLAN EVAR, it's becuase for the first time in recent memory, HQ properly planned and executed a purely political strategy. Something we as a party havent done in many years.

Since they are forbidden by the LNC Exec Committee from spending a SINGLE THIN DIME on publicity and advertisments for the ES or for any other reason until Raiser's Edge is fixed and working, i think it's amazing they have gotten the sigs they have.

When the LNC takes the spending freeze off, HQ will be able to properly promote future plans and not have to depend on bloggers with thin wallets. Thank God for them, but they can only spend so much of their personal funds.

The question is, does the LP want to sit back and say, "This war is bad, don't spend another dime, and ship every last soldier home tomorrow," and watch NOTHING happen? I don't think so. I think the people who want to see more liberty in America know that's not going to change a thing. Instead, what National has done is said, here's a proposal, a real proposal and it's our best shot at ending the war and making things on the foreign relations front better. We should support National for playing politics. This is not a chapter of the Objectivist society; this is a POLITICAL party.

Yeah, my comments were geared more towards the people who were worried that some parts of the ES might be in conflict with our platform. I was just trying to demonstrate that the ES is worth signing more for its symbolic value than its practical implications.
Also, someone suggested that we create a similar document concerning the patriot act, or maybe something to run in newspapers, which I think is a great idea. The patriot act stands out in my mind as a great recruiting tool, because there are several groups and other parties that find it as orwellian as we do. If we were to join forces with them on add campaigns, not only could we get our message out more easily (and cheaply), but I'm pretty sure we'd get some good converts too.

Chance,

this may interest you along the same line of thought.

http://libertyforsale.com/?p=170

It's funny how much the ES comes up. You could start a blog on legalizing marijuana, and somehow we'll end up with ES comments.

I don't think the idea is to recruit new members who agree 100% with the LP. We should recruit everybody who is interested for whatever reason. Once a member, then they might and probably will see the benefit of other issues in our platform. You have better job converting interested people into Libertarians, then lokking for the 100% pure Libertarian.

pardon my typos.

There is no reason that an Iraq Exit Strategy cannot be realistic and consistent with our platform.

There is substantial evidence that the Marshall Plan did not help Europe's economic recovery after WWII. The same studies show that those countries that received more aid under the Marshall Plan took longer to recover.

If anybody wants to give foreign aid to Iraq, they should be free to do so. However, if you believe that you cannot find enough private aid for Iraq, then the use of force to collect it is not only unwarranted, but impractical. Why? Because it means that including foreign aid in the LP's Iraq Exit Strategy not only makes it unlibertarian, it makes it unpopular and that makes it less likely to be implemented, and that means that claims of pragmatism are wrong.

Greg, you have a good point, but I must say that the ES is still pragmatic for two reasons.

One, society at large has lost its vision of its role as problem solver. People expect that they cannot make a difference with private contributions because they've been raised to believe that. Once the LP builds up a base of power (through POLITICS), we can incrementally turn that role back over to society. Including funds to rebuild infrastructure is pragmatic AND libertarian because it is a component of a plan that advances liberty by taking our troops out of a police action and reducing our expenditures in the area. Increasing liberty through politics IS/should be the goal of the LP, not demanding change without saying how it can realistically be done.

Two, the plan is pragmatic because the lack of funds to rebuild infrastructure and Iraqi defense forces leaves the new Iraq open to attack from foreign terrorists and radical revolutionists. This would only create more problems for the U.S. In addition, the Iraqi people are suffering because of the damage that has been done to their country's infrastructure, damage the U.S. government caused. Thus, it has an obligation to help rebuild.

Greg,

Some of us never pledged to abide by the non-aggression principle, becuase we didnt take it to mean that. This fact undermines your argument. I cant be un principled if I never agreed to the principle in the first place.

I do not believe the exact same things you believe, and libertarianism to me means a different set of values and ideas than it does to you. Do you hear me loud and clear?

We dont all have to be carbon copy clones of each other to reduce the size of government. My foundation of thought about why I am in this party is different than yours, and thats not a bad thing. As long as I am for a wide range of things that complement your ideas about how to do that, I dont hinder your progress one bit.

But you sure hinder mine. Have you ever been on a stage with TV cameras and radio mikes recording your every move and sound at a public event and been attacked by a Democrat plant at a voters forum with 700+ people in the room, with mateirial taken RIGHT OFF THE DAMNED WEBSITE? I have.

"I read on your party website that your party believes in children being able to have sex at any age with adults. How can you be a member of a party that supports pedophilia? I have 2 young children and the notion that there is a party that supports such a thing sickens me."

I remember the EXACT QUESTION as if it were yesterday. The entire audience groaned. Of course, she got that from the ol "Children's Right's" plank which was mercifully dispatched to hell. But there's other planks that do the same level of damage - and the reason why is becuase many of them ARE NOT CREDIBLE POSITIONS without spelling out how we get from where we are now to where that plank says we should be.

I felt like a FOOL trying to explain to these 700+ people that I didnt approve of children having sex with adults. This is the practical effect your platform has out there in the real ( non-libertarian ) world, Greg. None of the other planks are as bad as the children's rights one politically speaking some some of them are almost as damaging.

I guess if you've never been FORCED into that position while trying to get this party somewhere, its not your problem.

Tim:

Why is that response addressed to me? It does not address any issue that I have raised. I have never said that anybody who supports the plan is unprincipled.

I have, however, repeatedly argued that this plan is not only unlibertarian (in that it violates our platform) but it is impractical and awful in terms of public relations.

Why should anybody join this party when policy statements disagree with the party platform? How does anybody know what the party will say next or what we really stand for?

I also maintain that the vast majority of the American public supports our position on foreign aid, so to back away from that position in this plan will make us less popular with the public.

Further, studies of the Marshall Plan indicate that it was more damaging than helpful. Papers published by the Cato Institute oppose foreign aid because they believe it would damage Iraq more than help it.

Whether you want to be pragmatic or principled, the answer is the same, the LP's Iraq Exit Strategy is wrong.

"There is substantial evidence that the Marshall Plan did not help Europe's economic recovery after WWII. The same studies show that those countries that received more aid under the Marshall Plan took longer to recover."

That's great, but there is one thing that the Marshall Plan did-it boosted European confidence in America, regardless of the economics. Besides, whatever the actual truth of the matter is, half of the country believes otherwise, cannot be reached with Party resources to convince them otherwise, and has to be accommodated if we want their support.

When we're trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people so they stop blowing my generation up, you kinda have to play politics.

"I also maintain that the vast majority of the American public supports our position on foreign aid, so to back away from that position in this plan will make us less popular with the public."

Yes... they support our position on foreign aid SO MUCH that they keep voting us in to the highest offices in the nation. What was that thing that Badnarik said about Republicratic voters... "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity"? And since we're such a resounding success at the voting booth, we should probably change our approach a little bit or else we're pretty much as insane as the Republicrats are.

Tim West: I regret your embarrassment at the "child sex" plank. But there are some really wacko things in the GOP and Demo platforms, too, as the platforms are created by the "koolaid drinkers" of ANY party. For you and other candidates who find themselves embarrassed in public by specific platform points, it is worthwhile to remind the voters of that, and also that 1) state party platform often differs from national platform; 2) candidates of ANY party, including the libertarians, are not duty-bound to agree with or support ALL tenets of their party's platform. Depending on the office you ran for, the tenets of the national platform may have been more or less irrelevant. Why, for instance, would the LP's stance on space exploration matter in an election for County Supervisor, or even state legislature? Obviously, it is tough to be able to defend "the indefensible" when you are on the spot in front of people (and I do know something about that!). But perhaps candidates should study the state and national platforms for PR vulnerabilities and have answers ready before they are ambushed. If that isn't part of basic candidate training these days, it really needs to be, so what happened to you won't happen again...

To all: I downloaded the Alan Colmes show recording, and although I haven't finished with all of Dixon's segment yet, I have heard all of the intro and several interchanges with callers (including Terry Parker). Doing my best to listen as an uninitiated member of the audience, I get the impression that the LP is meeting the establishment halfway, not that it has changed its stripes or been co-opted by the pod people.

I'll write more after I have finished the whole thing.

I JUST WENT TO THE County Fair today, and what do I see? Democin and Republicrat with BOOTHS set up, was there a Libertarian Booth NOOOOOOOOO, in the meantime, they are getting more registered voters and making personal contact to numerious new people.
Again I will stress, we have very good ideas regarding Domestic issues. Regarding issues such as terrorism and Iraq, the Libertarian party lack consensus and the party platform lacks a degree of sophistication and pragmatism necessary to appeal to a broad base of voters. We need to come together and be strong on issues we do agree on. If logic is not worked into reality we end up no where, and in the intrium looking like idiots. We need to be doing things like setting up both, posting sign on our cars to become more visable and stop going for the top as if we are running this country we are not. To get to the point where the Libertarian party has even a significiant influence on the National Political scene is going to take a lot of hard work and a lot of time. The hard work of planting the philosophical seed have to be done first. This means exposing people to ideas about freedom and responsibility that controdicts much of what they have been taught and exposed to all of their lives.

Greg,

I addressed it you in a attempt to show you that party platform's need changed when they dont serve the best interests of the party. It all comes back to if one believes that principles come from people or institutions.

I think principles come from people. By forcing me to adopt principles I dont believe in and have no intention of supporting, such as government defaulting on debt even if it causes widespread kaos, you make a mockery of the entire reason why the non-aggression principle even exists. You hold it to be a principle of extreme importance to be applied across the board, but I believe it was meant to shield the LP from possible inclusion into the likes of revolutionary organizations, just like David Nolan said it was.

Calling my viewpoint "un-libertarian" is a crock.
It's like calling someone who doesnt believe in the Iraq War "un-american". I freely admit I am not as strident in my libertarianism as you are, but that does not make my views "un-libertarian".

James: wouldnt it be simply better to eliminate the politically embrassing items like we did with the "childrens plank"? I'm not suggesting we scrub the platform with Lysol, but there is some stuff in there that is just about impossible to defend after 9/11, and some other stuff that does not speak to the proper role of a political party.

Waiting every 2 years before we can act on this stuff is bogus. We have advanced technology, we should use it to our advantage. There's GOT to be a way we can do this process faster. We do things the same basic way political parties did things in 1900.

Give something to National for the Forum Server, Gang.

Stuart:

I wish it were true that people would vote for us if they agree with our position. Unfortunately, there are many factors that affect the reason people vote the way they do -- no just whether or not they agree with us on the issue of foreign aid.

I refer you to:
http://www.pollingreport.com/defense.htm#Foreign%20Aid

which states that 56% of the people polled think we spend too much on foreign aid. Only 8% think we spend too little.

I reiterate, whether you want to be pragmatic or principled, advocating foreign aid is a loser position.

That's still a very generic question. There's a difference between indirectly buying African dictators some palaces and repairing the damage we caused. I'll bet you that most Americans advocate rebuilding Iraq.

Tim:

Please do not take my statements out of context. I did not say that you were un-libertarian. I said, that the plan is unlibertarian -- and then I defined what I meant, i.e. it disagrees with our platform.

Yes, I have had to explain drug legalization to a conservative newspaper reporter in a conservative district, and my candidate still won.

I am not forcing you to adopt principles that you don't believe in, but I expect the officers and paid staff of this party to adher to the party platform as the members have voted for it. And they have no business advocating a plan that is contrary to the platform.

If you want to run for office as a Libertarian and say something else, we can't (and won't) stop you. You are not obliged to agree with every detail of the platform. But, in official business, the officers and staff and obligated to adher to the platform.

The plan's proponents have made excuses for it, claiming that it is pragmatic, but we have also debunked that theory--foreign aid doesn't work and the American public is opposed to it.

This plan fails at all levels. Foreign aid is contrary to the platform, it is contrary to the will of the American people, and it is not good for Iraq.

If you want to change the platform, there is a process for doing that and you can try to convince two-thirds of the delegates at the next convention, but if you fail, understand that officers and staff are obliged to adher to the platform -- not their personal whims.

QUOTE:

“While there's no room for mean spirited personal attacks, let's not be PC. There's a difference.

“I hope that Starchild gets to flap his wings around as long as he wants. May all of us be as comfortable in our lives as he seems to be.”

Well said. :)

To Greg D.: Well here we are again on foreign aid; it doesn't work, it's contrary to any rational interpretation of libertarian principles;it's in clear direct conflict with the party platform. But of course, it's what the Pragmatists want to do, so there's no questioning it, as it would interfere with them "doing politics"; at least that's the only speculation I can offer to to the usual response they're giving you on these questions, stone silence.I'm beginning to get the eerie feeling that the i.e.s.(idiotic entanglement system?) has developed a fanatic cult following that doesn't allow these issues to even register in their minds when confronted with them. I've tryed to ask clear concise questions as you just did, I've even tryed lampooning the foreign aid clause of the i.e.s.(see July,15,11:21pm)of course, no response. It's like waiting for Bush to confront the DSM. It has to come, they can't just go on pretending it's not there indefinitely.---The Bikemessenger

Dr. Ron Paul recently wrote an article about Africa, and how government-to-government aid fails. An interesting read.

---------

I still don't know how I feel about the Exit Strategy. I'm conflicted. Part of my thinks, "It's not good enough", and the other part thinks, "If I had a button that I could press that would limit it the troops to only 30,000, I'd press it."

GregD: I disagree with your, and others', statements about how the Iraq Exit Strategy plan is "unlibertarian" and works against the platform. To claim the plan is supportive of the war because it calls for the withdrawl of troops comes across as doublespeak!

Robert N: People like Stephen Bach have written excellent posts here already in support of the plan. To claim we're speechless after reading the statements in your messages may be the result of you not thoroughly reading this thread. Regarding foreign aid, have you not seen the responses like, "We broke it, so we should fix it" or someone earlier posting poll numbers indicating support for helping in the reconstruction effort?

Speaking of "stone silence", the platform "apologists" (to use someone else's term) never seem to respond to questions about whether or not they also support defaulting on our national debt. I bring up this issue for a couple of reasons: First, I feel there are similarities between this issue and the IES plan in some critics' rationale. They claim no obligation to financially help Iraq because they PERSONALLY never supported the war, nor did they help start the war.

But several Americans DID support the war by helping elect (and re-elect) politicians who made the decision, just as many supported politicians who have created trillions of dollars in national debt. An immediate withdrawl of Iraq, with no financial aid given, would (in my opinion) put the country in greater danger and create more anger towards us.

The end results of defaulting on the national debt would be similar to the Iraq situation, only on a much greater scale. People and governments in several countries invest in us, and such a decision would hurt economies worldwide, leading to less stability and more anti-American sentiment everywhere (rightly so).

So, to use some doublespeak of my own here, are some of you here supporting positions that, while in agreement with the party platform, would make other countries LESS stable and our own country LESS safe? This brings me to my second point for bringing up the debt issue: It would be rather hypocritical for some critics of the IES plan to label its supporters as unwilling to compare the strategy to the platform, as Robert suggests, while the same critics won't even consider the LP platform as anything less than perfect, wouldn't it?

JNICE:

Please do not mistate my position. I NEVER claimed that the plan is supportive of the war. I claim that the plan contradicts the platform and that officers and staff have no right to contradict the platform when acting on behalf of the party.

I have not seen a poll numbers indicating support for helping in the reconstruction effort.
Could you supply that information again please?

However, I also support the reconstruction effort. Just yesterday I was driving my SUV and burning lots of gas. Free trade is the best way to support reconstruction.

Once again, I refer you to the paper from the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-19-03.html
Which shows (supported by studies -- unlike the meanderings of LPHQ's exit strategy) that free trade is a better solution to Iraq's reconstruction than throwing money at them.

Though I am not quite a libertarian, I do like reading these blogs with their cogent analyses.

But one of my problems with libertarianism is the absolute policy of non-foreign interventionism. In such an interconnected world, defence policy must be considered in a broader sense than is often described here. I am against the Iraq war, not because I am against the policy of pre-emptive war, but because it is bad defensive policy. It is a dream, in my opinion, that mixes neo-conservative idealism with a repugnant, vaguely imperialistic desire to secure our oil resources. These are not good defensive policies. But now we are there, we must do something to rectify the problem, or else we could be doing nothing more than storing up more trouble down the line.

I believe that sometimes, the best form of defense is attack. Sometimes, you have to quell troubles in one part of the world, because they can bring trouble to our shores. Foreign aid or pre-emptive war may just be the right way to go to defend our country. We must have these powers available to us.

Your thoughts?

GregD: I don't know if "contradict" is the appropriate word to be used. The plan doesn't call for the IMMEDIATE withdrawl of troops as the platform demands, but it does support a withdrawl of troops. A contradiction of the platform, in my opinion, would be if the plan called for ADDITIONAL troops to be sent into Iraq.

The platform calls for the end to foreign aid. The IES plan is a bit sketchier with this subject, in my opinion, and probably out of necessity: 1) Do we have people in Iraq currently assessing damage and estimating the cost to rebuild the nation, and 2) Do the libertarians have platform policy concerning foreign aid for countries we attack that posed no threat to us in the first place?

To answer the second question, of course not, because libertarians in power would (hopefully) never make such a decision! I don't think "no foreign aid to nations, end of discussion" quite cuts it concerning Iraq. It is for this reason AND that the IES plan calling for limited aid that would bring me to disagree that "less aid" is a contradiction to the "no foreign aid" platform policy. The plan is also supportive of moving policy in the direction of the platform.

Greg, what good will a free market be if there is no SECURITY to protect it? Do you think oil will be the Iraqis' first concern when some of them don't have CLEAN WATER or access to adequate medical care (both of which they had before we intervened in the '90s)?

We've discussed the Cato policy before, and found that policy differs from the LP's IES plan on more issues than foreign aid.

GregD: I'll also try to find those poll numbers again later today, but I'm pretty sure one of those was asking specifically about foreign aid. It's in one of the recent blog topics. Maybe someone else can post these or a link.

Brandon: That's a tough question. It's been my observation that, when we prematurely intervene somewhere, the conflict ends up worse. There's probably more to this issue, though.

For those of you interested in resolving some of the differences between pragmatists and purists, ideologues and political players, or however one wishes to define the debate - I've tried to consolidate the arguements and continued the topic on Liberty for Sale at http://libertyforsale.com/?p=200.

jnice:

Perhaps in this case, we just need to agree to disagree. However, I resent the implication many have made that opponents of this plan are mere purists who have no concept real world politics.

I think the research shows that not only do opponents of this plan have solid ground to oppose it on principle but also have solid ground to oppose it on pragmatism.

I believe that the national staff has done this party a great disservice with this plan. I believe a plan could have been developed that was better written, better footnoted, and more consistent with the LP Platform and the will of the American public. If staff had done that, perhaps rather than arguing over the plan here, we would have all been out promoting it to the general public.

The reaction to this plan by both Libertarians and non-Libertarians, is embarassing. In February/March 1999, the LP launched a web site to oppose the "Know Your Customer" banking rule and generated 171,000 supporters in a 19 day period ( http://www.lp.org/lpn/9905-dyp.html ). The Iraq Exit Strategy has not even generated 1% of that amount of support in the same number of days (June 29 through July 17).

Although I consider the "Know Your Customer" action a great success, I do not believe the Iraq Exit Strategy would need to reach that level (171,000 supporters) to be considered successful, but at less than 1% of that number, it is an embarassment.

READ VERY CAREFULLY
ACTUALLY, HITLER AND MUSLIMS GOT ALONG

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem praised the Nazis for their attempted extermination of the Jews. The Grand Mufti was, in fact, a distant relative of Yasser Arafat.

Tim West says, "James: wouldnt it be simply better to eliminate the politically embrassing items like we did with the 'childrens plank'? I'm not suggesting we scrub the platform with Lysol, but there is some stuff in there that is just about impossible to defend after 9/11, and some other stuff that does not speak to the proper role of a political party."

I think that "indefensible" is a matter of opinion, which varies from constituency to constituency and region to region. There aren't that many things that I have seen in the platform over the years, which merit outright and permanent excision, as the "kiddie sex" plank did.

I personally think it is better for candidates to be up on the platforms, to identify where "upstream" platforms may be used to embarrass them, and to develop strategies and tactics to handle that. Being able to deflect such barbs in public shows that a candidate is on his game. The fact is that MOST planks can be spun by the opposition in such a way as to embarrass candidates who aren't familiar with them. I've heard it happen in campaign after campaign. The key to success seems not so much in having inoffensive platforms, as in having candidates who know what is in the platforms and WHY, whether or not they personally agree with all the planks. Know where you agree, know where you disagree, and be able to justify your use of the "libertarian" label convincingly even though you may (publicly!) disagree with some party planks. That seems like the better road, to me.

Every two years in convention is soon enough to revise the platforms, imho.

GregD says:

"I think the research shows that not only do opponents of this plan have solid ground to oppose it on principle but also have solid ground to oppose it on pragmatism."

AMEN!

It would seem that the proponents of the plan have bought into the spin of the Bush administration hook, line and sinker regarding the war on Iraq and more generally, the war on terror.

Many experts - liberal, conservative and libertarian - and many experts within the military and intelligence services have refuted the reasons we went to war as well as the strategies used.

For those who are not in denial that it has been over 50 years of hamfisted interventions in the Mideast that has brought us to the current situation, it would hardly seem likely that increasing the scale and intensity of intervention will help the situation.

The exit plan does actually proposes more intervention by calling for more troops to be relocated in the Mideast and Afghanistan. The plan also argues that pulling troops from Iraq will free up troops to fight the war on terror.

Libertarians have been writing about the dangers of interventionist foreign policy for many years and well before 9/11. If anything, the LP should smugly say "WE TOLD YOU SO" instead of calling for more intervention.

There should be a national debate on foreign policy. The Republicans and Democrats refuse to have this debate. Often, anyone bringing up US foreign policy is shouted down and accused of blaming America first.

Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war that advocates attacking any nation that might possibly be a threat to America at some undetermined time in the future borders on madness. In fact, this is a decription of preventive war rather than pre-emptive war.

The libertarian principles regarding interventionism have proven to be correct.

Now many may consider Republican Congressman Ron Paul to be a radical lunatic libertarian purist, but I have always found him to be quite reasonable. He made a speech on the House floor in February 2001 called "Potential for War" where he clearly articulates why interventionist policies are not in America's interest. He even adresses terrorism. This is an excellent example of why libertarian principles are pragmatic in the area of policy, if not in the area of political opportunism.

I would suggest everyone read his speech:

www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr020801.htm

More recently, Dr. Paul has articulated how we are creating terrorists using our current strategy.

SEE: www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr071405.htm

Some experts are calling the type of war against insurgents, terrorists and/or guerrillas "Fourth Generation Warfare". William Lind, Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, has written extensively about this. He and others argue that America will not win the so-called war on terror using bombing raids, aircraft carriers, tanks and space weapons.

Here is an archive of his articles:

http://antiwar.com/lind/

I can't speak for all libertarians, but I place much more credence in the words of serious men like William Lind and Ron Paul than I do the rantings of entertainers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Neal Boortz, or the political spin of the political hacks appearing on Sunday morning TV shows.

Stuart Richards says:

"When we're trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people so they stop blowing my generation up, you kinda have to play politics."

The Iraqi people were not blowing anyone up until America invaded their country. The sooner we end the occupation, the sooner they will stop blowing up Americans.

QUOTE: "But one of my problems with libertarianism is the absolute policy of non-foreign interventionism."

Libertarianism isn't completely against taking action in foeign lands. It's just against initiating it. I have no problem with America entering WWII, and I have no problem with America fighting al Qaeda. But these are the ONLY foreign ventures in our entire history that I support American action. The reason I find these as justifiable is because we were attacked in both cases.

We were never attacked by Iraq, or Vietnam, or Iran, or Grenada, or Serbia, or the Philippines, etc. etc.

QUOTE: "It's been my observation that, when we prematurely intervene somewhere, the conflict ends up worse."

Likewise.

Hey gang, how about....

OnLine/OnSite Liberty MeetUp

Date: Sunday, July 17, 2005
Time: 6:30PM - 7:30PM CDT (GMT-05:00)

OnLine:

LP Weekly Update - 07/15/05
Blog at www.LP.org

Audio&Text (Free Yahoo ID needed)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/chat

OnSite: Austin TX
Hickory St Grill
8th & Congress
WiFi Enabled
MyPicInSignature

we're running way behind on the membership drive, folks...

It's time to get active and really get out the word!

For what it is worth, I will personally verify that GregD not only has a realisitc vision of real world politics, he has a winning track record behind him, too.

"The Iraqi people were not blowing anyone up until America invaded their country. The sooner we end the occupation, the sooner they will stop blowing up Americans."

I AGREE with you... but seriously proposing the "Get them out yesterday!" plan just isn't working for us. Would you rather the troops out in a year, or five? I've got half a dozen friends over there that want to come home... and I'd rather not see them dead because you purists couldn't compromise a little to save them.

Mr. Gordon:

I neither need nor want your personal verification. I have asked you in the past not to email me and now I must ask that you not enage in any personal exchange with me through this blog as well. If you wish to debate issues in an objective manner then feel free, but now that you have launched into discussion of personal issues, I must make it clear that I believe you have an agenda contrary to the success of the Libertarian Party. Please do not associate your name with mine in any way.

To Tom Blanton: You say some might consider Dr. Paul a radical lunatic libertarian purist,while you find quite him quite reasonable. That's just illustrative of how skewed society is from the range of possiblities that reality and human nature allow for. You're both seeing the same thing; but against different backgrounds. Most people are in the habit of judging by the commonplace, rather than the norm.

"Mr. Gordon:

I neither need nor want your personal verification. I have asked you in the past not to email me and now I must ask that you not enage in any personal exchange with me through this blog as well. If you wish to debate issues in an objective manner then feel free, but now that you have launched into discussion of personal issues, I must make it clear that I believe you have an agenda contrary to the success of the Libertarian Party. Please do not associate your name with mine in any way."

HAHAHA next thing you know he'll be busting out the lawyers-just like Carol Moore.

Settle down; Stephen was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the political success of your approach to politics. He wasn't making personal statements about you. And before you rebut me with some online restraining orders or somesuch, let me just say that I don't care. Thank you and good night.

IT'S VERY SAD, WITH A LOT OF CONVERSATION GOING on here and some valid points made in certain posts. While we are debating about what is going on in Iraq. We are losing more and more of our freedom here as we speak (Eminent Domain). And our Veterans are comming home to what. Fighting for our freedom that we have or should I say not much left. And are we going to do anything about it here in the USA or do we just sit back until people are so mad that we have a mess in our own country as well.

To jnice:(In re.:JULY,17,7:28AM)Frankly, I think this blog is a bit too voluminous to expect anyone to read everything. I do try to read several preceeding and succeeding comments to mine.I did go back and read some of Mr.Bach's commentary,as you recommended.And by the way, I do appreciate your response. However neither of you address the basic issue I bring up, rather, you CONFLATE foreign aid with reparations. the two have nothing in common, accept, in this case, the countries between which funds are transfered.The track record of foreign aid speaks for itself,it is after all a pragmatic solution.(a rational, non-pragmatic projection of the results of foreign aid could have, based on it's FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES---{THERE WE GO AGAIN, MR. WOOLSEY!!} predicted as much BEFORE it's implimentation) The intrinsic nature of the process makes the results inevitable; it is immoral and paternalistic;it encourages dependency,it encourages, fosters and facilites corruption;it is harmful to it's avowed beneficiaries.And,most pertinently, it is not merely "un"-libertarian,it is monstrously ANTI-libertarian and in direct, flagrant contradiction to the party platform. As to the specifics of the i.e.s.(idiotic entanglement system), even at first reading the off-hand, matter-of-fact statist style of the wording of the section on foreign aid should give any holder of libertarian ideals a chill. The perspective it manifests is so severely and extremely at odds with libertarian views as to be deeply disturbing, considering the source.Even for those on the outside who approve of the plan,i.e.,even if you favor the plan,and it is not inconsistent with your beliefs, it should at least be puzzling,given it's source. To defend that aspect of the i.e.s. on the basis that we owe the Iraqi people is a weak arguement. Weak that is, in the light of a highly viable alternative, that being reparations,(PLEASE see my comments on reparations at:JULY 15,11:21PM)By the way, I've used the term "apologist" several times, but I haven't noticed anyone else pick up on it. On the matter of debt repudiation, I'm not very informed on the issue, so I can't comment on it's relevance to the i.e.s. matter, but without having seen counter-arguements, your position sounds reasonable to me.Getting back to the matter of foreign aid and the i.e.s., aside from the objections to the plan per se, there are also the matters of how the plan was sprung suddenly, without advance warning(usually, something of this magnitude is given some advance notice to the membership, as I recall),and the unmovable inflexiblity that seems to prevail with regards to it's tenets and wording.It's as though the leadership of the party is using this as a test case to see with what degree of impunity they can act arbitrarily.In closing,(applaud now), I would suggest future discussions of such matters as reparations, debt repudiation,etc. should, for the sake of clarity, dwell on distinctions amongst,blame, culpability and responsiblity.---Thank You, The Bikemessenger

I see people on this blog is really does not have high moral for the Libertarian party like I have seen in other people at this blog. One guy was concerened about the blog creating a reputation of the LP that would not want him to join or question himself about joining. I totally understand If I was in his situation I would asking myself does this blog represent the LP in general the answer is the total opposite because the LP in general has a lot of great ideas and very determined people like Micheal Badnarik who keeps going forward with more plans to run for elected office after recovering from a second heart attack. The Blog is like the opinion column of a newspaper it does not represent the LP in general like the opinion column does not represent that newspaper in general. The Blog is a great thing to have for opinions, but the blog should not be taken as true representation of the LP. The Issues and Platform section and priniciples is where the true representation of the LP is. I think having high moral from people in our party will bring more members.

I will continue to tell others about libertarianism but refuse to ever advise anyone to join the LP until the "Exit Strategy" which is completely UN-libertarian, is removed!

I refuse to direct anyone to the "Libertarian" website when something that violates the LP's principles is on the front page!

Can anyone understand that?

Or am I alone in the desire for the LP to remain principled and something more consistant than the Republicrat and Demopublican Parties?

In my opinion, the LP is turning into the Libupublicrat Party.

Wow, William.

You've just proven -- you're willing to sabotage the LP's road to becoming a true political party just because you don't get your way.

Some 'No Name' said:

Wow, William.

You've just proven -- you're willing to sabotage the LP's road to becoming a true political party just because you don't get your way.

Posted by: at July 18, 2005 10:44 AM

TerryResponds:

Actually, promoting use of party assets (includes its name) in ways that violate the 'terms of use' set by the REAL party, it's membership, as expressed by due process at conventions and recorded in the LP Statement of Principles and its platform, is what constitutes a 'sabotage of the party' by people who just want their way.

Is this too complicated for you to understand?

To William Hand: You have just explained the basic reason for my frequent and extensive commentaries on these blogs. I'm not a party activist, nor do I care to pay a lot of attention to it's inner workings.The party really fulfills my needs just by existing (it seems to tend to be forgotten that under the circumstances, this alone is heroic) I am devoted to promoting libertartianism in my own, informal way. I sure there are many like me, and our activities can never show up in any organization's statistics. But it's at the end of a discussion, when the inevitable question comes up: "But what should I do?", that I am now at loss, when before I could with confidence say vote for the Libertarian Party.I would take acception to your reference to the i.e.s.(idiotic entanglement system) as "UN-libertarian";As I have pointed out in my last entry, and numerous other times, this plan is not merely unlibertarian,it is monstrously ANTI-libertarian!---The Bikemessenger

To the idealists:

We have done things your way for thirty years and our country is far LESS free. I'm not attacking you, I am stating a widely agreed on fact.

What is the strategy? How is your vision of the function and purpose of the LP going to lead to greater freedom?

If you can't answer that, I don't know how you can expect anyone to accept your VERSION of libertarianism as being a viable alternative to the abuses of the R's an D's.

I am not being rhetorical and I'm not trying to attack your views which you obviously hold very dear. But I read poster after poster who says that this party just need more of the same.

Principles before politics, more t-shirts, more volunteer hours, more time educating... Maybe your right, but sell me.

Show me how YOUR way will lead to political relevence OR give the leadership and the pragmatists some running room.

"The plan has generated its own media and is gaining vast interest on the Internet."

The plan is generating a lot of interest on the Internet because a lot of Libertarians disagree with it. This should not be viewed as good news.

What's next? An LP plan to cut the income tax by 20%, and make up half the difference with a word tax on blogs? That would generate a lot of interest on the Internet, and downsize government theft of taxpayer's money by 10%.

The LP should be calling for the immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. If this takes 3-6 months to be done safely, so be it. But those forces shouldn't then be redeployed to other foreign bases the LP platform rightly calls for closing, and a new foreign aid program to Iraq shouldn't be part of any plan proposed by libertarians.

Lex

Show me how YOUR way will lead to political relevence OR give the leadership and the pragmatists some running room.

Posted by: Free2Smooze at July 18, 2005 03:10 PM

TerryResponds:

The events of 911 have moved America
from a relatively blissful ignorance
to a stunning awareness of that which
intimidates us into questionable compromise.

But, we must courageously transcend that!

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.

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

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

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?

MoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30687

That's great rhetoric Terry,but you completely avoided the substance of the questions.

I understand your philosophy, it is your means that are murky. Don't just cut and paste the same messages into your posts, answer me.

How will your views lead to an effective, policy-influencing political party? Ideologically we are brothers, but you don't seem to have any ideas for making us effective, only rhetoric, which again, from a purely ideological perspective, I agree with 100%, but IT IS NOT WORKING!!! HOW DO WE FIX THAT???

Don't tell me about all the good we've done and all the people we've elected, there are interstate rest areas with more name recognition then us.

How does the Terry "Liberty" Parker play book address this?

FOR FREEDOM writes: 'PEOPLE DO you really think the planners at the Army war College had overlooked the idea of an exit strategy. . . . And that which strategy, they choose and how long it take to pursue that strategy is a dynamic, field condition-dependence variable. You don't just arbitrarily choose a workable strategy and stick with it no matter what the response of your enemy. . . . THE EXIT STRATEGY IS COMICAL AND INSANE. . . . In fact, this exit stragegy appears to be based mostly on wishes and hopes. . . .'

Thanks for expressing this so well, FF.

Dividing by twelve is second grade arithmetic. But the resulting monthly withdrawal figure is the only 'detail' (pertaining to the withdrawal itself) in this 'detailed' plan.

This plan isn't serious. It's political posturing. Do the 'realists' think any thoughtful person is going to buy that this is a 'practical, realistic, common-sense, detailed plan' just because they keep saying it?

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.

RespondingTo:
Posted by: Free2Smooze at July 18, 2005 06:32 PM

We don't agree on the assessment of what's already achieved!

Imo, you're engaging in dereatism; and worse. Despite you repeatedly parsing text that reminds about the election game being rigged, you STILL advocate a 'soul selling' tactic in some vain hope that the authoritarians will 'let us win' (more than we already have)

Have you forgotten that authoritarians run the dishonest machinery and that libertarianism has alread partially prevailed, and will continue to prevail, in more than mere mostly rigged electorial politics, by bravly maintaining its integrity.

Do you have a problem with asking virtually ANY human being if there is any thing that they believe to be so important that it justifies launching unprovoked physical assault of another? Assume that LIBERTARIANS are right and that it's up to a would be unprovoked assailant to 'sell' THEIR view. But, MOST people already agree with our founding principle, MOST of the time.

So, ask THEM how to make that principle work in the area of their expertise; since 'we' are NOT trying to be 'know it alls' :)

Please excuse my visual impairment :(

When I typed dereatism

I meant to type defeatism

the 'r' got by me as a 't'

I grew up in Central Texas, Terry. Just up 35 from you in Brownwood. I was turned off by Christianity as a teen because the Christians I knew said that there was only one truth and any deviation from their truth was the same as living in sin, or worse.

I hear that same rigidity in your words. Either tow the most rigid objectivist line or sell your soul. Nothing in between. I understand where that philosophy comes from, but I think it is important to balance philosophy with political realities as a matter of necessity. Otherwise you are just spinning your wheels.

As for the accomplishments of the LP, I think that speaks for itself. If you want to believe otherwise, far be it for me to dissuade you.

We must remember that the Libertarian Party [or any other party] DO NOT Win elections because of either lack of publicity, lack of unity or a "fear factor".

Other factors that should be taken into account are the mechanisms used by the Republican and Democratic Party [such as more signatures, more money] to keep alternative parties out. Remember in 2004, when the State of Ohio Election Board "nullified" petition signatures on a "technicality" by the Ohio Libertarian Party. Remember also when Alternative Parties are gaining in points, their members are routinely threatened by Republicans and Democrats with Economic Reprisals [Job Loss], Acts of Repudiation [by The Members of the Two Parties].

There are solutions. They are in OUR HANDS.
I think that the Libertarian Party should publiciize its Iraq Exit Strategy via the website. We should also use the Website [or any other site that is open to us] to publicize our goals of free trade, liberty, less government [IN ALL SPHERES], Personal Responsability, and no intereference in other country's businesses. We should not have Fear [we must have Pride]. We should start expressing ourselves as an Alternative Party to the failed 150 years of Republicans and Democrats. There should also be a coalition with other Independent Parties. We should also ask the Republicans and Democrats publicly what happens to our Tax Dollars.

Then and only then will the path to victory be open to us.

Roberto Alvarez
Ex Ohio Resident [Ohio Born]
Miami Florida Resident

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.

Posted by: Don at July 18, 2005 06:38 PM

TerryResponds:

Yeah, I heard something like that from someone else in the last day or so:

'If you don't play the game in the way that is established [ by enemy authoritarians -TLP ] then you're not really a 'stake holder'

Of course, that individual had to blind himself to all and any contributions made which advanced libertarianism, if said contributions did not conform to the frame of reference imposed by the bad guys; even when some of the contributions obviously helped the LP.

LIBERTARIANS are the creators and inovators AND libertarianism is winning in ways that scares established authoritarians into desperation tactics!

We need not sell our 'birthright' to the losing side for a few sips of their brew.

On the subject of party platforms: I am a middle-aged male, straight, BA Christian, but who recognizes that it is a free country. I am a veteran who loves his country, but despises the jingoism of the Republicans, the knee-jerk obstructionism of the Democrats, and the fiscal hypocrisy of both. I am against gun control. I agree with some provisions of the "Patriot Act," but I believe that if the Administration has to use such propaganda in the title, something must be fishy. I am against abortion and homosexuality on moral grounds, but recognize that outlawing either will not prevent them, and there is room for dialogue and compromise on both (see "it is a free country" statement above). I believe America needs futurists and visionaries in power, not priviliged sons/spouses of former leaders or "flavor of the month" politicians.

Did I come to the right place?

Yes, you did Chuck, welcome aboard.

Responding to:
Posted by: Chuck at July 18, 2005 08:11 PM

TerrySez:

Chuck, the ONLY 'valid' answer is yours :)

Here's one way to state the premise:

every person has a right to do anything that they decide of their own free will EXCEPT initiate, or do a credible threat to initiate, physical force against the justly held possessions of another.

see what else I wrote as
'Your Freedom and the Rights of Others'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990

We are less free than we were 30 years ago.

We are less free than we were 20 years ago.

We are even less free than we were 10 years ago.

For goodness sakes, we are even less free than we were two years ago?

Whats the problem?

It's not the LP's principles, that's for sure!

The REAL problem is the LP's lack of creativity and drive to do NEW things to boost the party's membership, internet presence, etc.

For example, this website is very poorly designed when it comes to the needs of an upcoming political party.

We should have ALL KINDS of informative content that would facinate those who visit this site for the first time or are just becoming aquanted with libertarianism.

We need to also have fundraising dirves, membership drives, TV and radio advertisment drives, etc.

Can you imagine this website with a cool and unique flash ad on the front page every single week?

Can you imagine the ACTIVISM that could take place on this website if this blog was fully function, if we had bulletin boards, if we had a chatroom, etc.

We need to have "buddy" lists so we can work with other Libertarians in our area. Also, we need to have "Meet-up" groups for those that don't have a local LP in their town. Additionally, why don't we have EBay Libertarian garage sales where the proceeds go to the LP? For that sake, have REAL garage sales (in which you can brag on the LP concept of not having to pay a sales tax) and give the proceeds to the LP.

Pictures of these actions could be posted on an ACTIVISM section of this site...

For goodness sakes, this site needs to be the NEXUS of all Libertarian activity and activism!

If the LP needs help with something they need to submit requests! If it is for writers, designers, webmasters, etc.

Before people complain that the LP has gotten no where because of it's principles (which is totally FALSE) the LP needs to look at the MANY things that it could be doing which it has REFUSED to do!

So many people are willing to give up our principles and values just to gain a few votes. They don't care if our party becomes a dilluted mess of compromise if we get a few more members.

Well, we can grow, get more members, run more candidates, and KEEP our principles if the LP would start DOING the things it should to START GROWING!

William Hand writes:

"I will continue to tell others about libertarianism but refuse to ever advise anyone to join the LP until the "Exit Strategy" which is completely UN-libertarian, is removed!"

William, I understand the sentiment, but I urge you not to give up the battle for the heart and soul of the Libertarian Party! That battle is not lost. Rather than withhold all support for the LP, please consider engaging the party strategically:

•Don't send any money to national beyond the basic dues level; donate to principled Libertarians at the state or local level instead

•If you do send national any extra money, make sure to include a note authorizing them to use it only for the purpose which you have specified

•Only support Libertarian candidates who stand by the party's principles; there are many who do

•Focus your energy and resources on making your local party organization stronger, and build a base from which to declare your non-support of the trends at national

•Recognize that the LP is only a piece, albeit an important one, in the global grassroots MOVEMENT for liberty, and put loyalty to that movement above loyalty to a mere national party ("I'm an activist in the Libertarian Movement")

•Continue to recruit and radicalize new Libertarians by educating them about libertarianism

•Urge like-minded party members to attend LP conventions and speak out in party forums to keep the Libertarian Party libertarian

•Spread the word about the need for this approach

Power to the people!

Starchild

Libertarianism is something more than a set of political beliefs. It is a philosophy that sets clearly defined boundries between RIGHT and WRONG.

For example, it is WRONG to violate the rights of another. Also, it is WRONG to take money from one person and give it to another. Additionally, it is WRONG for the government to be involved in anything other than simply protecting everyones rights and freedoms.

Drug laws are not just not smart, but are ABOMINATIONS.

If a cop arrests you for growing marijuana in your home (which as a Christian I believe is morally wrong but should NOT be a crime because everyone has the right to control what they put into their own body and own any substance short of something insane like plutonium) then HE is a criminal.

Such a police officer has TRESSPASSED on your property.

Such a police officer has DAMAGED your property.

Such a police officer has KIDNAPPED you.

Such a police officer has ASSAULTED you.

As an example, the LP cannot ever support anything less than the legalization of ALL drugs, totally and completely.

Anything less supports one person violating the rights of another.

Additionally, if the government takes money from you to spend on another person that is theft. Whether it is social security, medicare, medicade, various social programs, or even aid to the people of other natios such programs are THEFT!

It is just like a mugger came into your home, held a weapon to your head, and took the money out of your safe, wallet, or purse.

JUST BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING IT DOES NOT MAKE IT "OKAY" or something that the LP can support!

Libertarianism is consistant and principled because we have FIRM principles of RIGHT and WRONG that we can stand on.

You own your body and your life. Therefore, you have the right to live your life utilizing your body however you see fit without anyone violating your rights, stealing from you, or harming you.

You have the right to be protected both from INDIVIDUALS and the GOVERNMENT.

The LP was the one organization that I honestly thought would stick to it's principles. The basis of Libertarianism is a solid bedrock that I thought everyone could recognize.

I am saddened by the fact that so many consider libertarianism to be something that we can compromise on!

Chuck: You sound libertarian to me! We want more personal and economic freedom for everyone. It sounds like you do as well. Welcome!

Free2Smooze writes:

"To the idealists:

We have done things your way for thirty years and our country is far LESS free. I'm not attacking you, I am stating a widely agreed on fact."

***I have been active in the LP since 1992. During the past 13 years, I have not seen the party being run on an idealist model. What I have seen time and again is attempts by party leaders to appear "respectable" and "mainstream"; to emulate the Republicans and Democrats; to cast the party as a top-down organization with corporate trappings. In 30 years, the Libertarian Party has never truly embraced its natural destiny as a radical, grassroots, bottom-up movement of the people.

"What is the strategy? How is your vision of the function and purpose of the LP going to lead to greater freedom?"

***We need a party that inspires people who believe in liberty, and inspires people *to* believe in liberty. Then we will get the numbers we need to make change. Warmed-over Republicrat rhetoric and realpolitik is not inspirational. To cut through the noise and get peoples' attention, we need something *different* and *exciting*.

"If you can't answer that, I don't know how you can expect anyone to accept your VERSION of libertarianism as being a viable alternative to the abuses of the R's an D's."

***Libertarianism is the idea that people have the right to do what they want so long as they do not initiate force against others. It is possible to be in favor of smaller government and still NOT be a libertarian! We should welcome the support of non-libertarians who want to reduce government, and help them to become libertarians, but the party's platform and policies must remain libertarian.

"I am not being rhetorical and I'm not trying to attack your views which you obviously hold very dear. But I read poster after poster who says that this party just need more of the same."

***This party does NOT just need more of the same. But selling out our principles is not the change we need. Whatever policies we adopt should be based on an honest interpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

"Principles before politics, more t-shirts, more volunteer hours, more time educating... Maybe your right, but sell me."

***I don't want to "sell" you. I see you as an individual, not a sales target or part of a demographic. Sales, marketing, professionalism, success, these are all corporate buzzwords. I want to teach, to inspire, to educate; to agitate, educate, and organize!

"Show me how YOUR way will lead to political relevence OR give the leadership and the pragmatists some running room."

***Describing "political relevance" as the goal is not setting our sights high enough. The goal is a free world, dammit! Sorry if this seems like a trivial distinction. I believe it is far from trivial. The masses are not going to rise up in order to win "political relevance" for the LP. The more we talk like that, the more irrelevant we make ourselves.

***Thank you for your cordial invitation to dialogue, and I hope you find my responses of value.

Yours in liberty,

Starchild

Starchild wrote:

"Continue to recruit and radicalize new Libertarians by educating them about libertarianism"

Something about this statement bothers me...perhaps it's the "radicalize" language, and the negative connotations I associate with it: Usually when you hear about some group radicalizing their members, they end up all dead in bunk-beds with the same type of shoes on their feet, attack Planned Parenthood employees, insist that you must clear yourself of "thetans", etc.

from: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
at http://www.m-w.com

Main Entry: rad·i·cal·ize
Pronunciation: -k&-"lIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
: to make radical especially in politics

Main Entry: 1rad·i·cal
Pronunciation: 'ra-di-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root -- more at ROOT
1 : of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1) : of or growing from the root of a plant (2) : growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground b : of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c : of or relating to a mathematical root d : designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased tissue
2 : of or relating to the origin : FUNDAMENTAL
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
4 slang : EXCELLENT, COOL
- rad·i·cal·ness noun

"Did I come to the right place?"

Definitely! We're mostly decent people.

Starchild:

I agree that we've been pretty feckless about how we promote the party. Your ideas are fantastic as far as a better site goes, and I hope they're implemented.

The only thing is that while we're promoting ourselves, we need to do so in a way that Americans will agree with us and unite, as a majority, behind us. This requires compromise on some things... that's the nature of politics. As we compromise a little at the beginning and they see our ideas work, we can bring the rest of our ideas in and this place can be a Galt's Gulch, a libertopia, whatever. But we have to start modestly.

I've been checking periodically to see if 'Iraq Exit Strategy' is getting any non-libertarian attention on the web.

When it was first released it was discussed at Daily Kos.

http://joshyelon.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/29/202825/909

Since then, nada.

StuartSez:

The only thing is that while we're promoting ourselves, we need to do so in a way that Americans will agree with us and unite, as a majority, behind us. This requires compromise on some things... that's the nature of politics. As we compromise a little at the beginning and they see our ideas work, we can bring the rest of our ideas in and this place can be a Galt's Gulch, a libertopia, whatever. But we have to start modestly.

Posted by: Stuart Richards at July 18, 2005 11:34 PM

TerryResponds:

Real Americans DESPISE wimpism!

MOST people, MOST of the time, are already using the libertarian paridigm; else you could not walk out your door each day. People are inspired by what CONSISTENCY to this 'physical aggression truce' can enable; NOT some half assed cowering 'oh please respect me' (and I'll sneak the other stuff in on ya later) Libertarianism is nothing more or less than 'liberty and justice for.... ALL'

If you can't inspire people with that you're not being real!

I am being real... if I were a candidate, I'd only campaign on a few things... and only pass those things that I campaigned on. People would get exactly what they voted for if I