Uncle Joe's top 10 Reasons to Vote Libertarian:

1) You won't have to wash your hands after voting.
2) You'll sleep better election night.
3) You send 'em a message they'll understand.
4) Libertarians sometimes actually win and your vote could actually make a difference.
5) You encourage future Libertarian candidates.
6) You help draw attention to the LP, which will help build the party.
7) You help lend credibility to libertarian ideas.
8) You make the losing ahtoritarian candidate wonder how he (or she) could have got your vote.
9) It's a great way to irritate your parents.
10) You really have nothing to gain by voting for authoritarian candidates anyway.

Speaking of irritating parents, I told my mother (who lives in Mark Foley's district) to vote Libertarian since she has voiced frustration with her options. She scoffed at the idea, but I sent her the Advocates Political Quiz via e-mail and she hasn't responded. She always replies to e-mails, so either she is mulling it over or is unhappy that she may have been fooling herself, politically, for so many years and really is a libertarian. Mom's a pro-life Democrat, Dad's an agnostic Republican. Talk about schizophrenic family politics. And here I am!

Whereever there was a Libertarian Candidate in Florida, I voted Libertarian. Since Florida had a Republican, a Democrat, and Reform Party Candidate for Governoe, I voted for the Reform Party Candidate because the Republican and Democratic Candidate were beyond redemption.

My Blog "Roberto's World" endorsed Libertarian Candidates for Governor in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Arizona.

I am a minority in my family and in the Latin Community in Miami. My Family are Republicans, My In Laws and their family are Democrats, and I am the lone Libertarian [WITH PRIDE].

I have for many years identified with the Libertarian Party, and even helped out back when ballot access was an every election cycle problem by manning petition tables. I am presently greatly disillusioned by the LP Party.

Where was your strident defense of habeas corpus after that Unconstitutional bastardisation of legislation, The Military Commissions Act of 2006, was assented to by Congress? The Present Day LP seems to value the right to be free from eminent domain higher than the natural rights which all humans are endowed with by that which they believe is the force of creation.

Property Rights are NOT axiomatic, it is human liberty that is. Property rights are corollaries which flow from the pre-eminent and pre-existent rights of humans. The LP Party foundered, when it was midnight at the the Well of America's soul in The Dreamtime where I, a walkabout, sit awaiting the dawn, willing that it still freely flows.

The LP Party has let me down, along with our Country, and I intend to reregister as a non-partisan in the very near future.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation:

For protecting himself and his appointees, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of this Eartrh;

For depriving humans, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting humans beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Island Naval Base, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into this Country:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For ignoring our own Legislatures, and declaring through presidential findings he is invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has plundered the seas, ravaged the Coasts, burnt the towns, and destroyed the lives of our people he was subsequently unable to prove rightful cause of agression against.

He is at this time transporting large armies of corporate mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow honourable Citizens, whose contracted commitment to serve in our Military had ended, forcing them to bear Arms unjustly against citizens of a Foreign Country, or to fall themselves into a tribunal system which nay no longer follow due process of law.

He has excited religious sectarianism around the world, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our Country, the merciless Terrorists, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

Here here. Very poetic and true. However, I don't see how abandoning the party that actually did defend Habeas Corpus serves any purpose, including the overturn of the government. We failed in making our voice heard. We failed in capturing even the most available House seats. We did not fail in believing what you are saying. We have a notoriety problem, no doubt. The media knows we exist but they don't care and they don't cover us because we have not done anything that can, in the broadest terms, be considered newsworthy. We have let our elected officials off the hook, not because we didn't care, but because we were ineffective in obtaining the support of like-minded people and those we hope will consider our positions valid and just. We have a funding problem because we are either too cheap, too few, or too absent in obtaining the required support. For a party so adept at financial matters, we should be able to efficiently operate on a smaller budget than our counterparts, but without numbers we cannot spread our message to get more money. Without more money we have difficulty spreading our message. It's s catch-22 we have not yet solved. There is a solution, we just have to find it.

Nick, Nick, Nick. Unfortunately, we could buy the three networks, put Mary Ruwart in Oprah's
seat, knock on every door in America with our message, and we would still lose. Why? Because
the American people have not accepted libertarian values and it will take many many years of education to even hope that they will. This intellectual revolution has to preceed the political one. The best we can hope for is to use the LP to advance the intellectual revolution.
Stop dreaming of winning races and start dreaming of influencing those who do.

I find it strange that so many people I work with value libertarianism, and consistently vote Libertarian, yet we struggle to account for more than 1% of the vote in most elections.

I live in Michigan, and of the people I know voted, 4 out of 5 voted Libertarian. I know it is a small sampling, but these are middle-aged professionals, not idealistic college students. Did we just fail to vote?

Here is an idea to spread the word.

Once or twice a year at my house I host sort of a game night where the participants pretend to be leaders of their own respective political parties. One at a time issues are brought up, such as military spending, corporate tax breaks, foreign policy, etc. Then each participant writes their position on index cards. The cards are read anonymously by a chair person and the participants vote for the responses they like the best in run-off voting fashion. We then keep score (3 points for 1st place, 2 points for 2nd, etc). At the end of the night we declare a Lord King Emporer (or Emporess) for the fun of it, but it is the discussion of political issues that we are really after. I have found people really flock to Libertarian ideals when they find out just how much less expensive a Libertarian government can be.

I think there is a golden opportunity for us to spread the word that may not have been mentioned here before, even though we are "in" one -- in blogs. I spend a hug amount of time posting to housing bubble blogs and there are many libertarian-leaning posters therein. Often I am asked or teased about my libertarian views and I get to explain them.

I do the same in my home-town newspaper's blogs, generally when we are talking real estate, but also during other discussions. The opportunity to correct misunderstandings about the party, in this manner, is invaluable. I encourage fellow members to join blogs in which the content lends itself, from time to time, at least, to mention of libertarian ideas. That often will lead to discussion, and in many of these blogs, there are hundreds or thousands of lurkers who are taking it all in.

In many minds, we are thought of as nothing more than a party that wants to legalize marijuana. Intelligent blog posts can go a long, long way toward changing that.

Campaign 2008 starts NOW for the LP. There is a misguided preconception that the Libertarian Party's main platform is just to legalize drugs.

We must start recruiting SOLID candidates for races in 2008.

We must start telling people how the Libertarian Party wants to put control of their lives back in their hands, not in the hands of the government.

We must get the message out that a vote for Libertarians is not a "wasted" vote but a vote that will actually be a vote for CHANGE.

For example, state like Texas is ripe for a Libertarian takeover. There were as many, if not more, Libertarians on the ballot as there were Democrats (in my precinct in the DFW Suburbs). Where but in the "Lone Star State" where people have a natural Independent belief system, would a political revolution have such a fit?

I grew up in Arkansas during the time of one party (Democrat) absolute power. I have fought the battles to get Republicans elected when it was thought "Republicans don't have a chance in Arkansas." When I moved, Arkansas has a Republican Governor, Lt. Gov., two of four US Reps., and had recently lost one of our Republican Senators. I know it will take hard work, but it can be done.

What happened to the 'successful' ballotbase? Not much to write home about for the LP. It's time for Badnarik to leave TX and move to NH. It seems that the FSP is the only option left. I wonder why I even renewed my LP membership?

What happened to Phil Maymin in CT? He had more press coverage than any other LP candidate, but got only 1%. Another person who'd be better off in NH. Smithers was an embarassment as well.

Those on the other side of the marijuana issue assume we want it legalized simply so we are free to go get high, and they will oppose it because it contrasts with their personal values. While for some that may be part of it, it is by no means the whole picture. This is an issue of a law that simply does not work. We probably all know (being educated enough to BE Libertarians to begin with) that the reason hemp (marijuana) was outlawed back in the 1920s was that Dow Chemical had just invested millions of dollars on chemicals to turn wood pulp into paper. A competitive product on the market was hemp paper. It was produced much cheaper, and without the environmentally damaging chemicals used in the wood process. In every way, hemp paper was superior. But to protect the multi-million dollar research, big-business lobbyists managed to illegalize the competition. It had nothing to do with the drug aspect of the plant. That was merely the spin our government created for public assuagement of the new law. From a different point of view, I think the only reason the law still exists is to keep people from using the drug, but does it work? I personally know many people that have smoked pot, and will probably smoke pot again. The law clearly does not perform it's intended role.

This is similar to a situation that exists in Oregon. In an attempt to curb the escallating Crystal Meth problem, lawmakers have decided that all decongestants that contain Ephedrine (one of the ingredients needed to make Meth) now require a prescription for purchase. Since the law was put into effect the supply of Meth has not declined at all. The law clearly does not perform it's intent. In addition, there are certainly people who cannot afford a doctor's visit to obtain the prescription and go without something they need. Instead of curbing the supply of Meth in Oregon they have simply made our already horrible health-care system worse. Will they repeal this law? Certainly not. The medical community enjoys the extra business, and they have a lot more clout and political power than those on the brink of poverty.

From a non member, libertarian leaning conservative, the biggest problem I see with the image of the LP is the (mis)conception that Libertarians have no personal values. And at times I can understand why John Q. Public will get this impression. Personal freedom is a great thing, and I've even physically put my life on the line for such, but there is a cold hard reality that somewhere along the line you have to take a stand on something, and the LP's platform has become nothing more than a no rules, anarchistic pile of ramblings, that would do more harm than good for freedom.

Want to be more viable? Focus your perspective into a more realistic idiolgy.

Oh, I almost forgot, you might want to stop blaiming America first for all the worlds evils. That really turns off most of the people that would otherwise consider the LP as a home

Those who are grumbling that we didn't win are missing the good news in the results: there were many, many candidates who brought in 15, 20, and 25% of the vote - some in U.S. House races. That's brushing up against major party territory. And, many candidates ran professional races with campaign staff, debate appearances, print/TV/radio ads, etc.

We haven't taken control of Congress yet, but with this many 15%, 20%, and 25% returns, it shows me that a little more work can put us into the big time.

KB is right that it's time to start working on 2008 campaigns. One way we can get a leg up on the competition is by starting sooner.

As for the individual candidates mentioned above:

Maymin was a great candidate, but his message was a bit too radical for the voters to swallow. There is a demand curve for political issues, and his positions were a bit beyond the high-demand / high-return sweet spot. Had he moderated his message just a bit he could have won. But, I realize that is heresy to many LPers.

Smither did a great job for being a paper candidate who was suddenly thrust into the spotlight.

Badnarik makes outrageous public statements, and I believe it makes the LP look bad. It will make me happy if he doesn't run again.

I voted for a few Libertarian candidates yesterday here in Georgia, have many times in the past (especially in 1992 and 1996 when our Presidential choices were a right wing socialist, a left wing socialist and a fascist) and I agree with many of your principles. However, two things keep me from actually joining the Party and providing support, and that is the "open borders" nonsense and the failure to realize that Islam is not a religion but a political system bent on controlling the world.

Seal the borders, send the noncitizens home, stop all immigration of muslims and watch the ones here.

Well, The senate is in democratic hands in part due to the Libertarian candidate in the great state of Montana. Stan Jones received way more votes than the difference between Conrad Burns and Jon Tester. I say goodbye to Burns. He needed to go. I know Jon Tester personally and think we are better served with him in the senate. I did vote Libertarian though.

Creech,

I was actually thinking what you were, that we should get people thinking along libertarian lines, but we should advance that intellectual revolution as a party. Someone mentioned blogs and those are fantastic because the people that are reading them already have the built in interest or they wouldn't be reading them, but it is not enough to advance the ideas of liberty, to explain why we really feel legalization of drugs would be good, to explain how we think government and thus taxes can be reduced, but we need to include in those discussions that a party exists that support those ideals and has real plans.

We need to direct people to lp.org, theadvocates site, books on the subject, remind people that when they read Ayn Rand college that she was talking about what we're talking about. Remind people that we exist in function, not just ideal. Mention the party at every turn and be clear in explaining the positions and WHY we feel that way, not just THAT we feel that way.

Instead of directing people to lp.org, maybe its better to include the link that goes straight to the Issues page. If they go there first at your recommendation they can read on each subject that matters to them. Those topics are so well explained that they will understand them immediately and then they will start discussing those same topics in other blogs, with their friends, at work, at school and there will be a ripple effect. When their friends ask where they came up with that brilliant idea, they will send them here as well. And it's all free.

But I still think we need some form of ad campaign and that takes money. I have an idea for an ad that's a donkey and elephant (picture cartoon characters on live action set) at a coffee shop (or bookstore or similar) making fun of Lady Liberty and then she calmly but smartly rips them a new one about how she wants her country back and she wants them to stop taxing her to death in the process. Maybe even a set of commercials where she keeps running into them at different places (gas station, post office, grocery store, drug store) and they are snickering about their power. At one of the places a soldier opens the door, she thanks him and he thanks her and then he snears disappointed at the donkey and elephant. Commercial ends with black screen "lp.org" or "Vote Libertarian" in white letters with voice over: The Libertarian Party hopes YOU approve this message.

One thing I think we need to do starting right away is pick two issues and put together TV Ad's and other marketing type items to essentially own the issue. It would be a great way to educate the public about these issues while at the same time selling the LP as a viable political party. We need one issue that appeals to many on the right and one issue that may appeal to more on the left. The issues need to be ones that the general voter can latch on to now and is somewhat in the mainstream. We could either start with the ads right away or wait until the political campaigning season to give our party a ?face? and make other candidates answer to these issues. Hopefully the media would pick up on the idea that these issues are being pushed by the Libertarian Party and give us the attention we deserve.

One issue that I would pick that would appeal to the right would be social security. The republicans botched this terribly but it is an issue that many people know we need to do something about. If we put together ads and marketing materials that addressed the perceived problems by the left right from the start, they may have a hard time going against it. We should put together material saying how privatizing is right for the poor, right for minorities, right for women, right for the elderly, right for the people wanting gov't guarantees, right for the people that are afraid that people won't know how to invest. There are numerous reasons why privatizing in plans such as the 6.2% plan, or I have my own tax reform plan which includes s.s. reform called the 20/20 plan, would be better for the poor, minorities, women, elderly. Check out ?Social Security and its Discontents? as it has chapters on each of these. To sell it to the people wanting gov't gty's you sell them on the idea of investing in gov't bonds. They get everything they get from s.s. with the added bonuses of having real property with terms that cannot be changed unlike the current program and rates that are two to three times higher than what they can expect from social security. They also lessen our need to borrow from foreigners.

In my opinion social security should be the libertarians issue. As long as we can attack all the lefts normal concerns right from the start they will have a hard time gaining a foothold of opposition outside of their base. For all the people that are against it currently they will be getting a wealth of information of why they need to reconsider their opposition to it and shake their faith in the people who told them to be against it. It is an issue that doesn?t really need to be sold to the right as they are already for it, which is what the republican party tried to do, but rather it needs to be sold to the middle and some of the left. If we address their concerns the battle can be won and the libertarians would be the ones as the leaders of the victory. It would put us on the political map as a viable party with an issue that affects everyone that will push us towards more freedom .

We also need to choose an issue that would appeal to the left as well and run the ads at the same time. Possibly legalizing marijuana. If we put together marketing materials we could discuss the reasons for it becoming illegal in the first place, discuss the problems it has done to the prison system, made people who smoked one joint into hardened criminals that may be in jail for many years, discuss SWAT raids, discuss how it has broken up families and helped keep welfare alive and well, discuss how it has caused gangs and other actual criminal activity to occur, discuss the life saving potential of marijuana, discuss the incredible benefits/uses of industrial hemp, discuss it's environmental advantages that could lessen global warming, etc.

At the end of each ad a prominent disclaimer should note that the ad and material was from the libertarian party.

Steve

I hope the media doesn't start thinking of us as a spoiler like you. A vote for a libertarian is a vote for a libertarian. If someone wanted to vote for an R or D they would have, especially in a close election. In the absence of a libertarian many of those voters would have chosen not to vote at all and others like you would have likely chosen the democrat not the republican as you suggest.

You could also turn it around and say that the republican cost the libertarian the win, if they wouldn't have ran. If almost all of the republicans votes would have went to the libertarian and some of the votes that went to the democrat just in opposition to the republican went to the libertarian he would have won.

We do not want to be known as the spoiler. This does nothing for our party but create resentment. It will make it much harder to get republicans in this case to vote for us in the future. We earned every vote that we got. They likely took far more votes away from us than they got from us especially in this close of an election due to the "lesser of two evils" syndrome and the "can't win" syndrome. We should probably be mad at the other parties for taking votes from us and keeping our vote totals below where they should have been.

What libertarian organization, other than the LP has a presence in local communities all across the U.S.? Is it Cato? Maybe a few Advocates chapters? Yet it appears to me that this resource is largely wasted. Young Libertarian clubs on hundreds of campuses? No. Projects every month to engage a community issue like environmentalism, senior issues, zoning, officiais' town meetings? We need to be out there, as members of the LP, making our voice heard and our presence known all the time. Yeah, that's hard work and most LPers are and have always been armchair generals. But without this daily, weekly and monthly sowing of libertarian ideas, libertarians cannot hope to become a meaningful part of the civic discussion in America.

I'm a die hard Libertarian, and I think the posts on here from these guys who want to jump ship as a result of not winning some of these last elections is shameful. Do you not understand what we're up against? And you bailing certainly only weakens the LP's base. But you know what, if you can't understand this then maybe we're better off without you.

If the LP hopes to grow, the first thing they have to do is make people realize that they exist. The perfect way to do this is to get some A-list celebrity to be the LP's spokesperson. There has got to be someone out there who is a Libertarian and would be willing to do this. Someone who would appeal to disgruntled Republicans and Democrats alike. If we could find 3 top name celebrities to do a few commercials just giving basic information about the LP and leading people to the website I think it would go a long, long way.

Nick I like your ideas on the ads

Terry, I like your 2 Big Positions idea. Steve, I support your celebrity idea and have mentioned it on this site often. I mean that with all sincerity. Now that we've patted each other on the back, any ideas how we pull these things off? Are our party leaders reading these posts and if so, do they have any comments, suggestions, alterations, contacts with people that can pull it off, cost estimates on national advertising, media contacts? Anything?

Another thing: everyone who comes on here should think about shelling out a few dollars to buy campaign materials like business cards, brochures, etc from LPStuff. Business cards are great. You can print simple things like "LP.org" in the middle and "Against Iraq War?" "Want Low Taxes?," "Big Government Got You Down?" on different corners of the cards and leave them places like the counter at Subway, Target, Walmart, any store at the mall, the bank. I don't mean leave a hundred at each place, just one. Someone will pick it up and read it and might end up right here on this site. I don't know, I haven't tried it yet but it can't hurt, right?

No Libertarians to vote for in Massachusetts. Several Green-Rainbow moonbats, as well as Dems and Repubs, but no Libertarians. Kind of hard to vote your party's values if you're not even going to get on the playing field.

I admit that my previous post was penned in haste, and that I have not yet decided whether or not my political view will be [L][l]ibertarian. Still I am upset with the LP Party's lack of vocal dissent against the Military Commissions Act. I am distressed that even after the reprehensible actions of the Republican Party once they were in total control, someone who is supposed to represent the LP would muse that Republicans are preferrable to Democrats. Has the Party begun to play its own version of situationalism in search of votes? If my following analysis is unlibertarian, or unconstitutional, please show me where.

First, because this analysis delves into the realm of natural rights, it is not politicians, nor the judiciary that gets to decide constitutionality. It is the people. I know that persons with higher intelligence than mine have argued that natural rights are a fiction. I am not trying to prove or disprove their existence here, and instead state that the concept of natural rights must be taken as an axiom when considering the original intent of the Constitution. The class of rights which are natural are rights which exist outside of a state's legitimate control. What is important to understand about natural rights is that they are possessed by all humans, and are not only the rights of American citizens. To claim that natural rights are only the right of Americans, is to admit that they are not preeminent rights, but instead rights that a generous state has conferred upon its citizens. They would then be insecure, and not truly possessed by the people.

The U.S. Constitution, Article. VI; Clause 2 states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The Geneva Conventions certainly are of the category, treaties made under the Authority of the United States; therefore it is the Supreme Law of the Land. The president does not exist above the supreme law of the land, it is not his legitimate right to abrogate the Geneva Conventions, which states that the high contracting parties may not abrogate the Conventions during a time of war. Part 1; Article 4 of The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War defines 6 categories of captive combatants who are covered by them, as well as 2 more categories of persons who are to be considered protected by them. The same Convention Part 1; Article 5; par 2 says: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." Mr. Bush, of and by himself is not a competent tribunal. This is an absurd proposition. Mr. Bush violated the Constitution with his claim to possess the power to define combatants as 'illegal'.

Ignore that Constitutional violation for now though and consider; the moment that these combatants were stripped of Geneva Convention protections, and defined as 'illegal combatants', the U.S. Constitution's strictures regarding due process began to control.

The Fifth Amendment states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

NO PERSON is an absolute. There is no mention of citizenry in this. Even an expansive reading of the exception, 'in time of War or public danger', can only properly refer to the Grand Jury presentment or indictment. The rights mentioned after the exception clause are inviolate. ALL humans held as criminal by the U.S. Government are entitled to due process of law. The minimal standards for due process of law are laid out in the Sixth amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Minimally, all criminally accused possess the following rights:

* a speedy trial
* a public trial
* a jury which understands that the burden for proof is entirely the state's, and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt
* a public presentment of the nature and cause of the accusation
* opportunity to cross examine prosecution witnesses and impeach physical evidence used by the prosecution
* ability to obtain witnesses and evidence for the defense
* competent counsel, dedicated to the defense

These are the Constitutionally mandated minimal standards for due process of law.

Amendment 13; Section 2, counters the Bush Admin's claim that Guantanamo Bay, as well as anyplace where America holds detainees, other than in close proximity to a battlefield, exists outside of the Constitution's control:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Then to these Constitutional violations, add two more that the Senate engaged in with their obscene Military Commissions Act of 2006, the U.S. Constitution; Article 1; Clauses 2 and 3:

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

The detainees natural right to habeas corpus was not suspended, it was taken, illegitimately. The law was applied retroactively, to confer immunity upon Mr. Bush and his appointees.

It does not matter whether theses detainees are terrorists or not. What matters is equal application of the law. This is not about coddling terrorists, it is about natural liberty, about rights that legitimately are possessed by humans, not the state. Take these detainees into an open court, secure fair and righteous prosecutions against them in a tribunal that adheres to due process of law, and then hang 'em high.

Anything less is tyranny.

Don't worry, ark. When I'm President, no such attrocities shall be committed nor shall prior attrocities go unpunished.

I would agree that the LP should not stand for this. Unfortunately, the public has no stomach for the defense of suspected terrorists, or those that simply look like terrorists. Who decides that? And, most people don't know the simple terms of the Constitution.

Part of the problem is the lack of knowledge, part of the problem is the deference of the people to the rule of law when safety is in question, and part of the problem is the complacency of the people to defend our natural rights. I think the only part of your excellent remark that the general, uneducated public would understand and support is "hang 'em high." That's why Bush was re-elected. He made it clear to people that he valued safety over laws, rights, and justice and over 50% of the people supported that position. Actually, all he had to do was tell the right-wing base that he was not breaking the law and they believed him because they are sheep.

Or they all just hate gays or John Kerry.

Unfortunately, I do not believe the majority of the people are smart enough to realize what the two major parties are doing. They will take whatever spoon-fed garbage is handed to them without even questioning it.

Yet, we are "wasting our votes" for voting Libertarian. Non-the-less, when their Socialist brainchild Hillary wins in '08, people will wake up and realize reality. When that happens, I predict the Libertarian party will be there to pick up the pieces.

I don't know that the people aren't smart enough. I just think they fall in a few large categories. Republican base, Democrat base, moderates that swing elections, the disenchanted, the lazy, and the uncaring. We obviusly need to focus on the moderates, disenchated, and uncaring.

The moderates probably are libertarians and don't know we have a viable party because we haven't promoted ourselves well enough. The disenchanted want to have a political home but they are disgusted with what they think are their only two options. The uncaring are those that would have been disenchanted if they ever once thought they had viable options other than corrupt, scandalous, power hungry fiends. The lazy might even be willing if they thought it was worth it to make the 10 minute effort one Tuesday every November to do something valuable to their own cause, such as eliminate the income tax.

Many disgruntled people here. And many who miss the point. You can't expect to just step in and break the 2 party gridlock over night. So all those of you who cast your vote only to see your guy lose, take heart. Look at the election results. We won many small seats in local elections. This is the starting point. If we can make positive change here, we get our message out, then move on to the State level. Here how people cast their votes are decided. This is where we make the greatest change. Then and only then, can we successfully field candidates at the National level.
Some of you complain that we didn't do any good. But I ask you, what did you do this election season to help the LP? Did you donate? Collect signatures? Mail flyers? Write editorials? Well? This isn't the GOP or the DNC. For those of you who have just joined us, it is clear what this party needs. We need you. Not just your vote, but your time, your effort, and your patience.
Spread the word. We, as a Party lack the member ship and infrastructure of the two major parties. Start a county chapter of your states LP. Start a blog. Speak at any gathering you think will help spread the word. There are a lot of single issue groups out there who agree with at least part of the Lib philosophy. Start there. And at least start by understanding the politics of your district.
This party has a legitimate shot at being the largest and strongest of the third parties. Then if our base is strong enough we will be more than just a "spoiler".
These past few years I have seen the party change from a "debate society", to what it is now. Some people didn't like the transition. They were content to just endlessly debate the finer points of Liberty. Fine for A dinner party. Some people didn't like the new platform, or the new direction of the party. I say too bad. You complain that we don't win, but when we try to act like a major political party, you complain that we stray from our ideals. Pick one, and fix the other.
The LP as a whole still doesn't realize the potential it has. We need to dream a little and explore that. There are more of us than I think we are aware of. Let's find them. Not all of us want to go back to the polls and sign up for a 2,4, OR 6 YEAR supply of republocrat snake oil.
So at the risk of sounding naive, and idealistic, I believe. We did good this time, we can do better next time. But only if you are all willing to be part of the solution.

GREAT post, Pete!

LP members are not required to be activists, but the more we have, the better our chances.

Nobody said it would be easy. We may never win, our best efforts notwithstanding. But if we don't make the effort, we will CERTAINLY never win.

We HAVE had an impact, even though it may not be measurable in conventional terms. Let's take heart in those little victories wherever we find them, and remember, winners never quit and quitters never win.

I DO think those "fine points" of principle are important, but the continuing debate should not lead to solely focus inward at the expense of outreach.

Anybody who is or wants to be ACTIVE, I've got nearly 40 pages of "how to" ideas, including electoral politics, available on request. Get my e-mail from either of these links and ask for it:

Principle: Role of government in free society
http://mail.libertarian-party-nm.org/pipermail/lpnm-forum_libertarian-party-nm.org/2006q4/000639.html

Principle & Pragmatism: No conflict
http://mail.libertarian-party-nm.org/pipermail/lpnm-forum_libertarian-party-nm.org/2006q4/000638.html

Mr. Kraft, you seem to have missed my point entirely. I have no problem that I am aware of with the LP's Platform. My problem is that the LP wussed in the face of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and seemed to engage in their own game of relativism, placing political gains above the LP Plaform's stated ideals.

In response to the remarks regarding 'debating the finer points of Liberty', I will to ask both Mr. Kraft and Mr. Knight:

Just when did habeas corpus,
and due process rights become
'finer points of liberty' to
The Libertarian Party?

You attempt to take my arguments down from the high principled ground, intimating that I may be disgruntled regarding this election cycle's results? That is absurd. Again, I state loudly, it is NOT property rights, nor is it economic policy which are axiomatic to Liberty. What is axiomatic are the Natural Rights ALL Humans possess, that are preexistent as well as preeminent to the state's power. Property Rights, and laissez-faire economic policies are corollaries which are inferred naturally from a logical reasoning about the implications of Natural Liberty.

Or has the rationale for the Party's name been lost in an unprincipled chase for political wins? The Libertarian Party becomes nothing more than a Contemptible Libertarian Parody, if it equivocates on Human Rights in its quest for Political Power.

This election could have been a pivotal point for the LP, if they had stridently stood and defended Liberty in the face of the GOP's obscene actions. There are many who voted for Democrats, not because they believe there is something fundamentally better with that Party than the Republican Party, but because it was the only party which had vocal members opposed to Mr. Bush's Unlawful War Upon Iraq, and his theft of Humans' rights both domestically and internationally.

I have been a Libertarian Advocate long enough to know that the best way to convince a left-sided libertarian minded person that the LP is worth the vote, is to start by grounding arguments into the bedrock of an uncompromising stand on Natural Rights, and then explaining why this respect for individuals leads to the economic side of Libertarian Theory. This rah rah push for electoral gains concomitant with heretical libertarianism; this arrogant renunciation of natural liberty, has only served to set back Libertarian Advances, as many who could have been convinced, are now aligned with The Democratic Party.

Let me guess, with you it's about Ayn Rand, not Murray Rothbard, and Cato Institute, not The Independent Institute.

In answer to the queries about what I did this election: No, this time i did not donate money to the LP, nor did i volunteer any of my time, but yes I did engage in a voluminous amount of editorialising, from many different angles, as well as debate publicly regarding the Tyrannical Actions of GW Bush.

Finally, to Mr. Knight, you proffered a slogan befitting a high school coach, stating that quitters never win, and self-evidently, you are correct. Why then has the Party named Libertarian become quitters on Human Liberty?

It sounds like several posters here have confused the libertarian philosophy with the Libertarian Party. Philsophy knows no compromise, political parties only advance through compromise.

No one should be angry because the LP does not adhere to a strict libertarian stance on every issue. The LP is an organization with a POLITICAL purpose, not a philosophical purpose. I'll bet some of you flame throwers out there sat down with 10 LP candidates, you'd find a reason to trash each of them for not backing your academic view of a libertarian utopia.

Every one of us has a unique, personal view of what liberty means, which rights and freedoms are of higher and lower priority, etc. So you can't support the party! So what. Go do what you feel good about. If flaming the party is what you think will help your cause most, by all means keep at it. Otherwise, get over it and focus on what you believe to be a better use of your time, energy and unique perspective on liberty.

More is better than less in the battle of ideas. You aren't going to like them all; neither am I.

Jahfre

To add to Jahfre's points, you cannot advance the ideals of the libertarian philosophy if you have no political power. Political power doesn't just come with elected officials but as far as the Party is concerned, that is our goal, our piece of the larger puzzle if you will. We need to use those editorials, blogs, media mentions, etc to advocate for all of our ideals and to make people aware of the party to gain elected officials so with those elected officials we can actually do something about Bush's human rights violations. He obviously isn't interested in anyone's opinions, but he would be forced to respond to a Congressional inquiry. In that regard, the political power is of utmost importance.

Well, let me just say that property rights ARE human rights - people should have the right to honestly acquire property and use it in any way that does not infringe on the equal rights of others or violate agreements they have vountarily entered into. The INVERSE is also true - human rights ARE property rights - the concept is self-ownership: your mind and body are your property.

If by compromise you mean incrementalism, I have no problem with that so long as the increntalism is in the right direction. Furthermore, there may often be more than one libertarian solution to a particular problem. Unfortunately, some LP candidates offer proposals that are not incremntal toward the libertarian ideal, but away from it. There's nothing I can do about that except raise a fuss, and I do.

Regards, Coach Knight (rah rah)

"The moderates probably are libertarians"

My experience is that the moderate is more likely to be moderate because they are against private ownership of guns *and* "lax policies that allow terrorism" *and* chemical freedom *and* "big business" *and* etc.

In other words, I feel that moderates often pick and choose the authoritarian elements of each of the Republicrats and Democans, and then run with that. Throw out all that dangerous liberty, sell "safety" to all who will listen.

But yea, some "moderates" are more libertarian. I just don't think it's the common result.