Libertarian Party

[HeaT777]

Shouldn't the Libertarian Party just SAVE MONEY and instead of running a presidential candidate every 4 years, they could run one every 8 years so they have money to compete against the 2 main parties?

edit lol

[zerosdontcount]

its much easier to raise money with a candidate

[Unelected]

They don't run Presidential candidates every year. They run them every 4 years.

You're welcomed to join us. We'd like to know what sorts of drugs you're on so we can partake.

[V4Vendetta]

no - they need to run a candidate every election. The increase at which information is spread increases so fast, the libertarian party would lose interest if they ran one every 8 years instead of 4

[JamesButabi]

They could save a boatload of money this season and just endorse the most successfull libertarian politican in Ron Paul.

[Elwar]

The Libertarian Party presidential candidate brings national attention to the party itself. The parties are brands and the presidential election season is rife with free advertising for those brands.

[erowe1]

no - they need to run a candidate every election. The increase at which information is spread increases so fast, the libertarian party would lose interest if they ran one every 8 years instead of 4

I agree.

If I had any interest at all in the success of the LP, I would say that. But I also wonder if they could make their marquis candidate each 4 years be someone running for an office lower than POTUS, where they could still make a nationwide fund raising campaign out of it, but have a more realistic chance of raising the money needed to win.

[dean.engelhardt]

Because breaking up the two party system is to important, regradless how difficult it is to do.

[Watch]

Because breaking up the two party system is to important, regradless how difficult it is to do.

Is it? The only time a third party has been successful in the US is Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. On the global scale of democracies, third parties are only successful for socialist or fascist regimes when said regime wins on a 30% "majority".
The underlying problem isn't the 2 party system, its the one kind of politician in both parties.

[trey4sports]

i've always wondered why don't put a bunch of money into one national race and make things interesting. If they could pour a million dollars into a congressional race and WIN just one national seat if would give the party a much needed boost. Just get one on the board.

[trey4sports]

Is it? The only time a third party has been successful in the US is Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. On the global scale of democracies, third parties are only successful for socialist or fascist regimes when said regime wins on a 30% "majority".
The underlying problem isn't the 2 party system, its the one kind of politician in both parties.


Pardon my ignorance but i didn't know Lincoln was part of a 3rd party? I thought he was a Republican?

[erowe1]

The underlying problem isn't the 2 party system, its the one kind of politician in both parties.

I disagree. I think the underlying problem is Acton's dictum that power corrupts. If the LP had the same power as the Rs and Ds, they'd be corrupted the same way. Third party advocates have to choose: either lose and stay pure, or win and be corrupt. Win and stay pure is not an available option.

[erowe1]

Pardon my ignorance but i didn't know Lincoln was part of a 3rd party? I thought he was a Republican?

He was a Republican when the Republicans were a third party. He was the first one ever elected POTUS.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I disagree. I think the underlying problem is Acton's dictum that power corrupts. If the LP had the same power as the Rs and Ds, they'd be corrupted the same way. Third party advocates have to choose: either lose and stay pure, or win and be corrupt. Win and stay pure is not an available option.

Well said, it's kind of naive when people say, "if only, we could put the 'right people' in charge, things would be better" because it's the nature of politics & power to be corrupt & that's the whole reason for restricting them to small government (or no government for that matter); of course, there are oddities in politics like Ron Paul but they're the exception rather than the rule so we can't expect every politician to be like Ron Paul & not get corrupt.

[Lothario]

no - they need to run a candidate every election. The increase at which information is spread increases so fast, the libertarian party would lose interest if they ran one every 8 years instead of 4

except running a libertarian every 4 years has proven to be a complete failure...at least for the past 50 or 100 years. The US government is now the largest and most aggressive government in the history of mankind.

[erowe1]

except running a libertarian every 4 years has proven to be a complete failure...at least for the past 50 or 100 years.

Where did you get that number?
http://www.lp.org/our-history

[Elwar]

i've always wondered why don't put a bunch of money into one national race and make things interesting. If they could pour a million dollars into a congressional race and WIN just one national seat if would give the party a much needed boost. Just get one on the board.

At first I was going to dismiss this as an idea that always comes up but does not take into account the fact that people care more about the presidential race than smaller races so the money and air time flow a lot easier.

BUT...perhaps this year with Ron Paul stepping down as Congressman they could run a Libertarian Congressman in his district with the backing of the national party to say "this is our national campaign", to take Ron Paul's seat and hold the libertarian principles with a member of the Libertarian Party. It just might work for them.

Then just endorse Ron Paul for the presidency when he is the Republican candidate.

[gls]

except running a libertarian every 4 years has proven to be a complete failure...at least for the past 50 or 100 years. The US government is now the largest and most aggressive government in the history of mankind.

I think the best strategy would be to run a presidential candidate but focus all of their (limited) resources on a single swing state like PA, FL or OH where they can do the most damage to the Republican nominee. Assuming that nominee isn't Ron Paul, of course.

However, the party is probably much too fractured to get behind such a targeted plan.

[Jingles]

I fully support the LP and would have joined them in 2008 if the message of liberty being spread by Ron Paul wasn't making strides. I feel like I can have more of influence in the Republican right now (work on converting some people) than I can in the LP right now. If the Republican establishment was able to stamp out completely this fervor for true limited government, then yeah I would have left the Republican party. I just feel like right now our best bet is trying to influence/convert the Republican party as much as possible. It would be nice to have a Republican party of the Robert Taft/Barry Goldwater/Ron Paul variety rather than this Bush/Bush/McCain/Nixon thing that is constantly going on.

[Lothario]

Where did you get that number?
http://www.lp.org/our-history

I wasn't referring to the party, but rather candidates holding the philosophy.

[erowe1]

I wasn't referring to the party, but rather candidates holding the philosophy.

I wondered if that was what you meant, since you (correctly in this case) used the lower-case l. But since the post you were replying to was talking about the party, and also used a lower-case l, I assumed you had to mean the same.

In this case, though, it seems a bit generous to say that there have been candidates holding a libertarian philosophy each election going back that far too.

[Lothario]

I think the best strategy would be to run a presidential candidate but focus all of their (limited) resources on a single swing state like PA, FL or OH where they can do the most damage to the Republican nominee. Assuming that nominee isn't Ron Paul, of course.

However, the party is probably much too fractured to get behind such a targeted plan.

Or perhaps we may do well to consider Stefan Molyneux's suggestion that the idea of change through political action by infiltrating the government has failed miserably throughout history, and perhaps other approaches towards achieving liberty should be considered?

My apologies - I've just become a bit jaded about the whole political system, poor results, and the idea of going into the belly of the beast to come out shining. Even if we could return to 1776, there will always be a 2011, because it is inherent in the nature of government to continually grow in size and power, even if it were possible to pull back growth for a term or two...

I'm all for supporting the libertarian candidates, so long as it doesn't divert limited resources away from the idea of true liberty and a voluntary society. The illusion that it's not government that's bad, but rather just the people inside, has been a terrible hindrance to the pursuit of liberty for far too long.

[gls]

Or perhaps we may do well to consider Stefan Molyneux's suggestion that the idea of change through political action by infiltrating the government has failed miserably throughout history, and perhaps other approaches towards achieving liberty should be considered?

My apologies - I've just become a bit jaded about the whole political system, poor results, and the idea of going into the belly of the beast to come out shining. Even if we could return to 1776, there will always be a 2011, because it is inherent in the nature of government to continually grow in size and power, even if it were possible to pull back growth for a term or two...


I don't disagree. But if they're going to go to the effort to play the political game it would make sense to develop a viable strategy that provides them with the opportunity to make at least some sort of discernible impact on the end result. A 50-state strategy where they end up with a quarter-percentage point of the vote and are ignored entirely is just a waste.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't disagree. But if they're going to go to the effort to play the political game it would make sense to develop a viable strategy that provides them with the opportunity to make at least some sort of discernible impact on the end result. A 50-state strategy where they end up with a quarter-percentage point of the vote and are ignored entirely is just a waste.
Depends on how you look at it. Most of the people I've talked to on these boards view elections as education opportunities as well. One of the main arguments in favor of libertarians supporting RP that I've heard on and off these boards is that he's done more to educate the masses about libertarian ideas/philosophy than even the LP (even though he's lost all his presidential bids so far). I'm not a huge fan of the LP, but it produces some quality people like Harry Browne, Mary Ruwart, etc. sometimes.

[Lothario]

Depends on how you look at it. Most of the people I've talked to on these boards view elections as education opportunities as well. One of the main arguments in favor of libertarians supporting RP that I've heard on and off these boards is that he's done more to educate the masses about libertarian ideas/philosophy than even the LP (even though he's lost all his presidential bids so far). I'm not a huge fan of the LP, but it produces some quality people like Harry Browne, Mary Ruwart, etc. sometimes.

My initial instinct would be to agree, as Ayn Rand led me to Ron Paul, and Ron led me to the whole liberty movement. As Molyneux has criticized however, there are absolutely no studies ever undertaken to measure the educational effectiveness of libertarian campaigns - which would be a no-brainer if the primary purpose of the libertarian campaigns is to educate. There is no way to really know what the educational effectiveness has been, how many new conversions there are, how many people have fallen away from the movement (due to position on religion, immigration, etc.), what the cost per convert has been, etc. As any statist will do, when someone points out the harm done by the welfare state and the lack of legitimate studies/proof of benefits, they will parade a handful of people who's lives have positively improved due to welfare. Of course that's irrelevant to a genuine, scientific study.

So if the libertarians purpose is to win the presidency - it has failed quite impressively thus far. It the purpose is to educate - there have never been studies done to measure the level of educational effectiveness, which seems to discount the idea that education is the primary purpose (given the general business savvy and attention to facts and figures of the average libertarian on other issues - like the fed, war, etc.). No organization can continue pursuing the same course of actions in the face of repeated failure - so if winning is not the purpose, and education is not the purpose, what is the primary purpose? If however winning and/or education are the primary purposes, then given the complete lack of success, any rational person must recognize that the course of action being undertaken must be drastically altered to affect a different outcome.

Consider that The Federal Reserve claims its purpose is to smooth out market fluctuations and limit inflation. As any good libertarian will point out, since its inception, there have been endless booms and busts and the dollar has lost almost all its value. Clearly The Fed has failed if that's its true purpose, and yet it continues pursuing the same course of actions, so its stated purpose cannot really be genuine, can it? If however its purpose is to fill bankers' coffers and serve big business and the wealthy elite, then it has been a wild success - which then is why they continue the same actions - because they are not actually failing, but succeeding beyond imagination.

Cannot the same argument be levied on the libertarian movement? What then is the libertarian movement experiencing wild success with?

[heavenlyboy34]

My initial instinct would be to agree, as Ayn Rand led me to Ron Paul, and Ron led me to the whole liberty movement. As Molyneux has criticized however, there are absolutely no studies ever undertaken to measure the educational effectiveness of libertarian campaigns - which would be a no-brainer if the primary purpose of the libertarian campaigns is to educate. There is no way to really know what the educational effectiveness has been, how many new conversions there are, how many people have fallen away from the movement (due to position on religion, immigration, etc.), what the cost per convert has been, etc. As any statist will do, when someone points out the harm done by the welfare state and the lack of legitimate studies/proof of benefits, they will parade a handful of people who's lives have positively improved due to welfare. Of course that's irrelevant to a genuine, scientific study.

So if the libertarians purpose is to win the presidency - it has failed quite impressively thus far. It the purpose is to educate - there have never been studies done to measure the level of educational effectiveness, which seems to discount the idea that education is the primary purpose (given the general business savvy and attention to facts and figures of the average libertarian on other issues - like the fed, war, etc.). No organization can continue pursuing the same course of actions in the face of repeated failure - so if winning is not the purpose, and education is not the purpose, what is the primary purpose? If however winning and/or education are the primary purposes, then given the complete lack of success, any rational person must recognize that the course of action being undertaken must be drastically altered to affect a different outcome.
I totally agree. That's why I personally oppose electoral politics being imposed on everyone. Wes Benedict and other LP folks would argue that the LP does good lobby work and such in DC. (ask our fellow RPFer Bradley in DC for specifics) I'm cynical that anything substantial will result from the political process, but I don't mind if others want to try.

[RileyE104]

They should save money by investing in gold/silver and then when the fiat dollar collapses, they should use that investment to run their candidates... then the LP will be on top!!!! :D

[TCE]

There have been some really good idea throughout this thread. The one that stuck with me is to run one Libertarian Candidate as the "National Candidate" with the best shot at a U.S. House seat and try to throw as much money and resources at them as they could. Winning even one U.S. House seat would be HUGE for the LP and it would quickly become a national news story. From there, they could do that every two years until they have four of five sitting U.S. House members, and then perhaps one could run for U.S. Senate. The way they do it right now is way too disorganized to ever work.