I would like to know how many of those 1700+ are NEW members. Renewing is great, but we don't want to preach to the choir.

I was also wondering if there are stats out on the numbers of registered Libertarians vs Libertarian members.

1. We need to setup a booth at grocery stores, trade shows, Park craft fairs etc. Have on hand registration and petitions ready for them to sign.
2 POST LIBERTARIANS ON OUR CAR WINDOWS NOW.
LP.ORG for FREEDOM

Information how to register to vote or etc Libertarian.

Let them know who is running for 2006 and 2008 elections.

I already have my "Don't Blame Me,..I voted Libertarian" bumper sticker taped inside my car rear window. People see it better that way.

I had trouble getting my credit card to work with the website, so I'll have to join via snail mail. Oh well, some things are worth the wait!

If I remember right, I believe that the LP was sending out a lot of mailing to lapsed members. The 1700 figure would include many lapsed members who have renewed. I would like to know what net increase in membership we have from the 1700.

As far as registered vs members, there are over 200,000 registered LPers compared to about 22,000 dues paying members. Keep in mind that some states do not allow party registration.

So there is plenty of room for prospecting registered LP voters.

PERRY DOES that bumper sticker have lp.org this is also what we need.

Yes it does. www.lp.org and the phone number 1-800-elect-us. I got it from the Liberty Store.

Plus, I have been stocking and restocking the 2nd amendment fliers at my local shooting range. I don't own a gun, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to leave a stack of fliers for the party at the range. These were also bought from the Liberty store. Unfortunately, the 1 page fliers have the website address in very small print on the back. I think the website address should always be prominent on the front.

YES WE NEED those flyers at Realty offices as well, Lest not forget eminent domain.

For Freedom is right. Marketing is the key. The fact is that most people in this country don't even know what a Libertarian is. And if they do, a lot of them think we are just a bunch of camouflage wearing, gun-toting anarchists who want to legalize everything that they were taught was bad. This is our image. We know it's false. We know that our values are much more than that.

When I say that I'm a Libertarian a lot of people look at me like I'm nuts. However, when I have a few minutes to actually sit down and explain our principals people almost always agree with what we stand for. They have to. You cannot argue against sound logic. They just had never had someone explain our positions properly.

If we don't market and craft our image in the way we want it, others (the republicrats) will do it for us. They already have been doing it for us. We need to craft and shape an image for our party. Are there any professional marketing people on our payroll? If not there should be.

Well, at least we have Neal Boortz to partially explain what a Libertarian is, even though he goes against the party line on issues like Iraq and interventionalism, and seems to be in love with George W. Bush and the Republicans. Other than that I think he does Libertarianism a decent service, by being out there, not insane, and expressing his opinions on a large forum.

When you become a member, are you supposed to receive something in the mail? My friend and I both became members a month and a half ago and neither of us have received anything from LP national... is this normal or what? Not that I signed up just to receive something in the mail, but it does let me know that they care or that my membership was was even received. Any insight would be appreciated:)

It took a few months for me, but eventually I received my membership card. The newsletter should arrive shortly, though. Actually, you might have to wait for the beginning of September if you haven't received the latest one yet.

Sorry I mean August

I see you guys are talking about marketing, promoting and talk show hosts... have any of ya'll heard of FreeTalkLive? If you get a chance, check out freetalklive.com

They are pro-liberty and they promote libertarian ideas.

Cool, I'll be on the look-out. Thanks BPerry!

No never heard of Talkshowlive.
I have already suggested this already.
1. Have a list of candidate so people can click right to that and see who is running, because putting it on the post, there is a lot to read.
2. Also a List of advertising information, link as well in a section.
I will mention again.
YAHOO IS A WELL KNOWN POPULAR SITE that should mention the Libertarian Party, and or have a link to us on the Front Page to Libertarians. SAME WITH MSN.COM NEWS
If nothing else, these two web site are looked at by numerious people and of course most people want to know whats going on today.
Yahoo is one of the first site that has been around for a long time.
Also we need people to volunteer for booth set up, and post on car windows.
Talk to other show host that are popular, a lot of people listen to Bill Handel and Rush limbaugh. and the John and Ken show who also is on KFI in California. He may be on different channels in your area.

Although I know new members are what we want, it's also great to have people come back into the party who lapsed.

Also, stats on number of registered LP'ers vs. members will be flawed. Please not that in some states you can't register as a Libertarian.

Thanks to the HQ staff for your hard work!

Who are the popular radio hosts you would consider libertarian?

In San Francisco, we have Gene Burns, who comes out and says he's libertarian.
I wonder about people like Tammy Bruce. At least 80 percent of the stuff she argues about is libertarian. She does have a hard lean to the Republicans, though.

Wait a minute. What is this I'm reading about not being able to register as a Libertarian in some states? Who the hell gave those states the right to do that? THAT should be the outrage of the week. No, century! If you live in one of those states, take the hint and move. If you can't even register as a Libertarian, then you just *know* your state is up to no good. Just for kicks, would anyone who knows mind posting which states these are?

Who are the popular radio hosts you would consider libertarian?

Mancow is a Howard Stern style DJ out of Chicago. He does not get into politics often mostly shock pop culture stuff. When he gets going on politics he is with out a doubt 100% libertarian and says so. He also had Badnarik on his show when he was running.

Shane Cory,
The 1,700 members is great. We now need to start look toward 2006 as for more memberships and more candidates and registered voters. The first start is to finish the Libertarian National Congressional Committee and get it on the web this year if you want huge results in 2006. Time in outreach is everything if we start too late with the Libertarian National Congressional Committee like in March or April 2006, then we have a narrow time slot from then to November 2006 to get members and candidates for 2006. If the Libertarian National Congressional Committee is out early as the time period from early as October to late as January then we have perfect timing to get candidates and members for 2006

I think it is pathetic that we can't get information on how many are new members vs. renewing members. I think it is pathetic that that staff counts these as the same.

I'd really like to see specific numbers. I'd like to hear what actions were taken, how much money was spent, how many renewals we got, how many new members we got, and how much we received in additional donations.

Under Project Archimedes, we got those numbers. Now we just get very vague statements and unverifiable information.

Greg,
You should be able to contact your LNC rep. for that information. He or she should have some knowledge on the subject. Headquarters is not able to post all of the information demanded from its members on a daily basis. That is just impossible, given the number of requests we get.

Howie,

NOt sure which states allow registration as Libertarian and which don't. I can say that Louisiana lists Democrat, Republican, Independant and Other (with a line so you can fill in which party). So while it's not specifically listed, you can still register as whatever you like here. We also just got accepted as a "quialified party" here this yer. All that means is that a candidate from a qualified party will have thier party affiliation listed along with their name on the ballot, except for Presidential elections where party affiliation is always listed. It used to be that only if you were Dem or Rep would you actually have your party listed by your name, otherwise it was just your name and white space. I think on D, R and L are "qualified" at this time, although I think the Greens have the signatures and only need to pay the fee to get their qualified status.

Not too sure about other states, but it would be intersting for folks to post about their states to let us know. (Unless someone has a website with all of that info nicely consolidated.)

In responce to Lenny Zimmerman's comments above
the Oregon voter regostration numbers can be viewed at http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/votreg/.pdf. For April of 2005 there were 16558 registered Libertarians in Oregon.
The file for May and June tells me that there are
some data not understood, or something similar. But I'm not a computer wizard, so I'll let those of you who are explain that.
M.W.

Walt,

Here's your post. It's frankly not as good as it should be becuase I dont want to spend all day on it (I have other duties) but it says what it needs to say. Have fun.

http://libertyforsale.com/?p=222

With the LP registration thing, I think it may also be plausible that a lot of people who vote Libertarian don't register libertarian, mainly because they don't think it's any of the government's business which party they prefer.

I certainly don't think it's the government's business, but when I get the chance I'll probably register LP anyway. That's almost something I WANT the government to know about me.

I would like to suggest, that the members name listed on this site should be hidden for privacy reasons or on a disc not hard drive. Some may want to become members but do not like the idea of their names being posted. When it is an elected official that is a different story. I know people can find you, but we don't need to make it easier as we already know most of our privacy is gone anyways.

As a Libertarian, you're assailed from both sides. Even if you want to avoid debate from the desire to maintain social relations, you just can't. I vote Libertarian, pay my dues, carry the card. This is not a half-way thing.

Voter registration data for all parties from January 2004 is available online at:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/0201.html#13

It's the Feb. 2004 issue of Ballot Access News, if the link doesn't work.

I agree with Adam Silverstein about marketing the LP. I've been a dues paying member since 1980 and reluctantly renewed my membership again this year. I was reluctant because it seems to me that the LP (and the libertarian movement) may have peaked and is now on a downhill slide. We have fewer members and the general public still has no idea of what we stand for and if they think they do, most people I've talked to describe us as nuts. (Anyone see the Guns for Tots segment on the Daily Show? No wonder they think we're a bunch of weirdos.) I want the LP to know that I will not donate money or time to any LP cause that isn't a marketing, branding or public relations effort. The general public has to learn who we are, what we stand for and most importantly, that we aren't nuts!

In my home state of Ohio, you don't register under a party when you register to vote. Instead you register under a party when you go and vote in the party's primary election. In my area, we have a local radio talk host who's libertarian. His name is Robert Mangino.

I just joined last year and I have to say that this negative talk is discouraging, but I'm sticking with the LP because I believe in their priciples. I can only imagine what someone who is questioning joining the LP is thinking when they read these blogs.

I also think we overhype ourselves to ourselves (if that makes sense). There is a lot of work to be done by all of us. Case in point is this last San Diego election. After everything the LP (specifically the LPC) said about Richard Rider going into the mayoral election, I thought he was going to possibly make the run-off or at least come very close. He got blown away. 1% of the vote I believe. It's great to boost moral among the troops, so to speak, but we need to face facts as to how much work is needed to promote the libertarian principles.

BPerry. Sorry if I sound negative. I'd really like to see the libertarian movement succeed but I'm getting old and impatient. Richard Rider's mistake was his slogan. "No New Taxes!" doesn't mean much to most people. A smarter slogan would have been: "Have more money so you can buy more stuff." That's what people care about. Go to the mall or a restaurant or an auto dealership. People aren't talking taxes, they're buying stuff. A good generic commercial for the LP would be a norma-looking, smiling family standing next to their RV and Boat saying, "We vote Libertarian because lower taxes means a better life." That's what people care about.

I guess another question is "Are we as unified as we can be?" I'm sure the Green Party realize there won't be a Green President or Congressman anytime soon, yet the country is aware of the party, mainly becuase they all agree on what they believe. I think. (or maybe because I live near San Francisco, they seem so prominent).

Or maybe the LP IS a strong party, and these blogs just attract the pessimists.

(I'm not sure the above makes sense after reading it, but the gist is there)

An RV and a boat, you say? Mmmmm... You may be on to something!

Of course many versions of the commercial can be done. (An RV and a boat may not be everyone's idea of the "good life." For instance, a couple standing by their recent college grad in cap and gown saying, "We vote Libertarian because lower taxes made it easier to help our daughter get a good education." We should be running these commercials well before the election cycle so people seek out and find out about Libertarian candidates.

So an image of Paul Revere yelling "The taxes are coming! The taxes are coming!" would be bad I guess.

I have been told that most States do not require you to register as a party member when you register to vote. I think it is about ten States that ask for you to list your Party.

In Virginia you are not asked.

Tim,

Thanks for the very specific answer to my question. I read your blog entry and agree with 90% of it. However, I think there are a few errors in your thinking.

You have paid scant attention to the word "initiate." Powers granted to government can only be rightfully applied as non-initiated force. The idea here is that if someone uses force to break a law in violation of the rights of others, they are the initiators of force, not the government. When the government cracks down on them, the government is not initiating force. Rather, they are acting in response to force on behalf of their victims. In essence, we have granted to the government the power to act in our behalf in defense of our rights. This is consistent with my belief that the only proper role of government is to protect and defend individual rights.

You wrote, "You can only believe in the total application of the non-aggression principle, when you also believe that the total absence of government would give you more liberty." I don't agree. When we apply the concept as I have outlined it above, it becomes perfectly reasonable and practical for the government to do its job. This is not anarchy. It is government playing its proper role.

You wrote, "We spent too much time talking about theoretical @#$@, and not enough time with things that matter more."

I couldn't disagree more. Out of respect for the LP's blog rules, I'll replace the word @#$@ with the word "stuff." This "theoretical stuff" as you call it is the basis for any possibility of purists and pragmatists working together for liberty. By dismissing it as "theoretical stuff" you are essentially dismissing purists as having any relevance at all within the party. As a purist, I resent your attitude. I also point out that your attitude is highly impractical, since its the purists who are in the majority, not the pragmatists.

On a more practical level, this "theoretical stuff" as you call it has very practical, real-world consequences. Without this "theoretical stuff" there can be no concept of an unjust war, for example. Without this "theoretical stuff" there can be no concept of an unjust law. In fact, without this "theoretical stuff" anything the government chooses to do, no matter how bad it is, by definition is just and good. Why? Because you granted government that moral high ground by ceding to government the right to initiate force. Such a right has no limitations, except for the degree beyond which the voters will not tolerate more totalitarian measures by the government. This is the reason our current government keeps growing more powerful and more anti-liberty. Your definition of just use of force by government insures the continuation of this trend.

jnice wrote on your blog, "The problem is that we've allowed the government to use force against people who haven't harmed others ('victimless crime'), as you pointed out." But this is only a valid complaint if one holds the non-aggression principle to mean what I hold it to mean. You claim that the non-aggression principle does not apply to government. If we assume your concept to be true, then there can be no complaint against government using force against people who haven't harmed others. Such consequences are implicit in granting government the power to initiate force.

In fact, as we go down the list of all the different ways that government has usurped individual liberties, we see over and over again that the moral foundation for this pattern is the granting to government the power to initiate force.

"So an image of Paul Revere yelling "The taxes are coming! The taxes are coming!" would be bad I guess." -BPerry

Ha! I love it.

How about a montage of Democrats and Republicans "greatest accomplishments" and their consequences being played to the Benny Hill theme.

In seriousness, though, stuff like James ides works best.

I always liked satirical political commercials, myself, though. Something like a student sitting down to take a multiple choice test on ways to improve our nation, and there are only two options on each question, both of which are horrible. It is then revealed there is a third option, Libertarianism, which actually makes sense.

Or something of that nature.

Walt,

I was feeling extra persnickity by the end of the post. Consider it only my expression of disgust that libertarians spend way too much time rapping about items like this that simply dont have any bearing on the actual things needed to make the LP work. We can and have been a debate club for many years, and all this talk really hasnt done much in the big picture……but god knows, libertarians love to argue and rap about this sort of thing. I find it boring and counter productive. We should be talking about forward looking things.

There’s only so much mental energy I can devote to discussions about “shit like this”. :D :) and you know as well as I do that they can be NEVERENDING. I get tired of it, and wanna rap about something else. That was the only meaning behind the use of “that word”. :p

In other words, I didnt MEAN nothing by that STUFF, yo! Dont consider that a blast against yourself, I'm just tired of the subject matter. I'd rather talk about forward looking things we should be doing as a party instead of putting so much energy into things that honestly really cant be reconciled to a great degree, meaning everyone is just not going to agree 100% on it.

oops, sorry...I missed one of the "bad words" in cross posting from LFS to here! Apologies to anyone that is offended - it was a oversight and not intentional in any way.

Tim,

Thanks for clarifying and mollifying me. I withdraw my complaint. However, that wasn't the main point of my reply.

My main point was my contention that your claim that the government has the right to initiate force is a Pandora's box that permits abuse of individual rights by government with virtually no limits. Given your position on this point, I can see why you have problems with the pledge. However, I wonder if you can see how your position essentially undermines everything you hope to accomplish as a libertarian.

Your position essentially says that government has the right to endlessly increase its power. This is the inevitable consequence of granting government the right to initiate force.

So what principle do you stand on when you complain that taxes are too high? Or that eminent domain abuse is wrong? Or that government is too big? By granting government the right to initiate force, you have essentially undermined your own libertarian activism. You have successfully created a no-win scenario. It's certainly not a scenario that I would want to try to sell to voters.

If you're tired of discussing this and want to stop, that's your privilege. But bear in mind that so long as you maintain this position, you invite complaints against it from other libertarians.

Walt,

If the people are not steadfast and secure in their ability to restrain the worst impulses of government, that does not make it the fault of government, but the fault of the people to self-govern as they are charged with doing.

What you are expressing is a transformation of responsibility for our state of affairs from where it does belong
(the people themselves) to where it does not belong (the people granting government the ability to take forceful actions). If indeed the failure lies anywhere, it lies with US, as citizens all, to stop government from the limitless expansion that is it's natural tendency. Franklin said that what we had "was a republic - if you can keep it". That is a clear signal - when we trust the people with self-governace, it's up to them.

I might add that since there can be no government without any ability to force people to obey the rule of law as expressed with the people's consent, you argue against yourself. There can be no government in actual practice that cannot have the power to enforce the law.

And to say that I said that government has the "right" to endlessly increase it's power is STUFF. :) What I said was that government must have the power to enforce the laws and powers GRANTED TO IT BY THE PEOPLE. Consent of the governed, and all that. I am no more for government expanding it's powers than you are, and surely you know that, Walt. Government cannot be a 100% reactionary body in actual practice, becuase someone would have to be killed first in order to make a law against killing. Thats not the way the real world works.

If the people think so little of their liberty that they stand by idly playing Super Mario Donkey Kong while the Supremes issue decisions like Kelo vs. New London, then I submit that possibly the nation is already lost. But if you are trusting the people to self-govern, then you also are trusting that they will not fail in their duties. Maybe that trust was misplaced. In any event, a government without force powers is no government at all. The question is rather: Is the force used legitimate, under the guidelines set forth by mutual consent? I say no, it is not in too many instances. But the people have had the love of liberty trained right out of them over 100 years.

Maybe we are all wasting our time here. Sometimes I think we are. Americans just dont seem to care.

Tim,

First, let's get one point straight. You claim that granting government the right to initiate force means that government must have the power to enforce the laws and powers GRANTED TO IT BY THE PEOPLE. But you can't stop it there. Once you've granted government the right to initiate force, you have insured that the power will grow far beyond enforcing laws and powers granted to it by the people. I know that you didn't actually say that your position insures the continued growth of government, but that truth is inevitably built-in, despite your best intentions. So long as you reject the idea that government may not initiate force, you eliminate the likelihood that the trend can be reversed.

You make a big deal out of the American republic being a government of self-government. This is false. A republic, by definition, is government by representatives. This is not self-government. Democracy is much closer to self-government than a Republic. The only sense in which the people self-govern in this country is that they elect the representatives. That's it. All the rest of government gets done by the representatives, the people be damned. But this is merely a side issue. Let's get back to the main issue.

You say, "I might add that since there can be no government without any ability to force people to obey the rule of law as expressed with the people's consent, you argue against yourself." This shows me clearly that you do not fully appreciate the meaning of the word "initiate." To initiate means to be the first to use. Government when it acts to defend us against attackers of our rights, both internally and externally, is acting in defense, not as an initiator of force. Therefore, it is not initiating force, even though it is using force. The problem isn't the use of force itself. The problem is INITIATING it...in other words, being the first to use it in any given situation.

The reason self-defense is justified is that it's not initiated force. It is still force, but it is legitimate force. Similarly, government force used in defense of individual rights is legitimate force.

The non-aggression principle recognizes that secondary force in response to initiated force is wholly justified. So no, I wasn't arguing against myself. Actually, you unintentionally proved my point.

You wrote, "Government cannot be a 100% reactionary body in actual practice, becuase someone would have to be killed first in order to make a law against killing. Thats not the way the real world works."

Wrong. Government MUST be a reactionary body 100% of the time. That's exactly how the real world works. In fact, government is always reactionary, and being reactionary is Constitutionally required in this country.

Government does not initiate force when it defends our rights. It does not initiate force when it passes a law against murder, to use your example. Instead, it simply states that this is one particular act (among many) against which the government will act should someone presume to commit a murder. The law it writes is the written standard by which it prosecutes the accused murderer.

Further, the fact that the government is reactionary is built into the Constitution, as I stated above. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 says, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." An ex post facto law is a law written "after the fact." It means that, in our current example, the government cannot prosecute someone for murder until a law has been passed against it. Hence, our government is required under the Constitution to be reactionary in nature.

You threw out the basic principle of small government (non-aggression), and you have rested all your hopes on people fighting back against their government. Given your assumption, you are right to fear that all hope is lost, because your arbitrary grant of the right to initiate force to government insures that hope is lost. Government is a monopoly of power. If you depend on "the people," a mostly disorganized group without the power of force, to protect you against the unending growth in government power, your hopes are entirely misplaced.

On the other hand, those of us who you despise as "purists" have no such reason to be depressed and forlorn as you are, because we don't rest our hopes on a battle that is already lost.

Instead, we have the temerity to claim that government does not have the right to INITIATE force and that this error by the people to grant such a ridiculous and foolish "right" in their minds is the reason why they feel that government is outside of their control. And indeed it is, so long as they continue to grant that "right" in their minds.

You want to know why you've had so little success as you have campaigned door-to-door in your area, Tim? It's because you have surrendered the libertarian argument. By doing that, you appear to be no different than the Republicrats to the constituents on whose behalf you propose to work for liberty. They've already heard the lies of the Republicrats, who sound just like what you're saying to them. They figure, "Why should I support Tim, when I can support someone really powerful like my Democratic or Republican Congressman instead? Both are attempting to deceive me, but at least I know the latter one, and he's powerful enough that I might just get a crumb or two out of him if I keep voting for him."

Further, it's no wonder that the libertarians in your area don't want to help you. You've declared that the libertarian movement's greatest strength...it's declaration that the government is inferior to the people and does not have rights that are superior to those enjoyed by the people...is forfeit. Let me repeat...it's no wonder libertarians in your area don't want to help you, since they can sense that you've thrown the baby out with the bath water.

The most interesting comment you made was, "What you are expressing is a transformation of responsibility for our state of affairs from where it does belong (the people themselves) to where it does not belong (the people granting government the ability to take forceful actions)." This is a very revealing comment, because it suggests that you think there's an either-or-but-not-both choice: that we can either be self-governors or we can be concerned with granting government the ability to take forceful action. In truth, these are not mutually exclusive, and I don't see it the way you expressed it.

Jeez, that's a long post. Don't you think that for your back-and-forth bouts you should communicate via e-mail? It gets hard to see if anyone posted anything relevant through your back-and-forth banter.

Well, they're not just trying to convince each other, but us as well.

I'm not convinced by by two people badgering each other and saying the same thing over and over, adding things like "you missed the point of my last post" and "that's not what you said."

I have to agree with the comment no new taxes is not going to work. Maybe we ought to say working on a flat tax rate or such and such. We have to sound fresh, not like some old broken records that people heard before.
Also has any thought about the possibility of working with the green party, I am not in favor of everything they say, but I know they care about some areas of the same things. I do have to do some more.

I agree with the poster.

Walt, I've said all I can say on the subject, The truth is that I think one thing, and you think another. Neither one of us will change the others minds

But I will say that I've said nothing of the sort, and wonder how anyone can come up with your conclusions based on what I have said. (?)

I'll respectfully and in deference to the other posters disengage from the topic at hand, and move on. You challenged me, I answered, and everything is the same as it was before, with nobody's mind having moved from their principled position.

In other words, a total waste of your time and mine. Let's remember this outcome so that we may avoid it the future, eh?

Oh, and dont consider this a sendoff. I would still love to meet you one of these days and continue in person. I can only do so much persuading with a keyboard. :D

I'd also like to know how many are NEW members. With over 20,000 LP members, about 1700 members come up for renewal each month. Since this campaign has been underway for more than a month, 1700 new and renewing members may not even be enough to break even, let alone grow.

Also, according to your June 30th Blog posting, the goal was 5,000 NEW members:

"We're entering the first full week of our drive to gain 5,000 new members by July 31st."
http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000032.shtml

A goal of 5,000 new and renewing members with no deadline is meaningless, since we would expect that many renewals over a 3-4 month period without recruiting a single new member.

Back to the ORIGINAL INTENT of this thread:

Increasing LP membership.

1. Do you need to join, and pay dues to either of the major parties?
2. Does either of the major parties require a Loyalty Oath?

Yet still, they EACH outpoll us almost 50-1.

Might there be a message in there?

How about this...free membership & no oath.

Varying levels of support recognition based on annual voluntary CONTRIBUTION.

A web site patterned on Howard Dean's 2003-04 campaign site to attract support and contributions, and emphasising the things people care about...the war, eminent domain, the environment, taxes, etc.

I love the LP...and these "discussions"...but if you're not an already dyed in the wool libertarian, it's pretty dull.

John,

true enough. I've contributed 300 bucks in small affordable monthly chunks to the creation of a new forum server. How about the rest of you?

There's just no reason you cant give 20 bucks a month of the LP. You'll never miss it, and they need it.

Timothy,
I don't have a problem with the membership fee. But, by saying:

"There's just no reason you cant give 20 bucks a month of the LP. You'll never miss it, and they need it."

You just alienated poor people from the party, who we claim would not be poor if the government ran by our principles. $20 bucks a month is BIG for many people. I hope this party is more than alienated republicans. Although, I know it's easier to find a Republican who wants social freedoms, than a Democrat who wants economic freedom without big government programs.

The give and take between Libertarian TV and Tim West is a very big reason why I visit this Blog. I agree with Lib TV on this one.

Lib. TV-
I do have a few questions. When you say: "Government MUST be a reactionary body 100% of the time." are you saying that if the FBI knows of a radical islamic group that has explosives and other evidence that suggest a terriost attack that they would have to wait until they blew something up? Or could they be arrested for conspiracy? If they can be arrested for conspiracy how does that fit in with your theroy of justifed force?

Tim,

I agree...we've said all we're going to say. I too am still willing to meet you.

Matt,

The answer to your question is that it depends on what that other evidence is that you vaguely referred to. If the evidence is a clear death threat of some kind, then yes I think the government would be right to act. As a parallel example, if someone points a gun at you and says something threatening, you have a right to defend yourself since his action is clearly initiated force (even though there has been no actual violence as yet).

By the way, if the FBI has learned of a genuine terrorist threat, then by definition they are already in reaction mode.

At its meeting this weekend, the LNC voted to end dues for active membership effective 1/1/2006, and to close down the UMP program 9/30/2005 (with the contractual payment of a half-year's UMP money to participating states being made over the next half year or year at each state's discretion.) The net result is that a membership drive is about to take on a very different meaning.