Libertarian Party imploding

[Elwar]

LNC resolution for the suspension of Bill Redpath (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/lnc-resolution-for-the-suspension-of-aaron-starr/)

Looks like some in-fighting at the top of the LP in a game of "it wasn't my fault that the LP died".

I don't want to be one of those people who enjoys the destruction of the LP. I fought so hard for the party and hated when I saw people who quit the party and were nothing but bitter toward it. But in my case the party left me. I would've given the rest of my life to them if they had stayed the party of principle.

They became the party of "let's sacrifice principle and win some elections". To which they became the party without principle who still can't win elections.

[Truth Warrior]

Maybe NOW the libertarians can FINALLY get their name back from "GOP-lite". :p :rolleyes:

;)

[Xenophage]

Yep.

[Truth Warrior]

Yep. :cool: Heinlein quote, I REALLY like it. :D

[DeadheadForPaul]

I find it funny that you all are agreeing with that link. You do realize that Bill Redpath basically got in trouble for helping Ron Paul, right?

Either way, the LP is a complete joke. I joined in 2002 and gave up my membership in 2004 following Badnarik getting owned.

If the LP nominates a pure libertarian, they will get 0.3% of the vote.
If the LP nominates a GOP-lite libertarian, they will get 0.3% of the vote.

Additionally, they will go bankrupt and then ask you for money in a monthly letter. This is true of all third parties including the Constitution Party

[Truth Warrior]

"Libertarian Party" ( so called ) is STILL merely a STATIST oxymoron.<IMHO>

[constituent]

good riddance to bad rubbish, imo.

[ladyjade3]

The tyrants, however, can always find a way to work together and get along. And so liberty dies. It's just so sad to me.

[constituent]

The tyrants, however, can always find a way to work together and get along. And so liberty dies. It's just so sad to me.

tyrants in wait, tyrants at present, they're all the same.

[Elwar]

I find it funny that you all are agreeing with that link. You do realize that Bill Redpath basically got in trouble for helping Ron Paul, right?

I read it...I'm a bit confused considering Redpath helped Ron Paul and yet helped Bob Barr get nominated. Strange.

But from the looks of things it's more of just infighting. They attacked Aaron Starr and her friends are attacking back.

[Truth Warrior]

"Classical Liberal" is a much better name. That just might give conniption fits to the Socialists. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

"Libertarian Party" ( so called ) is STILL merely a STATIST oxymoron.<IMHO>


Their problem, to my knowledge thus far, is that they've given credibility to the "system" by participating on the terms of TPTB-instead of actually being libertarian. 'Twas a loser's game from the start. :p

[heavenlyboy34]

"Classical Liberal" is a much better name. That just might give conniption fits to the Socialists. :D

I like that! :D Plus, it's always fun to piss off Socialists. ;)

[brandon]

How and why does George Phillies have any sway or power in the LP?

[Deborah K]

Just forget about the party system.....forget it, it's good for nothing but creating another level of divisive collectivism.

[Bradley in DC]

I can't speak to the LP inner-workings, by-laws etc.

Regarding the "implosion" though: an email about a resolution that might be introduced because someone helped Ron Paul...:rolleyes:

On the DC question: the remnant officers of the DC LP (including Heller for that matter) supported what happened here and were Barr backers. The DC delegation reflected that. I wasn't really party to or up on any of it as it was happening.

I will say that the Barr campaign staffers, from my experience and from what I got from some others, hobbled LP development for their own purposes.

[heavenlyboy34]

Just forget about the party system.....forget it, it's good for nothing but creating another level of divisive collectivism.


This is what I've been tryin to say...but some of these people keep trying to prop up the system! :eek: (even RPFers, believe it or not :p)

[Truth Warrior]

Their problem, to my knowledge thus far, is that they've given credibility to the "system" by participating on the terms of TPTB-instead of actually being libertarian. 'Twas a loser's game from the start. :p I think the bigger problem is that they are merely overly optimistic pragmatists. A double curse.<IMHO> :(

[Truth Warrior]

Just forget about the party system.....forget it, it's good for nothing but creating another level of divisive collectivism. Exactly.<IMHO> ;) :)

[dr. hfn]

i don't wish the LP to implode, i hope the LP is taken back by real libertarians

[Truth Warrior]

i don't wish the LP to implode, i hope the LP is taken back by real libertarians We don't want it, it's useless to us. We just want OUR name back.

[Deborah K]

This is what I've been tryin to say...but some of these people keep trying to prop up the system! :eek: (even RPFers, believe it or not :p)


Truth Warrior: Exactly.<IMHO>

I guess we three are the only visionaries on this board. :D

[Theocrat]

The tyrants, however, can always find a way to work together and get along. And so liberty dies. It's just so sad to me.

The battle for liberty is not dead, yet. There is still one party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/) out there which hasn't compromised its principles!

[Deborah K]

The battle for liberty is not dead, yet. There is still one party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/) out there which hasn't compromised its principles!

Ya know Theo, I've been a registered non-partisan for more than 15 years now and I have to say, if - and that's a big IF - I were to ever join another party, it would be that one.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well, we all have to remain vigilant for controlled opposition. They should get rid of those Cato people..you know, I consider all "think tank" dwellers should be run off of every party. The intellectuals or those "void of common sense" ruin everything, and they are more than likely the controlled opposition. tones

www.truthwarrior.ning.com

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, we all have to remain vigilant for controlled opposition. They should get rid of those Cato people..you know, I consider all "think tank" dwellers should be run off of every party. The intellectuals or those "void of common sense" ruin everything, and they are more than likely the controlled opposition. tones

www.truthwarrior.ning.com (http://www.truthwarrior.ning.com)

qft +1

BTW, when did TW get his own site(that link you have there)? I haven't seen him hyping it on the boards. :O

[heavenlyboy34]

I guess we three are the only visionaries on this board. :D

Sadly, I think you're right. ~hug~ Glad to have ya on board with us. :)

[tonesforjonesbones]

That is my website...please visit and feel free to join, or post or blog...Tones

[heavenlyboy34]

That is my website...please visit and feel free to join, or post or blog...Tones

will do. :)

[tonesforjonesbones]

:).........TONes

[Nathan Hale]

They became the party of "let's sacrifice principle and win some elections". To which they became the party without principle who still can't win elections.

The LP remained a sideshow because it never finished becoming a real political party. The LP reformists were the best thing to ever happened to the LP. They managed to get rid of the radical parts of the LP platform, which was good - after all, a platform should be a legislative agenda for the coming term of office, not a statement of principles for a far-off utopia. Problem was they didn't yet have the votes to create a meaningful, mainstream libertarian platform, and they were still saddled with an LP establishment that was ignorant of all political reality and LP candidates who have no place running for elected office.

Check out the web site of the reformers - www.reformthelp.org. It's not "GOP-lite", as some less-informed folks claim. It's common sense reform to turn the LP from a philosophy club into a political party.

[Nathan Hale]

This is what I've been tryin to say...but some of these people keep trying to prop up the system! :eek: (even RPFers, believe it or not :p)

It's not about propping up the system. The system exists. We can choose to ignore it, or deal within the confines of it. Obviously, since we're involved politically, we are choosing to deal within the confines of it. Believe it or not, but we're all here to work toward liberty - within the system. Because the system isn't going away otherwise.

[rockandrollsouls]

I've been a member of the LP much longer than most of you here...It's funny how you think you know MY party :rolleyes:

Bob wasn't my ideal choice. However, he deserved a fair shot. He didn't contradict the platform, he got the nomination fair and square, and he fought for liberty.

That's alot more than most of you can say. If you had such an issue, you should have been a DELEGATE. Furthermore, I don't think you have any say on the standing of the party, particularly if you've 1) never been a member or 2) haven't been a member long.

Quit with the "GOP-lite" nonsense because you don't know what you're talking about.

[Nathan Hale]

i don't wish the LP to implode, i hope the LP is taken back by real libertarians

I find it funny that you want the LP to have an even smaller tent. What's the point of being a political party if you are determined to make the tent so small that it's impossible to win an election?

[Nathan Hale]

We don't want it, it's useless to us. We just want OUR name back.

And since when was it YOUR name?

[rockandrollsouls]

And since when was it YOUR name?

Exactly. I don't even think Truth Warrior has been a member of the party, or if he has not for long. These "new libertarians" don't even seem to know the roots of the party!

The site you posted sums it up fairly clearly.

[heavenlyboy34]

I find it funny that you want the LP to have an even smaller tent. What's the point of being a political party if you are determined to make the tent so small that it's impossible to win an election?

I might ask, what's the point of creating a political party that caters to popular whims instead of principle? That's not much different than the R's and D's, IMHO. The original point of the LP (as I understand it-it began a decade or so before I was alive :O ) was to be principled first, popular later.

[rockandrollsouls]

I might ask, what's the point of creating a political party that caters to popular whims instead of principle? That's not much different than the R's and D's, IMHO. The original point of the LP (as I understand it-it began a decade or so before I was alive :O ) was to be principled first, popular later.

Go research the the beginnings of the party....the one's saying the party is GOP-Lite don't understand what the party was founded on.

[brandon]

I've been a member of the LP much longer than most of you here...It's funny how you think you know MY party :rolleyes:


It's funny how you think you know the personal lives of everyone on a semi-anonymous internet forum well enough to make blanket statements like this.

It's funny that you think any of us give a shit about how long you have been a member of the LP.

[literatim]

Libertarians should start calling themselves progressives. That would really piss off the liberals.

[t0rnado]

Read the motherfucking article. The resolution is saying that Bill Redpath should be ousted because he helped Ron Paul supporters and allowed us to use some of their ballot software.

George Phillies is a retard with Autism and some sort of other disorder as well. If I saw that trollish looking moron, I'd punch him in the face.

[rockandrollsouls]

It's funny how you think you know the personal lives of everyone on a semi-anonymous internet forum well enough to make blanket statements like this.

It's funny that you think any of us give a shit about how long you have been a member of the LP.

It's not funny how you come across as an [Redacted by Moderator]

The majority of you here AREN'T libertarian party members. It's a fact. The majority of you here make blanket statements about the party based on your perception of it over the past year since you discovered Ron Paul. The majority of you don't know the roots of the party, haven't been to meetings, and don't participate in your local LP.

I am a member. I have done these things. I am familiar with my party, and I don't appreciate people like you preaching like you own the LP, know its roots, and know what's best for it. If you're so offended by the party's choice, join, make a difference, or run for office. That's not being condescending or a jackass. Get involved.

By the way, thanks for the insults. You're a bit quick to anger. I suppose you're another one of the college students here that think they know what's best for political parties they've never contributed to or supported. That, or you're just a dick that can't take valid criticism. Didn't insult you or anyone else.

Edit: Saw your post, you are a young kid, so I don't think you've contributed much to the party nor have you been a member of the party for a while. In conclusion, don't spread total BS that the party is neocon-lite.

[rockandrollsouls]

http://www.lp.org/our-history

Mr. Yates, please refer to that link. Notice the formation of the party. I can promise you those functioning within the party were from all parts of the political spectrum, rather than carbon copies of a perfect, "libertarian" role model.

[RP4EVER]

rockandrollsouls: and yet your beloved party is tearing itself a part because the delegates invited Ron Paul to be there presidential Candidate? Id say thats pretty petty wouldnt you. Thats what I got from the article I read by George Philles a member of your party. I could be mistaken......so please explain oh all knowing.

[LibertyEagle]

Please keep it civil.

[rockandrollsouls]

rockandrollsouls: and yet your beloved party is tearing itself a part because the delegates invited Ron Paul to be there presidential Candidate? Id say thats pretty petty wouldnt you. Thats what I got from the article I read by George Philles a member of your party. I could be mistaken......so please explain oh all knowing.

I never claimed to be all knowing, but I can tell you what I know about the party. The first libertarians were not born and bred libertarians...they were freedom lovers from all walks of life looking to shrink government. There was no carbon copy perfect libertarian...but the party has come to expect this. We now have "libertarian snobs" in the party. Bob is a freedom lover. Mary Ruwart is a freedom lover. Ron is a freedom lover. However, the party is arguing over technicalities of policies they all agree on. I think it's very petty, and I think you're right in assuming so.

Anyway, my point is this is mirrored by members of the forum, including those who aren't libertarian party members. I think it's ridiculous. We have people who are in line with the party platform, but because they aren't "perfect" in their eyes they are considered inadequate. I think the party leadership is being very childish. We have people in the party that are preaching their particular brand of libertianism as the proper one and as a result, the party is becoming very un-libertarian. We had a party of freedom lovers at the beginning of the party's life from all different walks and groups, but suddenly it's not acceptable to be in line with the party platform unless you are born and bred, particularly pure, and following a particular brand of libertarianism.

I'm just ranting now, but that's never what the party was about.

I think it's very petty. I think it's petty to call the party "GOP lite." This is why I stand by my statement that those saying such things really don't understand the party or libertarianism.

That being said, the party was formed to stop government in its tracks....but people are listening to Phillies...an advocate of the opposite. Rather than fight for a smaller government as a united front, the party has splintered into factions based on ideology, and as a result of not staying true to that founding principle I believe we've allowed splinters such as the big government "libertarians" to develop.

Aside from that, I've always been open to libertarians willing to uphold that principle. I think it's foolish to fight over the technicalities and look what's happened as a result. Ruwart, Badnarik, Barr, etc...they all want smaller government. They should be allies in the same party....and many people here, as well as in the party, don't seem to understand that. I suppose if you aren't perfect you aren't good enough...if you wish to better understand how I feel check out the link Nathan Hale posted. That's what I believe the true libertarians were about.

[rockandrollsouls]

Please keep it civil.

I'm keeping it very civil. If you notice, Liberty, I didn't insult anyone. I was insulted because I challenged a notion and someone disagreed with it.

Just a note ;) I don't start trouble, just some of the "freedom" lovers here seem to contradict themselves. If you don't identify with their particular brand of something, you aren't labeled as that thing. Aside from this, I think debate is healthy. Yates doesn't have to agree with me, he's entitled to his opinion as I am, but he doesn't have reason to be offended and insult me.

And, if you guys think that's being know it all, condescending, etc, I beg to differ.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.lp.org/our-history

Mr. Yates, please refer to that link. Notice the formation of the party. I can promise you those functioning within the party were from all parts of the political spectrum, rather than carbon copies of a perfect, "libertarian" role model.

Thanx. It's been a while since I've read that. :)

[LibertyEagle]

I'm keeping it very civil. If you notice, Liberty, I didn't insult anyone. I was insulted because I challenged a notion and someone disagreed with it.

My comment was not directed at any specific person. :)

[rockandrollsouls]

My comment was not directed at any specific person. :)

I know I'm just letting you know I'm not looking to start trouble and I usually don't!

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well it appears to me that some of the libertarians are trying to place blame on their failure to advance...so they want to blame this man for assisting Ron Paul as the cause of why they failed again to gain ground. Looks to me like the LP is not putting principle over party does it?

To be frank, you youngsters on this forum give the LP a bad brand..for one, you really don't understand it or know the history. I have to agree with that. I don't completely know the history but I DO understand this. When the LP says don't legislate morality...that means at the FEDERAL LEVEL. We MUST observe the 10th amendment...leave it to the states and to the people. This is what RON PAUL says. Some of you seem to think it means the LP SUPPORTS immorality, such as gay marriage, use of drugs, gambling, porn, prostitution. That is NOT so. I say, the LP says LEAVE it to the people to decide. Legalizing something doesn't mean have a free for all and go do it...it means LEAVE IT ALONE. Now, Ron Paul said he personally doesn't agree with gambling and he understands it causes a lot of problems for people who have a tendency to be addicted to it, but he says "where do you draw the line"? If you legislate gambling , how many more moral issues will be in line to be legislated.

Just because someone believes morality should not be legislated by the federal government does NOT mean they condone the behavior. It does not mean that if something I consider immoral comes up on a ballot, I don't have the right to MY vote, to MY worldview, to MY idea of what morality is , and what MY idea of what is good for my community , and MY individual right to cast my vote based on MY concience. You don't have the right to tell me how I should vote, just like I don't have the right to tell you how you should vote. I would probably vote FOR gambling..I would not vote for gay marriage, porn, prostitution...i would vote FOR using medicinal marijuana. TONES

[Truth Warrior]

qft +1

BTW, when did TW get his own site(that link you have there)? I haven't seen him hyping it on the boards. :O Not me or mine. I don't hold the copyright nor exclusive monopoly on the moniker. ;) I only speak for me. :)

[Elwar]

Umm, no. The Libertarian Party is not just a "Federal Level" party. We have demonstrated against local governments who wanted to shut down a porn shop. In Utah a few years back, a group of Libertarians got elected as the majority on the city council and legalized marijuana possession in their city. Libertarian Sherriffs have used their power to change the focus of their department from the Drug War to real crimes.

At least that's the Libertarian Party that I remember...the one that I ran for US House of Representatives under. Not this "Reformed LP". You may be right now, who knows. Let's change the party platform to the whims of the day to grab more votes. Let's take the party from the top of the Nolan chart to the top of the center part of the Nolan Chart. We spent years on the party platform, tweaking it slightly here and there. The National Convention was a place where we actually worked on these things, debated the little things and engraved them into the platform. Then the party made the unfortunate choice of holding the National Convention in liberal country, Oregon. Usually what happens is the part of the country you're in you tend to get more people from that area. I went to the one in Indiana and all of the surrounding states had full slates of delegates with extra delegates on the sideline. We'd usually vote to allow those extra delegates to fill the empty slots of the states without full slates. So all of those midwestern delegates would have their say on the party platform.

The same thing happened in Oregon. They had all these people from the left coast with a very small amount of people traveling all the way across the country to attend and represent their states. The left coast contingent ended up doing this "reform the LP" business by scrapping the principles of the party and turning it into this "We want voters so we'll be just like the Dems and Reps with a touch of liberty". Basically destroying a party that once had principles set in stone. It is now the party of "slightly less government than the other parties"...changing principles based on where the wind takes it.

Heaven forbid the original platform be looked at or you'd see some "radical" ideas. They are only radical because this day and age nobody could consider a world without the CIA and FBI. Nobody could imagine a world with no taxes. Prostitution? Oh no...so unpopular. To see those principles scrapped just shows how far we have come since the LP's inception in the 1970s.

[acptulsa]

Many of us worked our asses off over the last year. This decidedly did not result in the overwhelming victory we would have liked. Many old line Libertarian Party members are very used to that. In fact, many of them were so used to it that they decided trying to compromise for votes wouldn't be a bad thing. Many others among us could see that this wouldn't work. Others couldn't. But after operating for over thirty-five years and doing little more but getting a few Alaskan candidates in their state house, I just can't blame them for trying something different...

Did the party squander an opportunity on Barr? Was Barr only interested from the start in saboutage? Who the hell knows. All I know is I had continued to vote libertarian and espouse the ideals, but had kind of given up on the LP. And now we are trying to make inroads into the GOP, which I think is a more likely path to success and more worthwhile. That said, I am accustomed to having the LP around and felt kind of comforted that it proved I wasn't alone and that they'd often provide a decent candidate for a good conscience protest vote. I really don't want the party to go away.

If we could just get all the neocons to spend their time infiltrating the L.P. instead of defending their power grip on the G.O.P., that would be good. We could sacrifice the L.P. and get the larger organization and the blind followers that go with it, and that would be worthwhile. But, failing to realize this pipe dream, the L.P. has a place in the grand scheme.

[Truth Warrior]

And since when was it YOUR name? Always. The phony lying petulant statist scumbags just stole, distorted and corrupted it with their goofy optimistic, pragmatic, "work within the system" BS and other assorted nonsense crapola. :p :rolleyes: BTW, it's also VERY similar, in fact, to how the socialists merely STOLE the name "liberal".

Go back home to your GOP daddy, where you TRULY belong, in order to "work within the system", pragmatically and optimistically . :rolleyes:

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well, I still say the decisions not listed in the consititution should be left to the states and TO THE PEOPLE. If the people vote for medical marijuana, FINE, if they vote it down FINE. The LP has become a catch all party for addicts and immorality. and ATHEISTS...I just refuse to go there. I took the good parts and rejected the rest. i do the same with the GOP...the GOP Foreign policy SUCKS...and Ron Paul Republicans are working within the party to change it. Tones

[Truth Warrior]

Exactly. I don't even think Truth Warrior has been a member of the party, or if he has not for long. These "new libertarians" don't even seem to know the roots of the party!

The site you posted sums it up fairly clearly. I was there AT the beginning, when it was being established. The REAL libertarians fought against the formation of the idiotic and oxymoronic "party" ( so called ), as the "collectivist" swill it was and still remains. :p

Where were you? :rolleyes:

[Peace&Freedom]

Based on the Paul experience in 2007-08, I think the LP and CP can serve a new role as vetting systems where liberty activists and candidates can first prove they are principled. Then they could run pure consitutionalist/libertarian campaigns to get the Republican or Democratic nominations in races where they have a good shot. The LP is not imploding, it is repositioning to become more effective. The Barr campaign gave the party better exposure in the media, which was about as much as we should have expected. The fact the party gets about the same amount of votes whether it runs a 'principled' or 'pragmatic' campaign (and that the purist CP candidate got even less votes) indicates he MSM and establishment's structural suppression of third parties is the dominating factor in the vote totals.

[Truth Warrior]

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"


Notice and disclaimer: Your actual results may vary somewhat. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"


Notice and disclaimer: Your actual results may vary somewhat. :rolleyes:

+1

[rockandrollsouls]

Umm, no. The Libertarian Party is not just a "Federal Level" party. We have demonstrated against local governments who wanted to shut down a porn shop. In Utah a few years back, a group of Libertarians got elected as the majority on the city council and legalized marijuana possession in their city. Libertarian Sherriffs have used their power to change the focus of their department from the Drug War to real crimes.

At least that's the Libertarian Party that I remember...the one that I ran for US House of Representatives under. Not this "Reformed LP". You may be right now, who knows. Let's change the party platform to the whims of the day to grab more votes. Let's take the party from the top of the Nolan chart to the top of the center part of the Nolan Chart. We spent years on the party platform, tweaking it slightly here and there. The National Convention was a place where we actually worked on these things, debated the little things and engraved them into the platform. Then the party made the unfortunate choice of holding the National Convention in liberal country, Oregon. Usually what happens is the part of the country you're in you tend to get more people from that area. I went to the one in Indiana and all of the surrounding states had full slates of delegates with extra delegates on the sideline. We'd usually vote to allow those extra delegates to fill the empty slots of the states without full slates. So all of those midwestern delegates would have their say on the party platform.

The same thing happened in Oregon. They had all these people from the left coast with a very small amount of people traveling all the way across the country to attend and represent their states. The left coast contingent ended up doing this "reform the LP" business by scrapping the principles of the party and turning it into this "We want voters so we'll be just like the Dems and Reps with a touch of liberty". Basically destroying a party that once had principles set in stone. It is now the party of "slightly less government than the other parties"...changing principles based on where the wind takes it.

Heaven forbid the original platform be looked at or you'd see some "radical" ideas. They are only radical because this day and age nobody could consider a world without the CIA and FBI. Nobody could imagine a world with no taxes. Prostitution? Oh no...so unpopular. To see those principles scrapped just shows how far we have come since the LP's inception in the 1970s.

In what way was the platform changed? Do you know what the platform was when the party first began? I'll tell you right now that the party was "reformed" (by those wishing to make the LP an exclusive club with their own beliefs) before it was "reformed" again (which you claim happened this election cycle.) You seem to have conveniently glanced over my previous post.

I am an old libertarian party member. I don't believe the party compromised principle. A man who wanted to shrink government and spread the idea of liberty fairly garnered the nomination. He did not contradict the platform in any way.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29615 THAT was the platform in '72. If you notice, it's a little bit vague. It's open to interpretation. Most of the LP candidates fit under that umbrella, however there are those of you on a gung ho mission that think their brand of libertarianism was the intended one. It's ridiculous. The platform today is the same as it was when the party first began. Compare the two. It's a FACT. I don't know how you can say it's been reformed and changed...the proof is in the print!

[rockandrollsouls]

I was there AT the beginning, when it was being established. The REAL libertarians fought against the formation of the idiotic and oxymoronic "party" ( so called ), as the "collectivist" swill it was and still remains. :p

Where were you? :rolleyes:

You weren't there at the beginning. How come you haven't been working with your local LP party? How come you've never been a delegate? IF you were fighting so hard what were you doing?

And the "REAL" libertarians are the ones that screwed the party up. There never were any real libertarians, and the '72 platform is evidence of that. It is almost identical to the one we have today.....particular sects and splinters just found it necessary to push their particular libertarian philosophy to the forefront of the party and work it into the platform and that was never part of the party. Again, refer to this link http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29615

Don't be offended I'm challenging you, but that really offends me you would say a thing with such confidence when it's clearly not true. Did you even read the platform in '72 before you were all about the LP?

[Truth Warrior]

You weren't there at the beginning. How come you haven't been working with your local LP party? How come you've never been a delegate? IF you were fighting so hard what were you doing?

And the "REAL" libertarians are the ones that screwed the party up. There never were any real libertarians, and the '72 platform is evidence of that. It is almost identical to the one we have today.....particular sects and splinters just found it necessary to push their particular libertarian philosophy to the forefront of the party and work it into the platform and that was never part of the party. Again, refer to this link http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29615

Don't be offended I'm challenging you, but that really offends me you would say a thing with such confidence when it's clearly not true. Did you even read the platform in '72 before you were all about the LP? I was part of the REAL libertarians, arguing and fighting against it. As a reading of my post FOR COMPREHENSION, clearly shows. :rolleyes: :p

That's insane and pure BS, the REAL libertarians NEVER even joined YOUR statist flock. If it got screwed up, you guys just did it to yourselves.

Get a clue.

[acptulsa]

You weren't there at the beginning. How come you haven't been working with your local LP party? How come you've never been a delegate? IF you were fighting so hard what were you doing?

He has had nothing to do with the party since he refused to join up in the beginning. He made a post earlier saying he was libertarian before there was any such thing as a Libertarian Party and thinks that (since he personally considers libertarianism and anarchy to be very, very closely related) the LP hijacked the word 'libertarian'.

And the misunderstanding of what he said has been snowballing between you two ever since.

[rockandrollsouls]

I was part of the REAL liberatians, arguing and fighting against it. As a reading of my post FOR COMPHENSION, clearly shows. :rolleyes: :p

That's insane and pure BS, the REAL libertarians NEVER even joined YOUR statist flock.

Get a clue.

I asked you, how were you fighting? I don't recall you ever being a delegate or running for office. And, if you stop insulting other libertarians, you'd find they are completely inline with the 1972 platform.

And, again, how do you definte "real" libertarians. I define them on the 1972 platform....it seems your idea of libertarian is subjective and based on your particular idea of what it "should" be in all aspects, not the party platform.

That being said, I have a couple questions for you. 1) Show me how the platform today is different from the platform in 1972. 2) Show me how Bob was not compliant with the 1972 platform. 3) Back-up your unsupported opinions and claims.

[rockandrollsouls]

He has had nothing to do with the party since he refused to join up in the beginning. He made a post earlier saying he was libertarian before there was any such thing as a Libertarian Party and thinks that (since he personally considers libertarianism and anarchy to be very, very closely related) the LP hijacked the word 'libertarian'.

And the misunderstanding of what he said has been snowballing between you two ever since.

I must have missed that then. Vital piece of information. So....he's one of those libertarians...to "libertarian" to join the party. I know the type.

So he's throwing a hissy fit over a word, and therefore thinks he can define the party platform? Just because you think you have an exclusive right to the word "libertarian" and everything that comes with it doesn't make it so, truth.

Well, TruthWarrior, if you were so "libertarian" before the party started, why didn't you start your own party or group?! Someone so libertarian such as yourself must have been sick of voting for Rs and Ds...speak up. I'd like to know. It seems you talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

[Truth Warrior]

I asked you, how were you fighting? I don't recall you ever being a delegate or running for office. And, if you stop insulting other libertarians, you'd find they are completely inline with the 1972 platform.

And, again, how do you definte "real" libertarians. I define them on the 1972 platform....it seems your idea of libertarian is subjective and based on your particular idea of what it "should" be in all aspects, not the party platform.

That being said, I have a couple questions for you. 1) Show me how the platform today is different from the platform in 1972. 2) Show me how Bob was not compliant with the 1972 platform. 3) Back-up your unsupported opinions and claims.

An example:

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/ (http://www.voluntaryist.com/)

another one:

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109)

and one more:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif

[Truth Warrior]

I must have missed that then. Vital piece of information. So....he's one of those libertarians...to "libertarian" to join the party. I know the type.

So he's throwing a hissy fit over a word, and therefore thinks he can define the party platform? Just because you think you have an exclusive right to the word "libertarian" and everything that comes with it doesn't make it so, truth.

Well, TruthWarrior, if you were so "libertarian" before the party started, why didn't you start your own party or group?! Someone so libertarian such as yourself must have been sick of voting for Rs and Ds...speak up. I'd like to know. It seems you talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

Because I'm a libertarian, and NOT a "collectivist". DUH!!! Are you just slow? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian

[rockandrollsouls]

An example:

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/ (http://www.voluntaryist.com/)

another one:

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109)

and one more:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif

You didn't answer my questions. How have you been fighting? How can you eject electoral politics...it's in the Constitution? And 3, Don't cite Lew as a source....he's not an Anarchist.

[Truth Warrior]

You didn't answer my questions. How have you been fighting? How can you eject electoral politics...it's in the Constitution? And 3, Don't cite Lew as a source....he's not an Anarchist. Because if you had even a CLUE about what you think you are talking about you wouldn't even ask the statist questions.

How? You just walk away. Screw the bogus illegal, unauthorized, invalid, treasonous Federalist coup document. BTW, just in case you haven't heard yet
The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

What part of ANTI-STATE is it, that you do not get? :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Because if you had even a CLUE about what you think you are talking about you wouldn't even ask the statist questions.

How? You just walk away. Screw the bogus illegal, unauthorized, invalid, treasonous Federalist coup document. BTW, just in case you haven't heard yet
The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

What part of ANTI-STATE is it, that you do not get? :rolleyes:

I think you need to post some articles about the nature of the state before he'll "get it". :eek:

[rockandrollsouls]

Because if you had even a CLUE about what you think you are talking about you wouldn't even ask the statist questions.

How? You just walk away. Screw the bogus illegal, unauthorized, invalid, treasonous Federalist coup document. BTW, just in case you haven't heard yet
The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

What part of ANTI-STATE is it, that you do not get? :rolleyes:

This thread isn't about your anarchist BS...it's about the LP. You're just posting spam and bs....it's completely off topic and has nothing, at all, to do with the article.

Don't try to insult me because you don't have an answer. Questions aren't statist....they are valid questions you can't answer. The fact of the matter is you don't fight for freedom and never have...you just talk about it on your computer while hoping for complete anarchy. Get over yourself, man.

And, I don't understand how you could have supported Ron so fervently when he would be characterized as a conervative leaning libertarian. So, everyone is a statist except you, including when you support a "statist" candidate that believes in "statist" ideas and a "statist" document?

[rockandrollsouls]

I think you need to post some articles about the nature of the state before he'll "get it". :eek:

No, I understand completely. I just think Truth Warrior is completely self righteous and self serving. He contradicts himself left and right. And this thread was about the state of the libertarian party....not his idea of how the world should be.

[Truth Warrior]

This thread isn't about your anarchist BS...it's about the LP. You're just posting spam and bs....it's completely off topic and has nothing, at all, to do with the article.

Don't try to insult me because you don't have an answer. Questions aren't statist....they are valid questions you can't answer. The fact of the matter is you don't fight for freedom and never have...you just talk about it on your computer while hoping for complete anarchy. Get over yourself, man.

And, I don't understand how you could have supported Ron so fervently when he would be characterized as a conervative leaning libertarian. So, everyone is a statist except you, including when you support a "statist" candidate that believes in "statist" ideas and a "statist" document?

There's a WHOLE lot of things that you do not understand. It's NOT my job to explain, educate and spoon feed you either. :p

Ron is coming around and along very nicely.<IMHO> He's doing it his way and I'm doing it mine. You don't like it? Who cares?

Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html)

Get a CLUE.

[speciallyblend]

I was Libertarian for 12 yrs, once the LP/CP/RPRepublicans/Indys form a new brand name and platform and party(Liberty Party) I will take them all to be a joke! I want my Liberty Party and until these movements unite they will all stay marginalized by the one party system.

until then the lp/cp/rprepublicans will be muted by the msm/dem/gop all one in the same corrupted liars..

best wishes,pissed of republican!!!!!

state of the lp party??=pathetic

[rockandrollsouls]

There's a WHOLE lot of things that you do not understand. It's NOT my job to explain, educate and spoon feed you either. :p

Ron is coming around and along very nicely.<IMHO> He's doing it his way and I'm doing it mine. You don't like it? Who cares?

Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html)

Get a CLUE.

So you refuse to answer any of my legitimate questions, attempt insult me, and try to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about?

Hell, well I guess you can't be wrong if you stick your fingers in your ears and scream, huh?

What do I have to be educated on? I know my history of the LP, I know what you're talking about, and my questions are in regard to YOU, YOUR attempts, and YOUR contradictory actions. That has nothing to do with research or being educated, it has to do with you answering questions rather than dodging them.

"You're statist and stupid" is not an answer for "How have you been fighting for freedom aside from spewing dogma on the computer?" or "How can you call me statist or the LP statist when you backed a conservative leaning libertarian for the Republican nomination, through an electoral process that you look down on, that supports a document you don't believe in?" And, if you're so anti everything, how come you're a member of the forum full of, in your opinion, "statists?" Again, posting random links to websites and insulting me do not answer questions only YOU can answer about yourself. The only way we can get the answers to those questions are from YOU, soo stop dodging.

[Truth Warrior]

No, I understand completely. I just think Truth Warrior is completely self righteous and self serving. He contradicts himself left and right. And this thread was about the state of the libertarian party....not his idea of how the world should be. You don't understand SQUAT, from what I've seen here. Just keep on fabricating and spewing your bogus BS lies. You probably have a very bright future in the sociopathic cult. :p :rolleyes:

[rockandrollsouls]

You don't understand SQUAT, from what I've seen here. Just keep on fabricating and spewing your bogus BS lies. You probably have a very bright future in the sociopathic cult. :p :rolleyes:

Are you kidding me? What "lies?" Please refer to my post above. Again, nothing but insults and vague statements. No real answers to real questions. You can't be wrong if you don't debate, huh? Is that the theory?

[Elwar]

Look at today's platform compared to that before 9/11.
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/2000/
http://www.lp.org/platform

It went from a very detailed picture of exactly what the party supported and believed in to generalizations to be interpreted to mean whatever serves the moment.

It was clear on where the LP stood on just about all issues. Candidates were on the same page, the stances of the party were clearly laid out.

On a question of where does an LP candidate stand on the CIA?

On the new plank it's kinda vague...I guess the CIA is ok as long as they play nice...

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

In the old plank:
INTERNAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
We call for abolition of secret police, such as the Central Intelligence Agency. We support Congressional investigation of criminal activities of the CIA and FBI and of wrongdoing by other governmental agencies.
We support the abolition of the subpoena power as used by Congressional committees against individuals or firms. We oppose any efforts to revive the House Internal Security Committee or its predecessor the House Un-American Activities Committee, and call for the destruction of its files on private individuals and groups. We also call for the abolition of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.

GOVERNMENT SECRECY
We condemn the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have. We favor substituting a system in which no individual may be convicted for violating government secrecy classifications unless the government discharges its burden of proving that the publication:
a. violated the right of privacy of those who have been coerced into revealing confidential or proprietary information to government agents, or

b. disclosed defensive military plans so as to materially impair the capabilities to respond to attack.

It should always be a defense to such prosecution that information divulged shows that the government has violated the law.

---
The LP is more than just winning elections. They've done so much to move policy in this country that nobody considers. The specifics are there for a reason, to actually address policy and not just sit on the sidelines hoping to win a big election some decade.

[Truth Warrior]

So you refuse to answer any of my legitimate questions, attempt insult me, and try to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about?

Hell, well I guess you can't be wrong if you stick your fingers in your ears and scream, huh?

What do I have to be educated on? I know my history of the LP, I know what you're talking about, and my questions are in regard to YOU, YOUR attempts, and YOUR contradictory actions. That has nothing to do with research or being educated, it has to do with you answering questions rather than dodging them.

"You're statist and stupid" is not an answer for "How have you been fighting for freedom aside from spewing dogma on the computer?" or "How can you call me statist or the LP statist when you backed a conservative leaning libertarian for the Republican nomination, through an electoral process that you look down on, that supports a document you don't believe in?" And, if you're so anti everything, how come you're a member of the forum full of, in your opinion, "statists?" Again, posting random links to websites and insulting me do not answer questions only YOU can answer about yourself. The only way we can get the answers to those questions are from YOU, soo stop dodging.

Ask a "legitimate" ONE and I may consider answering it. :rolleyes:

[rockandrollsouls]

Look at today's platform compared to that before 9/11.
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/2000/
http://www.lp.org/platform

It went from a very detailed picture of exactly what the party supported and believed in to generalizations to be interpreted to mean whatever serves the moment.

It was clear on where the LP stood on just about all issues. Candidates were on the same page, the stances of the party were clearly laid out.

On a question of where does an LP candidate stand on the CIA?

On the new plank it's kinda vague...I guess the CIA is ok as long as they play nice...

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

In the old plank:
INTERNAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
We call for abolition of secret police, such as the Central Intelligence Agency. We support Congressional investigation of criminal activities of the CIA and FBI and of wrongdoing by other governmental agencies.
We support the abolition of the subpoena power as used by Congressional committees against individuals or firms. We oppose any efforts to revive the House Internal Security Committee or its predecessor the House Un-American Activities Committee, and call for the destruction of its files on private individuals and groups. We also call for the abolition of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.

GOVERNMENT SECRECY
We condemn the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have. We favor substituting a system in which no individual may be convicted for violating government secrecy classifications unless the government discharges its burden of proving that the publication:
a. violated the right of privacy of those who have been coerced into revealing confidential or proprietary information to government agents, or

b. disclosed defensive military plans so as to materially impair the capabilities to respond to attack.

It should always be a defense to such prosecution that information divulged shows that the government has violated the law.

---
The LP is more than just winning elections. They've done so much to move policy in this country that nobody considers. The specifics are there for a reason, to actually address policy and not just sit on the sidelines hoping to win a big election some decade.

Now, thank you for proving my point. Check the platform in 1972 and see if it even REFERENCES those two planks. The original platform was CHANGED before it was CHANGED again.

You're saying a CHANGED platform is the one we should follow. I believe in the original platform, which doesn't even REFERENCE those two issues.

[rockandrollsouls]

Ask a "legitimate" ONE and I may consider answering it. :rolleyes:

My questions are very valid, you just fear answering them for whatever reason. Then you proceed to insult me and question my intelligence based on questions you know aren't even researchable because you have to answer them! You're playing one big game of tag and it's ridiculous.

You're anti "statist", yet you support a "statist." (by your definition)
You were fighting for liberty, but you weren't doing anything to fight for liberty.
You look down on the electoral process and Constitution, yet you were going to vote for someone (electoral process) that supports the Constitution.

How does that make any sense, Truth? Come on now.

[Truth Warrior]

Are you kidding me? What "lies?" Please refer to my post above. Again, nothing but insults and vague statements. No real answers to real questions. You can't be wrong if you don't debate, huh? Is that the theory? I didn't invite you to a debate, nor did I ever agree to your "invitation" to one. :rolleyes: So that would be just ANOTHER lie on your part.

BTW, an objective thread review clearly reveals just who through the FIRST personal insult stone. Guess who? Not me.

I was a debate judge probably before you were even born. :rolleyes:

We aren't having a debate we're having an argument. DUH!!!

See, just absolutely clueless. :p

[rockandrollsouls]

I didn't invite you to a debate, nor did I ever agree to your "invitation" to one. :rolleyes: So that would be just ANOTHER lie on your part.

BTW, an objective thread review clearly reveals just who through the FIRST personal insult stone. Guess who? Not me.

I was a debate judge probably before you were even born. :rolleyes:

We aren't having a debate we're having an argument. DUH!!!

See, just absolutely clueless. :p

How can you say something and not back it up? How is that a "lie?" You've been arguing with me the past 2 pages.


You're anti "statist", yet you support a "statist." (by your definition)
You were fighting for liberty, but you weren't doing anything to fight for liberty.
You look down on the electoral process and Constitution, yet you were going to vote for someone (electoral process) that supports the Constitution.

No response, hot shot?

[Truth Warrior]

My questions are very valid, you just fear answering them for whatever reason. Then you proceed to insult me and question my intelligence based on questions you know aren't even researchable because you have to answer them! You're playing one big game of tag and it's ridiculous.

You're anti "statist", yet you support a "statist." (by your definition)
You were fighting for liberty, but you weren't doing anything to fight for liberty.
You look down on the electoral process and Constitution, yet you were going to vote for someone (electoral process) that supports the Constitution.

How does that make any sense, Truth? Come on now. Questions AREN'T valid, premises and statements are. DUH!! I just call your's BSQs. :p

I'm getting kind of bored with you now, you're just such a clueless and easy target. Go back to the first grade.

[rockandrollsouls]

Questions AREN'T valid, premises and statements are. DUH!! I just call your's BSQs. :p

I'm getting kind of bored with you now, you're just such a clueless and easy target. Go back to the first grade.

Questions can be "valid." Look up the definition...put one and one together. :eek:

You can't respond to me so you have to try and pick apart my word usage? Are you kidding me? And again, followed by another insult. You really don't have a response for your contradictory actions, do you?

Oh, and questioning your credibility isn't an insult.


You're anti "statist", yet you support a "statist." (by your definition)
You were fighting for liberty, but you weren't doing anything to fight for liberty.
You look down on the electoral process and Constitution, yet you were going to vote for someone (electoral process) that supports the Constitution.

Can you address that, or will you continually attempt to insult me while trying to save your own face? You're so critical, yet you aren't of yourself. I'm waiting.

[Truth Warrior]

Questions can be "valid." Look up the definition...put one and one together. :eek:

You can't respond to me so you have to try and pick apart my word usage? Are you kidding me? And again, followed by another insult. You really don't have a response for your contradictory actions, do you?

Oh, and questioning your credibility isn't an insult.


You're anti "statist", yet you support a "statist." (by your definition)
You were fighting for liberty, but you weren't doing anything to fight for liberty.
You look down on the electoral process and Constitution, yet you were going to vote for someone (electoral process) that supports the Constitution.

Can you address that, or will you continually attempt to insult me while trying to save your own face? You're so critical, yet you aren't of yourself. I'm waiting. Hold your breath until you turn blue and pass out. :rolleyes:

[rockandrollsouls]

Hold your breath until you turn blue and pass out. :rolleyes:

Insults, insults, insults. :rolleyes: This is almost funny...you've called everything I've said a lie except the most important statement criticizing your credibility and character.


"You're anti "statist", yet you support a "statist." (by your definition)
You were fighting for liberty, but you weren't doing anything to fight for liberty.
You look down on the electoral process and Constitution, yet you were going to vote for someone (electoral process) that supports the Constitution."

If you can't respond to that, why are you saying the things you are?

[rockandrollsouls]

Do me a favor, truth. Look at yourself before you even ATTEMPT to criticize someone else. This is over.

If Elwar comes back I'd like to discuss the difference between the current platform, one he mentioned, and the 1972 platform. Elwar, did you notice the original platform did not include the planks you brought up?

[Truth Warrior]

Insults, insults, insults. :rolleyes: This is almost funny...you've called everything I've said a lie except the most important statement criticizing your credibility and character.


"You're anti "statist", yet you support a "statist." (by your definition)
You were fighting for liberty, but you weren't doing anything to fight for liberty.
You look down on the electoral process and Constitution, yet you were going to vote for someone (electoral process) that supports the Constitution."

If you can't respond to that, why are you saying the things you are? You figure it out hot shot.

Hint: Crappy half assed premises lead to crappy half assed conclusions. :rolleyes:

[rockandrollsouls]

You figure it out hot shot.

Hint: Crappy half assed premises lead to crappy half assed conclusions. :rolleyes:

Yawn. You just don't have an answer.

" You're anti "statist", yet you support a "statist." (by your definition)
You were fighting for liberty, but you weren't doing anything to fight for liberty.
You look down on the electoral process and Constitution, yet you were going to vote for someone (electoral process) that supports the Constitution."

^^^^ That is fact. You can try to discount and diminish it all you like, but that doesn't change it. You can try to save face by doing so and insulting me, but it still doesn't explain why you contradict yourself.

End discussion. Please don't respond with another insult. Thank you.

[jcarcinogen]

Those nutcases that said Bob Barr was a CIA plant were so wrong. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOuRsnVny7Y

[libertarian4321]

I've been a member of the LP much longer than most of you here...It's funny how you think you know MY party :rolleyes:



Well, I don't know how long you've been in the LP, but I've been in for about 15 years, run for office 5 times, been a financial supporter, been a delegate, and a local party officer on more than one occasion.

I think that should be enough for me to be able to state my opinion (with your permission, of course, Great One).

I think the Barr nomination was an ABOMINATION. The LP actively targeted that clown for defeat in 2002 because of his nutty right wing views, now he's our candidate? What the HELL is that? As I have said here many times, I was sickened when I heard about it. Despite that, I was willing to hold my nose and vote for him until he pulled his stunt at the RP presser.

The LP was willing to sell its soul in order to pick up a few more votes. In the end, it not only lost its soul, it gained NOTHING by nominating Barr (he ran an abysmal campaign).

I haven't been active in the LP for most of the past year because of my support for Ron Paul and the CFL. However, I will get back into the flow and try to fix things from the bottom up. I was going to wait until after the first of the year, but it looks like I'll have to start this month, because the Party appears to be in big trouble.

I hope many of my fellow Libertarians will do the same. Hopefully, its not too late to save the party!

[hotbrownsauce]

Republicanism

[kombayn]

The Libertarian Party does look like it's crumbling before our very eyes. It'll be interesting in 2010 when they vote for the LNC chairs. Personally I won't be surprised if some state affiliates start being unaffiliated with the National Libertarian Party. The Boston Tea Party needs to capitalize on that and they also need to start running a professional organization, the websites they have are a joke.

[constituent]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NZSBFP3XL._SL500_AA240_.jpg




what more you need to know?

[rockandrollsouls]

Well, I don't know how long you've been in the LP, but I've been in for about 15 years, run for office 5 times, been a financial supporter, been a delegate, and a local party officer on more than one occasion.

I think that should be enough for me to be able to state my opinion (with your permission, of course, Great One).

I think the Barr nomination was an ABOMINATION. The LP actively targeted that clown for defeat in 2002 because of his nutty right wing views, now he's our candidate? What the HELL is that? As I have said here many times, I was sickened when I heard about it. Despite that, I was willing to hold my nose and vote for him until he pulled his stunt at the RP presser.

The LP was willing to sell its soul in order to pick up a few more votes. In the end, it not only lost its soul, it gained NOTHING by nominating Barr (he ran an abysmal campaign).

I haven't been active in the LP for most of the past year because of my support for Ron Paul and the CFL. However, I will get back into the flow and try to fix things from the bottom up. I was going to wait until after the first of the year, but it looks like I'll have to start this month, because the Party appears to be in big trouble.

I hope many of my fellow Libertarians will do the same. Hopefully, its not too late to save the party!

Libertarian4321, you were going to vote for OBAMA. You've stated in numerous posts how you were supporting him. Anyway, that's beside the point. Let's put that aside for now.

And, I don't have a problem with members of the party stating their opinion, so you can stop with the sarcasm. The fact of the matter was many people not even associated with the party were trying to govern it. Anyway, I do disagree with your opinion. As stated earlier in the thread, I stand by the '72 platform. And, Bob did not contradict that original platform in any way, shape, or form. As long as a candidate holds true to the platform, what's the problem? Since '72, the platform has been altered and changed many ways, blame has been placed, new factions in the party have arisen, and I think it's all nonsense. I'll reiterate...there never was a pure bred libertarian. The people that started the party were from all walks of life. Since then, there have been special requirements among some members to be considered a libertarian etc etc, and it's spiraled out of control. Why not use this as a measure of judgment? Does the candidate follow the original platform? Does the party follow the original platform? If so, why the hell are we fighting?! Over technicalities? Come on.

You're entitled to your opinion...I just happen to think these so called "purists" and "true libertarians" aren't all that pure or libertarian. They are pushing their specific brand to the forefront, alienating others who are libertarians, and throwing the party into complete disarray. If you read the '72 platform, you'll notice it's fairly vague, and probably for good reason. If we stick to the original platform without the personal dogma, we don't have a problem, in my opinion.

Anyway, it may sound like I'm trying to be a gatekeeper but that's not the case. We've got people that don't even help fund our candidates trying to tell us how the party should be run. I take issue with that....and it's a lot of people here. And, as a result, we have such a chaotic party we let socialists like Gravel and Phillies come in and become major staples. Look at the original platform....like him or not Barr does fall adhere to the original platform, and remember there were Republicans and Democrats that joined the party when it first began. Meanwhile, guys like Gravel and Phillies do not. Shrinking government, guys. Come on. You're arguing little technicalities with guys like Barr in the party, and personally, as a long time member I think it's a little ridiculous. I know guys that have left because the party was hijacked by different splinters....we just want the original platform followed..that's it. And, the site Hale posted earlier exemplifies that fairly well I belive.

[Truth Warrior]

Does the "party" require following the libertarian "Non Aggression Principle or Axiom" and passing the litmus test? :D Are any restrictive pledges signed? :rolleyes: Did the check clear the bank? ;)

[Nathan Hale]

I might ask, what's the point of creating a political party that caters to popular whims instead of principle?

A party shouldn't cater to popular whims, but it should cater toward building a coalition large enough to theoretically win the race. Parties are not about principle, well, no party that ever hopes to go anywhere. Why? Because politics is not about destination, it's about direction. If I want to move the machinery of government in generally the same direction as you, we belong in the same political party, even if our reasons for doing so (i.e. our principles) are vastly different.


That's not much different than the R's and D's, IMHO.

My problem with the R's and D's is that they've compromised to such an extent that their viability is becoming suspect. It's entirely possible to prioritize coalition-building while at the same time maintaining a legislative agenda.


The original point of the LP (as I understand it-it began a decade or so before I was alive :O ) was to be principled first, popular later.

And that was one of the problems with the LP.

[rockandrollsouls]

Does the "party" require following the libertarian "Non Aggression Principle or Axiom" and passing the litmus test? :D Are any restrictive pledges signed? :rolleyes: Did the check clear the bank? ;)

www.lp.org

[Nathan Hale]

Always. The phony lying petulant statist scumbags just stole, distorted and corrupted it with their goofy optimistic, pragmatic, "work within the system" BS and other assorted nonsense crapola. :p :rolleyes: BTW, it's also VERY similar, in fact, to how the socialists merely STOLE the name "liberal".

Funny. The first political use of the word "libertarian" was to describe anarchistic French communists.


Go back home to your GOP daddy, where you TRULY belong, in order to "work within the system", pragmatically and optimistically . :rolleyes:

Well, judging by this post it's fairly simple to see that I'll get nowhere attempting to reason with you, but I am compelled to ask one question - what, exactly, do you hope to accomplish with the Libertarian Party if not win elections?

[Lord Xar]

I've stated this many times this past year that the Libertarian Party has been hijacked. With the advent of alternative news sources and many of us getting wise to the shennanigans of the two party system, many of us are/were looking to a third possibility. Well, that 'other' possibility has been hijacked too. I think it is a very deft and wise move by the globalists and special interests. The two choices AND the alternative are all controlled.

I didn't anticipate the implosion so soon, but knew it was coming when Barr performed his little stunt to RP.

I am sorry that all this is happening. I am a republican but shit, I wanted someplace else to go. I did. I just saw the writing on the wall with the libertarian party. It is as fractured and mindless as the other two parties. But I think that is intentional.

If they had ANY sense, they would throw the bums out and revise itself. There should be no infighting, just kick out the globalists neocons and liberal jackasses.

[rockandrollsouls]

Funny. The first political use of the word "libertarian" was to describe anarchistic French communists.



Well, judging by this post it's fairly simple to see that I'll get nowhere attempting to reason with you, but I am compelled to ask one question - what, exactly, do you hope to accomplish with the Libertarian Party if not win elections?

I've tried reasoning with him many times. It won't work. He's never been a member of the Libertarian party, they believe the party "hijacked" his word...etc etc. Go a little further back in the pages to see how I assessed it and how he responded (or didn't respond.)

He'll proceed to insult you, speak in vague terms to try and confuse you and make it look like he's intelligent, and then tell you you don't know what you're talking about, all while refusing to answer questions in a sly way.

Anyway, he's never been a part of the party, doesn't intend to be, yet still believes he has a say and contradicts himself left and right by calling everyone "statist" but behaving in that manner anyway.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll help as I can. I warn you though, I may get pissed once in a while and just skip election cycles altogether. ;)


Well, I don't know how long you've been in the LP, but I've been in for about 15 years, run for office 5 times, been a financial supporter, been a delegate, and a local party officer on more than one occasion.

I think that should be enough for me to be able to state my opinion (with your permission, of course, Great One).

I think the Barr nomination was an ABOMINATION. The LP actively targeted that clown for defeat in 2002 because of his nutty right wing views, now he's our candidate? What the HELL is that? As I have said here many times, I was sickened when I heard about it. Despite that, I was willing to hold my nose and vote for him until he pulled his stunt at the RP presser.

The LP was willing to sell its soul in order to pick up a few more votes. In the end, it not only lost its soul, it gained NOTHING by nominating Barr (he ran an abysmal campaign).

I haven't been active in the LP for most of the past year because of my support for Ron Paul and the CFL. However, I will get back into the flow and try to fix things from the bottom up. I was going to wait until after the first of the year, but it looks like I'll have to start this month, because the Party appears to be in big trouble.

I hope many of my fellow Libertarians will do the same. Hopefully, its not too late to save the party!

[Nathan Hale]

End discussion. Please don't respond with another insult. Thank you.

Hey man, if it'll make you feel better, on page 8 & 9 in the thread below I show how he amounts to little more than an antagonist to anybody who desires to actually change this country:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=150034&highlight=nathan&page=8

[rockandrollsouls]

Hey man, if it'll make you feel better, on page 8 & 9 in the thread below I show how he amounts to little more than an antagonist to anybody who desires to actually change this country:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=150034&highlight=nathan&page=8

:D It's really just getting ridiculous. Well, we know the Truth Warrior method now, haha. Honestly though, it's difficult to debate or reason with people like that....By the way, thanks for posting that www.reformthelp.com link. I think it serves to accomplish what the original platform stood for....before we had a party full of snobs and self righteous jerks. :o

[Nathan Hale]

:D It's really just getting ridiculous. Well, we know the Truth Warrior method now, haha. Honestly though, it's difficult to debate or reason with people like that....By the way, thanks for posting that www.reformthelp.com link. I think it serves to accomplish what the original platform stood for....before we had a party full of snobs and self righteous jerks. :o

R&R - check out anything written by Carl Milsted also. His site is:

http://www.quiz2d.com/

Milsted recently gave up on attempting to reform the LP after much frustration, but he's probably the best strategic philosopher the liberty movement has seen in recent years. Check out the site i link to above for some great strategy articles and ideas on growing the party rather than shrinking it

[heavenlyboy34]

R&R - check out anything written by Carl Milsted also. His site is:

http://www.quiz2d.com/

Milsted recently gave up on attempting to reform the LP after much frustration, but he's probably the best strategic philosopher the liberty movement has seen in recent years. Check out the site i link to above for some great strategy articles and ideas on growing the party rather than shrinking it

Nice thoughts there, but the existing system will have to collapse first, IMHO. Till then, there will be old-liners who pine for the "good old days" ("remnants", if you will) and subvert the reforms mentioned in the article.

[brandon]

The majority of you here AREN'T libertarian party members. It's a fact. The majority of you here make blanket statements about the party based on your perception of it over the past year since you discovered Ron Paul. The majority of you don't know the roots of the party, haven't been to meetings, and don't participate in your local LP.

I am a member. I have done these things. I am familiar with my party, and I don't appreciate people like you preaching like you own the LP, know its roots, and know what's best for it. If you're so offended by the party's choice, join, make a difference, or run for office. That's not being condescending or a jackass. Get involved.

By the way, thanks for the insults. You're a bit quick to anger. I suppose you're another one of the college students here that think they know what's best for political parties they've never contributed to or supported. That, or you're just a dick that can't take valid criticism. Didn't insult you or anyone else.

Edit: Saw your post, you are a young kid, so I don't think you've contributed much to the party nor have you been a member of the party for a while. In conclusion, don't spread total BS that the party is neocon-lite.


Sorry, I was a little quick to anger. I was having a stressful day, my apologies.

Anyway, my point still stands...minus the insults. I am not a "young kid." I am 24 years old, and have been involved with politics, activism, and the LP for the last 7 years.

There's actually a strong possibility that I am going to be running for congress on the LP ticket in 2010. We're working on getting a full slate in all of PA's 19 US congressional districts, and as many state rep's and senators as possible.

[rockandrollsouls]

R&R - check out anything written by Carl Milsted also. His site is:

http://www.quiz2d.com/

Milsted recently gave up on attempting to reform the LP after much frustration, but he's probably the best strategic philosopher the liberty movement has seen in recent years. Check out the site i link to above for some great strategy articles and ideas on growing the party rather than shrinking it

Thanks for the resource..I'll definitely check it out when I get some free time over the weekend.

BrandonYates, apology accepted. I suppose I could give you a little more credit or at least stop painting with a broad brush. Regardless, I still think your age is influential in your opinion here. I, as well as my family, have seen the libertarian party evolve from a platform with members from all spectrum to splintered, self righteous factions. I believe as long as a candidate follows the original platform, they deserve a shot. Bob, like him or not, follows the original platform. I think if we stick to that we exclude far less people, further our message, and accomplish what we need to...instead we've been searching for the perfect libertarian role model and it's torn the party apart and that's never how it's been. Just my opinion, though, based on what I've seen over the years.

[Nathan Hale]

Nice thoughts there, but the existing system will have to collapse first, IMHO. Till then, there will be old-liners who pine for the "good old days" ("remnants", if you will) and subvert the reforms mentioned in the article.

You may be right. Milsted himself gave up on the LP and left reformers with a detailed blueprint on building a party from the ground up (another great article by the man).

[Nathan Hale]

Here's the article i just mentioned, posted to Milsted's newer site:

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/NewParty/

[tajitj]

Wayne Root interview.
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/12/libertarian-vice-presidential-candidate.html


I think he will be nominated in 2012. Sanford or Johnson will not be nominated by the GOP. I am not a registered Libertarian but really never understood the hatred for Barr and Wayne. I get Barr, with his voting record, but the only thing I ever saw from Root I did not like was a few comments about supporting the war because he thought Saddam had WMD.

He says some BIG things. About actively looking for a running mate to spend $20M to $50M on a run to the White House. A possible national radio talk show and "The Apprentice" style reality show starring himself.

Most interesting statement he made was that he did not use ANY Barr's campaign money.

DIGG IT.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Libertarian_VP_candidate_Wayne_Root_Post_Election_ Interview#

[constituent]

I just happen to think these so called "purists" and "true libertarians" aren't all that pure or libertarian. They are pushing their specific brand to the forefront, alienating others who are libertarians....
...we have such a chaotic party we let socialists like Gravel and Phillies come in and become major staples.

rofl.


hey, where's that "irony" pic when i need it?

[constituent]

Parties are not about principle, well, no party that ever hopes to go anywhere. Why? Because politics is not about destination, it's about direction...
My problem with the R's and D's is that they've compromised to such an extent that their viability is becoming suspect. It's entirely possible to prioritize coalition-building while at the same time maintaining a legislative agenda.


http://www.principledpolicy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/irony.jpg


oh yea... there it is.

[constituent]

He says some BIG things. About actively looking for a running mate to spend $20M to $50M on a run to the White House. A possible national radio talk show and "The Apprentice" style reality show starring himself.



http://op-for.com/attention20whore3lm9.jpg



Also, the first link in the post that i've responded to, hosted on "libertarianrepublican.somethingoranother.something else" kinda bolsters TW's GOP-lite statements, no?

[Truth Warrior]

Funny. The first political use of the word "libertarian" was to describe anarchistic French communists.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

Well, judging by this post it's fairly simple to see that I'll get nowhere attempting to reason with you, but I am compelled to ask one question - what, exactly, do you hope to accomplish with the Libertarian Party if not win elections?

[/URL] Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
[URL="http://www.voluntaryist.com/"]http://www.voluntaryist.com/ (http://www.voluntaryist.com/books/nis/)



:p

[rockandrollsouls]

rofl.


hey, where's that "irony" pic when i need it?

Why would you need an irony pic? Rather than follow the original platform we have a bunch of different platforms within the party that think they are the right platform. If we followed the original, gravel wouldn't even have his socialist platform with phillies. That's not irony, it's a fact.

You can take your sarcasm somewhere else if you're going to be another truth warrior and make stupid faces and comments without posting anything of value. I don't need to deal with someone heckling from the sidelines :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Why would you need an irony pic? Rather than follow the original platform we have a bunch of different platforms within the party that think they are the right platform. If we followed the original, gravel wouldn't even have his socialist platform with phillies. That's not irony, it's a fact.

You can take your sarcasm somewhere else if you're going to be another truth warrior and make stupid faces and comments without posting anything of value. I don't need to deal with someone heckling from the sidelines :rolleyes: Not to be confused at all by your bogus BS and other less than worthless crap. :D

[rockandrollsouls]

Not to be confused at all by your bogus BS and other less than worthless crap. :D

Truth Warrior, do you ever stop the vague insults? Or will you finally answer some questions or provide something of value to the thread? Oh, wait. You've never even been a member of the LP party so you don't even know what's going on there, yet you think your opinion matters and you are the master of libertarian philosophy. :rolleyes:

Not to mention your comment doesn't even make sense in relation to how I responded. I honestly think only you understand some of the mindless jargon you post.

[LibertyEagle]

Nice thoughts there, but the existing system will have to collapse first, IMHO. Till then, there will be old-liners who pine for the "good old days" ("remnants", if you will) and subvert the reforms mentioned in the article.

LOL. You do realize, don't you, that Ron Paul talked about "the remnant" and it definitely was not in the manner in which you just did.

[Truth Warrior]

Truth Warrior, do you ever stop the vague insults? Or will you finally answer some questions or provide something of value to the thread? Oh, wait. You've never even been a member of the LP party so you don't even know what's going on there, yet you think your opinion matters and you are the master of libertarian philosophy. :rolleyes:

Not to mention your comment doesn't even make sense in relation to how I responded. I honestly think only you understand some of the mindless jargon you post. I'm sorry, I had no intention of being vague. :D

[Truth Warrior]

LOL. You do realize, don't you, that Ron Paul talked about "the remnant" and it definitely was not in the manner in which you just did. Did Ron get the "remnant" concept from reading Nock?

Whither the Remnant? by Butler Shaffer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer157.html)

[LibertyEagle]

Hey guys, please be civil. Surely there is a way to discuss the topic without slinging insults or being demeaning. Please review the forum guidelines, if you have any questions.

Thanks.

+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

+ No promoting of campaign tactics or other activity that grossly counter the morals or ethics of Dr. Paul.

Source: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

[rockandrollsouls]

I'm sorry, I had no intention of being vague. :D

Well how about you debate rather than posting random links and insults and attempting to discount my intelligence? All you've managed to do is say "no you're wrong" followed by a generic insult and vague statements with cheeky smiles where it's obvious you think you're presenting some kind of enlightening knowledge. You've said what I posted is "worthless" yet haven't explained why (and you'll probably post another vague statement like "I don't respond to worthless things" or "Figure it out"), and you refuse to respond to pointed questions I've asked you. Stop playing games like you're some all knowing overseer of libertarian philosophy, stop acting self righteous, and debate a point or side of an argument if you're going to consistently harass and give me a hard time about my view. If you're not going to, GET LOST.

[Truth Warrior]

Well how about you debate rather than posting random links and insults and attempting to discount my intelligence? All you've managed to do is say "no you're wrong" followed by a generic insult and vague statements with cheeky smiles where it's obvious you think you're presenting some kind of enlightening knowledge. You've said what I posted is "worthless" yet haven't explained why (and you'll probably post another vague statement like "I don't respond to worthless things" or "Figure it out"), and you refuse to respond to pointed questions I've asked you. Stop playing games like you're some all knowing overseer of libertarian philosophy, stop acting self righteous, and debate a point or side of an argument if you're going to consistently harass and give me a hard time about my view. If you're not going to, GET LOST. How about if you stop trying to tell me what to do? :D Who died and made you HMFIC?

[LibertyEagle]

Did Ron get the "remnant" concept from reading Nock?

Actually, The Remnant was mentioned multiple times in the Bible. :)

[Truth Warrior]

Actually, The Remnant was mentioned multiple times in the Bible. :) Is that a yes or a no?

[LibertyEagle]

Is that a yes or a no?

It's nice that you think I'm Ron Paul, but I'm not. ;)

[rockandrollsouls]

How about if you stop trying to tell me what to do? :D Who died and made you HMFIC?

Well then you can stop harassing me, insulting me, and giving me a hard time if you don't actually want to debate because it's against forum guidelines ;)

And, if you don't follow guidelines, you get BANNED. That's not me being boss, those are rules you have to follow....So I was just pointing out the choices you DO have.

Choices
1. Stop Harassing, and insulting me and cut the nonsense if you don't plan on debating.
2. Debate my opinion rather than insult it and me.
3. Continually insult me, breaking forum guidelines resulting in a ban.

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL. You do realize, don't you, that Ron Paul talked about "the remnant" and it definitely was not in the manner in which you just did.

I had no intention of referring to what RP said. What I said is its own context/reference. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. :) ~hug~

[Truth Warrior]

It's nice that you think I'm Ron Paul, but I'm not. ;) Nah, not even implied, I just thought that you just might know? :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Nah, not even implied, I just thought that you just might know? :)

lol

[LibertyEagle]

I had no intention of referring to what RP said. What I said is its own context/reference. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. :) ~hug~

Well, let's talk about that for a minute.


Till then, there will be old-liners who pine for the "good old days"
Personally, I hope there are a lot of people who pine for the good old days when we actually remembered things like government was best that governed least, we understood why the concept of states' rights was so important, we understood why our currency needed to be backed by a precious metal, we valued our national sovereignty, balanced budgets and never, ever handing over our liberty for a little perceived "security", etc. So yeah, I hope there are a lot of these people left and I hope one of the things this movement does, is create more like them. :)

[LibertyEagle]

Nah, not even implied, I just thought that you just might know? :)

I do. :) Ron has written about it multiple times. I'm surprised you do not know. ;)

I would have told you, but, in light of your previous comment to rockandrollsouls, you can go research it yourself.

You figure it out hot shot.

Hint: Crappy half assed premises lead to crappy half assed conclusions. :rolleyes:

Have a nice day. :D

[rockandrollsouls]

Well, let's talk about that for a minute.

Personally, I hope there are a lot of people who pine for the good old days when we actually remembered things like government was best that governed least, we understood why the concept of states' rights was so important, we understood why our currency needed to be backed by a precious metal, we valued our national sovereignty, balanced budgets and never, ever handing over our liberty for a little perceived "security", etc. So yeah, I hope there are a lot of these people left and I hope one of the things this movement does, is create more like them. :)

I've noticed the younger generation is picking up on this concept more than my generation did.....I guess you could say my generation let it slip, and as a result we have young ones that are die hard socialists, and young ones that are die hard freedom lovers....the moderates aren't so numerous anymore among that group. With resources like c4l, YAL, and our internet presence I think we can create many more of them.

[Truth Warrior]

I do. :) Ron has written about it multiple times. I'm surprised you do not know. ;)

I would have told you, but, in light of your previous comment to rockandrollsouls, you can go research it yourself.


Have a nice day. :D Not really THAT curious. Just an idle question is passing. < shrug >

[LibertyEagle]

I've noticed the younger generation is picking up on this concept more than my generation did.....I guess you could say my generation let it slip, and as a result we have young ones that are die hard socialists, and young ones that are die hard freedom lovers....the moderates aren't so numerous anymore among that group. With resources like c4l, YAL, and our internet presence I think we can create many more of them.

I hope so. I truly do.

[rockandrollsouls]

I hope so. I truly do.

I think the YAL chapter is the best thing we have going right now....we really need to expand to college campuses and begin chapters and groups of the like...that's where I see the next logical step....maybe followed by a college or trying to get freedom loving professors or something...

If we could somehow ally with universities live Grove City College, Auburn, OR George Mason....universities that share a freedom philosophy, we could get a lot done. I mean, think about it. Kids come out of Harvard loving socialism because it's what they are taught and bred....where our or freedom loving universities that teach from such a philosophy?

[Nathan Hale]

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

Umm, I asked what you hoped to accomplish with the LP if not win elections, and this was your answer. Just to inform you, this is not an answer. This is the same cut and paste you offered the last time we met.

[Nathan Hale]

How about if you stop trying to tell me what to do? :D Who died and made you HMFIC?

Why do radical tip-of-the-diamond libertarians always think that any attempt to define rules is somehow a slight on their individual sovereignty? Honestly, it's laughable. This is a PRIVATE debate board. The rules here were established by the owners of the board. And even barring those rules, it's fairly clear that we're here having a logical debate. You either answer the challenge given you or kindly shove the fuck off.

[qh4dotcom]

LNC resolution for the suspension of Bill Redpath (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/lnc-resolution-for-the-suspension-of-aaron-starr/)

Looks like some in-fighting at the top of the LP in a game of "it wasn't my fault that the LP died".

I don't want to be one of those people who enjoys the destruction of the LP. I fought so hard for the party and hated when I saw people who quit the party and were nothing but bitter toward it. But in my case the party left me. I would've given the rest of my life to them if they had stayed the party of principle.

They became the party of "let's sacrifice principle and win some elections". To which they became the party without principle who still can't win elections.

There's no other political party like them....If you believe in libertarianism where else are you going to go? No other political party has a similar platform, unless you don't mind the Constitution party's theocracy.

[nobody's_hero]

There's no other political party like them....If you believe in libertarianism where else are you going to go? No other political party has a similar platform [. . .]

This is why I gave up supporting parties and started supporting candidates. I think the days of seeing a letter beside someone's name and knowing that they stand for everything that party might have been founded-on are over.

[Raul08]

This is why I gave up supporting parties and started supporting candidates. I think the days of seeing a letter beside someone's name and knowing that they stand for everything that party might have been founded-on are over.

QFT The implosion of the LP is sad, but just human nature. Even the revolutionaries need to be reprimanded. This is just senseless.

[speciallyblend]

as a former lp member,now disgraced republican . I am not even thinking of rejoining them(LP). I look at the person. all the parties are full of crap to me now, forget parties stand with like minded people no matter the party!!!!

[Truth Warrior]

Why do radical tip-of-the-diamond libertarians always think that any attempt to define rules is somehow a slight on their individual sovereignty? Honestly, it's laughable. This is a PRIVATE debate board. The rules here were established by the owners of the board. And even barring those rules, it's fairly clear that we're here having a logical debate. You either answer the challenge given you or kindly shove the fuck off. Your silly definition of the RPF purpose and mission is both blatantly false and bogus.<IMHO> Scratch a typical statist and you almost invariably find just another authoritarian lurking beneath the surface.

[libertarian4321]

as a former lp member,now disgraced republican . I am not even thinking of rejoining them(LP). I look at the person. all the parties are full of crap to me now, forget parties stand with like minded people no matter the party!!!!

I'm in the same boat- I came back to the Republican Party to support Ron Paul, but I really don't think I can stay. I puke into my mouth every time I say "I'm a Republican."

The Libertarian Party went NUTS when it nominated Barr- probably because a lot of Libertarians took their eye off the ball by putting all their effort behind Ron Paul.

Hopefully, we can repair the damage done by Barr- the Libertarian Party may be irrelevant, but at least it wasn't dirty (until Barr, that is).

[AZ Libertarian]

he got the nomination fair and square,

I disagree with this part of your statement.

BB colluded with WAR from the beginning (nothing 'fair and square' about that), and had the backing of most of the (reelected - funny how that happens) LNC and Officers. It was a 'power coup' plain and simple, and nothing you can write here can change my perception of what I saw happen (I was a delegate), especiallly when I HEARD what was to go down ON THE CONVENTION FLOOR two HOURS before the nominations were to take place! I was slackjawed because I couldn't believe 'The Party of Principle' could ever be corrupted by power - be it partial or absolute.

Boy did I get schooled.

[Peace&Freedom]

Despite all the alleged 'power coup' apparatus surrounding the nomination of Barr at the convention, he barely defeated Mary Ruwart, who was a rather late entry into the race. If she had started even a month or two earlier, she would have won the nomination.

I wish the partisans on each side would not divide the issue of 'principle' versus 'pragmatism' into such cartoonishly oversimplified camps. Many purists who supported Ruwart (me included) went on to work for the Barr campaign precisely in order to put 'pragmatism' at the service of principle, in trying to further and better position the LP for the future. Likewise, many Barr supporters opposed the gutting of the LP platform, and the attempts to purge purists out of the LNC.

[Nathan Hale]

Your silly definition of the RPF purpose and mission is both blatantly false and bogus.<IMHO>

How do you figure?


Scratch a typical statist and you almost invariably find just another authoritarian lurking beneath the surface.

What? I must be daft. Please, tell me what that has to do with anything I said.

[Nathan Hale]

Despite all the alleged 'power coup' apparatus surrounding the nomination of Barr at the convention, he barely defeated Mary Ruwart, who was a rather late entry into the race. If she had started even a month or two earlier, she would have won the nomination.

Mary Ruwart's popularity as a Presidential candidate is part of the problem with the LP. I actually own Ruwart's book. I think she formulates a great argument on a variety of issues. But the public and the media require a certain resume from a credible presidential candidate. The LP presidential candidate should always be a current or former Vice President, Senator, Congressman, General, Admiral, CEO of a large corporation, major diplomat, Governor or administration official.


I wish the partisans on each side would not divide the issue of 'principle' versus 'pragmatism' into such cartoonishly oversimplified camps. Many purists who supported Ruwart (me included) went on to work for the Barr campaign precisely in order to put 'pragmatism' at the service of principle, in trying to further and better position the LP for the future. Likewise, many Barr supporters opposed the gutting of the LP platform, and the attempts to purge purists out of the LNC.

Principle vs. Pragmatism is a false dichotomy. For starters, "principle" and "pragmatism" are not inherently at odds - there is no mutual exclusion of the terms, as quite often pragmatism is the most principled decision.

The true fight in the LP is between Inclusion and Xenophobia. Among pragmatists and idealists in the LP, there are those who are inclusive - who respect that the LP needs to be a big tent organization and must have an electoral strategy and platform to reflect that. And there are xenophobes, who feel that we should kick either the moderates or the radicals out of the party.

My opinion? Claims of "purity" aside, everybody in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan spectrum deserves equal access to the term libertarian and membership in the party. Inclusion is the only way the LP is ever going to amount to anything.

[speciallyblend]

Despite all the alleged 'power coup' apparatus surrounding the nomination of Barr at the convention, he barely defeated Mary Ruwart, who was a rather late entry into the race. If she had started even a month or two earlier, she would have won the nomination.

I wish the partisans on each side would not divide the issue of 'principle' versus 'pragmatism' into such cartoonishly oversimplified camps. Many purists who supported Ruwart (me included) went on to work for the Barr campaign precisely in order to put 'pragmatism' at the service of principle, in trying to further and better position the LP for the future. Likewise, many Barr supporters opposed the gutting of the LP platform, and the attempts to purge purists out of the LNC.

i hear you but i have lost trust in the lp,if things do not change soon . I will be starting our own LP in COLORADO, THE LIBERTY PARTY that includes all parties with a platform that is reasonable and not alienating people. I am sorry to say but i call BS on the CP/LP/GOP(ron paul republicans) and until they unite and stop marginalizing each other they will all be back at square one next election.

i watched the lp convention. barr was a bad choice Ruwart would of been the smart choice but i had a better choice RON PAUL, i just wish these 3 movements could swallow their egos and get with the program and unite until then its all talk. ACTION IS NEEDED , A NEW PARTY, with a NEW BRAND NAME AND PLATFORM that includes dems/reps/cp/lp/indys and many more. doubt it will happen but i will do my best to make it happen or all the parties can kiss my lilly white voters A__!!!

[Bro.Butch]

Thought this might interest some who have never seen it!

History of the Libertarian Party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYQRzXd1UvQ

If you have seen it I apologize, just bypass it...

PEACE

[Truth Warrior]

How do you figure?



What? I must be daft. Please, tell me what that has to do with anything I said. You either get it or you don't, and for the daft it's pretty tough.

[Nathan Hale]

You either get it or you don't, and for the daft it's pretty tough.

I don't get it. Perhaps if I looked at what you wrote with a little less of a logical eye and a little more scotch in my system....

.....one more drink....

....almost there.....

....ok. Nope, it's still totally unrelated to the post you quoted when writing it.