We debate all day here on these blogs and we disagree a lot, but more often than not we come to realize that our positions, while different, are so much closer to one another than they are to Reps, Dems, or anyone else. It's good to exchange ideas and especially to show newcomers that we think differently than others and are proud of it. Most regular folks hold our positions on a lot of issues and our ability to rationally express them will help us grow.

I propose we not be afraid of accepting libertarian leaning centrists as a valuable part of our greater group. Bashing them at every turn earns us nothing but contempt. They tend to be interested in learning about our positions with open minds, so let's be respectful that they have not yet been fortunate enough to stumble across the party before. Most of us were new once and probably considered ourselves moderates before we learned the language, so to speak.

I happen to score 100/100 on the Libertarian scale, but I don't care what someone else scores. The idea is for our candidates to be shown to be the best candidate for the job. We need to welcome all voters and show the difference between Spend and Control politicians and Libertarian candidates without questioning their libertarian purity. This party tends to spend too much time on arguing with each other and not enough time on campaigning for the best candidates. We are the best party and we need to be united in that.

Having been an active member of the LP on and off for over 25 years, it is my experience that we spend far more time fighting each other than trying to win elections. The joke used to be that the standard Libertarian victory speech was "I demand a recount".
There is some evidence that the deck is too stacked against us for LP candidates to win above the local level. However until a NRA style Libertarian organization is in existence, the LP is still the only game in town.

I think that we Libertarian Party members and supporters will prove Mr. Bartlett to be wrong in his perception of us. We may be welcoming him into the LP in a few years, too.

I encourage Mr. Bartlett to familiarize himself with the multi-party electoral systems used in most of the world's democracies, and promoted domestically by FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy.

After doing that, I encourage him to explore whether liberty fares better in a democratic republic in a two-party sytem or a multi-party system. I think it's the latter, and I'm not alone. (For example, see Ivan Eland's article "Wanted: A Freer Market in U.S. Politics.")

Bartlett might then explore what popular pressure would exist to create a multi-party electoral system in the United States were it not for political organizations like the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. I submit that there would be very little incentive to reform, if any.

Why have people created political parties outside of the two incumbent parties? The reasons differ, but one reason must be that enough people were unsatisfied with the programs of the two incumbent parties. I've written before that "the Republican Party is where liberty goes to die." The same could be said for the Democratic Party.

Although I don't begrudge the efforts of any libertarian active in either incumbent party, both are designed to stifle liberty-promoting initiatives and dissent. Ever hear of the "Eleventh Commandment"?

The Libertarian Party is one of many organizations and strategies the liberty movement employs to communicate the libertarian message around bipartisan censors and build a stronger network of libertarians.

But it is one of the few *political* organizations in the liberty movement, and I am among many who would no longer be involved in political processes if the Libertarian Party (or it's equivalent) did not exist.

I agree with LP founder David Nolan about the primary purpose of the Libertarian Party (Nolan's recent essay is linked to my name below), although I would upgrade our political prospects if proportional representation electoral systems continue to be adopted more and more in the United States. And I may be in agreement with public choice economists who say that the political fight for liberty is already lost. But if I lose my liberty, it won't be because I surrendered.

I would like to see the dissolution of the GOP and Democrats and see the formation of more ideologically-driven parties that form coalitions with like-minded partners. For example:

1) socialist / labor coalition;

2) social democrat / green coalition;

3) neocons / religious right / neolibertarian? coalition;

4) center-left / center-right coalition;

5) paleoconservative (Constitution Party) / paleoloibertarian (LP) coalition

paleolibertarian*

We don't necessarily need a pure Libertarian. Are Republicans and Democrats 100% pure? Consider Senator Lieberman who has been supportive of the war in Iraq. Consider Senator Specter who is openly pro-choice. Those are 2 hot issues in which those Senators have strayed from their parties' platforms. But they are supportive of most of their parties' platforms and work to implement their parties' core values.

The LP should embrace anyone who supports any Libertarian idea. If in search of people who are Libertarian to the core, the LP will cease to grow. Expanding the party will require attracting a diverse group of people who support different facets of Libertarianism. After all, this country grew and continues to grow because of diversity. Shouldn't the LP? This country thrives because of diversity. Why can't the LP? This country is strong because of diversity. So can be the LP.

I found out that in many European countries, there are "social liberal" parties and "classical liberal" parties.

In some cases, there are liberal parties with two different wings: one being classical liberal, and the other being social liberal.

Pragmatic Libertarians don't worry about purity debates when the practicalities of winning elections should include finding widely known people who embrace most of our ideals to run for office. Purity makes little difference when one says they're voting for Libertarian candidate XYZ and everyone else in the room says, "who?"

--Malcolm

Shane Corey - very well said!

I, like Mr. Bartlett, am a former staffer for US Congressman Ron Paul. But let me say right off the bat, I don't think he worked for the Congressman for too long. I believe it was just a short stint as an Intern way back in the 1980s.

Regardless, I found his essay to be overtly vicious towards the Libertarian Party.

Even though I'm a proud Republican, I'm also still a "card-carrying member" of the Libertarian Party, to steal a phrase from our new friend Bob Barr. My feeling is, if you ain't sending in your dues, you ain't got no room to bitch. I note Bartlett has not sent in his dues, as far as I know?

It was a brave move for Shane to post Bartlett's criticisms of the LP on the National LP web site. Shane, you are to be congratulated.

But Bartlett's biggest problem is he's talking about the "old 1990s Harry Browne/Perry Willis era Libertarian Party" not the LP since Redpath and a new leadership team has taken over. I must say, as an LP member on and off since 1985, I've not seen a more professional leadership team running this Party since the Jim Turney/Paul Jacob/Matt Monroe days of 1986-88.

Bartlett should get outside of the Beltway and check out the new and improved Libertarian Party, before he spouts off about stuff he knows little of.

There's a proper role for the LP in American politics. And that's to bash my fellow Republicans on the head every once in a while when they become too slacking on corruption, too cozy with beauracrats and the state, and too fiscally unconservative. We're in that period right now. The Barr switch was brillant! I'm already seeing big signs that the GOP is smarting from the election, and even the Barr switch, and is moving back to a more libertarian-lite direction.

Check out the latest Mainstream Libertarian web site. It has an article by Senator Tom Coburn, a libertarian Republican, on how the GOP just voted to eliminate 80% of earmarks.

Would we be able to accomplish something like that if we didn't have our "carrot and stick" partners, the Libertarian Party around, to act as the proverbial stick?

I think not.

Eric Dondero, Founder
Republican Liberty Caucus

Eric Dondero -

I can only imagine how members of the Republican Liberty Caucus are treated by the rest of the G.O.P.

Is Bartlett suggesting I toss a coin? I knew in 1972, when I studied the parties in high school that I did not belong to any of them. (The LP was not on my radar, then.)

The idea of supporting them with money makes me sick, so that means I would not be able to participate in party politics (which also makes me queasy).

I hate politics. That's why I joined the party for people who hate politics. The only kind of activist I could be, is in support of getting politics out of my life. That goal can't be reconciled with Republicrat politics. I can't even bring myself to join the AARP due to their politics, and they offer discounts!

The fact is, no party has any votes, and would do well to remember who does. The voters can turn on a dime, and will. We just need to be ready and do what we can to help it happen at every opportunity.

Response to Bartlett: A "new libertarian interest group organized like the National Rifle Association" is an idea I've toyed with since beginning to become disillusioned with the LP a few years ago over the dues thing. But the NRA is a single issue group. I think its success would diminish in proportion to every new issue it took on, and the same would be true for a libertarian lobby.

Still, it couldn't hurt. But you don't need to kill the LP to have such an organization. Indeed, if the LP died and libertarians collected into the major parties they would merely be taken for granted. Libertarian Republicans would be expected to rally behind the GOP candidate no matter what. On the other hand, the LP presents an external threat which CAN cause other parties to ponder winning back those libertarian votes.

If all we are talking about is lobbying congress, we already have the CATO institute. I don't see how the absence of the LP would make it any more effective except, perhaps, in competition over donor dollars.

Response to Shane Cory: The word "purity" used in this context is merely a denigration of those who adhere to principle. Still, there is much truth in what you say about the way the quiz is often used (not to mention the non-aggression principle).

My experience has been that over time, most people who remain in the LP become more libertarian, moving up on the scale. I DO welcome them into the party. That's one thing - putting them into leadership positions or allowing them to re-make the party to accomodate their statist positions is something else.

There is really no conflict between principle and practical politics if the latter is done right. We can have it both ways.

http://mail.libertarian-party-nm.org/pipermail/lpnm-forum_libertarian-party-nm.org/2006q4/000638.html

On the other hand, if we surrender on issue after issue just to win, what's the use of winning? This ain't a football game. I'm just in it for the freedom.

Joseph Knight -

Libertarians once dominated the Democratic Party until the latter decades of the 19th-century, in which we allowed progressives/liberals/social democrats into the party. Eventually, they became the dominant factions and we were shown the door.

Then, we found a home in the Republican Party and were a significant faction in that party, along with traditional conservatives. This changed when we allowed neocons into the party, who in turn, gave libertarians and traditional conservatives the boot.

This is why I'm hesitant about allowing in people who don't support a minimum of 80% of the LP's positions. I fear that the statists may one day overtake the party leadership and exile us from our own party.

I think Stan has a point. What electoral success we have had so far, and ballot access victories we have earned, have had a dear price in time, effort, and money, contributed by thousands of people who believed in true liberty down through the decades. They were trying to build a political home for themselves and those who believed as they do -- and to achieve liberty in their own lifetimes. It borders on the obscene to even consider giving up that struggle and turn over our hard-won, if meager, prizes to strangers who may, at best, only pay lip service to our beliefs when it suits their power-grabbing agenda, and who will cheerfully turn out the very people who created the shelter that they aggressively commandeer.

At some point, your back is to the wall and you have to make a stand. I'm getting the feeling that we're there, as we're taking a lot of hits and having to deal with interesting challenges at what is usually a fairly quiet time for us. Either "the times, they are a' changin'" in a way that holds both great opportunity and great danger for us, or there is a concerted attack on us being waged behind the scenes. However you look at it, the time may be here to take that stand for our true beliefs, or end up homeless once more.

Shane,
Great that you posted this. Shows some courage and forthrightness.
I think your response is right on. Bartlett is sort of correct in some ways, but it appears that the LP is in a mood to finally stop the "purist" squabbling and to make a run for major party status. Bartlett's also correct: It's a tough one, maybe even impossible, though not unprecedented.
Is it not entirely clear that the GOP has lost its way on its own terms? Is it not equally clear that the Ds are clueless? Is it not abundantly clear that both are so locked into the special interest money that the electorate is profoundly tired of their Oz act?
The key for the LP is to consistently advance the cause of liberty, get better at the mechanics of politics, and speak in a language about issues that voters can understand and relate to. If we continue to get bogged down in debating high theory, all hope is lost, IMO. Such discussion is not "principled," it's "irrelevant." Obscure, long-term pronouncements don't even "educate," for most voters don't think in those terms.
Good luck to us!
-Bob

Everyone here is making great points in basic agreement with one another. Who says we squabble too much?!

To kind of tie this all together, I'm hearing people say:
We prefer to remain a growing party based on liberty, gaining members and voter confidence without sacrificing our principled base.
We are willing to put aside minor philosophical differences and work together to this end.
We are willing to give our money and support into THIS party, not others.

I think what that all means is we can get to where we want to be by focusing on a few prime issues that we believe in and that Americans, especially those one-third of voters without a party affiliation, can be drawn to. I think those are TAXES and reducing the size and scope of government. They are related items, they can be easily advertised, and they both lead to liberty in economic AND social practices.

Incidentally, Eric, how come Ron Paul is still a Republican? Wouldn't it be a bold and powerful move to join the LP? Couldn't strong members of the Democrat and Republican Liberty Caucuses(sp) make an earth shattering public statement by abandoning the parties that have abandoned them, joining the LP, and changing this country for the better right here, right now? This is the time, when Reps and Dems are tearing each other and themselves apart. The People would flock to the idea that the few principled officials we have left are deciding together to change the world for the better, rather than be part of it's steady destruction.

I've considered myself a libertarian almost from the day I first learned about the philosophy. However, I'm not a dues-paying member of the LP. The philosophy seems to be a recognition of the natural tendencies of mankind, as opposed to an artificial construct like Socialism, or a conglomeration for political expediency, like the Republicrats. However, Mr. Merritt's comment above about "power grabbing" gives me pause. Grabbing power is also a natural tendency of mankind.

The question I then have is, how can you establish a L/libertarian style of government, which limits the powers of those in office, in the face of all those who wish to keep or acquire said power? Stated another way, how does the L/libertarian philosophy surmount the "power barrier" in order to tear down the wall from the inside?

I'd appreciate thoughts on this question.

My response to Bartlett, the Republican and Democratic Party are the worthless parties. The USA is a success because of its people not because of the Republicans and Democrats.

The problem has been a lack of political openings such as ballot access in many states. In fact, the LP of Ohio was excluded from debates by the Republicans and Democrats afraid to face a Libertarian and other party.

The problems facing the USA has to be fixed now or there will be four options:
1. Civil War based on ethnicity.

2. Division of the USA into different countries.

3. A Gradual Weakening of the USA with China and the Islamic World dividing the USA and the rest of the American Continent between themselves.

4. A USA which resembles the terrain of Venus.

Nick said:
Wouldn't it be a bold and powerful move to join the LP? Couldn't strong members of the Democrat and Republican Liberty Caucuses(sp) make an earth shattering public statement by abandoning the parties that have abandoned them, joining the LP, and changing this country for the better right here, right now?
-----
That would be fantastic.

It would probably not be possible to convince those people to switch one-by-one. To use a silly metaphor, nobody wants to be the first person on the dance floor, but once a couple people are out there it fills up quickly.

One way to get past this natural tendency is to approach a group of potential switchers and get them to sign a letter of intent stating that they will switch once 'x' of the other people also sign. (Kinda like how the Kyoto Protocol only went into force after 55% of countries had ratified it.) That way, nobody sticks their neck out alone.

Nick,

Ron Paul is a Lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. He proudly proclaims that he is both a Republican and a Libertarian, as are many of us. We don't see that as a problem.

And our fellow Republicans treat us in a friendly and respectful manner. And you'd be surprised, most adore and respect the Libertarian Party even.

Did Bruce Bartlett get kicked off Paul's staff for being immature? I have my issues with libertarians too, especially the ones who sit around in coffee shops all day, then wonder why their candidate gets 2% of the vote. But that is nothing compared to the fratricide that is occurring within the GOP and Dem ranks. Even Tennessee representative Lincoln Davis thinks it is time for another party to step up.

Check out my interview with him here: http://www.house.gov/lincolndavis/newsdecember12006.htm

Good discussion.

To me, Libertarianism is about the advancement of ideas and ideals and not necessarily the advancement of a political party.

I am appreciative of the tact of Mr. Dondero's Liberty Caucus. The quickest way for Libertarian ideas and ideals to become reality is for Libertarian candidates to infiltrate the two major parties..third and multiple parties may have a place in the future; but, for now I think a quicker path is using the current system to our collective advantage.

Does anybody else feel like we are swimming upstream when it comes to elections? The frustrating thing to me is that Libertarians CAN be elected now..they just have to do so under the guise of the Democrat or Republican political parties.

ChrisB -

Take a look at what I said earlier.

"Libertarians once dominated the Democratic Party until the latter decades of the 19th-century, in which we allowed progressives/liberals/social democrats into the party. Eventually, they became the dominant factions and we were shown the door.

Then, we found a home in the Republican Party and were a significant faction in that party, along with traditional conservatives. This changed when we allowed neocons into the party, who in turn, gave libertarians and traditional conservatives the boot.

This is why I'm hesitant about allowing in people who don't support a minimum of 80% of the LP's positions. I fear that the statists may one day overtake the party leadership and exile us from our own party."

Based on that, how can we seriously make waves in those parties when the social democrats and the neocons have shown their attitude toward us by forcing us toward the exit?

Good points Stan.

Perhaps I am just a bit impatient, but seeing Libertarians candidates having great ideas and getting 2% of the vote is a bit disheartening.

Further, I am of the opinion that, in today's environment, most elected and administrative officials in the two major parties are not driven by principle, but by power; and, would sell their souls for this political power. And, thus, maybe the time is ripe to take advantage of this. Tactically, running Libertarians as Democrats and Republicans where we can and using the clout and money from the two major parties to get our ideas elected. Again, I think we have to ask what is more important..having a purist political party we can belong to or having our ideas advanced. Even for me, this strategy is debatable; but, I would love to see 10 or 20 new Ron Paul's in congress.

ChrisB -

I understand what you are saying. However, it is important to keep in mind that in order for a libertarian or traditional conservative to receive the Democratic or Republican Party nominations, they must win their party's primary election.

The vast majority of primaries are won by social democrats, socialists, neocons, religious right candidates, and centrists.

A candidate that holds libertarian or traditional conservative positions that tries to win the Democratic or Republican Party nomination does not have a chance to win.

Bruce Barlett will be a guest tonight on "Libertarian Politics Live." He will be interviewed regarding his latest article critical of the Libertarian Party.

The show is broadcast nationwide on Blog Talk Radio and the popular ITunes.

It begins airing 7:30 pm cst.

Simply go to www.blogtalkradio.com

ChrisB said, "am appreciative of the tact of Mr. Dondero's Liberty Caucus. The quickest way for Libertarian ideas and ideals to become reality is for Libertarian candidates to infiltrate the two major parties..third and multiple parties may have a place in the future; but, for now I think a quicker path is using the current system to our collective advantage."

Well, maybe the pendulum has swung again to the point that we have a window for this kind of approach, but are you aware of how many times we "oldtimers" have heard the above, and how it never really amounted to anything? I remember that "change the GOP from the inside" was the mantra of Justin Raimondo in the 1990s, as he hitched his star to Pat Buchanan. We all know how well Pat did with the GOP, and we all saw how he (and Justin) eventually embraced a third-party strategy. (They went for the Reform Party, where the federal campaign money was, rather than try to take over the LP, which was refusing "welfare for politicians" during the Harry Browne candidacies -- clearly a shrewd idea in retrospect, however much it was criticized by pragmatists at the time.)

I am of the belief that there is no "quicker" path, except by accident. The LP is taking the long way around, an approach which has tried (exhausted!) the patience of many. But attempts to take a "shorter path to the goal," such as Raimondo's in the 1990s and Dondero's today, really haven't been all that effective, either. Mostly what I have seen is that people get co-opted and, to the extent that they stick with their principles, burned out, with little to show for their efforts. Frankly, if you are going to burn yourself out, beating your head against a wall, I think you can have more of a lasting personal impact on the smaller LP than as a libertarian "burrower" within the GOP or Democrat parties. The ballot access achieved by many activists who are now burned out, for example, is a tangible and valuable achievement. And yes, Libertarians DO get elected and re-elected, despite their opponents many attempts to paint them as radicals or crazies because of their libertarianism. In my opinion, the most important thing that the third-party approach offers -- and the reason the LP must remain in existence and be as strong as it possibly can -- is because politicians only tend to fear electoral defeat. Unless a third party is out there to provide a real alternative to Tweedledum and Tweedledee, those two worthies will have no incentive to change. If we want the major parties to become more libertarian and, in turn, to support libertarian measures when they're in the driver's seat, one way is to infiltrate, but another is to be able to deny victory to them, either by playing spoiler or by winning for ourselves.

Eric, of course fellow Republicans treat libertarians within the GOP well. They don't want to lose anyone from the Republican caucus. I have to say it's disheartening to see them caucus with the Republicans who continue to support censorship policies, interventionist and warmongering foreign policy, corporate welfare, etc.

Where is their libertarian voice? Why can't they change the GOP from within if they are there now and have been for many election cycles? If the Republican Party got away from its moral baby-sitting and debt producing they'd be OK. But they insist on running with full force to the fascist far right just to counter the socialist far left. It's not at all helpful to the libertarian cause.

Steve Dehaven asked "how can one have a L/libertarian style government" or break the "power barrier?"

By convincing the People that we can change the government. We still have the freedom to vote. But we have to recognize what people respond to. People respond to the truth but it must be paired with the notion that others will also believe us. Voters need to see that they are not alone in wanting to vote for Libertarians. So many people vote for the lesser of two evils because their hatred of one is greater than their love for the other.

We need to get people to recognize the LP, recognize that we have a lot of people. It's not necessary to have millions, we just have to look like a lot on the evening news.

Someone mentioned in an earlier blog here that a march or large gathering of libertarians would draw major attention and show people there are a lot of us. That person was right. Think about 50,000 libertarians in Central Park, or the mall in DC, or parading down Michigan Avenue. (Sorry folks, Portland and Denver just won't cut it.) The media exposure would be enormous and they'd have to report on our basic platform as part of the story. That event would have to be followed by some consistent message bearing advertising.

LP.org ads on radio and TV, subway ads, billboards, plus of course every blog we can get in, all facets of life and entertainment. Let's get serious.

More to the point, Steve, once IN the government our own party must remember why we are there and that we are responsible for breaking down the big government and that limiting our own power will help future generations even if they do not elect libertarians. Harmful precedents must be replaced by limiting ones, laws repealed, new laws created that produce more limitations on the government so that all they provide is defense and protection of rights.

Based on my most recent comments, it needs to be understood that libertarians and traditional conservatives needed to start their own parties. The libertarians needed to start their own party, while the traditional conservatives needed to start the Constitution Party.

Does it matter?

If the goal is liberty, and for me it is, I say the more avenues towards that goal, the better.

Infiltrating other parties: good. Having our own prinicpled party: good. Having a more inclusive alternative: good. Having lobbyist groups like Cato: good. Surround the tyrants and drown 'em out. How can there be bad approaches towards liberty? Keep your eyes on the prize and go for it. The more people fighting for it, the better.

Sandra: that's hot.

What bothers me about the immaturity of the LP is that, for example, in reaction to the Barr conversion, people are trashing him, complaining about one or two issues such a 100% drug legalization, that he may not go along with even though he is 85% with the rest of things. To me, this is NOT the most pressing issue!

As a resident of NH, I saw how independents who 'bird-dogged' candidates on single issues, lost the whole pie because they ended up throwing out more fiscally conservative candidates for some left wing radical progressives who now wants to tax the living daylights out of us! This is horrible.

To me all government power stems from the ability to TAX, so if you curtail that activity, you will have a leg up, thus making it the MOST important issue. The next thing is Second Amendment, so that you will keep the right to defend yourself. All else comes after that.

While I think current MJ laws are ridiculous, I am not convinced about hard drugs. But to make this such an issue that I would vote for some left-wing socialist because of it, I will never do!

And as for the RLC, here in NH, the R's, who are basically your libertarians, just love us, right Eric? :-)

"The power to tax is the power to destroy".

The Bartlett/Redpath Discussion/Debate is now up at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com. Simply go to the site, click on the link for BlogTalkRadio and click on "Last Show" at the Libertarian Politics Live homepage.

We were honored to have Mr. Redpath on as a guest for our premiere program, and hope to have him on for a regular basis in the future.

Eric Dondero, Host
Libertarian Politics Live
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

I have been involved in Republican politics for a long time. For so long I knew there had to be something else as I had to face the reality that neither major party was anything more than a power struggle played out like a football game. Those who play in the major parties do so only for their own personal power agendas.
It was so good to finally find the LP. I went to a meeting and was made to feel very welcome. I sat and learned and my only input was to try to guide with some ideas about gaining strength and winning elections. People do want change and are slowly waking up. The hard part is that they have been so manipulated over time just as I was.
As an example, you don't want to face the wall of things like "He brings home the bacon", then you teach voters what pork really is in simple terms. (bribing them with their own money) It has to be done at a grassroots level, but it can be done. Reach out to young people who have not been as manipulated. Remember that ironically the largest voting bloc are those who do not vote. Reach out and give them a reason and I guarantee this party will grow.
I guess all I am saying is please do not sell out principle just to win. If that happens then winning means nothing. The Republican party is messed up for that very reason. Many incumbents have admitted to not even reading the Constitution, much less the party platform.
The thing that so far impresses me the most is that Libertarian candidates run to advance Libertarian ideas, not for their own personal glory. That one fact alone is what is going to put Libertarians in office.
Focus on the state and local level. Ballot access issues alone can be used to point out the non difference of the major parties and the fear they have of any "second" party.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

I am trying to get the word out about the welfare system in California. I grew up in San Francisco, California, lived there for 44 years, and recently moved to Sacramento, CA. When I moved to Sacramento, I learned about welfare towns and what welfare is all about. It's as if no one really knows what is going on and no one is willing to talk about it. Did you know that the government gives people free places to live, free utilities, $700 a month in cash, $750 a month in food stamps, free premium medical and dental plans and a lot more? There is such a wealth of monies and benefits in the welfare system, that I had no idea was going on. People on welfare have never paid taxes and they are receiving as much as people who work and make about $70,000 a year, and no one seems to know about it. I have contacted the local news media in Sacramento, and I get the impression that they want it swept under the rug because it doesn't fit with wanting to attract people to the area. It's way, way too much. It's like an entire city full of people who are all claiming to be completely disabled and receiving Social Security benefits and welfare benefits, and the big draw is the free housing. Housing is extremely expensive in California, and just the free housing that is given to disability and welfare recipients puts them in an income level that far surpasses a working class person. No one seems to know about it. And, so many illegal immigrants are receiving all of these benefits, and are never asked to work. The makeup of welfare recipients is about one third illegals, one third black teenagers who see their ticket out of the ghetto is to have a child, and one third white trash, who come from wealthy families and use welfare benefits as second and third incomes. The fraud that is going on is unbelievable. And, there are so many able bodied, grown men who are claiming to be completely disabled. Did you know that the average person on disability today receives $1,100 in cash for the rest of their lives, free medical and dental, and a free place to live for the rest of their life? It pays much better than a job. Does anyone out there realize that about 1/3 of the population is living off of government benefits, which you include the old people on Social Security? No wonder we have all of these jobs no one wants to do, welfare pays so much more. I would love to see this stuff exposed. I had no idea. And, the Medi-Cal costs, it must be in the billions of dollars. Everyone of these people is getting free therapy for their children that they have messed up, free medical for their whole families. I know a family that messed their four children up so badly, that the state paid out $200,000 in therapy sessions for the children through Medi-Cal. And, the entitlement mentality. These people do not feel any obligation to ever work, to ever pay taxes. They feel the more they get, the smarter they are. They love every minute of it. There are no morals, no ethics, no one seems to feel any obligation to raise their children, nor to educate them. Everyone is suing, filing fake lawsuits. Something has got to give. People who work should be able to keep their money, and people who don't ever want to work should not be having children. These are the same people who end up in the prisons, costing more taxpayer money. The government is throwing money into an endless pit of abuse, destruction, violence and crime, and the welfare system is not really helping anyone. It allows people to become obese and develop diabetes because they never have to work. Then, they are eligible for permanent disability because they are obese, and then Medi-Cal can pay for their diabetes treatment.

Never mind all the rhetoric - vote Libertarian on the local/state level. How will the Libertarians ever achieve major offices if they don't get into local and state levels?

In this age of labels, there is some insight into how far we have come in that now Libertarians have a card to identify their platform. Like an existentialist having to describe himself?

I was once Libertarian, in principle still am. But I am also democrat and conservative in principle, anarchist and socialist too. What's with the labels? Who cares any more?

What we need is an INDIVIDUAL with his own platform, let the labelling chips fall as they may. The trouble with the Libertarians, and the Greens, and the rest, besides lack of money, is the lack of 1) balls and 2) media exposure. Come debates, there are few minority candidates left. Why not pool some resources, why not work on getting online signatures to count as petition signatures for qualifying purposes? Why not step up, and out, and speak your mind --and to me-- like an adult rather than a child. Surely the honesty alone will raise some eyebrows.

You need a platform, all of you, and we have one at divorcethefeds.com. We will also be endorsing a candidate for President in 2008 who most embodies or rather stands for our platform. In a representative democracy the representation is supposed to be for all walks of life, income levels, and employment fields. As we see it, a significant number of citizens of the United States of America have no real representation for what they are and do. Our platform, in conjunction with the American Constitution and the international Declaration of Human Rights, establishes a firm literal base from which to launch the Campaign of Difference able to alter politics forever.

I stopped to read this thread while working on the site and thought these comments relevant. I want to see you guys in the media, it is more key than the money. Such as is the society we live in.

Best
AJ Caiazzo
Divorcethefeds.com

Joan:

people who are legit disabled such as myself (grade 3 astrocytoma brain tumor, median survival rate ~20%) don't much care for lumping us in with able bodied welfare frauds.

Honest disability recipients cant stand cheats and frauds. They should be in stripes with balls and chains around their ankles working digging on a chain gang.

But the honestly disabled person is not about 'welfare'. No one predicted my cancer - there were no symptoms until I fell over. I worked full time from 17 to 42. Now I cant do so. If I recover I might do so again, and if I die, you wont need to care.

Did you know that the average person on disability today receives $1,100 in cash for the rest of their lives, free medical and dental, and a free place to live for the rest of their life? It pays much better than a job.

BS. I don't receive free medical or dental, I have to pay 370 a month to keep my medical insurance going. No one I know receives a free place to live. Where? My mortgage is the same it was before I got sick. Where's this wonderful free place for me to live?

welfare and disability are not the same thing, ( as long as the disability is real) and they should not be compared with each other. The frauds and crooks should be rooted out and jailed, but dont lump me in with them. I'm not either.

Bruce Bartlett just barely manages to be provocative. I am a lesser founding 'father' of the LP. I was chair of the Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Cmte at Denver in 1972 and an activist and candidate in various capacities over the years.

The 'original intent' of the C/BL/R Cmte was that the Statement of Principles, not the Platform or any quadrennial presidential candidate, defined broadly who was a libertarian and who was wasn't. Futhermore, the individual, not any party clique, certified their own belief that they were libertarian. In short, all libertarians are self-defined and each may judge and prepare to be judged by the SOP.

The SOP was, as I understood it, to be a standard for candidates, party officers, delegates and other chosen functionaries. It was not intended to be a litmus test for voters - who will or will not endorse a candidate by their standards regardless. Practically speaking, it was meant to test the embarassment level of conventional opportunists political types and deter them from using the LP as a vehicle of convenience.

I have no aversion to anyone describing themself a libertarian. So, as I see it, our intended standard is no more doctrinaire than Democrats or Republicans, it is simply less ambigious and transient. It serves to anchor the LP in contrast to conventional parties who float all over the political matrix under the influences of campaign 'strategists.'

Over the years I find I have evolved my own label from neo-Randian libertarian to a creeping anarchist libertarian and I think the SOP still covers me!

"Did you know that the average person on disability today receives $1,100 in cash for the rest of their lives, free medical and dental, and a free place to live for the rest of their life? It pays much better than a job."

That's the problem with the world. It's filled with people that "know" things that's so that simply haven't got a shred of truth about them.

Good post Robert. Local and state elections are the key. The R's and D's use many of the local officials as their grassroots. These local offices are many times there for the taking with a good campaign since turnout is usually low. Sadly many people do not realize just how much of their lives are controlled by the local officials who's names and functions most voters do not even know.

I totally agree! I hate illegal immigrants, I'm homophobic (and a closeted homosexual) and I think drug dealers should be shot on site. Also, I think the PATRIOT Act doesn't go far enough. But I still like the Libertarian Party and I want you to like me, because I hate paying my taxes, love carrying a gun, and I'm an "alienated Republican." If the LP needs anything, it's more people like me!

The only thing we need to do now is reach out to "libertarian Democrats." I have a liberal friend, believe it or not, and he believes in affirmative action and gun control but thinks pot should be legal (don't ask me why!) Why can't we have more people like him in the LP?

Thanks for welcoming people like me into the LP. I look forward to injecting my statist policies and "pro-freedom" rhetoric into the platform and eventually insuring that the LP becomes a shadow of its former self, lacking both ideas and efficacy.

Cheers!

The fact the LP accepted Bob Bar (a very anti-freedom drug warrior) into the party (and even worse into a leadership position) makes it even more clear that the party has become totally worthless. The LP has lost it's principles and is now nothing but the party of compromise.

Greetings Comrades, I have been reading through your works for quite sometime and I have to say that although you feel that government should be smaller and more streamlined, with less Corruption, how is this going to happen? Capitalism by its very nature ensures that the government that tries to control it will expierience corruption in one form or another. Ever heard of Lobbyists? It is by this very nature that This kind of government will exist in the future, And it is the job of the common man, (the worker who lives not on Social Security but by his job)to change this. Liberterianism lacks this work, merely jumping to a conclusion long before any plan has been made. and in a sense it reminds me much of old Socialism, but even so Liberterianism needs to reform massively or realise what its true calling is.

How does socialism provide anything beneficial? First, you get taxed to death and there would be no incentive for anyone to work. Capitalism provides every necessary means and then some but it is hampered by regulation from the state.