Libertarian Party thought

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why not pour national resources into electing some congressional candidates in the LP? The LP CAN do it if it were to take national resources and direct it at campaigns in a strategic fashion. Why not win a few seats, make headlines, instead of just losing every election?

[mtmedlin]

There are many of us that have wondered the same thing. I cannot for my lifes sake figure out why the LP does what it does.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There are many of us that have wondered the same thing. I cannot for my lifes sake figure out why the LP does what it does.

yup. It would seal the LP as THE third party.

[nate895]

I once read a book entitled The South Was Right!, and while it was speaking of people who are believers on the Lost Cause, it said "it is better to have one Town Alderman than a candidate for Governor." No one paid attention to that though, so the movement dissipated (the last bit of it are now Ron Paul fans, or clinging desperately to what amounts to a ship full of water). I am genuinely surprised the same hasn't happened to the LP. Even the authors ignored that advice.

[SimpleName]

I do wish the Libertarian party would go all out and try to actually win elections. They continue to just stay this offbeat secondary party without a true backing...despite the fact that there are apparently so many Libertarian thinkers out there who have backed Dr. Paul. With the Republican Party basically becoming the Democratic Party, the LP could come up quickly. I'm hoping at some point, the collective group with join together to elect viable people who can really get people together as Ron Paul has done.

[nate895]

I do wish the Libertarian party would go all out and try to actually win elections. They continue to just stay this offbeat secondary party without a true backing...despite the fact that there are apparently so many Libertarian thinkers out there who have backed Dr. Paul. With the Republican Party basically becoming the Democratic Party, the LP could come up quickly. I'm hoping at some point, the collective group with join together to elect viable people who can really get people together as Ron Paul has done.

I hope all conservative third parties unite and form the Real Conservative Party.

[mtmedlin]

If they would systematically build a grassroots by supporting mid level candidates (mayors, state house or sentate) and work there way up. Go after just a few major states that the party has done well. After time, it will be the norm to see good Libertarian candidates on the ballot and higher positions will open up. Theres nothing wrong with having hundreds of libertarian mayors over 1 libertarian president. I gurantee that the mayors would get more done. Its mor eabout changing the hearts and minds of the people through building model towns, counties, parishes etc. Through these models, people will see that the libertarian philosophy works and people will vote with their choice of location to live. When one county is doing so much better then another, the next town over will want the same. Freedom is infectious. Running a one shot wonder every four years and then going back and saying next time is not productive.

[Gadsden Flag]

Before becoming Ron Paul's VP candidate in 1988, Andre Marrou managed to get elected to the US House of Representatives as a Libertarian. This was about 10 years after the LP was formed. You'd think it would be the first of several instead of the only one. But that was like 24 years ago now.

It seems like there are no serious 3rd party candidates for senate or congress.
Here in Missouri we have had members of the Constitution party elected to our state government a few times lately, though.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Before becoming Ron Paul's VP candidate in 1988, Andre Marrou managed to get elected to the US House of Representatives as a Libertarian. This was about 10 years after the LP was formed. You'd think it would be the first of several instead of the only one. But that was like 24 years ago now.

It seems like there are no serious 3rd party candidates for senate or congress.
Here in Missouri we have had members of the Constitution party elected to our state government a few times lately, though.

I think it's because the extremists took over in the early 80s, when the moderates walked out.

My opinion: We should be the party of principle but NOT an exclusionary organization!

[ARealConservative]

I'm not libertarian.

I want to restore the constitutiton and I find that libertarians wish to go a step further.

[nate895]

I'm not libertarian.

I want to restore the constitutiton and I find that libertarians wish to go a step further.

Most people who call themselves "libertarian," aren't libertarian.

[ARealConservative]

Most people who call themselves "libertarian," aren't libertarian.

meaning?

[nate895]

meaning?

Meaning most of them just want a return to Constitutional government, not some sort of state of anarchy where there is no government, or the government is a mere adjudicator in property disputes, which is what some (the actual, real) libertarians want.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Why not pour national resources into electing some congressional candidates in the LP? The LP CAN do it if it were to take national resources and direct it at campaigns in a strategic fashion. Why not win a few seats, make headlines, instead of just losing every election?

Because establishing a movement of diverse political interests is more of a significant acheivement than winning campaigns. The problem we have with the movement now is that it hasn't been given a clear science. The new, fresh movement we have today needs to be narrowed down to a purpose and definition.

[nate895]

Because establishing a movement of diverse political interests is more of a significant acheivement than winning campaigns. The problem we have with the movement now is that it hasn't been given a clear science. The new, fresh movement we have today needs to be narrowed down to a purpose and definition.

What's the point of having a "movement" if it has no power? The way you build a movement is to get people into the government who can represent your views to the people of the country. If there was a Libertarian State Representative, it is easy to get a State Senator, which will then make it easier to get a Congressional seat, and so on, all the while doing this in select districts across the country.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

yup. It would seal the LP as THE third party.

A 3 party system will not work in the moderate American system because there is only 2 ends to the political spectrum. What third parties do is either reestablish the 2 party system by one of the parties adopting its political philosophies; or, it replaces the weaker of the 2 parties outright as a new challenging party to the stronger remaining party. I think both parties are kind of weak when viewed seperately with the Democrats stupidly voiding the Florida and Michagan primaries and with Republican conservatives booing McCann as their best choice.
Combine the Democratic and the Republicans together, however, and our nation has a strong single party system. Add to this single party a system of media corporations -- troubled companies that have turned to lobbying in order to fend off the up and coming internet media -- and one has the making of a totalitarian government much like the Soviet Union had 20 years ago.

[yongrel]

The LP's manic obsession with the Presidency to the exclusion of other positions is the major reason I don't support them. With their resources, they could have at least 5 seats in Congress right now. But no. No, they had to throw all of their money at a series of pointless presidential runs.

[Kotin]

The LP's manic obsession with the Presidency to the exclusion of other positions is the major reason I don't support them. With their resources, they could have at least 5 seats in Congress right now. But no. No, they had to throw all of their money at a series of pointless presidential runs.

its true.. and it makes no sense at all..

[nate895]

A 3 party system will not work in the moderate American system because there is only 2 ends to the political spectrum. What third parties do is either reestablish the 2 party system by one of the parties adopting its political philosophies; or, it replaces the weaker of the 2 parties outright as a new challenging party to the stronger remaining party. I think both parties are kind of weak when viewed seperately with the Democrats stupidly voiding the Florida and Michagan primaries and with Republican conservatives booing McCann as their best choice.
Combine the Democratic and the Republicans together, however, and our nation has a strong single party system. Add to this single party a system of media corporations -- troubled companies that have turned to lobbying in order to fend off the up and coming internet media -- and one has the making of a totalitarian government much like the Soviet Union had 20 years ago.

There is room for three parties. The UK has three contending parties, and the Commons are elected from constituencies, each with one Common. They have three competitive parties, and many parties with MPs.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What's the point of having a "movement" if it has no power? The way you build a movement is to get people into the government who can represent your views to the people of the country. If there was a Libertarian State Representative, it is easy to get a State Senator, which will then make it easier to get a Congressional seat, and so on, all the while doing this in select districts across the country.

If the original vision of our founding fathers isn't enough to put people into government, then it really doesn't matter.

[nate895]

If the original vision of our founding fathers isn't enough to put people into government, then it really doesn't matter.

It might be, we don't know because so few people have heard of the LP or its candidates that we don't know how people would vote if they knew of them.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

There is room for three parties. The UK has three contending parties, and the Commons are elected from constituencies, each with one Common. They have three competitive parties, and many parties with MPs.

The Federalists were challenging the Constitution to the point that the founding fathers were fearful that it would be scrapped. So, rather than risk ammending the Constitution, our founding fathers developed the legal precedent of the 2 party system. The single party system that our nation began with naturally, because the Constitution did not address political parties, quickly brought our nation under the rule of a totalitarian type government.

[nate895]

The Federalists were challenging the Constitution to the point that the founding fathers were fearful that it would be scrapped. So, rather than risk ammending the Constitution, our founding fathers developed the legal precedent of the 2 party system. The single party system that our nation began with naturally, because the Constitution did not address political parties, quickly brought our nation under the rule of a totalitarian type government.

There is no "legal precedent" to the two party system, no court has said you are able to restrict third parties, no court has given any special rules to third parties, in fact courts have ruled the opposite most times. The only discrimination can be one applied to all parties, including the Democrats and the Republicans.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

It might be, we don't know because so few people have heard of the LP or its candidates that we don't know how people would vote if they knew of them.

As they did in the past, an American movement today would take in people from all political persuasions. Look, our nation is in such a condition right now that petty campaign victories won't fix it. We really need the campaigns just to establish a movement. Such a phenomenon would become greater than Ron Paul himself and the LP itself.

[nate895]

As they did in the past, an American movement today would take in people from all political persuasions. Look, our nation is in such a condition right now that petty campaign victories won't fix it. We really need the campaigns just to establish a movement. Such a phenomenon would become greater than Ron Paul himself and the LP itself.

I agree, but I believe the best way to do that is have officeholders. It is a lot easier to be a part of a movement actively when someone in the area is campaigning. That is why the D's and the R's are so powerful, they have someone everywhere (or most everywhere) running, uniting various somewhat like-minded factions behind a candidate and party.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

There is no "legal precedent" to the two party system, no court has said you are able to restrict third parties, no court has given any special rules to third parties, in fact courts have ruled the opposite most times. The only discrimination can be one applied to all parties, including the Democrats and the Republicans.

Yes. I think we are arguing while in agreement. A legal precedent is to tying the shoe as the Constitution is to being the shoe. A legal precedent is just something created outside of the idealistic Constitution in order to get it to function realistically. Still, the legal precedent should be held secondary in importance to the primary civil purpose in the Constitution itself.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I agree, but I believe the best way to do that is have officeholders. It is a lot easier to be a part of a movement actively when someone in the area is campaigning. That is why the D's and the R's are so powerful, they have someone everywhere (or most everywhere) running, uniting various somewhat like-minded factions behind a candidate and party.

We have a candidate now who just spouts change as a movement. This isn't a movement back towards the Constitution, towards the vision of our founding fathers or anything worth dying for as an American.
We need to get away from this notion that we need to put experienced law makers into office. Experienced law makers make lots of money dealing in legal precedents while they make little off enforcing the civil purpose in the Constitution. As a client and an inexperienced law maker, I would know very little about secondary legal precedents; while, as a citizen, I would know about the primary civil purpose in the Constitution.
So, we need to have a total revision in our thinking here. We need to put inexperienced judges on the bench and inexperienced law makers into office. This would be ideal.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Delete

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If the original vision of our founding fathers isn't enough to put people into government, then it really doesn't matter.

LP is a political organization. Not spokesmen for the Founding Fathers ;)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

LP is a political organization. Not spokesmen for the Founding Fathers ;)

I once read some LP literature being passed out in college and wasn't impressed. I am more impressed with the organization of diverse political groups supporting Ron Paul which also includes the LP.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I once read some LP literature being passed out in college and wasn't impressed. I am more impressed with the organization of diverse political groups supporting Ron Paul which also includes the LP.

Not impressed? Then maybe the party isn't for you.

Libertarian Party: pro-choice on everything

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

The LP's manic obsession with the Presidency to the exclusion of other positions is the major reason I don't support them. With their resources, they could have at least 5 seats in Congress right now. But no. No, they had to throw all of their money at a series of pointless presidential runs.

Yeah, they have a much better chance of gaining clout that way.

[mtmedlin]

The LP's manic obsession with the Presidency to the exclusion of other positions is the major reason I don't support them. With their resources, they could have at least 5 seats in Congress right now. But no. No, they had to throw all of their money at a series of pointless presidential runs.

I actually wrote a paper on this in college and my professor agreed with just about everything. She told me the critical failures of the LP was the inability to compromise on anything, the lack of knowledge of how local politics affects national politics and too many of them come off as nutbags on national tv.

I sat through more classes being the only libertarian in the entire class. It was so much fun because each side hated and loved about half my arguments, so nobody really bashed too hard on me because they always loved when I was nailing the other side. Kinda - the enemy of my enemy is my friend

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I actually wrote a paper on this in college and my professor agreed with just about everything. She told me the critical failures of the LP was the inability to compromise on anything, the lack of knowledge of how local politics affects national politics and too many of them come off as nutbags on national tv.

I sat through more classes being the only libertarian in the entire class. It was so much fun because each side hated and loved about half my arguments, so nobody really bashed too hard on me because they always loved when I was nailing the other side. Kinda - the enemy of my enemy is my friend

Ever hear of moderates? Do we look at the Democratic Party and talk about how the socialist extremists can't compromise? More moderates need to join the party in order for it to be a viable "third way" party. Right now the problem is that we just don't have enouh voters to win, so why not voter drives? Go house to house and get people signed up with the LP. That's what the other two parties do. We can educate the masses later on with emails and newsletters. As long as we control the LNC and who becomes state party chairs, we won't have to lose any principles.

[mtmedlin]

Ever hear of moderates? Do we look at the Democratic Party and talk about how the socialist extremists can't compromise? More moderates need to join the party in order for it to be a viable "third way" party. Right now the problem is that we just don't have enouh voters to win, so why not voter drives? Go house to house and get people signed up with the LP. That's what the other two parties do. We can educate the masses later on with emails and newsletters. As long as we control the LNC and who becomes state party chairs, we won't have to lose any principles.

problem is that the people leading the LP look at things as an all or nothing. they want to abolish the IRS instead of compromising and just accepting for now, a reduction in taxes. they want all troops everywhere to come home, instead of for now, withdrawing from Iraq. they want all drugs legalized now, instead of pushing for just marijuana reform.
Second problem is that every presidential candidate that they run is the "best Libertarian" instead of the most electable libertarian. Badnarick was a great example of this.
Third, we can go door to door trying to educate but as long as the goals set forth are so damn shocking to the masses, we wont make headway. Yes, Moderates are the key but that isnt who is running the party right now.

What we need is to culminate a large pool of good local candidates and systematically support them up through the ranks to higher positions. Once we have a few in the House, a couple in the Senate and maybe a few governors and lots and lots of local elected officials, THEN we have a chance to run a real presidential campaign. When was the last time the LP actually had someone run for President that had any real elected experience. I beleive it was in 1988.....Ron Paul.
the leadership lives out a pipe dream, every four years, instead of properly working the rank and file and building the grassroots. If we are to take back our country it will be in small pieces. This is how it changed over 232 years and it will be the way it goes back. We must be willing to take in the 70% libertarians because us 90% plus Libs are maybe 5% of the nation. A fully Libertarian nation will never be accomplished but I can live with us rolling back the damage and making our country a more moderate republic. We must learn to use the two party system against themselves. Make the necessary alliances. Make a few concessions and in time we can demand more but being ideolistic from a weak position is failure and the LP has never figured that out.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

problem is that the people leading the LP look at things as an all or nothing. they want to abolish the IRS instead of compromising and just accepting for now, a reduction in taxes. they want all troops everywhere to come home, instead of for now, withdrawing from Iraq. they want all drugs legalized now, instead of pushing for just marijuana reform.
Second problem is that every presidential candidate that they run is the "best Libertarian" instead of the most electable libertarian. Badnarick was a great example of this.
Third, we can go door to door trying to educate but as long as the goals set forth are so damn shocking to the masses, we wont make headway. Yes, Moderates are the key but that isnt who is running the party right now.

What we need is to culminate a large pool of good local candidates and systematically support them up through the ranks to higher positions. Once we have a few in the House, a couple in the Senate and maybe a few governors and lots and lots of local elected officials, THEN we have a chance to run a real presidential campaign. When was the last time the LP actually had someone run for President that had any real elected experience. I beleive it was in 1988.....Ron Paul.
the leadership lives out a pipe dream, every four years, instead of properly working the rank and file and building the grassroots. If we are to take back our country it will be in small pieces. This is how it changed over 232 years and it will be the way it goes back. We must be willing to take in the 70% libertarians because us 90% plus Libs are maybe 5% of the nation. A fully Libertarian nation will never be accomplished but I can live with us rolling back the damage and making our country a more moderate republic. We must learn to use the two party system against themselves. Make the necessary alliances. Make a few concessions and in time we can demand more but being ideolistic from a weak position is failure and the LP has never figured that out.

I agree. I believe in gradual reforms. We should focus more on getting in the right direction rather than looking like a bunch of crazies. You can only do as much as the people will tolerate. We can oppose the income taxes, but we should compromise (until we gain required political support) by just cutting income taxes. Let's tell businesspeople that we will cut their taxes, let's tell the middleclass families that we want to cut their taxes and not just the taxes for the corporate elite like what the GOP does. It doesn't have to be all or not. We don't have to campaign on ending the drug war, we can talk about reforms that people would like to see. While I do agree with virtally every LP position I just know that we can't win if we don't ever compromise on anything. Our GOAL should be end the drug war but our short term goals should be to maybe legalize marijuana or fight for lesser penalties.

Am I a moderate? Not really. But I'm not naive enough to not know that we need to compromise sometimes. Is it better to go for all or nothing and allow the US to go further downhill? Or to make strategic compromises and finally begin to maybe go in the right direction for once? You have to speak to the American people not lecture them.

And why did the moderates leave in the 80s? Ever hear of staying and fighting for what you want? The conventions allow all members to change the way the LP operates, so why not take advantage of that? gheeze

[mtmedlin]

I agree. I believe in gradual reforms. We should focus more on getting in the right direction rather than looking like a bunch of crazies. You can only do as much as the people will tolerate. We can oppose the income taxes, but we should compromise (until we gain required political support) by just cutting income taxes. Let's tell businesspeople that we will cut their taxes, let's tell the middleclass families that we want to cut their taxes and not just the taxes for the corporate elite like what the GOP does. It doesn't have to be all or not. We don't have to campaign on ending the drug war, we can talk about reforms that people would like to see. While I do agree with virtally every LP position I just know that we can't win if we don't ever compromise on anything. Our GOAL should be end the drug war but our short term goals should be to maybe legalize marijuana or fight for lesser penalties.

And why did the moderates leave in the 80s? Ever hear of staying and fighting for what you want? The conventions allow all members to change the way the LP operates, so why not take advantage of that? gheeze


As far as taxes go, we should really look into the APT tax. This could be the Libertarians, fair tax but it is way better.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

As far as taxes go, we should really look into the APT tax. This could be the Libertarians, fair tax but it is way better.

flat tax? look, we would first need popular support in the House to eliminate the Federal Income Tax. We don't currently have that, but it would be better, for sure. I think that we would need a HUGE consensus to get rid of it.

Another is thing is how many Libertarians campaign on issues that voters don't care about. Gold standard. uh, no. Fight for it once elected but PLEASE don't make speeches on it lol. You want to fight for these things once elected but talk about issues that people care about when you're running. And no I don't support the gold standard but I think it's better than what we have because it limits the spending of government. That's always good. :)

I would support it though.

[mtmedlin]

flat tax? look, we would first need popular support in the House to eliminate the Federal Income Tax. We don't currently have that, but it would be better, for sure.

APT is different. You should read up on it. I think it is novel enough to get some serious air time for which ever candidate pushes it. I would like to see it gain some strenght so that when 2012 comes around, this will be something that has been talked about for 4 years.


http://www.apttax.com/

[yongrel]

Ya wanna know what the single biggest issue standing in the way of the LP right now is?

Their use of the word "gradualist" as a derogatory term.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ya wanna know what the single biggest issue standing in the way of the LP right now is?

There use of the word "gradualist" as a derogatory term.

lol. I'm probably more Libertarian than them when it comes to the issues but the difference is that I want to win....they are apparently content with losing and watching the nation go downhill as we sit in our little box and mock the flawed policies that never change.

It's like poker. If you go all-in everytime, you will go home broke. You need some strategy.

[Kludge]

lol. I'm probably more Libertarian than them when it comes to the issues but the difference is that I want to win....they are apparently content with losing and watching the nation go downhill as we sit in our little box and mock the flawed policies that never change.

Randian Anarchists seem to HATE compromise... But, I mean - She did declare compromise the root of all evil.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Randian Anarchists seem to HATE compromise... But, I mean - She did declare compromise the root of all evil.

lol. she never liked the LP so I don't know why her fans would want to join anyway.

We can start to be uncompromising once we gain majorities in office :) Until then, we need to be a vigilant minority and start to elect people for once. What does the Democrats do as the minority party? Well, when they were lol. They compromised on their socialistic programs, they worked with the GOP in order to get some of their stuff through even though they compromised on many things. But now they can push the welfare state all they want since they're the majority, the GOP has to compromise with them. But what's the difference between either party now? It almost looks like the Democrats are fighting to make the poor poorer and the rich to leave the country while the GOP of today looks like some sort of evil corporate play thing.

The only difference between them and us is pure ignorance. They are either pandering assholes or they really believe the crap they spew. But libertarianism and the Libertarian Party specifically has been right on very single count. But does right ensure victory? Not at all. That's why we need to compromise once in a while but to NEVER lose the longterm principles.

[Kludge]

lol. she never liked the LP so I don't know why her fans would want to join anyway.

We can start to be uncompromising once we gain majorities in office :) Until then, we need to be a vigilant minority and start to elect people for once. What does the Democrats do as the minority party? Well, when they were lol. They compromised on their socialistic programs, they worked with the GOP in order to get some of their stuff through even though they compromised on many things. But now they can push the welfare state all they want since they're the majority, the GOP has to compromise with them. But what's the difference between either party now? It almost looks like the Democrats are fighting to make the poor poorer and the rich to leave the country while the GOP of today looks like some sort of evil corporate play thing.

The only difference between them and us is pure ignorance. They are either pandering assholes or they really believe the crap they spew. But libertarianism and the Libertarian Party specifically has been right on very single count. But does right ensure victory? Not at all. That's why we need to compromise once in a while but to NEVER lose the longterm principles.

Rand didn't like the... "Old" Libertarian Party. Most everyone in LP is a radical objectivist or radical minarchist nowadays, I don't think she'd feel the same way.

I don't even believe "Radicals for Capitalism" is active anymore, is it?



Aren't you asserting that the ends justify the means if we "compromise"? It's difficult to be gradual if the steps you take are still immoral, even if you are gradually moving towards a moral government (which of course, is voluntary or non-existent).

[mtmedlin]

Rand didn't like the... "Old" Libertarian Party. Most everyone in LP is a radical objectivist or radical minarchist nowadays, I don't think she'd feel the same way.

I don't even believe "Radicals for Capitalism" is active anymore, is it?



Aren't you asserting that the ends justify the means if we "compromise"? It's difficult to be gradual if the steps you take are still immoral, even if you are gradually moving towards a moral government (which of course, is voluntary or non-existent).

Isnt allowing our nation to continue on its path immoral? Compromise is a necessity when you have NO power. The LP has none, therfore if it wants to accomplish anything other then sitting in Dennys bitching about how we should have won, then we must begin to play ball. Only by getting in the game, do you get to play and right now, we are the waterboy.

[nate895]

The way for true conservatives and libertarians to win elections is to ally. Scrap the idea of the LP and CP, got for one huge Conservative Party that can incorporate many Republicans and Independent Conservatives who are only that way because the CP and LP (if they've heard of them) can't win (which is correct in practice, though wrong in theory). If they allied this election and gave a Presidential candidate $10 million to merely get the message out to the voters and get like 10% of the vote and win a couple of House seats, and whole bunch of state rep. and senate positions within those couple those districts and a few others. If a party got 5 House seats and 10% of the Presidential vote, they have influence to pick up 10 House and maybe a Senator and Governor. If they'd be able to go into the next Presidential Election and get into the debates, and then get 20%+ (hopefully 25% to get major party status) of the popular vote and win some states to provide a base to build on for Electoral Votes, they are well poised to get 100-200 seats in the House and 10-20 in the Senate, and maybe even have a serious chance at winning the next Presidential Election.

[AutoDas]

The Libertarian Party should definitely not compromise. How can you compromise on freedom and liberty? What makes Ron Paul so unique is that he has allied libertarians, conservatives, and consitutionalists and that's how it needs to be.

[nate895]

The Libertarian Party should definitely not compromise. How can you compromise on freedom and liberty? What makes Ron Paul so unique is that he has allied libertarians, conservatives, and consitutionalists and that's how it needs to be.

Read above post.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The Libertarian Party should definitely not compromise. How can you compromise on freedom and liberty? What makes Ron Paul so unique is that he has allied libertarians, conservatives, and consitutionalists and that's how it needs to be.

The hardline LP platform cannot win with the American people. Needs to be watered down a bit when people campaign as a Libertarian. Unless you're content losing? If so, then I guess there's nothing more to say lol

[nate895]

The hardline LP platform cannot win with the American people. Needs to be watered down a bit when people campaign as a Libertarian. Unless you're content losing? If so, then I guess there's nothing more to say lol

You're right, the hard line will not win with the American people, but a conservative alliance whose goal is to restore the Constitution gradually (we can't show up and get rid of welfare and social security day one) can. We could slowly, but surely make our way into power. The main problem with the LP is what it represents is really a faction of the much larger small government movement, which has won in the past, and can win again. If we could unite those factions behind one banner, it'd be easy to take seats and eventually the majority and Presidency.

[tajitj]

That is a great idea. Anyone interested in running local, state or Federal needs to look hard into their funding ability and real chances of winning. If you are new to politics and have a strong desire then find out what you need to do to get on the ballot for the LP party. It will be a good test run and will get your name out there.

[nate895]

That is a great idea. Anyone interested in running local, state or Federal needs to look hard into their funding ability and real chances of winning. If you are new to politics and have a strong desire then find out what you need to do to get on the ballot for the LP party. It will be a good test run and will get your name out there.

I'm thinking of forming a party to unite them. I think a conference of Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Independent Conservatives, and Conservative Republicans should get together to form a party.

[VaderM5]

Instead of forming yet another party a political group or organization would be better. Something similar to the Conservative party of New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_New_York

[nate895]

Instead of forming yet another party a political group or organization would be better. Something similar to the Conservative party of New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_New_York

What I was saying would be that the Libertarians and others get together with fellow small government types to work out a deal that is acceptable to all of them, and they then would dissolve and urge their members to join the new party.

It happens all the time in other countries, often to great success.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What I was saying would be that the Libertarians and others get together with fellow small government types to work out a deal that is acceptable to all of them, and they then would dissolve and urge their members to join the new party.

It happens all the time in other countries, often to great success.

What about the Libertarians that support open borders? prochoice? antideath penalty? "left libertarians"

[nate895]

What about the Libertarians that support open borders? prochoice? antideath penalty? "left libertarians"

Well, I was thinking many (save open borders) would become states' rights issues, and each state party would be able to decide, or maybe those variety of libertarians can form their own state parties while still participating at the Federal level.

[AutoDas]

What about the Libertarians that support open borders? prochoice? antideath penalty? "left libertarians"

Is it wrong that I support all of those? They are liberal, but not leftist views.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Is it wrong that I support all of those? They are liberal, but not leftist views.

What do you think I support? lol