Shane,
Sorry this isn't about Mr. Gordon's post, but since you have now posted a pledge bar up above, why not put a monetary total up there somewhere. I pledged today and I would like to see the momentum gathered by the victory of Zero Dues. Also, that kind of device takes on a life of its own, as people watch it grow, and feel like a part of it. Ask Howard Dean how it worked.

I can second that. That old membership drive graphic showing the fuse and the donkey and elephant needs to be re-calibrated for money! and reposted!

Shane,
Congradulations on becoming acting LP Cheif of Staff . I will pretty soon transtition my membership over to the Liberty Pledge. I think this was a historical past weekend for the Libertarian Party. The zero dues proposal was one of the best strategies made. NPR has been doing stories like that for decades, so Democrats on NPR can try to pin Republicans as rascist towards black people. The story has nothing to do with Libertarianism. It is just the 2 party system try to make their opponent look bad. Fox News Channel which is a heavily pro-bush Republican make Democrat's anti-war views look like treason. They both do it to each other, so that's why I am not too interested in the NPR story.

Somedays I think some Libertarians are the most unsynpathetic people on the face of this earth. These responses are the reason why minorities cringe when asked to explore the LP for another option. Our jails are riddled with people who don't deserve to me there (non-violent drug users and drug possession). Most of these people are blacks and Hispanics that are being railroaded by the judicial system. Let me point out some statistic for you folks who don't give a damn anyways!

1 out of 6 blacks can't vote because of a felony on their record.

There are more black women in college than black men.

49 percent of the US incarcerated population are black, another 30 percent are Hispanic.

In black communities, the unemployment population is 2 to 3 times higher than the national average.

Cocaine users are 74 percent White while those convicted of cocaine related offenses are 70 percent Black.

The state of Illinois (where I reside) has the highest black prision population of any state in the Union: 76 percent!

From what I understand Stephen Gordon didn't write this because of the NPR story, he wrote it because the LP has been doing a rotten job recruiting minorities into our movement. For the last 20+ years we have been pandering to the right especially on economic issues, when are we going to start pandering to the left on civil liberty issues? Isn't economic freedom just as important as our civil liberties?

It's a travesty-but most Libertarians have turned a blind eye to the fact that when one person's rights are eroding, EVERYONE ELSES is too! There still is a huge racial disparity in this country: we have the answers, some of us give a damn to do something about it!

Thank you for disrespecting African-American Libertarians like myself and talk about the zero-dues proposal on a thread intended and much needed to be seen on a LP website. Thank you Stephen for writing this and thank you Cory for having the courage for posting it.

To be blunt, don't blame the Libertarian for being racist, look around you there are racist in every country of every type and everyone, gone are the days of any perticular race of slavery, because now we are all slaves, to GREED, TO HATRED. With the way the computer chips are these days, it just around the corner if they force us to have implants.

Whoa,

I NEVER said Libertarians were racists...I said that sometimes some of us fail to think outside the box. We as Libertarins want to believe that we are sympathetic towards others but fail to act upon it. This is the reason why most minorities thumb their noses at the LP. I happen to hope that I didn't make the wrong choice 15 years ago.

Tim, Mark and LR,

Thanks for the comments. I'll have a blog entry up tomorrow regarding zero dues and the pledge.

For what it's worth, I become a pledger today as well.

I agree about showing progress but don't want to set a goal this time. I'll just keep a running tab starting from today's date and will update the grapic each morning.

Thanks for the continued support!

Best,

Shane

I for one am way more interested in the LP for their civil liberties stances rather than the economic ones. Ever since coming to this blog, I have come to the same conclusion that Chris has pointed out: that most libertarians are more willing to fight and argue for economic liberties (and elect a republican if he/she must) than for civil liberties (and, despite all the just Bush-bashing, are more prone to criticize Dems). I for one would gladly elect a Dem over a Repub. I understand that the LP was originally a conservative movement. I also understand that economic rights are still personal rights, and are just as important. But i fear conservatives. They would gladly take away any one of our rights (note the PATRIOT Act). They are only *for* economic rights because they are greedy rich businessmen. What do liberals stand to gain with promoting civil liberties? There can be no ulterior motives there.

Was whoever posted this nonsense drunk or high?
It makes no sense. What is the LP actually accomplishing by wasting our time and website with this? Answer: Nothing. Where is the funding and organization we need instead of this BS?

Thanks Shane. I agree with no goal endpoint.

bamey, this stuff starts with YOU. Not HQ, not the guy who posted this "drunk or high". They cant do a damn thing without money. YOUR money.

You want funding? I increased my former "Dues" amount of 25 bucks a year to 25 bucks a month. If only half the current 'members' did the same, we would have $3,450,000 bucks to 'organize' with.

Make that pledge, and you'll get your political party. I make jack for a living, and I can afford 25 bucks a month no problemo. You can too. Repeating Pledges are the lynchpin of success for a political party. Democrats do it, R's do it, we have to do it too.

Chris Bennett: I think your post was generally excellent. I have long found it distressing that so many people who call themselves Libertarian are so unsympathetic to the rights of minorities in real life.

I JUST POSTED a partial section of the article, now isn't this another added sickness of our country. If they find something in the trash that someone else may have thrown away, are we going to be blamed for that to? We will have to go through the court system to clear our name etc. etc. and who is footing the bill. People like you and me who may be innocent victims as if we are not paying through the nose for normal things already.

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story86.htm

Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived
Believe it or not, it's perfectly legal for police to rummage through your garbage for incriminating stuff on you -- even if they don't have a warrant or court approval.

To Chris Bennett,
There was no disrespect of minorities intended when I posted the request for a pledge bar yesterday. Although not related to Mr. Gordon's story, it seemed like a good time to make the request, since the pledge campaign was just beginning. Although not an African-American, I just finished working closely, in sometimes adverse circumstances, with many diverse ethnicities for the last 22 years in the military, protecting you. No disrespect intended.

Dear Mr. Bennett: The LP, as you probably know,
has long visibly advocated decriminalization of drugs, which would help keep many of those African-American and Hispanic people out of jail. Not only has the LP gotten no credit as the only political party to take such a position
(credit in the form of votes - surely those ensnared in this drug war should have voted for the LP) but I've had African-American activists tell me that the only reason the LP takes the position is because we want to see young blacks kill themselves using drugs. So we are either wanting to poison school kids or promote genocide?
Unfortunately, the LP has little appeal to African Americans, Euro Americans, Asian Americans, or Native Americans. Too many years of cultural mind-warping have led to greed for the unearned.

Chris: Thank you for sharing those statistics with us. I agree that strengthening our civil liberties is just as important as having more economic freedom. My state governor (Vilsack, D-IA) recently reinstated the voting rights of past felons who have served their sentences. Other states, to my knowledge, have passed similar legislation.

To Chris Bennett,

Would you please take a moment to outline for us what you think it's going to take to get more African-Americans involved in the LP, in light of Mr. Gordon's article? As an African-American Libertarian, I believe you can provide some sorely needed insight.

Chris Bennet's comments are very strong to me, because I just read a few chapters of Napolitano's Costitutional Chaos last night(thanks whoever recommended me that book!). In the parts I was reading he was discussing why the government's war against the second amendment and the government's war on drugs were unfairly targeting minorities, while the government and media was telling minorities that their problems were drugs and guns.

With recent world events, it is understandable why the LP is focusing more on economics, and foreign policy, some of the greatest problems for our nation, but I feel the populace, minority AND majority, does need a huge dose of education on the second amendment and "War on drugs". It's a hard argument to win, as the government has implanted in every American's mind, even those that use drugs that "drugs are bad, and only bad people use them". Hell, I believe it to an extent myself. I think virtually all forms of drug use are incredibly stupid, except for medical uses, but it isn't the government's job to protect people from themselves.

As Chris was showing, look how many minorities have been "protected" so far. Has the government "protected" minorities by making several substances illegal, causing a huge burst in their prices, which causes spikes in violence to pay for the substances, and then taking guns away from law abiding citizens? Of course not.

There should be something we can do about it. I have no idea what, though.

the major problem with the LP is they have no base, at all. yes, there are a good few dedicated people who espouse the view of the party, but there is no solid core BASE to the party!

they need to adopt a campagin of "why should i join the LP." most people really don't care about things unless they see benefits to themselves, it is the sad truth of reality. the party continues to push for its idealistic goals (which i believe in), but a majority of people just don't seem to get them all. there is a severe disconnect between the goals of the party and how to accomplish them, the party has been spinning its wheels for 3 decades and has made little progress. most people want to be left alone and keep the money they earn, almost everyone wants this, except for the few who wish to force their beliefs on others. we need to tell people that this is what we will do for them.

building a solid base isn't that complicated, the party misses huge opportunities. look at the "gay rights" issues, the LP is the perfect partner for gays! gay marrige boils down to equal taxation and the right to contract, both which the LP support. Gay adoption, although more difficult to argue boils down to would you rather children be wards of the state and raised by the gov't, or in the hands of people who can care for them. the LP pushes neither of these issues. gays are a powerful group of individuals, we would be lucky to pick up their vote! missing issues such as this is why the party is going on where. we should be on the TV pushing for equal rights for them, not because we want them to have special rights, but because we believe in fairness in the eyes of the law.

until the party starts realizing it can build a great base by going after the ones the major parties leave out, we will stay an insignifigant part of the political spectrum.

Smith,

the LP tends to deal with philosophical abstractions really well, to the point of obsession, and doesnt SELL the benefits of increased liberty nearly often enough. You're quite correct.

I think Zero Dues will help, mainly that for the first time, the Party has explictly stated that it's overriding goal is to participate in the political process as it exists, instead of converting people into "members". Putting a halt to the Pledge for "members" would help even more, as no political party should have any sort of litmus test at all to join. Self-identifying people who join a Libertarian Party arent likely to be Communists or Nazis in disguise.

We have to get this transition under control and then we can start working on some other things like reform of the platform and the Pledge.

And there's LOTS of smaller targets we should be going after, but some of those targets are blocked by the platform - like standing for fiscal responsibility, for example.

Comments unrelated to a particular blog entry are posted because there is no member forum where we can start our own discussion threads.

It has nothing to do with disrespect to anyone.

Tim,

I don't think anyone is blocked from the platform at all. (except those who benefit from high taxes and larger gov't). It is a way of working the platform to fit peoples lifestyles. The LP is perfect for small business owners, yet there is no effort to recruit them. I mean, they would benefit considerably from smaller government and less taxes.

The LP is perfect for families, your child no longer needs to go eyeball deep into debt to go to college, allowing you to keep more of your hard earned income, you can setup college funds. just a start to the benefits they would receive.

The list goes on and on, the LP doesn't have to sacrifice its values to attract people, it needs to convey them to people in a way to say "wow, why am i not a part of this." once you have that solid base built up, they become the main recruiters to the party. without a large solid base of core people, the party will continue to be a third party.

This is what is lacking, not the message by far.

Thanks Lex. :)

I dont think there is a political market for defaulting on government debts, the "mental health" plank that says we allow the insane to decide if they want treatment or not, abolishment of all public schools ASAP.... stuff like that simply isn't going to get you that base.

The LP should stop leading with it's nose and start leading with it's head. Running for School Board is one of the primary ways a novice politician can get elected in this country. It's hard to get elected to same declaring that every public school in the country should be done away with. Another case of stating your goals in reverse.

A far better tactic would be to seek to undermine the current system by removal of the money in it. Come out for tax rebates for homeschoolers. Come out for getting every single person over the age of 65 off the property tax roles nationwide. Come out for greater parental control.

Just saying all public schools are evil wont cut it. You have to give people with children a REASON to consider you. Just saying no doesnt work.

The LP can't appeal to small business men, gays, home schoolers, gun owners, etc. anymore than it can appeal to those who use drugs or have families entangled in drug "justice" issues.
Why? Because the LP isn't a one issue party.
There's enough other positions in our platform that will turn off the above mentioned people because, due to cognitive dissonance, they aren't consistent in applying their values on the one position with which the LP happens to agree, to all their positions. The second problem is, of course, "wasted votes:" the Dems and GOPS steal
away the votes of those inclined to vote Libertarian because the vast majority of Libertarian candidates have no chance.

It's not just that the LP has not appealed to ethnic minorities, it's that the LP and many vocal libertarians appear to have no social conscience.

They don't see "bars on windows" as a problem, they don't get incensed over the size of the prison population, but if a candidate doesn't say "taxation is theft" or such nonsense, they go nuts.

I was very happy to see this post. The folks who babysit our Platform won't touch "left" issues, I'm glad the staff has the courage to do so.

Well said, Ben.

----------------

I'm thinking we need to form a new caucus, called the 12 o'clock caucus.

Imagine the Nolan Chart in your mind. The Libertarian quadrant is at the top position on the chart, with 100% Libertarian positions pointing to 12 o'clock. This is the so-called "purist" position, but in fact it is real Libertarianism.

The conservative pragmatists who shun leftist messages and favor rightist messages lean right toward the 1:30 position. Their caucus should be labeled the 1:30 caucus. When you think "pragmatist," think 1:30 caucus. They're the ones who think we should discount the left side of the Libertarian quadrant on the chart, in favor of the right side.

The new LP is coming down to a battle between the 12 o'clock caucus and the 1:30 caucus. April 2006 will be the battleground.

Join the 12 o'clock caucus.

By April 2006, I meant the national convention in Portland.

Walt,

Surprising considering most of the reform gang are from the left side of the libertarian quadrant. I would say we are a 10:30 Caucus.

Tim,

I guess it depends on whether you put the conservatives on the right-hand side of the chart or on the left-hand side of the chart.

Walt,

There's no such animal as "real libertarianism".

Havent we been over this ground enough already? A libertarian is anybody that wants greater personal and economic freedom for the individual. Period. At least politically, thats the way to go. There's lots of subsets - Neo, Paleo, Reform, etc, and each one has their subsets of quirks.....but all of these people cant qualify as "unreal libertarians". You would have 62 people left in the LP.

Even though I dont agree with you on ZAP/NAP, I'd NEVER call you anything other than a libertarian. How come the consideration only goes one way?

Do you REALLY think I'm not a libertarian? If not, what am I?

I think this is the most interesting thread I've seen here since I started reading.

re: the suggestion above about gay rights and LP's interest in increasing membership -- I am not a "true" libertarian, I would probably be a part of the 10:30 caucus myself. After voting democrat for most of my life (though never registering as one) I voted for Badnarik in the last election because I finally became COMPLETELY SICK of the dem's position on gay marriage. Although I am not gay, I simply could not bring myself to vote for a candidate who was ostensibly in favor of civil liberties but who would not take a principled stand on this issue. I also appreciate the fact that Libertarian thinking is consistent (unlike democrats) and principled (unlike republicans). I think that the suggestion above is correct that if the LP promoted itself more as a party that stood for personal freedom on issues such as marriage, right to die, and right to abortion, it would be able to increase membership and visibility.

The reason the dems don't take a stand for gay marriage is because so many people are against it, for Bible reasons and for just plain bigotry reasons. How many states have passed a proposal to ban it so far? Including my home state of Michigan (a supposedly liberal state). The reasons Michigan has banned gay marriage are 1) because every area of Michigan that isn't Detroit or Ann Arbor (combined, those two areas make up more than half of the state's population) is very conservative and 2) because tons of people that are "liberal" (even in liberal Detroit and Ann Arbor) are just plain bigoted against homosexuals. In this past election, Michigan was almost a republican state because so many conservatives who would usually not vote went out and voted because they wanted to ban gay marriage. I guess the two most common ways of thinking in this country today are 1) "Who cares what the Constitution says when the Bible says otherwise?" and 2) "Who cares what the Constitution says when homosexuals and other minorities (especially muslims) are stupid and deserve no rights?"

Yes I realize that gay marriage lacks popular support, but so does eliminating social security. People are concerned about membership amd my point is there is an additional base that could be more tapped into than it is.

But you are right that more people care what the Bible says, or at least what they think it says, than about the Constitution.

Me, I'm a reformer and I'm maybe in the 11:30 caucus as I'm not an anarcho-capitalist :-)

But above all I'm a big-tenter.

KB:

It is just incorrect the say gays can't legally marry. What is at issue is same sex marriage. Other than child rearing, those opposed to same sex marriage do so on cultural and religious grounds. So one side wants to change the culture and the other side does not. Seems to me there is no good reason why the church can't do the marrying and the state the legal partnership in a civil unions. We have commingled religious marriage between a man and woman and a state sanctioned legal partnership. This created unnecessary conflict between functions of church and state that is culturally difficult to undo.

As a matter of individual freedom is seems to me the LP would have taken an indisputable liberal position on this issue. "equal under the law!" But then it would be quite difficult to deny three consenting adults from joining in a civil union or four or five and in other cultures.

The reason people can be married by the church is because the government has to recognize religious functions. If you're married by your pastor, the government has to recognize your marriage, just as the court of law has to recognize a priest as a priest. But you don't have to be married by a church. You can be married by the government, even if you're not gay. There doesn't need to be a conflict. If you're married by your church, you're legally married. If you're married by your state, you're legally married. Your church might be able to "not recognize" your state marriage, but who cares? The state will always recognize your marriage wether it was by the state or a church.

If there's three or more consenting adults who want to all marry each other, why stop them? There's nothing preventing them from living together or making love together. Besides, it's not like there would be very many three-or-more marriages. Most people, perhaps 99% of the population, doesn't like the idea of a three-or-more, so they won't have one. But, who are they to tell anyone else that they can't be married?

Our country (especially social conservatives) needs to stop thinking in "ew, that's gross to me, so I think we should legislate against it" and start thinking "hey, it's not hurting me or anyone else, so why not?"

"If you're married by your church, you're legally married. If you're married by your state, you're legally married. Your church might be able to "not recognize" your state marriage, but who cares? The state will always recognize your marriage wether it was by the state or a church."

Except that many clergy will now perform same sex marriages that are not recognized by states.

Of course the state authorizes the clergy to administer the marriage vows. Such ceremonies are traditionally closed with the statements, "By the power vested in me I now pronounce you man and wife! You may kiss the bride" The power vested in him, springs from God for some, and from the state for others. But if you want the partnership to be legally recognized, best you get a proper marriage certificate registered with the state county clerk. The point is, you don't need the church to be legal but you need the church if you want the marriage to be recognized by the church.

Should the courts rule that in this matter the state must not discriminate on the basis of gender, a likely result is group marriages and several other arrangements.

And we wonder why strict religious Muslims think the west is decadent! One must admit there are vast differences between cultures across the world and to many we look like we just can't figure out a civilized way to live.