Can a "political party" which does not address the policy issues most prominently before the American public truthfully be called a "political party" at all?

If the retention results remain as is (assuming they match the list posted on the LP's blog), and if the convention does not enact replacement planks, then the LP will officially have no position on, among other things:

* foreign policy
* military policy
* internal security

... which, with immigration, probably constitute the core issues around which the current election cycle revolves.

The party also appears to be dropping nearly every issue of enduring moderate- to high-level interest -- Social Security, pollution, etc.

And, finally, the party seems to be dropping what amounts to its heretofore perceived "signature issue" -- the one issue on which it has over time garnered increasing credibility and been partially credited with modest public policy successes on: the war on drugs.

It wouldn't have been so bad if this convention had produced clear victory for one faction or another, but what it seems to be producing is a complete muddle -- the "reformers" winning just enough to piss off the "purists" and vice versa, and neither faction winning clearly and thoroughgoingly enough to put its own agendas fully into effect.

Before the convention opened, I privately told several friends that I would be surprised if the party could pull itself together enough to right itself financially and still be a functional national organization by Labor Day. Now I'm beginning to wonder if it's even worth the effort to try.

I'm confused with the LP's stance on immigration. In the National Platform the LP seems very warm to welcoming illegal immigrants and letting them stay in the country, and the LP is officially opposed to punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants. But isn't there a paradox here? Don't illegal immigrants drive up the costs of social welfare and increase the tax burden where they go, as they require certain medical and social services but do not pay into the system themselves?

Part of the Immigration sections reads: "We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons." Right on. But saying that we oppose restrictions on employers who hire illegal immigrants seems to run in direct contrast to that aforementioned quote. Isn't one of the reasons for punishing those employers due to the fact that the illegals are able to obtain services like Medicaid or even Social Security (via false ID) without paying into it, and the employers facilitate that?

I doubt this will stand, because 'Normally, the platform retention vote is merely a formality.' I expect many of the delegates who weren't there for the first vote, will show for the second. This is probably the reason for the 'two votes' requirement (it just now occurs to me in a bolt of illumination).

Even so I agree with your larger point. I expected the 'reform' movement to fizzle in Portland, and I was wrong. It looks like the party is split into nearly equal factions. Presumably that means a nasty fight, wasteful of time and other resources, which will drive many from the party in disgust. Some kind of amicable divorce seems preferable to me, but I don't see much hope for it.

I hope and pray the new platform is in the center.

Marcus,

Actually, there's a good body of evidence that "illegal immigrants" subsidize, rather than drain, "social services." For example, in the example you point out, illegals get jobs under false ID, pay x% of their wages into Social Security, then move on to the next job and next false ID and never collect any of those payments back in the form of benefits.

But, with respect to the platform, it is part of a "no particular order" approach. The LP advocates doing away with government-funded "social services." BECAUSE that is so, the LP also does not advocate allowing the existence of these programs we oppose to be used as an excuse to do something else we oppose (limit immigration).

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Understood. Thanks!

Wait, are we still opposed to the War on Drugs or not?

It just hit me that 'we may or may not hear the results before the convention ends'.

I would guess that, either way, their won't be any time for considering replacements for the deleted planks.

Unless the second vote goes the other way, the LP platform will be silent on drug prohibition, at least untill 2008.

Maybe they will do like the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and keep things secret until they are done?

I feel like Thomas Jefferson trying to get some info from James Madison!

Hold the phone.

The pre-Portland LP platform addressed drug prohibition in two different planks. These were I.4, ‘The War on Drugs’, and I.3, ‘Victimless Crimes’. I.3 actually took a stronger stand against prohibition than I.4.

Plank I.3 hasn’t been deleted. It’s been consolidated with I.2, ‘Crime’.

Until we see the language of I.2, we won’t know what the new stand is on drug prohibition.

The only thing that needs to be said is that this party is helpless because any third party in the U.S. is helpless. I'm not saying it's impossible for this party to be successful but it all depends on how you define success. This party can continue and contradict libertaianism as it has done or it can become a real people's party, either way, it will not change the fact that this country will not see any type of real progress for some time just because of the structure of our political system. Until, the people are given the right to vote rather then being represented by corrupt politicians and communties are allowed to control their resources and land rather then the state and the corporations nothing will be done. The U.S. Libertarian party has potential but I am really begining to loose hope.

Platform aside for the moment. Have the reformist forces gained ahold of the party machinery or merely sundered the platform? If they have done so, than there will really be a long term moderation of the party's message.

Lesson to hardliners. Get butt's to convention next time.

It appears the Libertarian Party just died and has become nothing more than a party willing to conceed and give up their principles to try to present a more sugar coated message to the public.

For a long time I was proud to be a Libertarian Party. Then about a year ago I saw the LP do things that shocked me. They launched a totally NON-Libertarian "exit strategy" for IRAQ which was down right terrifying to read on a LP.org website. Then various individuals have created message boards urging members to gut the party of everything meaningful to just pander to Republicans and Democrats and make them feel a little better about the LP.

Now I realize the LP is no longer any better than the Republican or Democrat Party. Why? Because the LP is...

NO LONGER THE PARTY OF PRINCIPLE.

The LP has conceeded, caved in, and compromised their values just like the Republicans and Democrats do all the time.

I used to tell everyone at work, at school, and church and elsewhere about the LP and how it was the only political party worth voting for. I urged people to consider voting for the LP because of it's PRINCIPLED nature and how the LP would NOT compromise even though it did indeed limit the party's growth. Basically, even if the LP grows TEN FOLD but compromises on their principles the party is WORTHLESS.

The LP used to stand for something, and I shared that belief with all sorts of people. I told people the Libertarian Party believes everyone has the right to live their life however they see fit as long as they do not violate the rights of others without the government or anyone getting in the way. I was bold and even told die hard super-conservative Christians (by the way I am a Christian) that if they support any drug being banned then they are basically a criminal themselves, because they think it is fine to kidnap someone, put them in a cage, and violate their rights just because they chose to put a substance in their body.

I hate drug use. Personally, I don't want to put any substance in my body unless it is for an absolute health reason. Drug use causes LOTS of problems and of course the problems are much worse due to the War on Drugs. But the point is regardless of the morality of drug use every adult has the right to control what they put into their own body as long as they harm no one, do not violate anyone elses rights, do not endanger anyone else, did not steal from anyone, and used the drug in a peaceful and nonviolent way.

I think someone who uses illegal drugs for recreation is completely immoral, but I support their right to use it because it's their body.

That is ONE example of what the Libertarian Party was all about. PRINCIPLES.

Now it seems like the LP has fallen apart. I now will have no part in the political process, will never vote again, will never suggest anyone vote for a Libertarian (pseudo-demopublicrat), or any other canidate again.

There is now no party worth voting for, period.

I'm just glad that from this point on I don't have to deal with the stress of knowing the LP is falling apart, because now I know it is GONE and no more.

The LP is gone and the last hope for liberty died with it.

Goodbye

By the way, I have one last comment to make before I leave.

Those of you who voted to gut the LP of everything that made it meaningful...

Thank you for making every single conversation I have had with hundreds of people about the Libertarian Party, giving out information about the Libertarian Party, and spreading the word about the Libertarian Party completely and totally meaningless.

I wish I had never heard of the Libertarian Party except for the fact that when the LP was truly LIBERTARIAN it taught me what liberty really means.

Now, I am politically homeless yet again, but permanantly.

This is long overdue. There is no reason we need to have a platform that spells out every inch of every possible issue that has ever faced mankind.

People elect people, not platforms. I personally do not want to spend hours and hours trying to explain 70+ planks of a platform to every new propsective party member, or the media for that matter.

We're Libertarians because we favor less government, period. How that position is defended should be left to the candidates who have their names and reputations on the line, out trying to actually win elections.

Live free, take risks.

Never commit to anything that isn't worth fighting for.

The LP seems to have made a huge mistake, but does that mean all hope is lost? Only if we decide that we are going to give up on it. Parties create platforms based on their members and voices of those members. If we truly believe en masse that the LP has failed the people and its own principles, then it is up to us to change that course and save the Party.

If the LP was worth joining, then it is worth fighting to maintain the principles which it espouses, or at least those it used to. This is (or was) the party of principle, and that kind of organization is desperately needed in our country. The LP not only has the resources and the infrastructure and history to facilitate that, but also foundational tenets based upon principle, not pandering.

Don't give up. Let's get the party back. And remember (while perhaps ignoring who said it): "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"

of course Goldwater's "extremism" would be considered as tame as a house kitty compared to the version of the platfrom that just went bye bye. Without context, quotes are not as revealing to the quoted as they are to the quoter.

Let's see how we do now that the convention is behind us in the 2006 contests. That has to be the focus, history cant be changed no matter if you want it to or not.

I wish there was a more tactful way to say this, but I can not think of one. If we EVER want to succeed as the 3rd political party in this nation, we MUST begin to act like one.

First of all, we need to realize what a platform is. I have been following politics for a long time, read extensively on the subject. A platform, by definition in the political world, is a short, brief statement outlining the party's/candidate's position on the most pressing issues of the current campaign and what the party/candidate plans to do during the immediate term of office up for election.

What the LP has been calling a platform for the last 30 years is NOT a platform. It is a position statement/mission statement. What the LP purists have been calling a platform can still be used, if used in the proper manner. It can be used as a guidepost to spell out what we would like to see in a perfect libertarian society, but it is unusable as a platform.

We may not like it, but if we are EVER to be successful as a political party, we will have to bite the bullet and play by the rules as they are until we can change them. This means writing a real platform and using the existing one for its better purpose.

I'm confused as to why some are disappointed (or happy).

Being a political novice, I am not familiar with certain terms such as "platform," "PAC," and "delegates."

As long as the party works toward restricting no actions that betray the ideals of "self-ownership," what's the big deal?

Is it the methodology that's got some down? Or have they somehow changed their goals?

Sorry for sounding like a 'tard.

The reason why I am sad is because as this is a U.S. party that means we will never see progress even if it gains power. The elite will still blind us with competition and consumption that prevent cooperation and progress. The state and the corporations will still control land and resources that the people should own and money will still corrupt those in office. The fact is that Amerika is helpless and it will take a long hard fight to fix that. I am willing to fight, but sadly there aren't enough fighters.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/resources/where.they.stand/

How the hell can the average person side with any of these parties or "leaders"?

Why do so many people feel that they need someone else to rely on?

Can't we write our own laws? Why not write and strive to pass laws that make it easier for us to gain ground?

Maybe start by changing laws about the number of signatures required to get laws and candidates on the next ballot?

Start small, aiming to gain cross-partisan support.

That's how the Christian Coalition did it. That's how the medicinal marijuana guys in California did it. That's how the Open Primary guys in CA did it.

Be both: a lobby group and a political party.

If the true libertarian is about self-reliance, don't worry about what everyone else is doing, worry about what you are doing.

I don't mean this as an attack on anyone, so I hope it's not taken that way.

I believe an overhaul of the platform is long overdue. Good for the delegates!

VERY simple, if the Libertarians become the "Republicrats Lite" to whore votes, I'm gone.
Oh, yes I will also DEMAND that they remove the "Party of Principle" slogan and replace it with one reading "The Party of a Little More Liberty, (if it's ok with you)".

I will reserve judgement and comment until the new platform is complete, you might just suprise me.

My two cents:

So the party platform has been gutted.

I would be lying if I said I was surprised. I've known about the attempts to kill the platform for some time. It seemed inevitable that one would succeed.

That being siad, why not bring it back as a mission statement, or a position paper, or something other than a platform? Hell, party platforms don't need to be too long.

CASE IN POINT-in my home state of New Mexico, all three registered parties (Dems, GOP, Greens) have party platforms that are ONE TO TWO PARAGRAPHS LONG. They don't seem to be doing too poorly.

I'm not saying that it was a good idea to abandon the platform PER SE, but perhaps greater good can come of this by re-adopting the rescinded sections as something--ANYTHING--else.
(After all, how many of our party's candidates have been crucified with the platform as it was?)

Jay Jay,

We may have been saved -- and, with poetic justice toward those who have criticized him, we may have been saved by none other than our 2004 presidential nominee, Michael Badnarik.

You see, each candidate for the LP's presidential nomination is required to submit a "national campaign platform" for ratification by the nominating convention. The national campaign platform remains in effect until the next national convention. And, Michael Badnarik's national campaign platform was (drum roll, please) ...

The platform of the Libertarian Party as of 2004.

Or, to put a finer point on it, the platform of the Libertarian Party as it existed prior to this last weekend's national convention.

So, the old platform is STILL an official statement of the positions of the Libertarian Party, until 2008, and can be cited as such.

Thank God for that! That platform should have never existed in the first place. I was seriously considering leaving the party because I was very tired of attaching my name to such a buffoonish document and such a conglomeration of people so intent on killing every proposal they wish would happen. It's too bad that the pledge did not fail too, but half the delegation voted against it apparently. It is time for the old guard to go or change - you have failed at making the LP a relevant political party and enabled the major parties to grow government without a real libertarian challenge. Political suicide in immensely unprincipled, and the membership's tide has finally shifted against it.

3rd cent:

Thank you very much, Mr. Badnarik. It's reassuring to see the platform maintained, if not retained.

(I still agree with Law Eisenbach that we could survive by simplify the platform to something short like the Zero-Aggression Principle and retain the old platform in the form of various position statements, BUT thankfully we don't have to worry about that so much right now.)

4th cent (don't worry, I'll shut up soon):

Mr. Wilson, why do you seem to direct so much hatred against the platform? Granted, it was publicly considered too extreme to be respectable, but at one time, so were space flight, nanotechnology, and governments not based on the "divine right" of monarchs. Who is to say that most or all of the proposals of "such a buffoonish document" won't become reality in a few decades? Then who will be the buffoon?

First of all, your logic makes no sense. The party is not bound by whatever document Badnarik submitted in 2004 any more than it is by whatever their candidates for Congress or Dogcatcher or whatever. That was his own platform, and it does not in any way determine the platform of the party for four years. Maybe you're being self-illusory, but the platform that goes on the LP.org site and that is considered by members to be the party platform is what they approve this year. In fact, non-presidential conventions are the year the party generally concentrates on the platform!

Secondly my disdain for the LP platform comes from the fact that it is barely cloaked anarchocapitalism that will never sell with voters! Because I think anarchocapitalism is slightly worse than the statist drivel we have today - Somalia is a wonderful example of anarchocapitalism and what happens when society can be easily controlled by whichever mob owns the most capital and has the biggest guns and the best organization, without any precept of judicial or legal protection for their victims.

I am libertarian. I believe government should be as small as it can be, but at its core, government is necessary to protect property and basic liberties when one does not have the means to protect oneself.

The other main reason I loathe the old platform is because it sabotages every gain we could make with thrice as much lunacy. Perhaps voters would buy "ending the war on drugs," but legalizing crack and PCP tomorrow? I doubt it. Perhaps voters would support major tax cuts and major reductions in government spending, but banning all taxes??! I think not! Perhaps voters could be sold on gradually privatizing Social Security, having voucher programs to funnel poor kids out of failing schools and bringing more competition to the health care industry to compete prices down and quality up, but privatizing the three immediately?? Get real!

Maybe the platform could be achieved in 30 years, but it requires giving voters a real product now so they can start changing directions. If we had a platform structured more along the lines of Cato's policy recommendations, or attached the basic libertarian ideas to government reform as the centerpiece of our party, we might have a chance at winning some national races to get the country on the right track. As of thirty years with a similar platform, NOTHING GOOD HAS COME ABOUT FOR LIBERTARIANS! It's time for something new.

By the way, Jay Jay, Badnarik's entire campaign contradicted the platform. The Constitution has many initiations of force, such as enabling the government to levy taxes, control interstate commerce and raise a military. Either Badnarik supported the platform or he only supported parts that also supported the Constitution, and I'm betting it's the latter.

The platform structure as it now stands, after the second retention vote:

* I.1 Freedom and Responsibility
I.2 Crime <- I.3
+I.4 The War on Drugs
+I. 10 Fredeom of Communication
+I. 11 Freedom of Religion
* I.12 Property Rights <- III.9, IV.D.3, IV.C.3
* I.13 The Right to Privacy
+* I.16 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
I.17 Conscription
I.18 Immigration
I.20 Reproductive Rights <- III.5
I.22 Sexuality and Gender
II.5 Government Debt
II.6 Corporate Welfare, Monopolies and Subsidies <- II.7
II.9 Public Services <- III.13

* indicates approved by over 50% of delegates for retention on the first vote
<- indicates consolidation
+ indicates approved by over 50% of delegates for retention on the second vote

Full text should be available soon.

Join us here to plan out the next steps:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpplatform-discuss/

dont forget that every LP candidate who wins elective office is a instant pledge breaker the second he/she takes the oath of office which demands support of the US Constitution and by extension, some level of force.

There can be no "principled libertarians" ever elected. To hold the office, the first thing they must do is break their oath, or refuse to serve.

change to hold the office to serve in the office they won....damn brain....

Tim West and ALL,

It appears your wish of a gutted Libertarian Party removed of everything it stands for has come to pass.

By the way, there can be principled Libertarians elected and your statement is downright ridiculous.

Even if the delegates vote to restore the platform the fact they voted parts of it down shows they are nothing but republicrats in disguise.

Lets face the facts.

There are many Republicans and Democrats that want a little more freedom and liberty at least about their pet issues, but CANNOT STAND the Libertarian Party as it "used" to be due to the fact it was *PRINCIPLED* and called for such "horrible" and "scary" things as the legalization of all drugs, people's absolute right to privacy, the fact our nation should IMMEDIATELY have it's military leave around a HUNDRED nations around the world, an immediate ABOLISHMENT of the Social Security system, an END to *at least* federal funds for public schools, the absolute and total restoration of the second ammendment, TOTAL freedom of speech (even if it offends other people or could be considered hate speech), etc.

The Libertarian Party WAS radical because it believed in TOTAL freedom as long as you do not violate the rights of others.

These reformers really are really just republicrats and demopublicans who can't accept TRUE Libertarianism and are trying to take over the party and change it into something they personally can accept. Real freedom and true liberty is too scary for them to accept and obviously their more concerned about their image in the minds of others than their true quality of character or consistancy of beliefs.

Their trying to grasp the Libertarian Party, suck everything meaningful out if it, make it into a party of COMPROMISE, remove every official position that could be considered too controversial, and mellow the message of Liberty until it is so sugar coated that the bold shout for FREEDOM is only a faint whimper!

The LP is gone. It is theirs. They managed to convince the delegates to remove huge sections of the platform. Regardless if it is restored they broke the principled nature of this party and it is forever just as tarnished as the Republican, Democratic, or any other political party of compromise.

From this day forward, *libertarianism* has NOTHING to do with the Libertarian Party.

The truth is that the old LP *may* have never won major electorial victories, but it was something principled, just, and worth fighitng for! It was a beacon of principle, honesty, and brutal in your face no-compromise INTEGRITY. Supporting the old LP was an honor in that one was sacrificing for one of the few truly noble causes: true liberty and true freedom.

Now the Libertarian Party may still never win any electorial victories or become a major player. However, for a true principled libertarian it's just as much of an abomination to support as the Republican or Democratic Parties. It's another party of compromise by those who have no stomach to handle the sacrifices that come from supporting true Liberty.

Remember that saying that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil?

The truth of the matter is now there is a NEW evil in DC and it's misnomer is the Libertarian Party. Voting for the Libertarian Party is voting for evil and is dealing with the devil just as much as consorting with the Republican or Democratic parties.

Now, all LIBERTARIANS (not the conformists that voted to gut the party even if they changed their minds) are truly politically homeless.

William Hand = makeitlookreal?

Makeitlookreal,

Give it up. I'd know whether or not I was a Republicrat or whatever and I'm not. In fact, I came to the LP from the Green Party after the Cato Institute sold me on the idea that free markets are more progressive than welfare states. Another founding member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus has been in the LP most of his adult life and himself used to be rather purist for many years until he saw that it was not winning any friends or elections. Another LRC founder came over from the Reform Party. Others have worked within the party for years to bring about pragmatic libertarianism, like Tim West. Unless you know what you are talking about when accusing reformers of being Republicrats, please don't pretend you do. If we really were Republicrats, why would we care so much about a small and ineffective party like the LP into an effective tool for liberty? Why wouldn't we just get on the ballots as Republicans or Democrats and have a significantly better chance of winning? Why would we even waste our time?

I know arguing with you and others with your mindset is like punching a brick wall until my fists bleed, but: CAN YOU SAY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THE LP HAS SUCCEEDED IN CHANGING THE POLITICAL SYSTEM IN A LIBERTARIAN DIRECTION OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS? Anyone with a thread of political reality will know it hasn't (government has grown; our candidates rarely, if ever, win partisan races; we have yet to win a federal office), and maybe our continually failed strategy of adhering stubbornly to nothing less then perfection and focusing on education over winning elections and enacting real policy, or illuding ourselves that, with some evangelical flair, we can save the public from the impending doom of statism by converting them with a pure message of anarchocapitalism...maybe that hasn't worked and its time for you to admit it. Maybe its time to try something new.

Maybe its time for moderates to have a second chance after Murray Rothbard purged the moderates from the party in 1981, counter-intuitively, after our most successful presidential election ever (with a moderate libertarian candidate - Ed Clark). Thanks Rothbard, you doomed the LP to 25 years of obscurity and gave the government a blank check to grow without any real libertarian opposition. How principled...

Changing the subject, I feel like our current status of being "in limbo" regarding the platform has more to do with our bylaws than with anyones' specific efforts. Why do our bylaws require only a majority to remove a plank yet 2/3rds to add a new one? It seems as though this is why we are currently unable to have a complete platform.

The Libertarian Reform Caucus submitted many alternate platform proposals to the Platform Committee, yet most were either ignored or corrupted by some members changing the original proposals into something that fit their own agenda. I was unable to attend the convention, but it seems as though there was very little time for floor proposals, so it was impossible to make a finished platform. I am happy that many planks (esp. taxation) went, but the fact we were not able to craft and pass better ones is an issue in the bylaws members on both sides of the debate should take up.

If a majority oppose a plank, the plank should be shot down. If a majority support a plank, whichever proposal gets the largest majority wins (so if there is only one proposal and it gets 51%, that is the best proposal; if there are two proposals and one gets 51% and the other 65%, we obviously go with the 65%.) I think this is a reasonable bylaws change that people on all sides should seriously consider. (After all, even purists will want to have even a remote chance of making a new platform in the future - or reviving an archaic one - the current drift towards majority pragmatists will make it next to impossible for EITHER SIDE to pass any new planks with a 2/3rds vote.) Food for thought.

now, how will we make the 2006 elections the most successful in LP history and lay the foundation for 2008?

Convention is over. Let's get back to electoral politics. We have candidates that need our help.

Bob Barr for President '08?

I feel like we should utilize this opportunity to write to our local newspapers with "LP turns over a new leaf" letters to the editor. By showing the public that the party is changing and we are trying to repair our damaged reputation and become a real political party for once, maybe some readers will begin to quit writing us off.

I could be wrong, but isn't Bob Barr not exactly friendly toward the LP view of drugs in society? I know he used to be a champion of the War on Drugs, which would seem to be antithetical to a core aspect of what the LP is bringing to the people (shrinking of the size of government is obviously the biggest trait of the LP.)

Yes, I kid completely...too much whipped cream on his face to win...

I supported the LP not because I thought it was likely we could win many elections.

I supported the LP not because I made many friends.

I supported the LP not because we would be likely to make a significant difference in this nation.

I supported the Libertarian Party because it was the only political party that consistantly and boldly opposed individual's rights being violated in anyway whatsoever regardless of the issue or situation. It supported 100% of our rights 100% of the time with ZERO willingness to compromise.

Let me give one example, that can be used for many different issues and can explain why you can't be a true Libertarian and compromise.

For example, true Libertarians believe everyone has the right to put whatever substance they desire into their own body as long as they are not violating the rights of others. Because of this TRUE Libertarians are against the War on Drugs but even MORE SO absolutely demand *all* drugs be 100% legalized.

If the Libertarian Party does not keep it's stance that *all* drugs be legalized then quite frankly it does not support that people have the right to control their own bodies.

If the Libertarian Party waters down their political stance on the drug issue (as one example out of many) to any principled Libertarian it means the party now officially supports:

Kidnapping

Assault

Battery

Slavery

This is because there are many citizens that have never violated the rights of any other person but who were kidnapped by criminal police officers, assulted physically by them, battered by being placed in handcuffs and thrown around or worse, and ENSLAVED in a prison cell.

Just because they owned, grew, used, or manufactured a substance.

Once again, on a moral level, I must stress that I am 100% opposed to drug use for recreational purposes and feel that for other purposes it is dangerous and as a Christian it is downright sinful.

But as a TRUE LIBERTARIAN I realize that when any person is in prison, is in jail, house arrest, on probation, fined, or even ticketed for any such VICTIMLESS crime the GOVERNMENT IS THE TRUE CRIMINAL.

The point of the issue and how it relates to the Libertarian Party is this.

If the Libertarian Party does not take an absolutely bold and 100% stance against such government criminality to the SAME DEGREE it does to a common STREET THUG kidnapping an individual to steal their wallet, beating them down, kidnapping them, and doing all kinds of horrible things to them then the Libertarian Party is no better than our CRIMINAL government because it does not oppose such actions.

If the Libertarian Party does not completely and boldly call for the abolishment of all gun control laws, all drug laws, the abolishment of the Social Security system and other welfare systems that STEALS from individuals, all prostitution laws, and a whole slew of other laws...

Then the LP supports our criminal government violating the rights of citizens who have harmed no one but themselves!

Of course such a hard-line policy will NOT be popular, has made the party several enemies, and could scare away many voters.

But if the LP is to be anything more than a supporter of criminal activities there is no alternative choice, period.

The LP either supports true and total FREEDOM and LIBERTY for ALL people in ALL situations at ALL times, or it does not support these concepts at all.

You can't be in partial support of Freedom and Liberty. You can't say I support people's rights, freedoms, and liberties 90% of the time. The truth of the matter is that Liberty and Freedom are issues that you either support:

COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY.

or

NOT AT ALL!

Quite frankly, I cannot support anyone being punished by the government *at all* for any victimless crime even if the person's behavior is immoral, nasty, disgusting, or vulgar to me.

For example, I'm a CHRISTIAN and cannot STAND prostitution on a moral level. Sex before marriage is an absolute sin and obviously sex with anyone other than your wife after marriage is absolutely disgustingly immoral.

But as an example if Bill Clinton had openly declared that he hired prostitutes every single night of the week to have sex with him at the White House then that would not have been any of my business.

Either we are Libertarians about all issues at all times, or not. If we sacrifice our principles so that more people will accept our candidates, be attracted to our party, or tolerate our message then it could potentially allow us to grow.

But as I have stated before it would mean the Libertarian Party would deem as acceptable the kidnapping, assault, battery, and enslavement of NUMEROUS individuals who did nothing to harm anyone else and was simply convicted of a VICTIMLESS CRIME!

It's easy to attract people who want "less government" by criticising excessive spending in general and it's easy to say you want "more freedom" in a crowd.

What gives you character is if your willing to stand up for what is unpopular, what is actually hated, and what can get you assaulted by angry mobs but is actually the PRINCIPLED TRUTH!

The fate of the Libertarian Party comes down to this very question.

Will the LP continue to stand for the PRINCIPLED TRUTH regardless of the consequences for good or ill?

Or...

Will the LP give up it's stand for PRINCIPLED TRUTH and by giving in to the pressure of conformists allow itself to potentially attract more people, but to a party that actually no longer has a problem with individuals having their rights violated by the government? And also to a party that allow's it's must fundamental principles to sway back and fourth at the cost of giving up on everyone's right to live their life however they see fit without anyone interfering regardless of the issue?

---

Do we still challenge the CULT of the ominpotent state or do we quiet our tone, silence our toungues, and let our passionate hearts yearning for liberty grow cold?

I know not what others may decide to do, but for those bold men and women who are not satisfied with growth at the cost of the dillution of our principles I say there is only one option available. We must stop speaking and start shouting. Instead of carefully considering when to use every word we must proclaim the full truth of our message at all times, but most importantly we must let the peaceful fires of liberty in our hearts grow once more into a roaring flame.

The Libertarian Party has been corrupted and for those of us who oppose these recent actions against the cause of liberty should no longer affiliate ourselves with the organization. In all reality, though the Libertarian Party may never have been large and mighty it's foundation was strong and structually sound. It's philosophy was principled and every strand of the platform challenged the cult of the omnipotent state.

The LP has been broken, it's foundation shattered, and it's very soul corrupted. It is time for a new political party to be born from the remnants of this disaster and to thrust forward and form an even stronger alliance of those who resisted the lure of compromise of our most profound principles in exchange for political gain.

Those that oppose the former party of liberty's recent action should shake off the dust from their boots, unite together, declare their independance, and walk alway from the convention with more pride for themselves and their convictions than ever.

The convention will mark a new age for Liberty because it was the week when the only political party for true freedom, liberty, and principle died, but from it's relatively few remnants came a new party with all it's previous strengths, with new strengths, but without the curruption of the cult of the omnipotent state.

"of course Goldwater's "extremism" would be considered as tame as a house kitty compared to the version of the platfrom that just went bye bye. Without context, quotes are not as revealing to the quoted as they are to the quoter."

You obviously have never read "The Conscience of a Conservative". Pretty radical stuff, especially today.

Goldwater called the Eisenhower administration "a dime-store New Deal". He wanted to make Social Security voluntary (he opposed its passage), believed in selling off federal lands, he supported the NAACP and fought to desegregate the Arizona National Guard in the 50's, yet he opposed the Civil Rights Act because he felt it was unconstitutional. He wanted to abolish the income tax and dismantel the welfare state.

Goldwater wasn't that far off from the LP platform of last week. He was considered radical then, and would be considered radical now.

Of course, he also lost the presidential election, recieving a pathetic 38.4% of the vote and only 52 electoral votes.

Makeitlookreal,

Really, if you do not care if the LP succeeds politically or not, why not just form an educational organization or a PAC that supports only purist libertarian candidates?

Why do you need to have a political party if you don't care that it will fail?

Furthermore, if you don't care about political success, why bother attaching yourself to a political party, keeping others in the political party who want real libertarian objectives accomplished via the political system from succeeding? Political parties are supposed to be "POLITICAL," thus the name. If you don't want politics, you can just have a party, invite all your fellow hardliners, have a few drinks and sit around being as purist as you want - I won't stop you and none of the other people who believe a political party should be political would either.

Also, I beg to differ with your analogy about being "criminal." A better analogy would be learning fly fishing. The Republicans and Democrats own fish farms (their special interest groups), but we don't, so we have to fish in the river, the people who are dissatisfied with their electoral choices. Ideally we would like to catch trout, the highest quality fish. The Republicans and Democrats have traps upriver, and if we miss them, they will be eventually caught by those parties or maybe escape somehow into the ocean of political apathy.

Fly fishing (and politics) is an art of subtlety. If you try to fish with heavy bait, you will scare the trout away for miles, sending them running into the Republican and Democratic traps. However, with the right bait and technique and the right amount of patience, we may eventually get some bites. The better trout fishers we become, the more trout we catch and the better likelihood we have of competing with our Republican and Democratic competition.

Ok, I guess it is going a bit far to propose "luring" voters into our fish baskets, but my point is, we have to tread lightly if we want to win the public to our side. While I agree that people should be able to put whatever they want in their bodies, legalizing crack and PHP would be like chunking a giant boulder into the middle of the river and frightening the trout and almost every other fish away. (Even hardcore drug users would think we are crazy!) Banning all taxes is the same way. Privatizing schools and hospitals. Etc. Etc. Whether or not you are principled in advocating these ideas is beside the point - they will never happen if you keep trying to crush trout with boulders!!!

In advocating the end to the intrusive war on drugs, legalization of medical marijuana and the growth of hemp, and leaving the issue of marijuana legality up to the states to decide, we might be fishing with a rather big fly, but we still have the chance of winning. In advocating voucher programs, we are able to be delicate and successful.

While your argument about incrementalism prolonging criminal activity is a point (one I have heard many times before), if we are advocating reducing criminal activity while the other parties are advocating expanding criminal activity that makes us significantly less criminal than them. To argue that government could ever be perfect is a pipe dream, and one I am willing to live with the fact that a government may have to initiate force (like taxation) to prevent worse crimes from happening (like setting up a legal system to protect my life, liberty and property).

If you aren't willing to live with that, I've got a plot of land to sell you in Somalia, with no taxes or gun laws and no corrupt legal systems or governments to worry about! Make sure you stock up on AK-47s, though. I hear the locals can be a bit rowdy.

Sorry, "setting up a legal system" is not a worse crime. People violating my property and life is a worse crime than getting taxed so I can have legal protection from those people.

Chris,

I have read it. Still nowhere near the level of the former platform.

I think we can all be Libertarians whether you are a purist or even a moderate, and here's why...

You can support your candidates at the national conventions you feel reflect your views. You can give them money through a PAC. You can also run your own campaign if you want to join a committee. There are countless things you can do to help liberty and shape this party. Leaving the LP would be foolish because 100% of us all want smaller government. Period. That's the direction the party still has. Nothing has changed!

Personally, I am proud to be Libertarian after this convention, even if my votes didn't go my way. Some of them did. But I still believe the national LP is our best vehicle than trying to reform to Democrats or Republicans.

Barry Hess said at the convention, "People are now understanding what Libertarian means, but have no idea what Democrats and Republicans stand for." If you agree, than the LP has a bright future because right now the two major parties are crumbling and moving in the wrong direction.

I think we were still united at this convention and will continue to only see growth as we elect more candidates, run more candidates, have a larger base, and be more successful than any other third party, and eventually American politics will naturally have at least three candidates debating in every election.

It will not happen overnight, but I see some big changes ahead that will make our party very competitive. You can sit on the sidelines, or we can make it happen. I believe this change is happening.

Corey Stern, MN

Let me try to answer this in the best way I can. To do that I will try to provide my answer in three parts.

1) Unlike some of the reformers which have in my opinion just destroyed the Libertarian Party I think the LP *how it was* could have grown, prospered, and done well. The problem was NOT the platform, our principles, or the fact that we had a strong message some people would feel intimidated by and potentially scare away at times. The problem was the LP was not utilizing the tools at it's disposal to really grow, spread their message, educate people, and to generally let people know about the party. The ONE area I AGREE with the "reformers" is that the party needed to be MORE active in outreach, needed to use EVERY tool possible, and certainly needed to improve it's use of the internet.

Personally, I think the LP could have succeeded despite it's sometimes unpopular message. The reason it was not growing was not it's message, but that the LP as a whole (not every part of the LP) was doing little to let people know about the Libertarian Party.

Let me tell you something. During the last election I was in line for an HOUR voting. The line was way outside of the courthouse and basically a huge parking lot was FILLED with hundreds upon hundreds of people. Obviously, there were a LOT of discussions going on and people were talking about candidates, issues, and so fourth.

Now, before the election I tried to tell people about the Libertarian Party and when asking them if they had heard of it 95% of people knew NOTHING and the FEW that did apparently could not even TELL ME what we stood for!

At the election I asked many, many people if they knew about the LP or Michael Badnarik. Out of a couple DOZEN people (yes, I had to wait THAT long in the parking lot and actually out into the street) only one person knew about the LP and that was a young doctor who was a military surgeon.

In my experience it's not those that know about us and are scared that are the problem. It is those that don't know about us or our candidates at all or have only heard about us through a brief commercial or vague mention somewhere and really don't have a clue.

It's not the message, but that it's not going anywhere (not because of it's content) but because were not effectively TRANSPORTING the message OUT TO THE PEOPLE IN MASS.

2) Just because I'm a part of a party that has NOT done well in the past, may not do well in the future, and have a message that at some point could potentially scare SOME people from voting for us (if we EVER *really* got the message out there in the first place) the truth of the matter is that AS A LIBERTARIAN I have to TRY to get out my message.

I have to try and be a part of a party and help my candidates succeed even if only to fail, fail again, and fail a dozen more times.

When you really believe something is true and are being principled you keep trying NOT BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU WILL WIN, but because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

I now realize that there are absolutely innocent people in prison for all sorts of victimless crimes!

These people are being held in prison for doing things that hurt NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES AND PERHAPS NOT EVEN THAT IN MOST CASES!

Their jailers are CRIMINALS. They are being held by THUGS in CAGES and are being deprived of their rights each and every day.

The REALLY scary aspect is that this continues to go on and even MORE people are being locked up and having MANY of their rights violated each and every day!

I have to 100% oppose the war on guns, the war on drugs, the war on prostitution, the war on tax protestors, and the war on all humans being found guilty of VICTIMLESS CRIMES!

I may not like what someone else has done. But as a Libertarian I have to consider it just as bad if a crack cocaine user is being locked up in prison as if a small child was abducted from his or her home by some messed up monster and thrown in a cage!

IT IS THE SAME DARN THING AND SOMEONE WHO IS TRULY PRINCIPLED MUST ADMIT THAT TO EVERYONE EVEN IF IT IS UNPOPULAR!

The truth is that our government is not a legitimate government anymore, but at least what was at one time a somewhat decent system of governance turned into a giant currupt criminal gang of thugs, thieves, and tyrants!

I have to proclaim this loudly, openly, and blatantly because it is the truth.

I also have to try and do something to change the current state of affairs, and in doing so MUST not deny the TRUE STATE OF OUR NATION which I mentioned above.

If your child was being attacked by some sort of monster and was being held in a cage and you were trying to get a group of people to organize an effort to let your child out would you sugar coat the HORRIBLE ways your child is being assaulted by some hiddeous freak monster (that DOES deserve to be in prison for the rest of his or her life) or would you openly talk about the TRUTH of the HORRIBLE event that has taken place?

Obviously, regardless if you "scare" people or not with the truth, you have to tell the truth, period! If you don't tell the truth you are disrespecting, dishonoring, and making light of the horrors of whoever is having their rights violated!

The media makes a HUGE thing out of a crime where a person is abducted, caged up, abused, and so fourth by some maniac individual. This is rightly so, because that person is having his or her rights violated!

But the media is SILENT about the EQUALLY HORRIBLE CRIME being commited when an innocent person is sent to prison for a NON-VIOLENT VICTIMLESS CRIME!

If we are truly Libertarians we cannot be silent personally, we cannot be silent when it comes to our platform, we cannot be silent when we run in races for office, and we cannot be silent as a political party.

We must peacefully SCREAM at the top of our lungs!

---

You see, I refuse to sugar-coat any situation where a person's rights are being violated. I don't care if it's being done by an evil extraterrestrial monster invading Earth, some human monster with major mental problems, a crooked street thug, a random murderer, or OUR OUR OWN GOVERNMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

If someone's rights are being violated their rights are being violated and it's just as horrible of a situation regardless WHO has violated their rights!

The new so called "Libertarian Party" that has emerged this week refuses to admit the severity of these issues. They refuse to tell the world how horrible it is when people have their rights violated. They refuse to tell the world that these things are absolutely wrong and when someone is put in prison for a victimless crime it is just as much an ABOMINATION as when someone's rights are violated by a street thug!

The New Libertarian Party is NOT about liberty but about political power, gaining membership, and political clout. The rights of PEOPLE and the true HORROR of what our nation has become is DEAD LAST IN THEIR OPINION! PERIOD.

END OF STORY

That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Corey Stern,

I respect your decision to support whoever you want to support, but personally I cannot support any party that does not openly, boldly, and with vigor support the rights of EVERYONE to live their life how they see fit.

This new Libertarian Party (the worst misnomer possible) ignores the innocent who are having their rights violated.

The truth of the matter is that anyone on this planet would yell, scream, and try to tell everyone on Earth if one of their family members was grabbed, placed in bindings, and thrown into a cage by a street thug when they have not harmed anyone else. But this new Libertarian Party is DEAD SILENT to the HORROR that this is happening to NUMEROUS PEOPLE all across this nation!

When it's not you or me we stay silent. However, that does not mean the horror does not exist, but simply that this new LP cares more about membership, numbers, and political clout that boldly demanding the release of at a minimum tens of thousands of people and even more who are being arrested by our CRIMINAL government each and every day!

Can anyone provide further updates about what has happened at the conference?

In particular, I would like contact information for any group that opposed the platform changes and have splintered off from the New LP to form their own organization.

I'm glad they gutted the platform, but kept the pledge.

The pledge says you cannot initiate force. Someone in this thread said if you take the oath of office as president to uphold the Constitution, you are breaking the pledge.

That's not true. You're not initiating force, the limited force of the Constitution was already there.

That's the whole point of the pledge, decrease force.

And the pledge sounds good. It isn't quoted against us, like some platform planks are. That was the whole point of getting rid of many planks.

I just read this blog for the first time, returning this afternoon from the convention. There is one thing to clarify, and that is that the requirement for a National Campaign Platform was removed from the bylaws at this convention. The delegates voted to remove Article 5 in its entirety, and to amend the Convention Rules, Rule 1, Section 9, to remove the words "including ratification of the National Campaign Platform."

Wow...huge rush to judgement there. No one even knows what the new LP will be like - will there be schisms? Will it collapse underneath itself? Will the two sides finally unite for a greater cause?

Yes the tables have turned in favor of pragmatic policy decision, but regardless of whether there is a government or not, whether it is done by the government or not, there will always be violations of people's rights, so either you are living in a pipe dream utopia (rather sad) or you are just bitter and throwing out anything to make yourself look like a fallen soldier in a righteous war that you will always lose, whether the pragmatists control the party (who advocate incrementalism and prioritization, compromising your values, but may win more liberty or reduce crime via political means) or whether the radicals do (where there is a mutual moral comfort in stubbornness but you never actually win any more real liberty or reduce any real crime).

That was a long run-on sentence...

one person or one party define a "true libertrarian." The definition of libertarian is a "person who supports limited government and the expansion of personal and economic freedom." How can one be more "true" than anyone else who supports this ideology - as long as one is not arguing for more government and more government intrusion, one theoretically fits the definition of "true" libertarian. Unless you mean "true" as in "one who opposes all government and supports complete, unadulterated personal and economic freedom" - i.e. you are an anarchist, which is really not the same thing as a libertarian.

The LP was never perfect. The old platform had major flaws and inconsistencies even someone as principled as yourself should understand. If perfection is your goal, you will always fall short - I'm sorry but it is a fact. Anarchists, radicals, moderates, conservative libertarians, liberal libertarians - no one ever was, nor will ever be completely happy. And if you were, how could one mold oneself to a document and a party that supported "Transitional Steps" when one claims that such steps would be prolonging crime?

One should not be so dedicated to a cause that one is blinded by their dedication. Too many times in history has fervor and unflinching dedication to a cause led to very bad things.

Oops..."Can one person or one party define the word 'libertarian'?"

All the handwringing and angst about pledges and platforms seems antithetical to political reality. People, media & money goto the red and blue based on historical inevitibility. The die has been cast for the 2006 races regardless of anything done in Portland.

A lot of the candidates milled about outside the proceedings with little regard for what was transpiring on the floor. At one point I was witness to Barry Hess asking George Phillies for a donation which was reciprocated, my own campaign not withstanding. Despite all the hype about the former prez candidate running for Congress, no one seems to be able to broach the idea of a current poll in the race. It's a reality that few on either 'side' wishes to deal with.

Long days and nights kept me from the LNC meeting this morning despite being elected as a regional alternate under protest. Family obligations simply over ruled the possibility. I'm also half hour outside of Portland and the prospect of another long session was not on the table. Fort Vancouver was more fun.

While I consider myself as principled as well as practical, movement towards a political director and challenging ballot access seem like the most important steps to take in the next few years. The thought that somehow the tide will turn based on any consideration of a pledge or platform is just naive.

Candidates are the life blood of the party. Without them you have nothing. Money and supporters will follow when quality people step up and declare that the notion of Liberty includes less government and more personal freedom. It may not follow that people will even regard it given that state of lesser of two evil voting. The fight is the most important thing. The LP has always offered one of the best options for the good fight.

Respect the cast of characters who have lead that fight over the years. The highly charged and intellectual basis for this fight should never be forgotten. Every candidate is an individual. Every platform suffers from committee-ism. Don't lose sight of this paradox.

The pledge issue is one of the most silly issues I have ever witnessed in over twenty years of politics. It just doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things. Retaining it, changing it or eliminating it means nothing, but to a few cranks on either side.

Right - but at least now candidates won't be forced to defend whether they support banning all taxes and eliminating all government. Candidates now have the flexibility to determine their own stances without being shackled to a "National Platform." This is why it does make such a great difference, and why it is an important emergence for future elections - candidates can say what they believe, not what Murray Rothbard wants them to believe! By changing the image and tone of the National Party, perhaps candidates with realistic messages won't be forced to acknowledge their party's lack of realism.

It is a sickening and horrifying difference.

Now candidates can support assault, battery, slavery, kidnapping, and all sorts of crimes against innocent people that hurt no one but themselves and in many cases not even that.

The truth is that it's just fine if the government does it, and it's only bad if it's done by a thug on the street.

But the government is our lord and master according to the new party so we should not speak against them in authority not matter what they do to innocent people who have hurt no one and have not violated anyone elses rights.

The violation of people's rights just does not matter anymore.

In my opinion the LP has now become just as anti-freedom and liberty as the Republican or Democratic parties.

I'm not going to waste my time on this party any longer.

Good Bye and have fun while supporting CRIMINAL acts against innocent people who are convicted of VICTIMLESS CRIMES!

Also, have fun being able to sway your opinions back and fourth on the political wind of public opinion. Have fun surfing, but just remember you'll never reach the land of a firm foundation again!

Oh poo poo...

Why don't you answer some of my earlier questions and cut the self-pity and straw man fallacies? I asked you how you can pretend the LP was any better (or any different) last Thursday when it supported transitional steps in its platform, thus supporting the temporary perpetuation of your dreaded government crimes? Or if anyone can truly define what a libertarian is? Or if some government "crime" is necessary (like taxation) to build legal systems and law enforcement to prevent worse crimes (like murder, rape and kidnapping, by governments, corporations or individuals - checks and balances do at times hold the other branches of government accountable for bad actions, like the recent Guantanamo decision.)

Please quit moaning and either put forward real arguments or give relevant answers...or just stop already. (...punches brick wall...fists bleed...)

"Or if anyone can define what a TRUE libertarian is"

Nick,

Here in the U.S. a tru libertarian is someone who indirectly supports a government who only serves the rich. As they believe it should only be here to protect from force and fraud that means wen the rich buy up everything, the government will end up only serving them because it is indeed the rich people's property they will be protectig. However, if you go to Canada or France or pretty much any other country you will see a slightly different meaning. It is basically someone who realizes that both big government and big corporations are threats to liberty and that the people should have direct control over there lives, land and resources not some idiot who sits on a chair in a office on top of a building who thinks that poor people are lazy.

>>It's not the message, but that it's not going anywhere (not because of it's content) but because were not effectively TRANSPORTING the message OUT TO THE PEOPLE IN MASS.<<

I agree, but what is the message?

That using force to stop individuals from acting in ways that harm no one is wrong. That taking from people what is theirs is wrong.

Was that the goal of the LP? Has that now changed? If so, why does it say "fewer taxes" on top instead of "no taxes"?

I'm a big believer in the saying "the ends justify the means."

People who support the old platform, you're going to have to convince us that the end goal of the LP has changed.

People who support the new platform, you're going to have to convince us that the new platform will achieve this goal...assuming you support this goal.

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

I'm curious how the LP (moderate and purist) feels about copyrights and public property like Beaches, parks, roads, and sidewalks.

>>Here in the U.S. a tru libertarian is someone who indirectly supports a government who only serves the rich. As they believe it should only be here to protect from force and fraud that means wen the rich buy up everything, the government will end up only serving them because it is indeed the rich people's property they will be protectig.>However, if you go to Canada or France or pretty much any other country you will see a slightly different meaning. It is basically someone who realizes that both big government and big corporations are threats to liberty and that the people should have direct control over there lives, land and resources not some idiot who sits on a chair in a office on top of a building who thinks that poor people are lazy.<<

Yeah, and they tax the hell out of their rich. Why is stealing from rich more just than stealing from no one or stealing from everyone equally?

I use the term stealing instead taxes because how many of the programs paid for by those taxes are supported by 100% of the taxpayers? Is that money not taken by force then? Whether government does it or a guy with a gun does it, isn't forcefully taking money wrong?

Is Robin Hood not a criminal?

Why does this thing hack up my posts? grrr.

>>Here in the U.S. a tru libertarian is someone who indirectly supports a government who only serves the rich. As they believe it should only be here to protect from force and fraud that means wen the rich buy up everything, the government will end up only serving them because it is indeed the rich people's property they will be protectig.<<

I think you're going to have to provide examples of how government has intervened to prohibit corporate abuse of a system not caused by government itself.

By interfering in unions, interest rates and inflation, regulation, and licensing, government has made it so that only those who can afford certain things can afford to enter and compete in certain marketplaces. Marketplaces the common man could enter if there was no "mommy."

Without as much government support or hinderance of corporations or any other business structure that currently exists, corporations as we know it today would not exist.

While a single rich guy could be a corporation controlling resources he owned, so could individuals pooling together their limited assets to own common resources and serve as direct or indirect competition.

Such structures are not impossible now, but certainly improbable because of government intervention. Government provides benefits to groupings like corporations and LLCs that it doesn't to sole proprietorships and general partnerships. Not to mention profit versus non-profit. Benefits that would not exist under a government interested in serving liberty.

You're forgetting that liberty includes the freedom to associate (or not associate) according to ones own free will. That means any benefits come from the association or lack of association itself and not from government--unlike now, even in simple associations like marriage.

I think we should still continue the peaceful struggle against the Republicans and Democrats.

5th cent (I can't keep holding my tongue):

In response to your anti-corporate statements, Jeremy, I invite you to consider the following reality.

Corporations are made by the government. They are legally considered to be PEOPLE, NOT BUSINESSES. As a result, certain laws and regulations (a few beneficial to corporations, many grossly detrimental to them) exist that shouldn't, like OSHA and double taxation of income (the latter was suspended--not repealed--by the Bush administration). And if you're a fan of OSHA, consider this: their regulations are almost always used against small entrepreneurs who don't have the resources to fight back in court.

6th cent:

I must confess to an epiphany. As far as the platform is concerned, perhaps it's for the best that it's been contracted, for one simple reason--

We're turning into a big-tent party.

I mean it! We have Randian Objectivists, minarchists, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, Rothbard purists, reformers, pragmatists, and probably many more people I don't even know about.

Why do we need a platform that only satisfies a few of those groups at the expense of ALL others as well as at the expense of liberty in general when we get caught up in ideological fights while the government grows?

Beyond that, why do we need to be in complete agreement on issues? Why can't we just accept becoming a broader party as long as we retain the Zero-Aggression Principle, especially if being a broader party can be used to make substantial permanent gains in defense of liberty?

One more question: why will becoming a moderated (but not moderate) big-tent party destroy the purist movement? Woundn't a broader party give purists a greater potential direct audience for purist beliefs and ideas? Or is purist ideology so weak that it can only be defended by tight, centralized control (sounds like socialism to me) of the LP platform?

All those commenting on how the LP's former platform was unnecessarily long, too philosophical, an annoying hindrance to getting elected, are misinformed at best. Do a Google and pull up the 2004 platform of the Democrats and Republicans. The former is 43 pages long; the latter is 92.

7th cent:

I saw their platforms, Mr/s. Friday. They deal exclusively with issues pertaining only to the upcoming election cycle i.e. issue that the nation's opinion leaders deem important enough to dominate the news.

I have created another Libertarian blog at
http://liberty.golguppe.com/
for a community / distributed moderation environment.
It will hopefully not hack your posts as much, and allow you to comment on each others posts using threads and rate them also...

Those claiming that the LP has sold out, abandoned its principles, etc. are, IMO, overlooking one important fact. The foundation of the entire platform, the Statement of Principles, is unchanged and remains in force. For those who have forgotten, here are the principles that the LP continues to stand for:

"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

"Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

"We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

"Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market."

"The foundation of the entire platform, the Statement of Principles, is unchanged and remains in force."

Steve Dasbach hit the nail right on the head and I agree with him. We are still the Party of Principle.

I was a delegate from Montana and I just returned from the LP convention in Portland. First and foremost, I was glad I showed up, because so few others did so. It was a national convention of only about 300 delegates (and substantially fewer at the beginning). I hope the poor attendance does not say anything about the direction of the LP as a whole.

Those describing the convention as a confrontation between "reformers" and "purists" are not being completely accurate. I heard a lot of discussion on various points, and there were a few Young-Republican types walking around calling for the LP to make various compromises in its public relations to attract voters, but all-in-all, the convention was populated by actual libertarians.

I am glad I was there to thwart the attempt to change the pledge to a Republican-Party-type declaration ("lower taxes, less government," etc.). I joined the party some years ago solely because when I walk amongst its members, I am among the only group of people in the world whom I am truly comfortable with. I regret that there are so few of us in this great nation, but I am glad there is a political party composed of true lovers of freedom, who share my cynicism toward many the misguided programs and institutions of the modern state.

Knowing what I know about the GENERAL population outside our ranks, I am not confident that the LP can ever truly become the majority party in the United States. The most we can realistically hope for is that we can win some elections by plurality in three- or four-way races and then work within legislative chambers to fillibuster and obstruct the efforts of the government supremacists.

I will say that the Portland convention was unnecessarily dull. More should be done to get entertainers and speakers to the off-Presidential-year conventions.

I've always maintained that the LP should be on record with bottom-line, principle-based positions and that candidates should offer incremental planks that advance us toward that ideal.

I'm not ready to give up on the LP - it's still a
tool for electoral politics. But something more will be needed for outreach.

What this means for me, now that this precedent had been set, is that on order to keep the LP from becoming just another political party with issues for sale, those of us dedicated to the core, defining principles of the movement should form a caucus and issue a manifesto - and then work within the party to get "our guys" in party office and nominated for public office.

jk

I joined the LP Missouri yesterday, but because I wouldn't do the oath thing, they say that I am not a member of the national LP.


YES, I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.


Am I to understand that a Libertarian President would be constrained by the LP oath from launching a preemptive attack on North Korea? What if we had concrete evidence that they were fueling an ICBM armed with a nuclear warhead with the intent of wiping L.A. off the map? The Military Policy in the party platform used to indicate that (with Congressional approval) he or she would be able to take all necessary actions to protect us, but the oath creates a sticking point. I'm not sure if the LP has considered the fact that *Implied Force* is not the same as *Initiated Force*. By preparing to attack the U.S., North Korea has no more initiated force than a pitcher has thrown a ball when he is in his wind-up. In certain circumstances, initiation of force is the only way to prevent implied and eminent force from an aggressor. How does the LP stand on speech or correspondence that lists specific and credible threats of violence? If an LP congressman were to receive a specific threat that his or her family was going to be harmed, would the LP support the initiation of force by law enforcement?

I really have a hard time believing that the oath and the platform are products of the same party. A more fitting oath (if such a thing is absolutely required) might be:

YES, I certify that I believe that the rights of an individual or group extend to the point at which, if not limited, they would infringe on the rights of another individual or group.


This oath would pretty much sum up the party platform and encompass the intent of the existing oath, while allowing for implied, credible threats to be dealt with by force. North Korea has the right to build a nuclear weapon as a defensive deterrent to protect their people. North Korea does not have the right to build a nuclear weapon with the sole intent of harming the people of another country. The use of force to stop North Korea from building a nuclear weapon can only be initiated when it is determined that without a rights limiting intervention, the rights of another group would be limited. In the case of Iraq, weapons inspectors were working to determine whether or not Iraq was operating within its sphere of rights. That operation should not have been halted for an illegal invasion.

I agree with Jeremy's comments --LP doesn't want to be a people's party, or go with the Ward Republics that Jefferson talked about in the last 10 years of his life.

Plus "Republican Lite" is what the LP is. Look at the Website---no calls for impeachment of Bush for violating the Federal FISA laws on spying on Americans.

If LP wants to be an irrelevant 18th Century, largely white male society of conservative accountants, you're 99.9% of the way there!

Party of Principle? Sounds monolithic. What principle? And if you disagree with the "principle", you don't belong in the Party? How pure! How loser!

Which principles? Jefferson? Ayn Rand? Madison? Jesse Ventura? Locke?

All "Libertarian" is now is a brand name of people who like to be pure and lose.

Libertarian Party needs to DROP the Party of Principle nonsense and get with activating the Ward Republics that Jefferson wrote about.

If you are afraid of the people, and wrap the electoral college around your butt like a diaper, you'll always be wiping, and never winning.

Do you want to be Pure and worship the one "Principle" (no wonder people quit LP like crazy, they find out there is more than one principle to think about, not worship!), or do you want to have less government by DOING IT?

All parties have many principles, and LP is no different than that.

Do you think Chevy would sell more trucks by saying- Chevy--the Truck of Principle?

Get real--this is not a church, it should be a political party that seeks to help people liberate themselves by teaching them how to become self Governors in their daily lives!

If you can't figure it out, have the convention in Switzerland one year, and see how a real democracy works!

Concerning rogerroots' information:

"I was a delegate from Montana and I just returned from the LP convention in Portland. First and foremost, I was glad I showed up, because so few others did so. It was a national convention of only about 300 delegates (and substantially fewer at the beginning). I hope the poor attendance does not say anything about the direction of the LP as a whole."

It just so happened that, this year, PorcFest 2006, the Free State Project's annual summer festival, overlapped with the LP's national convention. You mention 300 delegates at the convention -- I am almost certain that there were a lot more people at PorcFest than that. Possibly 500 people?

What this means is possibly two things: 1.) The LP actually isn't becoming more moderate; the most hardcore libertarians out there actually opted to go to PorcFest this year instead of the convention. This would explain the moderates' ability to usurp control of the votes at the convention. Or, more likely, 2.) The more "by-the-book" or "hardcore" libertarians have already stopped liking the direction that the LP is heading (even prior to the convention), or are disenchanted with the party's success rate, and have turned their backs on it already. They either consider the country as a whole as a lost cause and want to focus on New Hampshire, or they don't want moderation.

I'm not saying this in the context of productive/counterproductive or whatever. (I'm not sure deleting the platform actually makes much difference to anything, practically.) I'm just making an observation, and trying to do a counting exercise. Statistics may be more telling than anything else in this situation.

Do not underestimate the influence of the Free State Project factor. It has grown enormously over the 4 short years of its existence and, by my count, is already collecting more attendees than the LP's most major events. (And NH is a bit difficult to visit for many.) The FSP has drawn the most driven, hardcore, libertarian activists into their circle, and my conjecture now is that we're seeing the effects of this depletion of the raw libertarian base.

Just a few thoughts/considerations.

mgraves: Chevy does say, "like a rock," and that is an allusion to dependability and steadfast dedication to quality.

all: I agree that candidates are key, and that the issues of platform and pledge are very secondary. As far as the low turnout in Portland this year, might I suggest that it is less important to worry about watering down the platform or jettisoning the pledge, than it is to find a time to hold this convention when working people with families can attend? Scheduling the convention around family-oriented holidays sounds to me like a sure recipe for low attendance, unless you're only wanting people with no jobs and no family life to be there. It's one thing when circumstances require that people support liberty at the expense of their employment or family lives. Today, we remember the Revolution of 1776, during which people who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause of independence and liberty did indeed have to put a lot of their own lives on hold to fight the war. But when you have control of the schedule, as the LP does for its convention, it would be a nice gesture to pick a spot on the calendar that does not require so much sacrifice.

Unless you're going to get extensive media coverage on C-SPAN or elsewhere, the symbolism of holding the LP national convention on or near July 4th seems wasted. As alternatives that hold symbolic meaning for Libertarians in America, might I suggest Constitution Day (September 17th), Bill of Rights Day (2nd week in December -- also birthday of Libertarian Party on December 11), British Surrender day (October 19th -- when the last big British military force gave up), Treaty of Paris day (September 3 -- probably too close to Labor Day), or April 19th (Battle of Lexington anniversary -- "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" -- but also the anniversary of Tim McVeigh's OKC terrorism; on the good side, people will still be smarting from paying their taxes, and the next day is 4/20, which could allow for a combined event with NORML, MPP, etc. :-).

Anyway, I'm sure that the folks at National could come up with an optimum weekend. The tradition of July 4th may just be more trouble than it is worth.

8th cent:

NM_Libertarian, this caucus idea would probably work--after all, the Libertarian Reform CAUCUS finally got a reformed platform, though not quite the one they wanted--still a victory of sorts. Why couldn't hard-liners do the same?

9th cent:

Alex, what's wrong with having only one principle, as far as electoral politics is concerned?

1. The Greens have one principle--their "Ten Key Values" (in other countries this number can be different, but with the same eco-socialist tendency). IT HASN'T HURT THEM, considering their electoral success and policy influence in already socialist countries, like Germany and the US.

2. The Constitution Party has one overriding principle--Biblically-based government. IT HASN'T HURT THEM, considering that the Minuteman Project allied with them, and its founder John Gilchrist ran on their Congressional ticket to recive 1/5 of the vote.

3. The Republicans, according to my state's GOP platform, have one principle--to do what is "necessary" to govern (that's not my rhetoric--that's part of the actual NM-GOP platform). IT HASN'T HURT THEM, considering their sucess both in New Mexico and nationwide.

I ask again, why is only one principle so bad for our--or any--party? I would propose that it is the CONTENT of the principle that matters most (see aforementioned summary of GOP platform).

truelibertarian: Maybe Chevrolet is losing so much of the market share to foreign competitors because people don't want to drive a rock. Regardless of their intended meaning, the interpretation is what counts.

I believe there are 4 general principle which tie all Libertarians together.

1) non-aggression principle >>> the PLEDGE

2) socially liberal & fiscally conservative >>> the Nolan Chart

3) the U.S. Constitution >>> the U.S. Constitution

4) smaller government

I would agrue that a "small l" libertarian, subcribes to at one of the above 4 principle.

I've got to admit, as a member of the LPRC this is an exciting time for me! Perhaps now when debating Statists and welfareenthusiasts I can call their so-called plans "idealist" and "Utopian" without feeling like a hypocrite. The old platform was just that-- idealistic and utopian. Perhaps it provided a few objectivists and anarchists with something to pleasure themselves to, but it was a useless document that provided most people with little more than a few laughs.

We've come down from our Ivory Towers and can begin to mingle with the common folk... you know, those guys we're supposed to be winning over to our ideas?
In the market of ideas, the LP has been doing pretty poorly considering we're a group of market idealists. Our product hasn't exactly been flying off the shelves, and yet most of us have refused to look at the reasons as to why our message isn't selling for decades.

Well, it's about time that we took an honest look at our platform, and made the necessary changes. Purists and idealists be damned. I'd like to see more liberty in my lifetime, not just read about it on this web site.
Thanks to everyone for supporting this initiative!

Galileo: The Constitution violates the non-aggression principle in quite a few ways. You have to choose one or the other, lest we accept inconsistency like the Democrats and Republicans do. I'd ditch the pledge immediately. As mgraves pointed out with the North Korea example, there are times when aggression is necessary to defend ourselves. Also there are times when we simply have a moral reason to commit aggression, such as to stop a holocaust - that alone would have justified entry into WWII, and that alone would have supported a reason to intervene in Rwanda and in Darfur, via international peacekeeping organizations.

Jay Jay: Ten key values is not one principle, it is a set of ten. The Constitution Party has more than one principle - to establish a Christian nation, to uphold the Constitution (inconsistent, I know), etc. The Republican Party doesn't have any principles at all - if it says it does, it does not adhere to them.

In fact, the only one principle party I can think of is the Reform Party, who were guided by one principle (government reform) but never took an ideology (maybe a loose populism), and they are currently in shambles after ideological splits and the loss of their big donor, Perot. The LP has to be able to cover all the issues, and completely dismantling the government (no aggression = no taxes = no revenue = no government) is not an effective message to address every issue that arises. We need flexibility, as time is constantly changing. We need more of a "Contract With America" type approach, laying down specifically what we are going to do - they can adhere to our principles without being strangleheld into obscure and irrelevant positions by an anarchocapitalist platform.

By the way, people mentioned earlier about having to "get our message out." That is impossible to do when many of our more pure members treat non-purists condescendingly and see Joe Voter as a driftwood sheep who will fly anyway the wind blows. Give me a break! If makeitlookreal were trying to "get our message out" he would probably do so by calling them supporters of rape, murder and kidnapping, disgusting statists who don't know what's best for them - that's sure to be effective in endearing people to a message of liberty...(sarcasm)...

I have found that moderates, liberals and conservatives are mostly very openminded to libertarian ideas - if you explain them in the right way. The LP has failed because it has been slapping people in the face with shocking policy suggestions and market anarchism for thirty years - thankfully, that is starting to change. On the other hand, the Cato Institute has succeeded immensely because it uses real information, news, economics, accessible and polite language and convincing arguments when presenting their policy suggestions. They even have credibility on Capitol Hill and are constantly featured on mainstream news channels, presenting valid and informative opinions. The LP could definitely learn some lessons from Cato when it comes to selling libertarianism tactfully - and I find it hard to argue that Cato lacks principles - they just don't adhere to anarchist prinicples. They have also probably done more to expand liberty in this county in just the past year than the LP has done in 35 years combined.

"If you aren't willing to live with that, I've got a plot of land to sell you in Somalia, with no taxes or gun laws and no corrupt legal systems or governments to worry about! Make sure you stock up on AK-47s, though. I hear the locals can be a bit rowdy."

That really cracked me up, Nick! I know a few anarcho-radicals that might actually be interested...

The Libertarian Party can moderate its position in order to broaden its voter base without loosing its principles.

In general, I seek a party that helps move my community, state and nation towards greater tolerance of others, greater individual liberty and smaller government.

A political party is an organization that seeks to win elections thus putting people into office who are aligned with the principles of the party. A party that restricts its voice so narrowly that it has little hope of winning elections is not really a political party. It is a debating society.

I applaud, the actions of those who are working to broaden the attraction of the Libertarian Party. Yes to win elections candidates will need more then hard line libertarians votes, they will need the votes of independents, republicans and democrats.

In response to the comments about Chevy, and this applies to Ford and Chrysler as well.

The Domestic Automakers have a large anchor about the size of a ocean liner which is connected to them at their throat. It is known as the U.A.W. It has crippled domestic auto-production and rendered U.S. automakers non-competitive. Until all federal labor laws are repealed and the domestic automakers can free themselves from this government enforced labor cartel, imported car models will continue to dominate.

Mark B: I really wasn't trying to make a statement about Chevy, only trying to say that I think the LP pledge is a tough pill to swallow. Maybe I should have said that if Chevy required you to sign an oath attesting to the fact that their vehicles are "Like a rock" before you bought one, their sales would decline.

We're living in a country which was founded through use of military force, yet LP members are required to swear that they will not do so. I live in rural Southwest Missouri and people in these parts believe that the reason we have a constitutional right to own firearms is so that we can revolt against the government if they suddenly become completely totalitarian. These people will never sign that pledge.

For my part, I'm just stuck on the ambiguity of the whole thing. Coercion is a form of aggressive force and by limiting membership to those who have signed the pledge, the LP itself is using force designed to facilitate social change.

I am quite saddened by the gutting of the platform. I was not prepared for any attempt to do something so foolish since the retention vote had never removed anything in the past.

Getting over that, the real question is how to win elections. The reformers say that we have to obscure our positions to get voters. I always want to be open about my positions. I am not ashamed to be Libertarian and pro-freedom. It is the Republicans and Democrats that should be ashamed of themselves. Since they obscure their positions, I suspect they are ashamed of their postions. I don't really want to be like them.

I don't mind offering reasonable transition plans but I never want to obscure the end goal of freedom (Libertopia if you will). We may never reach that goal but we should not be negotiating with ourselves to sell it short.

For now, we have a reasonable stub of a platform and the pledge and Statement of Principles survived the purge unscathed. We can continue fighting for freedom with a clear conscience and a light heart. We must return in 2008 to repair some of the damage but we must soldier on in the meantime.

BTW, there is no better insight into the reformers thinking than the response to the resolution favoring impeachment. I heard it clearly stated that while we all know that Bush deserves impeachment more than any other past president, we should hold our voice to make it possible to pick up a few more Republican votes.

Folks, any Republicans who would vote for our candidates know full well that Bush needs to be