The Libertarian Party Is A Farce

[Kade]

Watching Bob "The Candy" Barr's official declaration of his campaign I'm reminded how utterly disgraceful the Libertarian Party has become....

Barr is not a libertarian, and he's proven that the same sort of power structure that has existed before can now abuse the system enough to allow access to the resources of a nobler party. This is a man who is too lazy and too mired to seek a Presidential bid through his party's method, so he uses his name and influence to gain the Libertarian ticket and it's access to ballots. He changes a few of his political stances to seem more likable to the Far Right Libertarians, and few make any fuss.

If we ever mean to allow for good people like Steve Kubby to be compared to joker politicians like Candy Barr, I'm never voting for the LP again... ever.

And I know Candy. I know him very well, as I've lived in his district, (when it was Georgia's 11th), and had to endure several meet and greets throughout his career. When I applied for one of the available slots for a Naval Academy Appointment he gave it to a rather unqualified minority closer to Atlanta. (I got my appointment from Senator Max Cleland instead).

Yes, some of his views are more favorable, and he did become a member of the ACLU, but this in no way negates the astounding hypocrisy of this man's entire political career. If he can be forgiven, why then, do we not allow the same for other politicians?

Infuriating.

[yongrel]

I am a libertarian who does not support the Libertarian Party. They are the reason for the stigma against libertarianism. "Libertarians are crazy kooks." Thank you LP, for making my interactions with the politically ignorant even more unpleasant.

[weslinder]

The Libertarian Party consists mainly of conservative ex-Republicans with Quixote syndrome.

[yongrel]

The Libertarian Party consists mainly of conservative ex-Republicans with Quixote syndrome.

Let's not forget the extremists who have made "gradualist" a dirty word. Bastards.

[Kotin]

It's true, we all know what usually happens when a democrat switches republican just to hold an office.

they get spit out.

why does the LP like whores?

why are they ok with Bob Barr and especially Mike Gravel joining only to seek their presidential nomination?

it puts egg all over their face.

At Least the Constitution Party would have never allowed Alan Keyes to win. because he was not CP

just like Gravel and Barr are not and will never be LP

do they not want a faithful Libertarian as their nominee, or is their no such thing?

until they take themselves seriously, no one else will.

[Kade]

It's true, we all know what usually happens when a democrat switches republican just to hold an office.

they get spit out.

why does the LP like whores?

why are they ok with Bob Barr and especially Mike Gravel joining only to seek their presidential nomination?

it puts egg all over their face.

At Least the Constitution Party ould have never allowed Alan Keyes to win. because he was not CP

just like Gravel and Barr are not and will never be LP

do they not want a faithful Libertarian as their nominee, or is their no such thing?

until they take themselves seriously, no one else will.

See that is exactly what I am saying... I like Gravel, (because of his honest) but he is no Libertarian. Honestly, how can Roadway and Candy run under the same party?!@

[IRO-bot]

Let's not forget the extremists who have made "gradualist" a dirty word. Bastards.

Care to name a few?

[Aratus]

is it a curious alchemy of politics if mr. barr needs mr. gravel to legitimize his own conversion...?
is it a fluke of sorts for mike gravel to be fed up with the democrats equal to bob barr's fury at
the neo-cons and the centrist mainstream republicans? the two make a curious pair!!! was
sen. gravel irritated by the dweedledum + dweedledee match most endless? obama vs clinton!!!

[constituent]

is it a curious alchemy of politics if mr. barr needs mr. gravel to legitimize his own conversion...?
is it a fluke of sorts for mike gravel to be fed up with the democrats equal to bob barr's fury at
the neo-cons and the centrist mainstream republicans? the two make a curious pair!!! was
sen. gravel irritated by the dweedledum + dweedledee match most endless? obama vs clinton!!!

kinda like this:


http://www.luckysden.com/LJ/fursvsklingon.jpg





2008 Libertarian National Convention?

[Andrew-Austin]

Let's not forget the extremists who have made "gradualist" a dirty word. Bastards.

Gradualism is a dirty word. I like how M. Rothbard explained the issue of gradualism.

Gradualism is like conceding your point. For example its like saying that taxes will be okay for the next couple years, but we must get rid of them eventually. Back in the day you wouldn't have said "slavery should be abolished in five years", you would have said slavery should be abolished immediately because it is wrong.

It just does not make sense, and non-Libertarians don't understand the stance of gradual libertarianism. Its pretty hard to recruit more people into libertarian faith when everyone just concedes to the powers that be. There is no reason why the government should be as massive as it is, and that we should feed it with taxes.

We can take whatever small tax cut or policy change we can get, but we must always publicly exclaim that government should be made more libertarian in all aspects now. Saying otherwise is to belittle the values of limited government, free market, humble foreign policy, etc.

I'm bad at paraphrasing his book, but read "For a New Liberty".

[yongrel]

I'm bad at paraphrasing his book, but read "For a New Liberty".

I've read the book, and I disagree with the point about gradualism.

In my mind, gradualism is realism. I object to many policies within government, but also recognize that it is not feasible to abolish them immediately in one fell blow. Instead, I have an end goal which I work towards. The real progress toward liberty will be made gradually, not in one miraculous moment.

Instead of waiting for some deus ex machina to appear and magically abolish everything I disagree with, I am going to work on my own to restore liberty practically and pragmatically. We call that gradualism.

[torchbearer]

Our society is a farce. Why stop there?

[Truth Warrior]

What political party is NOT a farce? :D

[torchbearer]

Remember, political parties are not philosophical debate clubs of purity.
Its a vehicle to get people elected by having an organized structure to compete.
You can find anything wrong with anything.
Why does this information even warrant a thread? It is stating the obvious.

[Kotin]

i thought he was just putting out there the fact that its lame that the LP is ok with anyone waltzing in and taking their nomination.

[torchbearer]

i thought he was just putting out there the fact that its lame that the LP is ok with anyone waltzing in and taking their nomination.

Well, if that's what he is saying, he doesn't have a fucking clue.


Barr doesn't have the LP support.
Only two people in our entire convention was excited about him.
look at our straw poll we had a couple weeks ago:
http://louisianalibertarianparty.org/
Marry Ruwart beat out Root.

We nominated Badnarik over Russo and Nolan because he was able to express a pure libertarian philosophy well.
A guy, we know, people will not get all excited about gets our nomination.
Mary Ruwart will get the nomination. You heard it here first.
Barr then leaves the LP.

[Unspun]

until they take themselves seriously, no one else will.

Nominating Barr, the most electable person in the party, someone who has fought tooth and nail for civil liberties and financial privacy, would not be taking themselves seriously how? This is probably the best, serious, and most intelligent thing the party has done since nominating Harry Browne.

[Aratus]

Remember, political parties are not philosophical debate clubs of purity.
Its a vehicle to get people elected by having an organized structure to compete.


torchbearer is now running for office himself and of course knows these informal rules...

[torchbearer]

torchbearer is now running for office himself and of course knows these informal rules...

Well, I don't have the republican election machine working for me. I'm considered an outsider since I'm a Ron Paul supporter.
I do have my own election machine, Its small, but it gets bigger and more experienced with time.

If you can't excite the activist of a party. the delegates. then you don't get nominated.
That is why popular votes aren't needed.
Who goes out and campaigns for a candidate? an excited activist.
If the population chooses a candidate via primary that isn't supported by the activist, then they will lose because they have no election organization. no activist, no volunteers.
That is why its important for the party activist to choose who they will support.

By excluding us from the GOP convention, the GOP has cut off its own leg to save their unearned profits.

[Peace&Freedom]

I've read the book, and I disagree with the point about gradualism.

In my mind, gradualism is realism. I object to many policies within government, but also recognize that it is not feasible to abolish them immediately in one fell blow. Instead, I have an end goal which I work towards. The real progress toward liberty will be made gradually, not in one miraculous moment.

Instead of waiting for some deus ex machina to appear and magically abolish everything I disagree with, I am going to work on my own to restore liberty practically and pragmatically. We call that gradualism.


I disagree with your disagreement about gradualism. Gradualism as a tactic of the expanders of state power WAS NEVER ABOUT REALISM, or doing things pragmatically in stages. Gradualism was ALWAYS a technique used by statists to sound reasonable, while advancing the extreme. In every law or regulation that 'gradually' introduced government power in some area, the presumption in the law is always and forever that the state has complete, superseding and limitless authority with regards to that area. The APPLICATION of that monopoly authority may be (for now) overtly listed as over A, but the covert and implicit ASSERTION of that power is always over A-Z.

So when Beltway conservatives and libertarians have tried to push an incremental approach in the other direction, it has always been easily pushed back or eliminated later, because the ABSOLUTE and extreme foundation of the other side remains totally unaffected. This is more comically seen in the abortion issue, where 'moderates' talk wistfully about incrementally 'reducing the number of abortions,' as if mass slaughter lite is an improvement over mass slaughter proper (bottom line, the current extreme regime of legalized child-killing, where preborn children have zero recognition of their right to life, remans firmly in place). Real incremental reform should at least be defined on our terms---say, push a pro-life effort that removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts on the issue, so the battle can return to the states for resolution---such that there is a radical assertion, codified in all bills we would pass, that government powers should be permanently limited, underlying our legislation.

After over seventy years of attempted conservative incrementalism, what major program of the total state actually ever got rolled back? When will the 'realists' acknowledge the legislative failure of their approach? In other words, the Libertarians are right to insist on first principles and firm platform positions, regardless of mistakes the party has made in implementing the agenda. The main problem inhibiting constitutional progress has not been the LP's candidate selection or other secondary matters, but the establishment's structural suppression of pro-constitutional movements, be they inside or outside the two party system. Paul supporters have seen first hand, from inside the GOP primary race, the same kind of suppression and marginalization tactics that have been used against third party candidates (regardless of how qualified) for decades to prevent them from gaining office. Let's major in the majors, which is how the elite-controlled political system in America is the farce, and not on the LP for simply standing for real change.

[Bradley in DC]

We nominated Badnarik over Russo and Nolan because he was able to express a pure libertarian philosophy well.
A guy, we know, people will not get all excited about gets our nomination.
Mary Ruwart will get the nomination. You heard it here first.
Barr then leaves the LP.

FWIW, the entire DC delegation is unanimously behind Barr--and you know how huge and powerful we are! :rolleyes: :p

[torchbearer]

FWIW, the entire DC delegation is unanimously behind Barr--and you know how huge and powerful we are! :rolleyes: :p

hehehe. Yeh, how many votes is that?
Louisiana is split Ruwart/ Root. with slight edge to Ruwart.
From Louisiana
0 delegates will go to barr. (the people who supported barr couldn't make it to the convention unless barr pays them to go)
4 delegates to Ruwart
2 delegates to Root
1 delegate to Gravel

[torchbearer]

hehehe. Yeh, how many votes is that?
Louisiana is split Ruwart/ Root. with slight edge to Ruwart.
From Louisiana
0 delegates will go to barr. (the people who supported barr couldn't make it to the convention unless barr pays them to go)
4 delegates to Ruwart
2 delegates to Root
1 delegate to Gravel

Our delegates are also heavily influenced by the debates at the convention.
Last time around, we sent a unanimous slate for Gary Nolan. It ended up splitting toward badnarik.

[weslinder]

I disagree with your disagreement about gradualism. Gradualism as a tactic of the expanders of state power WAS NEVER ABOUT REALISM, or doing things pragmatically in stages. Gradualism was ALWAYS a technique used by statists to sound reasonable, while advancing the extreme. In every law or regulation that 'gradually' introduced government power in some area, the presumption in the law is always and forever that the state has complete, superseding and limitless authority with regards to that area. The APPLICATION of that monopoly authority may be (for now) overtly listed as over A, but the covert and implicit ASSERTION of that power is always over A-Z.

So when Beltway conservatives and libertarians have tried to push an incremental approach in the other direction, it has always been easily pushed back or eliminated later, because the ABSOLUTE and extreme foundation of the other side remains totally unaffected. This is more comically seen in the abortion issue, where 'moderates' talk wistfully about incrementally 'reducing the number of abortions,' as if mass slaughter lite is an improvement over mass slaughter proper (bottom line, the current extreme regime of legalized child-killing, where preborn children have zero recognition of their right to life, remans firmly in place). Real incremental reform should at least be defined on our terms---say, push a pro-life effort that removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts on the issue, so the battle can return to the states for resolution---such that there is a radical assertion, codified in all bills we would pass, that government powers should be permanently limited, underlying our legislation.

After over seventy years of attempted conservative incrementalism, what major program of the total state actually ever got rolled back? When will the 'realists' acknowledge the legislative failure of their approach? In other words, the Libertarians are right to insist on first principles and firm platform positions, regardless of mistakes the party has made in implementing the agenda. The main problem inhibiting constitutional progress has not been the LP's candidate selection or other secondary matters, but the establishment's structural suppression of pro-constitutional movements, be they inside or outside the two party system. Paul supporters have seen first hand, from inside the GOP primary race, the same kind of suppression and marginalization tactics that have been used against third party candidates (regardless of how qualified) for decades to prevent them from gaining office. Let's major in the majors, which is how the elite-controlled political system in America is the farce, and not on the LP for simply standing for real change.

We cannot compromise until our issues are on the table, and then we will have to compromise to effect any change. When the debate is set on which taxes we're going to raise and by how much, which bureaucracies we're going to expand and by how much, whether we're going to have a unilateral pre-emptive strike or wait for UN approval, and how many liberties we're going to give up, we have no room for compromise.

If we stick with the Revolution in the effective channels, at some point we will have our issues on the table. At that point we will have to compromise to get things done. We won't be able to get back every liberty at once, reduce the Federal bureaucracy to constitutional limits at once, or close down all of our imperialist bases at once. So we will compromise, or we will do nothing.

Gradualism is a political reality. You cannot acomplish anything politically without compromise. But the debate must be set such that compromise is a viable option.

[Kade]

We cannot compromise until our issues are on the table, and then we will have to compromise to effect any change. When the debate is set on which taxes we're going to raise and by how much, which bureaucracies we're going to expand and by how much, whether we're going to have a uniteral pre-emptive strike or wait for UN approval, and how many liberties we're going to give up, we have no room for compromise.

If we stick with the Revolution in the effective channels, at some point we will have our issues on the table. At that point we will have to compromise to get things done. We won't be able to get back every liberty at once, reduce the Federal bureaucracy to constitutional limits at once, or close down all of our imperialist bases at once. So we will compromise, or we will do nothing.

Gradualism is a political reality. You cannot acomplish anything politically without compromise. But the debate must be set such that compromise is a viable option.


Some of Candy Barr's ideas are Regressionism. My term. That is a political reality not worth my time.

And whoever on this thread said this man works hard is a living and breathing mockery of self research.

[Alex Libman]

If all libertarian purists stopped whining and donated to someone like Mary Ruwart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ruwart) or George Phillies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Phillies), they could very easily defeat non-purist "let's take as many McCain votes as possible" pragmatists like Root or Barr.

But sadly all they do is complain, so it isn't looking very good. Either lead, follow, or get out of the way!

On a side-note, the LP isn't doing so bad. Replacing Shane Cory (http://digg.com/politics/Libertarian_Party_shake_up_Shane_Cory_resigns) was definitely a step in the right direction. I think this blog post by Brian Miller sums it up very well - "A Public Service Reminder: The Libertarian Party Is Not The GOP! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136851)"

[Kade]

If all libertarian purists stopped whining and donated to someone like Mary Ruwart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ruwart) or George Phillies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Phillies), they could very easily defeat non-purist "let's take as many McCain votes as possible" pragmatists like Root or Barr.

But sadly all they do is complain, so it isn't looking very good. Either lead, follow, or get out of the way!

On a side-note, the LP isn't doing so bad. Replacing Shane Cory (http://digg.com/politics/Libertarian_Party_shake_up_Shane_Cory_resigns) was definitely a step in the right direction. I think this blog post by Brian Miller sums it up very well - "A Public Service Reminder: The Libertarian Party Is Not The GOP! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136851)"

I don't care about purism. I don't even care about libertarianism. I care that he is an opportunist and a hypocrite.

[Alex Libman]

What have YOU done to promote an other LP candidate to take the nomination away from Barr?

[ronpaulhawaii]

I've read the book, and I disagree with the point about gradualism.

In my mind, gradualism is realism. I object to many policies within government, but also recognize that it is not feasible to abolish them immediately in one fell blow. Instead, I have an end goal which I work towards. The real progress toward liberty will be made gradually, not in one miraculous moment.

Instead of waiting for some deus ex machina to appear and magically abolish everything I disagree with, I am going to work on my own to restore liberty practically and pragmatically. We call that gradualism.

Yes, gradualism works both ways. IMO - Idealism works on the future, while realism works on the present.


Remember, political parties are not philosophical debate clubs of purity.
Its a vehicle to get people elected by having an organized structure to compete.
You can find anything wrong with anything.
Why does this information even warrant a thread? It is stating the obvious.

+1



...
Gradualism is a political reality. You cannot acomplish anything politically without compromise. But the debate must be set such that compromise is a viable option.

+1

Bob Barr may be a LINO, but he is true politician. I attended the announcement today :eek:(for the experiance;)) and was very impressed with his handling of the press. Rhetorical skill, and political savvy, play large parts in electability. I am curious as to the theoretical downsides of a Barr / LP presidency?

[torchbearer]

What have YOU done to promote an other LP candidate to take the nomination away from Barr?

:) Kade is making a generalization not based on facts.
For someone always bashing on the christians who don't listen to facts, he did it hisself.
The LP has not crowned Barr. The is no LP consiracy to elect Barr.
I can say this because I'm part of that LP structure, even as a Republican.
People at our convention thought Barr came off as vague as a neocon.
They didn't like him.
No hypocrisy from Louisiana LP. We are not alone in our thinking.

[Andrew-Austin]

I've read the book, and I disagree with the point about gradualism. You sure you disagree or do you just not remember what he said?




In my mind, gradualism is realism. I object to many policies within government, but also recognize that it is not feasible to abolish them immediately in one fell blow. Instead, I have an end goal which I work towards. The real progress toward liberty will be made gradually, not in one miraculous moment.


Rothbard agrees with you, and he never stated true liberty would be reached in one miraculous moment.

However he distinguished the philosphy that you actually hold & publicly exclaim, from the rate in which change can actually be accomplished.


Instead of waiting for some deus ex machina to appear and magically abolish everything I disagree with, I am going to work on my own to restore liberty practically and pragmatically. We call that gradualism.

Well hopefully to you practicality does not mean ideological pandering to liberals and neocons - playing coy about eliminating taxes and the state. Of course we can accept minor changes to our benefit, however we must never pretend that anything less than a pure libertarian society is acceptable. Doing so is counter productive.

[Truth Warrior]

"Libertarian Party" is an oxymoron created solely for consumption by the "blue pill" disgruntled and disgusted GOP Paleo conservatives.

BTW, the libertarians want their name back, when ya'll are through abusing it. :D

[mdh]

Yes, some of his views are more favorable, and he did become a member of the ACLU, but this in no way negates the astounding hypocrisy of this man's entire political career. If he can be forgiven, why then, do we not allow the same for other politicians?
Infuriating.

You really talk here as if Barr already received the LP nomination. I remind you that he has not.


I am a libertarian who does not support the Libertarian Party. They are the reason for the stigma against libertarianism. "Libertarians are crazy kooks." Thank you LP, for making my interactions with the politically ignorant even more unpleasant.

Who do you blame for associating Ron Paul with the notion that Ron Paul is a kook? You ostensibly support Ron Paul...?


It's true, we all know what usually happens when a democrat switches republican just to hold an office.

they get spit out.

why does the LP like whores?

why are they ok with Bob Barr and especially Mike Gravel joining only to seek their presidential nomination?

it puts egg all over their face.

At Least the Constitution Party would have never allowed Alan Keyes to win. because he was not CP

just like Gravel and Barr are not and will never be LP

do they not want a faithful Libertarian as their nominee, or is their no such thing?

until they take themselves seriously, no one else will.

Again, you're guilty of speaking as if Barr already won the nomination. He has not. The LP is not in the business of telling someone they are barred from seeking its nomination, nor is any other party. The CP allowed Keyes to speak at their convention and seek their nomination. The LP extends the same courtesy to a number of candidates.


See that is exactly what I am saying... I like Gravel, (because of his honest) but he is no Libertarian. Honestly, how can Roadway and Candy run under the same party?!@

I wouldn't say that Gravel is not a libertarian. He brings some new and different ideas to the table, yes, but we're doing ourselves a great disservice to shut someone down just because they're saying something that we aren't used to hearing. New ideas will keep the LP vital.


Gradualism is a dirty word. I like how M. Rothbard explained the issue of gradualism.

By quoting Rothbard, you've automatically won your argument. Congratulations.

[mdh]

FWIW, the entire DC delegation is unanimously behind Barr--and you know how huge and powerful we are! :rolleyes: :p

If they are seated...

[Andrew-Austin]

By quoting Rothbard, you've automatically won your argument. Congratulations.

So is that sarcasm or what? If thats the only feedback you want to give then don't bother quoting me. Can't tell what you are saying.

[mdh]

So is that sarcasm or what? If thats the only feedback you want to give then don't bother quoting me. Can't tell what you are saying.

It wasn't really sarcasm directed at you. I just happen to like Rothbard, and most people who are the sort of intellectuals that read and quote Rothbard. I'm stereotyping, like a typical collectivist, and need my wrist slapped.

[Kade]

Bump for Epic Relativity.

[Flash]

It doesn't seem we really have much allies anymore.

[hypnagogue]

Is there someone better to vote for? I don't think so. At the very least you're making it easier for the LP next time around. Oh wait - you don't like the LP? Is there a better party to vote for? Right. There isn't.

Take what you can get now, and keep working to get more next time. I'm filing this thread under "Self-Righteous Drama."

[heavenlyboy34]

Is there someone better to vote for? I don't think so. At the very least you're making it easier for the LP next time around. Oh wait - you don't like the LP? Is there a better party to vote for? Right. There isn't.

Take what you can get now, and keep working to get more next time. I'm filing this thread under "Self-Righteous Drama."

I would take the Constitution party, but they don't have ballot access to enough states to pull an electoral victory yet. Until the voting process is reformed, I'm going for Barr this time. (though half-heartedly)