What's the deal with the Libertarian Party?

[Spider-Man]

Like a lot of folks in this movement, I won't be voting for Barr this year. I'm not here to beat a dead horse, however. We all know what happened, and everyone has their own position.

I just wanted to get input from those more knowledgeable than I on the state of the Libertarian Party today. I am a libertarian (small-L), and of all the third parties I like the LP's platform the best. Also, I have no problems with other people running for office with the LP.

However, I have heard a lot of people say stuff like the LP has been occupied or otherwise tainted in some way. I'm not familiar enough with the LP to make sense of these claims.

What say you?

[BuddyRey]

This is very true. From what I understand, what did the LP in was a 2004 gutting of the official platform by a group called the Libertarian Reform Caucus.

http://www.reformthelp.org/

They seem to have admirable goals at first, but upon closer examination, they don't care too much for the Non-Aggression Principle (a major plank of the LP platform pre-'04) and are, for the most part, go-along-to-get-along libertarians. This is great stuff for making the LP a "big tent" party, but it's poison to the principles that Michael Badnarik, Harry Browne, and every other pre-'08 LP candidate professed with vigor and enthusiasm.

[Number19]

Like a lot of folks in this movement, I won't be voting for Barr this year. I'm not here to beat a dead horse, however. We all know what happened, and everyone has their own position.

I just wanted to get input from those more knowledgeable than I on the state of the Libertarian Party today. I am a libertarian (small-L), and of all the third parties I like the LP's platform the best. Also, I have no problems with other people running for office with the LP.

However, I have heard a lot of people say stuff like the LP has been occupied or otherwise tainted in some way. I'm not familiar enough with the LP to make sense of these claims.

What say you?Let me see if I have this straight. You consider yourself to be a small "l" libertarian but you don't like the direction some members of the Libertarian Party are taking, so you drop out of party politics, conceding the party to those you disagree with.

If you have to have 100% agreement with party politics before you are willing to participate, do you think you will ever participate in party politics and growth?

OK, I know this is rhetorical. You didn't say you were dropping out of the party, only that you were not voting for Barr.

I've been a member of the LP since 1980, and I've mellowed a little with the years. What I've come to realize is that a hard core libertarian position will never - and I literally mean never (IMO) - gain political traction. So there is absolutely no reason to have a political party if you never intend to influence American politics working within the political system. Content yourself with supporting "think tanks" and other outreach/educational organizations. And be content with living in a statist society which is moving toward a one world government.

Our society did not reach its current state of politics in one big short term push. This has been a slow erosion of our freedom which has occurred over 100 years. Thinking long term, we could do the very same thing in the opposite direction. The key is to have the hard core to never lose sight of the fundamental libertarian principles and the goals to which we are working. In the short term, working through the LP, you have to settle for less than that which is desirable, but which is necessary to get the general voting population to go along.

The problem with this is that power corrupts and we must insure that the LP does not become corrupt by losing sight of the long range goals and core principles.

By taking a position like this, I'm able to support a candidate like Barr, using him to advance the party growth. If Barr could get 6% of the vote - as some early polling shows him at - this would represent a major milestone for the movement and not just the LP. This is worth it to me, after 30 years of disappointing progress.

It all depends on where you want to be 30 years from now. I only hope I'm still around at 90, still doing my part in the fight for our liberty.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

This is very true. From what I understand, what did the LP in was a 2004 gutting of the official platform by a group called the Libertarian Reform Caucus.

http://www.reformthelp.org/

They seem to have admirable goals at first, but upon closer examination, they don't care too much for the Non-Aggression Principle (a major plank of the LP platform pre-'04) and are, for the most part, go-along-to-get-along libertarians. This is great stuff for making the LP a "big tent" party, but it's poison to the principles that Michael Badnarik, Harry Browne, and every other pre-'08 LP candidate professed with vigor and enthusiasm.

If you believe in statism then it implies that you don't support the NAP. Why bother having it around? Time to get with the game. Political parties are vehicles of winning elections, not "educating," if you want to educate, go join some libertarian organization

[The_Orlonater]

If you believe in statism then it implies that you don't support the NAP. Why bother having it around? Time to get with the game. Political parties are vehicles of winning elections, not "educating," if you want to educate, go join some libertarian organization

+1

[Original_Intent]

I was actually considering becoming a big L Libertarian about 10 years ago. But I was talking to one of the guys at a gunshow and the convo went something like this...

Me: I like you guys positions on a lot of things but I have a problem with your abortion stance. Can we talk about it?

LP dude: Sure.

Me: Well, I think that you guys do believe the government has certain limited roles. 'Governments are instituted to protect rights and that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness...' and it seems like protecting life is a pretty important role that government fills?

LP dude: Yeah but the Supreme Court says unborn fetuses are not alive, so that's our position. A woman has a right to choose.

Me: So if the Supreme Court says that the government has the right to make certain drugs illegal...?

LP dude: That's different!

Me: I don't see how. Any biologist will tell you that a fetus is alive, and examining it's DNA will show it to be human - therefore it's a human life. The Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade saying a fetus doesn't have ontological status, but why would you let the Supreme Court make a decision against all the scientific evidence, and you support the Supreme Court in doing that, but if the Supreme Court says certain drugs are illegal or controlled substances, then the Supreme Court has crossed the line?

At this point LP dude does NOT want to talk to me any more and start looking for someone else to give literature to.

Anyway, anyone want to take a stab at it? Why does the LP support choice and Roe v. Wade?

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

1045Anyway, anyone want to take a stab at it? Why does the LP support choice and Roe v. Wade?


Somebody--call the fire marshal, quick! I foresee a flame war.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Like a lot of folks in this movement, I won't be voting for Barr this year. I'm not here to beat a dead horse, however. We all know what happened, and everyone has their own position.

I just wanted to get input from those more knowledgeable than I on the state of the Libertarian Party today. I am a libertarian (small-L), and of all the third parties I like the LP's platform the best. Also, I have no problems with other people running for office with the LP.

However, I have heard a lot of people say stuff like the LP has been occupied or otherwise tainted in some way. I'm not familiar enough with the LP to make sense of these claims.

What say you?

The Elite Establishment ruling class are masters at infiltrating and subverting all types of organizations. The LP was started 37 years ago. Their candidate this year is Bob "Neocon" Barr. Enough said. It's just like the Republican and Democratic parties now. Some good candidates in local and state races, but rotten at the top.

[Kludge]

(IIRC!!!) The LP has two unofficial and decentralized factions -- the pragmatic wing (gradualists) and the uncompromising wing (radicals). These factions rely on the independents to give their faction a vote of confidence by choosing their candidate.

I believe it was Brent who said nomination of Bob Barr was a direct result of the poor showing by super-radical Badnarik four years ago.

[devil21]

My 2 cents. I don't think the Libertarian Party actually wants to succeed. Succeeding would require results. They are way too comfortable playing the role of "suffering 3rd party" that never has to accomplish much of anything. This is why the LP (particularly the Beltway Libertarians) basically spent all their effort to discredit Ron Paul.

[Matt Collins]

Is it as simple as pragmatists vs idealists?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Like a lot of folks in this movement, I won't be voting for Barr this year. I'm not here to beat a dead horse, however. We all know what happened, and everyone has their own position.

I just wanted to get input from those more knowledgeable than I on the state of the Libertarian Party today. I am a libertarian (small-L), and of all the third parties I like the LP's platform the best. Also, I have no problems with other people running for office with the LP.

However, I have heard a lot of people say stuff like the LP has been occupied or otherwise tainted in some way. I'm not familiar enough with the LP to make sense of these claims.

What say you?

\I think Barr's entire purpose was to discredit the LP in a year where they could have expected phenominal success on the heels of Dr. Paul.

Nevermind Barr's record, and how sad it is that he was able to get the nomination... but this last stunt he pulled really outed him as trying to damage the LP.

So, I might have to vote LP to go against Barr. That's screwed up.

[Spirit of '76]

My 2 cents. I don't think the Libertarian Party actually wants to succeed. Succeeding would require results. They are way too comfortable playing the role of "suffering 3rd party" that never has to accomplish much of anything.

Exactly.

[Number19]

... but this last stunt he pulled really outed him as trying to damage the LP...Would you explain this - is it recent? What exactly did he do? I've just regained internet access after IKE.

[Kludge]

Would you explain this - is it recent? What exactly did he do? I've just regained internet access after IKE.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=154504

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/shane-cory-to-ron-paul-campaign-for-liberty-go-fk-yourself/

[mediahasyou]

If you believe in statism then it implies that you don't support the NAP. Why bother having it around? Time to get with the game. Political parties are vehicles of winning elections, not "educating," if you want to educate, go join some libertarian organization

Yes. People don't realize revolutions come from nonpolitcal strategies and not from the ballot box.

[Josh_LA]

No conspiracy theories or rumors needed.

Just look at how silent the LP was when Ron Paul was campaigning before Super Tuesday.

Instead of lending a hand, or showing some sincere appreciation, they went on saying it's the bylaws that don't allow them to support others candidates of other parties (wait, isn't that exactly what the LP was founded to fight?). They even so much as said that supporting Ron Paul would be throwing away their years of great work.

GOOD LUCK TO THEM.

[Number19]

I was actually considering becoming a big L Libertarian about 10 years ago. But I was talking to one of the guys at a gunshow and the convo went something like this...

Me: I like you guys positions on a lot of things but I have a problem with your abortion stance. Can we talk about it?

LP dude: Sure.

Me: Well, I think that you guys do believe the government has certain limited roles. 'Governments are instituted to protect rights and that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness...' and it seems like protecting life is a pretty important role that government fills?

LP dude: Yeah but the Supreme Court says unborn fetuses are not alive, so that's our position. A woman has a right to choose.

Me: So if the Supreme Court says that the government has the right to make certain drugs illegal...?

LP dude: That's different!

Me: I don't see how. Any biologist will tell you that a fetus is alive, and examining it's DNA will show it to be human - therefore it's a human life. The Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade saying a fetus doesn't have ontological status, but why would you let the Supreme Court make a decision against all the scientific evidence, and you support the Supreme Court in doing that, but if the Supreme Court says certain drugs are illegal or controlled substances, then the Supreme Court has crossed the line?

At this point LP dude does NOT want to talk to me any more and start looking for someone else to give literature to.

Anyway, anyone want to take a stab at it? Why does the LP support choice and Roe v. Wade?I'll take a stab at it. Remember, these are only my opininions and represent just some random thoughts and not a cohesive philosophy or position.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to concede that a fetus represents a "human life". We therefore seem to have two conflicting claims of Rights - the Rights of the female, adult human and the Rights of the fetus human.

This being the case, the fetus is also a parasite and can be considered to have invaded the host mother's body. I would have to ask, by what reasoning does the fetus have a claim on the body of the female host? If this individual does not wish the fetus to occupy her body, why can she not ask - even demand - that this life form exit her body. Theoretically, if an alien from another world came to earth and parasitically occupied a human body, would that life form then have a claim on the host?

By "libertarian" philosophy, we are on extremely shaky ground to contend that one human being has a legal claim on another human being's body.

If someone undesirable invades your home, do you have a right to ask that person to leave? What if he refuses? Do you have a right to call the authorities and have that person forceably removed?

Let's hypothisize a homeless person beaking into your home while you are away. Let's say there is a winter storm with tempuratures of 0 degrees and a wind chill of minus 30 degrees. By libertarian philosophy, does that person have a claim on the use of your home. Obviously, if you throw him out into the cold, he is going to die. Personal morals - religion - might say you have an obligation to give shelter, but is this same as a legal claim?

I can't cite reference - this has simply been something I recall from years ago - but common law has for thousands of years required that a person making a case before the law, must present himself before the courts. Let's say there is a dispute over inheritance, you cannot simply show up claiming to represent an heir and demanding a share of the inheritance to take back to this person.

Similarly, a fetus has no standing in a court of law because it cannot present itself.

Abortion is not about whether a fetus is a "human life". It is a case of legal precedent establishing one individual having a legal claim on the life of another individual.

Abortion is about personal morals, about religion and about personal choices. It does not rightfully belong in a "libertarian" legal system because of the irreconcilable conflict of Rights.

[torchbearer]

I believe it was Brent who said nomination of Bob Barr was a direct result of the poor showing by super-radical Badnarik four years ago.

This really is what happened... The guys in the middle went pragmatic over purest as a result of Badnarik.
Badnarik was a purest wet-dream. He was a true dark horse and came from no where to win the convention after a great debate performance. He then flopped in the presidential.
Next convention, the purest had less sway, the pragmatics got their way...
and if its a flop this year... the purest will have their way in 4 years.
This is the first time the pragmatics ever won a convention.

[Spider-Man]

Let me see if I have this straight. You consider yourself to be a small "l" libertarian but you don't like the direction some members of the Libertarian Party are taking, so you drop out of party politics, conceding the party to those you disagree with.

Incorrect. I was never member of the LP, hence I did not drop out of anything.

Since your first presumption is incorrect, I will not go out of my way to address the others, as their inaccuracy stems from the first.


If you have to have 100% agreement with party politics before you are willing to participate, do you think you will ever participate in party politics and growth?

OK, I know this is rhetorical. You didn't say you were dropping out of the party, only that you were not voting for Barr.

I've been a member of the LP since 1980, and I've mellowed a little with the years. What I've come to realize is that a hard core libertarian position will never - and I literally mean never (IMO) - gain political traction. So there is absolutely no reason to have a political party if you never intend to influence American politics working within the political system. Content yourself with supporting "think tanks" and other outreach/educational organizations. And be content with living in a statist society which is moving toward a one world government.

Our society did not reach its current state of politics in one big short term push. This has been a slow erosion of our freedom which has occurred over 100 years. Thinking long term, we could do the very same thing in the opposite direction. The key is to have the hard core to never lose sight of the fundamental libertarian principles and the goals to which we are working. In the short term, working through the LP, you have to settle for less than that which is desirable, but which is necessary to get the general voting population to go along.

The problem with this is that power corrupts and we must insure that the LP does not become corrupt by losing sight of the long range goals and core principles.

By taking a position like this, I'm able to support a candidate like Barr, using him to advance the party growth. If Barr could get 6% of the vote - as some early polling shows him at - this would represent a major milestone for the movement and not just the LP. This is worth it to me, after 30 years of disappointing progress.

It all depends on where you want to be 30 years from now. I only hope I'm still around at 90, still doing my part in the fight for our liberty.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The funny thing is.. most of the attacks on the LP are coming from rightwing nut jobs that are more affiliated with the CP than anything else. Just an observation. You people take Nader's SOCIALISM over Barr's libertarian platform. That is sickening. That's why I left c4l What a disguisting lot you all are.

[richiep]

The funny thing is.. most of the attacks on the LP are coming from rightwing nut jobs that are more affiliated with the CP than anything else. Just an observation. You people take Nader's SOCIALISM over Barr's libertarian platform. That is sickening. That's why I left c4l What a disguisting lot you all are.

I have to say that is my observation too. Over the past two months, 99% of Pro-Baldwin posts that I've seen around the net have been related to bashing Barr. I'm done with the C4L, and I predict it won't be around for too long as it seems that there is one major internal power struggle going on with them.

[Cleaner44]

This really is what happened... The guys in the middle went pragmatic over purest as a result of Badnarik.
Badnarik was a purest wet-dream. He was a true dark horse and came from no where to win the convention after a great debate performance. He then flopped in the presidential.
Next convention, the purest had less sway, the pragmatics got their way...
and if its a flop this year... the purest will have their way in 4 years.
This is the first time the pragmatics ever won a convention.

I love Badnarik, proudest vote I ever cast.