PDA

View Full Version : So, seriously, has nobody yet rubbed sand in the faces of....




fisharmor
11-10-2016, 02:23 PM
...all those Gary Johnson supporters?
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-many-votes-electoral-did-gary-johnson-get-in-the-presidential-election-libertarian/

All third parties combined got 4%.
Johnson absolutely DOMINATED that field with 3.5% total votes cast.

Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something? Or are we going to see the same thing in 2020 - swearing again on a stack of Bibles that the "most electable" candidate is more important than the one with principles?

Can we give this "ideological purity" thing a go next time around, maybe, since we've proved over and over that what's getting done isn't working?

CaptUSA
11-10-2016, 02:25 PM
Or perhaps someone who could maintain a coherent thought in public?

You know... either/or...

NorthCarolinaLiberty
11-10-2016, 02:28 PM
I'm still rubbing it in the face of ZippyJuan and TheCount. What will they do since all of their Hillary supporting posts seem to be in vain?


https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQv5ZCWcanXBnI69sOa3xXQXSSaDQCaC r7cj9ZKtX4xWUZC91hD

TheTexan
11-10-2016, 03:13 PM
I'm still rubbing it in the face of ZippyJuan and TheCount. What will they do since all of their Hillary supporting posts seem to be in vain?


https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQv5ZCWcanXBnI69sOa3xXQXSSaDQCaC r7cj9ZKtX4xWUZC91hD

I love the taste of liberal tears

Goes great with coffee

Natural Citizen
11-10-2016, 03:17 PM
I wonder if they'd have gladly taken the federal money had they got to 5%.

Johnson did a little better than I thought, though. I called 2%.

JohnM
11-11-2016, 08:19 AM
[QUOTE=
Johnson did a little better than I thought, though. I called 2%.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you underestimated how much people disliked Trump and HRC.

:)

euphemia
11-11-2016, 08:30 AM
I was no Trump supporter, but Gary Johnson was a hideous candidate. At no point did he even attempt to look anything more than an aging hipster who wanted to use big government to give rights that cannot be given and take rights that cannot be taken. He was a mess. Maybe now he will just settle down and marry his fiancee and give up the idea he has anything helpful to contribute to the cause of liberty beyond casual conversation at a cocktail party.

69360
11-11-2016, 11:28 AM
I was hoping he would get 5, he got 3.5

Not bad, still the best the LP has ever done and I believe the best 3rd party showing since Perot when I was a kid.

Nobody here expected Johnson to win or even come close to winning.

A "purist" LP candidate would get maybe .1%

Lovecraftian4Paul
11-11-2016, 12:26 PM
Sadly I think it gets even harder for third party voters from here. I already see hysterical Dems on Facebook attacking friends who voted Johnson or Stein. They truly believe Hillary was entitled to every non-Trump vote. They cried the same thing after Nader tipped Florida in 2000, and the third party vote in 2004 was abysmal.

Suzanimal
11-11-2016, 12:30 PM
I was hoping he would get 5, he got 3.5

Not bad, still the best the LP has ever done and I believe the best 3rd party showing since Perot when I was a kid.

Nobody here expected Johnson to win or even come close to winning.

A "purist" LP candidate would get maybe .1%

I disagree. I would vote for a "purist" and I suspect most of the folks who voted for Johnson wouldn't have gone Trump or Clinton because the LP candidate was too pure. Would you? Mr Animal held his nose and voted Johnson but he would've actually actively campaigned for and donated to a purist.

jkob
11-11-2016, 01:32 PM
Third party candidates over poll when given as an option, I didn't believe the third party vote would break 5% combined. 3.5% is a respectable result for the Libertarian Party, Johnson/Weld were awful candidates and they still got the greatest result in party history. To bad they're not libertarian anymore...

fisharmor
11-11-2016, 01:55 PM
A "purist" LP candidate would get maybe .1%

The fact is, you don't know, and you are going to try your damnedest to keep from finding out.

P3ter_Griffin
11-11-2016, 02:01 PM
Asking us will literally get you no where. Best bet if an individual cares about this is to join their state's LP party (and convince others to join as well) in attempts to become a delegate for the 2020 Libertarian convention. You'd have to remove the sand from your ______ to rub it in someone's face.

euphemia
11-11-2016, 02:31 PM
This is the time for some real libertarians to start putting their ideas out there. This was a very close election, so I think there is a need for alternative thinking. That is, how does a government downsize itself in a way that does no harm?

69360
11-11-2016, 04:35 PM
I disagree. I would vote for a "purist" and I suspect most of the folks who voted for Johnson wouldn't have gone Trump or Clinton because the LP candidate was too pure. Would you? Mr Animal held his nose and voted Johnson but he would've actually actively campaigned for and donated to a purist.

I would have been ok with most of the candidates. Probably not the greasy guy Perry who wanted to legalize sex with children. Not the fat dude who stripped.


The fact is, you don't know, and you are going to try your damnedest to keep from finding out.

Honestly I don't care that much either way. I think their best shot is somebody like Johnson, not a nobody. Weld burned his bridges already so you don't have to worry about him anymore.

Jamesiv1
11-11-2016, 04:47 PM
I love the taste of liberal tears

Goes great with coffee
I enjoy them with fava beans and a nice glass of Chianti.

H. E. Panqui
11-12-2016, 10:55 AM
...all those Gary Johnson supporters?
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-many-votes-electoral-did-gary-johnson-get-in-the-presidential-election-libertarian/

All third parties combined got 4%.
Johnson absolutely DOMINATED that field with 3.5% total votes cast.

Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something? Or are we going to see the same thing in 2020 - swearing again on a stack of Bibles that the "most electable" candidate is more important than the one with principles?

Can we give this "ideological purity" thing a go next time around, maybe, since we've proved over and over that what's getting done isn't working?

:cool:

...seems to me you'd have to be a trifling goddamned fool to waste any time crapping on the LP...they've never had any power, never had any money...they are certainly not responsible for the mess we're in...

...?your goddamned republican fools [and the stinking democrats] is where any enlightened rage, contempt, etc., will be directed... ;)

afwjam
11-12-2016, 11:18 AM
McAfee was a better choice. Him and Weiss are still putting out videos showing that they "get it", better then anything Gary said or accomplished in this election. did we forget the original libertarian bill weld?

cjm
11-12-2016, 12:34 PM
A "purist" LP candidate would get maybe .1%

Historical average is closer to 0.4% in presidential elections.


Asking us will literally get you no where. Best bet if an individual cares about this is to join their state's LP party (and convince others to join as well) in attempts to become a delegate for the 2020 Libertarian convention. You'd have to remove the sand from your ______ to rub it in someone's face.

Actually, I think the LP would be more successful if they...


developed good candidates at the local level before running them
trained volunteers in electioneering, not focus entirely on the philosophy
run in races that have unopposed incumbents
run in races that have infrequently opposed incumbents*


The Dems put someone up against our incumbent GOP congressman every once in a while, but in 2010 our choices were (R), (LP), and independent. LP took third and it was due to bad campaign. They actually recruited a great candidate but then they abandoned him. He, like myself, has since joined the GOP.

jonhowe
11-12-2016, 12:43 PM
2008: .4%
2012: 1%
2016: 3.5%

But yeah, let's mock them instead of supporting the rise of a third party which has historically been 100% on our side. Gary Johnson is not a libertarian, he's a centrist. He did a good job getting the name out there. Now let's capitalize on that.

thoughtomator
11-12-2016, 12:43 PM
Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something?

It does mean something: Loser.

Like the folks who voted for a retread Republican and his Marxist running mate because they were too principled to cast an effective vote against Clinton.

69360
11-12-2016, 01:48 PM
It does mean something: Loser.

Like the folks who voted for a retread Republican and his Marxist running mate because they were too principled to cast an effective vote against Clinton.

Against Clinton doesn't equal for Trump.

I didn't like either and didn't think one was any better than the other.

osan
11-12-2016, 02:32 PM
I was no Trump supporter, but Gary Johnson was a hideous candidate.

Not to mention that oaf, Weld.

The one thing that had to happen this election was to stop Clinton, and even THAT has yet to happen, given all the calls to subvert the EC.

I do not know if it is true, but some right/alt-right sites have supposedly reported that at least one elector has stated that he was approached with a carrotstick in the form of a $175K payoff in an offshore account and implied death threats against his family if he didn't take it. I have NO idea whether there is any truth to it, but the simple fact that it comes up gives some indication of the times, at the very least.

Trump is, thus far, not spectacular. It is, however, too early to make any firm judgments.

Has he made any reference to treatment of the Fed? Something positive there would earn him valuable capital. I wish someone with access would ask him a pointed question or two on that issue.

P3ter_Griffin
11-12-2016, 06:15 PM
Actually, I think the LP would be more successful if they...


developed good candidates at the local level before running them
trained volunteers in electioneering, not focus entirely on the philosophy
run in races that have unopposed incumbents
run in races that have infrequently opposed incumbents*


The Dems put someone up against our incumbent GOP congressman every once in a while, but in 2010 our choices were (R), (LP), and independent. LP took third and it was due to bad campaign. They actually recruited a great candidate but then they abandoned him. He, like myself, has since joined the GOP.

I was talking about how to one would go about achieving the 'ideologically purist thing' mentioned in the OP. I think the best approach changes with a person's overall objective. I watched the Ron Paul interview with Alex Jones and Ron basically said he had no hopes of achieving political success, for him it was about converting 'one person at a time' or so he says. And for someone like that an educational campaign is success. I find myself in the pragmatic camp because I do seek political success and I haven't been shown a successful road through ideological purism. And I feel like pragmatism is being being dismissed to early, without exploring what it can really mean. Such as an Anti-Federalist campaign which doesn't require a complete agreement between people, just that we agree to go our separate ways. And I'm sure there are other pragmatic efforts that we will not explore if we assume the only way forward is purity. I agree completely with what you say. I think state libertarian parties ran in that fashion make sense. But on the federal level there isn't a different outcome between Anti-Federalism and libertarianism yet libertarianism requires much more agreement between people.

RJ Liberty
11-12-2016, 06:46 PM
2008: .4%
2012: 1%
2016: 3.5%

But yeah, let's mock them instead of supporting the rise of a third party which has historically been 100% on our side. Gary Johnson is not a libertarian, he's a centrist. He did a good job getting the name out there. Now let's capitalize on that.

Well said.

The numbers in each election are growing. This is a good sign. And in fact, the Libertarian Party earned ballot access in several states, based on Johnson's showing. Here's (https://www.lp.org/big-ballot-access-wins-for-lp/) the full list:



The Libertarian Party achieved a number of critically-important ballot access victories, making the LP a recognized party in 39 states, the highest ever after an election in the party’s history.

The Texas LP retained ballot access with Railroad Commission candidate Mark Miller receiving over 5 percent. The party would have had to collect over 80,000 signatures to get back on the ballot if no statewide candidate received 5 percent. This will save the party approximately $220,000 in petitioning cost.
The LP retained ballot access in North Carolina for four years with Gary Johnson and the gubernatorial candidate, Lon Cecil, each getting over 2 percent. The party would have had to collect over 100,000 signatures to get back on the ballot if neither the presidential nor gubernatorial candidate got 2 percent, saving the party approximately $250,000 in petitioning cost.
Iowa and Kentucky are recognized parties for the first time, with Gary Johnson getting over 2 percent in both states.
New Hampshire is a recognized party for the first time in two decades due to governor candidate Max Abramson getting over 4 percent.
The DC party is recognized for the second time ever, with candidate for Delegate to the US House of Representatives Martin Moulton getting over 17,000 votes.
The LP retained ballot access in North Dakota, with Gary Johnson getting over 6 percent.
In Connecticut, Libertarian Dan Reale for US House in the second congressional district, Richard Lion for US Senate, and Gary Johnson for President all received over one percent of the vote. As a result, the party will not have to petition in these races in the next election.
Massachusetts is a recognized party again, with Gary Johnson getting over 3 percent.
West Virginia retained ballot access for four years due to David Moran receiving over 2 percent in his race for governor.

RJB
11-12-2016, 07:40 PM
It would be awesome if in 50 years we reach 8%! Maybe even 8.5%!!!

Jamesiv1
11-12-2016, 07:46 PM
Gary Johnson is a Baked American.

CCTelander
11-12-2016, 08:42 PM
...all those Gary Johnson supporters?
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-many-votes-electoral-did-gary-johnson-get-in-the-presidential-election-libertarian/

All third parties combined got 4%.
Johnson absolutely DOMINATED that field with 3.5% total votes cast.

Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something? Or are we going to see the same thing in 2020 - swearing again on a stack of Bibles that the "most electable" candidate is more important than the one with principles?

Can we give this "ideological purity" thing a go next time around, maybe, since we've proved over and over that what's getting done isn't working?


These, from one of my previous threads, go here.



Anyone who knows me knows that I believe that electoral politics is almost completely worthless as a means to advance the cause of liberty.

The idea that you're going to get a bunch of "liberty candidates" elected to positions of power and then use that power to drag the general populace into a state of liberty (whether they want it or not) is, at best, extremely problematic on various levels. It'll never happen, and if it did, it wouldn't be liberty.

Likewise the idea that you can use political campaigns as a tool to "wake up" or educate significant numbers of people to any reasonable level is one I've never been completely convinced of. After what I've seen in this election cycle, I'm pretty much totally convinced that the idea is untenable.

However, since it's apparent that most liberty advocates are not yet ready to give up their addiction to electoral politics and devote their energies to activities that might be more profitable, and probably won't be ready to do so any time soon, it's probably a good idea to find any available methods of getting the absolute most that can possibly be gotten out of it. I believe that L. Neil Smith's insights below would be a VERY good place to start.



Reforming the Libertarian Party
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

I recently joined a group, the LP Radical Caucus, that was new to me, and one of the things they asked on their Facebook page was what ideas, if any, did I have for straightening out what's wrong with the Party. I've had many such ideas for years. The following essay is my answer.

I joined the Libertarian Party forty-three years ago, in 1972, the first full year the Party existed. Although I became lifelong friends with founder David F. Nolan, knew a couple other founders, and lots of famous folks associated with the Party, it soon became apparent to me that there were many potentially fatal flaws in its structure and organization.

To begin with, Dave told me that the LP was copied after the national Young Republicans. I believed then, and continue to believe to this day, that if you accept such a limitation, you won't be able to keep from acting like a Republican, and believe me, to get what we want to make of society, libertarians must learn not to act like Republicans.

For years, obsessed with achieving "respectability", the LP embarrassed itself by mindlessly imitating Republicans and Democrats, never realizing that a third party is a different sort of animal, that must achieve product differentiation by flamboyance and confrontation. A third party, especially a brand new third party, has no other capital.

Except, of course, the truth.

During the years of my greatest activity, the LP, governed by its comic relief National Committee, closely resembled a high school student government, with many of the same petty social jealousies and conflicts. The committee tended to try to guess what potential voters might think, instead of simply doing and saying what was right. A full and frank disclosure of what libertarians actually believe was thought to be too much for Mrs. Grundy, living in Peoria, so we all must soft-pedal it. The clever idea was to try to fool people into becoming free.

In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results.

My campaigns consisted of prepared speeches, telling groups what they didn't want to know—I called it the "2x4 between the eyes approach"—telling liberal university women, for example, about our position on guns, and then assuring them that that was the worst they would have to hear, and that we libertarians had reached our radical conclusions about womens' rights by just the same kind of reasoning. I told conservatives about our position on drugs. I told old people that they has been defrauded by Social Security and that there wasn't a damn thing the LP could do about it but abolish taxation and economic regulation to generate a vastly more prosperous, survivable future.

At the same time, I avoided conventional "wisdom" about such matters as clothing, never wearing a necktie, preferring a leather sportcoat, a western shirt, jeans, and cowboy boots, instead. I showed voters what their lives could be like—what groceries and other commodities would cost, in a tax-free, regulation-free society. Unlike all the other candidates, I made my audiences growl at me, laugh with me, and, most of all, remember me. Regrettably, my results were "alibied away" by Party leaders who ignored or refused to learn from them.

At about the same time, well before personal computers or the Internet would have made it easier, I was laboriously writing and speaking passionately about the changes that my wife (and partner and accomplice) Cathy and I strongly believed needed to be made to the Party.

Its principle problem was that in a highly unlibertarian way, it was overly centralized, as if its leaders wanted to be Kings of the Libertarians. Nobody who was considered by them to be "uncool" had a prayer of seeing his ideas even considered by the Party's august rulers. Their sublime arrogance and stupidity was best illustrated by headquartering the Party in the Watergate, infamously associated across "flyover country" with Richard Milhous Nixon and his criminal gang.

Fully as bad was the decision to place the LP in Washington, D.C., the bitter focus of everything we opposed politically. The excuse always given was access to the media—more likely to fashionable cocktail parties. But the parasitic press will always scuttle along behind you if you do newsworthy things. Better to place libertarian headquarters in real America, the center of the country, say, Omaha. Instead of a cramped but expensive suite in a notorious location, make it an answering machine in a closet. Or these days, an inexpensive laptop.

The Party's biggest problem, the National Committee, spending unearned resources extorted from the state parties like drunken Democrats, would be abolished. It would be replaced by a Congress of State Chairs, who are elected by the grass roots, are accesible, know what campaigns need most, and have a better idea what's really going on in the whole country. This Congress would meet at every national convention.

There would be one of those every year, giving more party members more time to meet each other, to participate in convention business, to devise various schemes, and generally to get a social leg up on Republicans and Democrats. These conventions would always be held in our weakest states, leaving a stronger state organization behind. The best part of this plan is that the Party could nominate immediately following the most recent election, giving us four years to make our candidate's name and face familiar to the media and the public. Whenever anything politically significant happened, voters would know exactly what the Libertarian Party candidate would do and why. This would be aided by a permanent program to produce weekly press statements.

All during the period that I was most active in the LP, it was almost impossible to get copies of the national platform to distribute so that people would understand what real libertarians really stand for. Cringing weaklings among the party leadership were ashamed of a simple, direct, declaration of principle. More recently, the great platforms of the late 70s, which I helped to write, were savagely raped by the "pragmatists", leaving nothing but unattractive pap behind.

It's been a number of years, but one Carl Milstead, as I recall, was chief among the platform buggerers. He bragged about it openly, dismissing those who opposed his acts of vandalism as "purists" and was perversely proud of it, never realizing the wreckage he was making of the efforts of far better men and women than he could ever hope to be. Today, if he were on fire, I wouldn't cross the street to piss him out.

Parallel with the GOP, we're infested by LINOs who thoughtlessly and unoriginally adopted the Statue of Liberty—which I call "The Hollow Woman"—as a symbol because one or two people thought the old "Libersign", devised by award-winning advertising man Dave Nolan, looked fascistic. I deeply dislike the porcupine—porcupines are stupid. I greatly prefer the highly intelligent and mischievous skunk—equally a creature of pure defense—upside-down in full battle array.

My experience as a candidate taught me that the more openly frank libertarians are about what they stand for, the more enthusiastic the audience and the higher the vote totals. Don't let anybody tell you differently. People sought me out after the election to tell me that they disagreed with me about a lot, but voted for me because I spoke the truth. These are not times for timidity, or for censoring ourselves.

Dum vivimus, vivamus!


Celebrated and award-winning author of over 30 books and countless shorter pieces, L. Neil Smith is available, at professional rates, to write articles and speeches for you or your organization, providing that our principles are compatible. Contact him at lneil@netzero.com.


http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2016/tle853-20160103-02.html



It's likely that some here will be unable, or unwiling to look past Smith's comments on abortion to see the larger point, but others may not be so encumbered. Regardless, Smith's overall point is right on the mark IMO.



Seems Like Old Times
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Operating my trusty laptop last week was like piloting a time machine. My tolerance for the subhumanity offered to the American public as Presidential timber had sunk to an all-time low. I couldn't imagine what candidates for lesser offices were like. I was thinking of Caligula. When he appointed his war-steed to the Roman Senate, it was said to be the first time a whole horse had occupied a Senate seat.

I shared my discontents with a handful of Facebook correspondents, who agreed with me, but didn't seem to have any better idea what to do about it than I had. I had known, since I was in Fourth Grade, that I was living at the end of this particular cycle of civilization (how I knew it is a whole other story) but I didn't want to be. I haven't yet given up on the idea that is America, and I wasn't quite ready to begin.

That's why I had joined the Libertarian Party in the first place, and it had always wound up in passionate arguments and discussions just like I was having now, on Facebook. What's the best strategy for getting there from here, to freedom from non-freedom? It was an eerily familiar feeling. There were a few of those, like me, who were less concerned about the number of votes we collected, than the number of folks who could be persuaded just to live their own lives, and others to whom a vote was everything—even a good excuse to fudge on your principles just a little. The latter got seriously in the way of the former.

What's more, with the generous help of an anonymous benefactor, I had recently written and published a big book, Down With Power, about what's wrong with our country and how to fix it relatively quickly and easily. The trouble was, nobody seemed to be buying Down With Power or reading it; my publisher was disconsolate, and even my contributor appeared disappointed with the result. I think he'd been expecting another For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard, or Libertarianism, by John Hospers, or The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman, but from the very beginning, I hadn't wanted to write just another primer, explaining what libertarianism is, but a policy book, explaining what libertarianism could do, if it was given the opportunity.

http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

And there was another problem: the "pragmatists", a gaggle of wonks within the Libertarian Party who cherished a number of ridiculously absurd beliefs that had long kept the Libertarian Party from achieving measurable success. These absurd beliefs had sprung into being, I think, the first day that the party existed. The first absurdity was that the "pragmatists" were somehow vastly more intelligent or far better educated than the average schlub voter who didn't belong to Mensa, and telepathically or clairvoyantly knew what the voters wanted (or didn't want) better than the voters themselves, did.

The second might be termed "Jack Nicholson's Fallacy" or "You can't handle the truth." The idea is that, somehow, the average voter, "Joe Sixpack", won't be able to tolerate the overwhelming shock of what libertarians really believe deep down inside, and so he must be lied to. People must somehow be fooled into being free. The "Pragmatists" thought it would be cute to gut the national platform of the late 1970s, and, using excuses even they knew sounded phony and malicious, remove from it any reason people might discover for voting for libertarians instead of Republicans or Democrats. The equivalent of the GOP's RINOs, they gleefully destroyed a document ten years in the making, which the editor of a major New York publisher praised as reading as if it had been written by one person. Helpless to act against these vandals, I vowed revenge—and a new comprehensive platform with which to embarrass them. Down With Power is that platform.

http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

I don't believe in Joe Sixpack, myself, so to disprove this utter nonsense, I ran for the Colorado State House of Representatives, against the popular six-term Speaker of the House, resolved absolutely to tell my audiences what I and most other libertarians really believed. It didn't take much resolve, in fact,it rarely does. I'm a natural-born blabbermouth.

To carry matters to extreme, I always led with the most unpopular issue. If I was speaking to a liberal group, for example, like the Association of University women, the topic was "gun control". Before they had a chance to react emotionally, I explained to them the basic process—the Zero Aggression Principle plus the Bill of Rights—by which we'd come to our conclusion, and additionally promised them it was the worst thing that they'd have to hear from me. I added that we'd used exactly the same method to arrive at our conclusions on abortion.

(A parenthetical statement is probably called for here. In 1977, Freshman Congressman Ron Paul and anti-abortion activist Doris Gordon appeared before the Libertarian National Platform Committee in San Francisco to make their plea for what many of us on the panel regarded as enslaving young women to fetuses that they didn't want. It my view, they should have been dismissed curtly, not listened to politely as they were. The LP has remained somewhat confused on the issue ever since.)

When the group was conservative, I started with drugs, made the same explanations, and wound up with guns. The toughest were groups of old people to whom I spoke about Social Security. I found that they didn't really want to impoverish or indenture their grandchildren. It helped that the core of my speech was about increasing their real purchasing power by a factor of eight, by abolishing taxes and regulations.

In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00. More importantly, people came to me afterward to tell me they disagreed, but had voted for me because I'd told them the truth. made them mad, even made them laugh and cheer.

So much for "pragmatism".

I have come to believe that a major problem with these specimens is that they're timid. They're embarrassed to state plainly, and in public, what a libertarian really is—an entity who owns himself absolutely—and what he stands for—no aggression, no compromise. They erroneously assume that everybody else is just as afraid to hear that truth. This psychopathological phenomenon is known as "projection".

And of course, there are those who are simply reserving some right they erroneously imagine that they possess to beat me up (or anybody else) and kill me if it happens to serve their private or public interests.

Or, I suppose it's possible, that out of a misguided sense of opportunism, a person might become a "LINO"—a "libertarian in name only"; what advantage there might be in it, I'm totally at a loss to understand.

Whatever their reasons for being whatever they were, I wanted them all subjected to the humiliation of attempting to explain away (especially to the media) obviously libertarian ideas—although I freely confess that they may not be equipped to appreciate the irony of it. For now, I'll just be kind and leave the poltroons unnamed, but in future essays, I will indeed speak of them and their organizations by name, and, after some research, try to examine their individual motivations,

I found that I had missed that old, magical time, when the movement and its infinite possibilities were new to me. I wanted it all back, along with the spark, the thrill. I thought my own book, Down With Power—and its effect on others—might bring it back to me.

I wrote this book as a weapon of individual liberty.

http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

The libertarian movement as we knew it is dying; it's practically dead. If you think you want to revive the libertarian movement, if yu want to feel philosophically young again, if you want to restart the revolution, first, buy and read Down With Power. It's available on paper, electronically, or read aloud by radio personality, Brian Wilson.

http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

Then, if what you have read suits you, buy copies of Down With Power for your relatives and friends, for your parents, for your grandparents, for your kids, your cousins and uncles and aunts—and especially for your enemies. If the badguys get even an inkling of what they're up against, they'll advertise it in a noisy panic, far better than we could ever hope to do. I'll send a signed copy, myself, to that pack of carrion-eating jackals, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The next step is bigger: buy cartons of Down With Power, at a generous discount for your group. It's cheaper than an AK-47 or an AR-15, and more effective, because it takes on and kills the very idea of authority and initiated force. Distribute it any way you can think of. Libraries might be a place to start, and your doctor might like her waiting patients to read about separation of medicine and state.

http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

Finally, show up at public gatherings—especially political ones—with copies of Down With Power, its distinctive cover, in your hands. You'll be talking back to the guys who think they run things.

True, I will make money—but that's how I earn a living, how I feed my family, and libertarians are supposed to be all in favor of individual private enterprise. My small Maryland publisher—what must he think of our vaunted movement right now?—will prosper, which is extremely good news for all of us. And you'll have another shot at creating a free country after being disappointed by politics and politicians all these years. Now, instead of begging them to listen, you'll get to listen to them begging to know what's in the book.

They may ned help with the big words.

So it's time to go to work. There are 330,000,000 Americans who need to read and apply the remedies in Down With Power if America is going to survive the 21st century. You can help them decide if it will.

Down With Power click through from The Libertarian Enterprise

http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".


http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2015/tle845-20151101-02.html

Superfluous Man
11-12-2016, 09:39 PM
...all those Gary Johnson supporters?
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-many-votes-electoral-did-gary-johnson-get-in-the-presidential-election-libertarian/

All third parties combined got 4%.
Johnson absolutely DOMINATED that field with 3.5% total votes cast.

Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something? Or are we going to see the same thing in 2020 - swearing again on a stack of Bibles that the "most electable" candidate is more important than the one with principles?

Can we give this "ideological purity" thing a go next time around, maybe, since we've proved over and over that what's getting done isn't working?

I think you make good points. I probably agree, but don't really care about the LP too much one way or the other, so maybe I'm looking at them in a more detached way.

What I think could be said on the other side is that GJ really could have and should have done better than he did. He followed a bad campaign strategy. But he still was the most credible candidate the LP could run. And no one else would have done as well as he did, to say nothing of what he had a real potential to do.

Superfluous Man
11-12-2016, 09:40 PM
But yeah, let's mock them instead of supporting the rise of a third party which has historically been 100% on our side.

Historically meaning up through 2004?

Sujan
11-13-2016, 09:28 AM
Gary was a mediocre candidate at best. Weld, however, turned out to be a sell-out. With a stronger ticket the LP could have garnered 5% of the votes, but I wouldn't know who would have a done a better job who actually wanted to be on the LP ticket. I do actually fault their campaign strategy. They should have focused completely on 3 or 4 states that are inclined to vote Libertarian and didn't pose other third party competition like the Green Party or Evan McMullin (Utah).

Krugminator2
11-13-2016, 03:36 PM
1. There is no definition of ideological purity. Does Lew Rockwell represent ideological purity? Tom Woods? McAfee? They sure don't represent what I think of as an ideal libertarian

2. What evidence is there that a more ideological candidate would have received more votes than Gary. He received 3.2%. The previous high was 1.1%. Harry Browne (an outstanding libertarian) received .5% and .4% of the vote the two times he ran.

I don't care for Gary but I see no reason to believe someone else would have done better. He and Weld were able to get on TV and raise money because they were former governors. I do think more articulate and educated libertarians should be the Libertarian Party nominees going forward. It just seems odd to criticize Gary on the grounds of not getting enough votes.

CCTelander
11-14-2016, 01:13 PM
Since this doesn't seem to be getting through to some:

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

And this:

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

Is it getting through yet?

Here's actual HARD evidence that it most certainly IS possible to succeed running on a "purist" platform. Smith is about as "purist" as they come and he managed to garner 10 times the votes of the best libertarian candidates at the time, running a "purist" campaign, and with an expenditure of a mere $8.00.

The idea that it can't be done is pure bullshit.

In my 40+ years as a liberty activist the pragmatists have always been in the majority, and have always held sway. In that time things have gotten worse and worse. If people insist on clinging to the idea that electoral politics is going to do some good, it's about goddamn time to try something different, IMO.

Xenliad
11-14-2016, 02:07 PM
I'm just wondering if the Libertarians will nominate Gary Johnson a third time in 2020.

Sujan
11-15-2016, 02:57 AM
I'm just wondering if the Libertarians will nominate Gary Johnson a third time in 2020.

My feeling is that the political career of Gary is over. He probably will work for a cannabis company again. He's a good spokesperson for legalising marijuana. By the way, he would be 68 in 4 years. Not gonna work. Austin Petersen could be a great candidate in 2020.

RJ Liberty
11-15-2016, 08:06 PM
I don't care for Gary but I see no reason to believe someone else would have done better. He and Weld were able to get on TV and raise money because they were former governors. I do think more articulate and educated libertarians should be the Libertarian Party nominees going forward. It just seems odd to criticize Gary on the grounds of not getting enough votes.

Great point, Krug. Gary received more votes than any other LP POTUS candidate, ever. The idea that someone else would have done better seems like fantasy: no one in the LP ever received this many votes.

The fact is, Gary spread the word of libertarianism to a very wide audience: newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and social media. Though I'm not sure NBC or ABC ever mentioned his campaign, he got on CBS (60 Minutes and Colbert), and he was on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC multiple times. He did hundreds of interviews and several times trended on Google Trends. This exposure was very good for the party: the party gained members, going from 400,000 to 500,000 registered party members (http://ballot-access.org/2016/11/11/libertarian-party-becomes-first-nationally-organized-party-other-than-the-republican-and-democratic-parties-to-have-500000-registrants/), in the space of just one year. And 4,200,000 votes is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the competition had a half a billion dollars each.

GunnyFreedom
11-15-2016, 08:14 PM
I disagree. I would vote for a "purist" and I suspect most of the folks who voted for Johnson wouldn't have gone Trump or Clinton because the LP candidate was too pure. Would you? Mr Animal held his nose and voted Johnson but he would've actually actively campaigned for and donated to a purist.

If the LP had actually nominated a Libertarian, they would have easily broken 10% in 2016. The baloney sausage you are responding to is precisely why I thought nominating Johnson for the LP was a horrible idea. Now they blame a 1% increase on having nominated a turdburger and claim principles will sink them. Good job Johnsonites.

GunnyFreedom
11-15-2016, 08:17 PM
Great point, Krug. Gary received more votes than any other LP POTUS candidate, ever. The idea that someone else would have done better seems like fantasy: no one in the LP ever received this many votes.

The fact is, Gary spread the word of libertarianism to a very wide audience: newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and social media. Though I'm not sure NBC or ABC ever mentioned his campaign, he got on CBS (60 Minutes and Colbert), and he was on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC multiple times. He did hundreds of interviews and several times trended on Google Trends. This exposure was very good for the party: the party gained members, going from 400,000 to 500,000 registered party members (http://ballot-access.org/2016/11/11/libertarian-party-becomes-first-nationally-organized-party-other-than-the-republican-and-democratic-parties-to-have-500000-registrants/), in the space of just one year. And 4,200,000 votes is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the competition had a half a billion dollars each.

Nonsense. Johnson received a mere handful more votes in a year when both major candidates were despised by everyone. The growth in the LP had nothing to do with Johnson but hatred of the Reps and Dems. You can't just take things all the way out of context and then claim they mean things they obviously do not. I think 2016 is going to become known as the year 99 people out of 100 went completely bat shit insane. SMDH

Natural Citizen
11-15-2016, 08:24 PM
If the LP had actually nominated a Libertarian, they would have easily broken 10% in 2016. The baloney sausage you are responding to is precisely why I thought nominating Johnson for the LP was a horrible idea. Now they blame a 1% increase on having nominated a turdburger and claim principles will sink them. Good job Johnsonites.

eeeeeyep. Agreed.

RJ Liberty
11-15-2016, 08:31 PM
Nonsense. Johnson received a mere handful more votes in a year when both major candidates were despised by everyone. The growth in the LP had nothing to do with Johnson but hatred of the Reps and Dems.

Sorry, Gunny: much as I respect you, I disagree. If growth in the LP "had nothing to do with Johnson but hatred of the Reps and Dems", why didn't any other party do as well as the LP? Johnson received almost three times as many votes as all other third parties combined. He did this by maintaining a rigorous campaign schedule and keeping in the public eye. If it had "nothing to do with Johnson", but hatred of the Rs and Ds, the other parties would have done better. No one else even broke 1%.

GunnyFreedom
11-15-2016, 08:36 PM
Sorry, Gunny: much as I respect you, I disagree. If growth in the LP "had nothing to do with Johnson but hatred of the Reps and Dems", why didn't any other party do as well as the LP?

Because the LP is perceived as a known quantity, not nearly as fringe as the Greens, but available in all 50 states. Most Americans will see it appropriate as a protest vote where other smaller parties are not.


Johnson received almost three times as many votes as all other third parties combined. He did this by maintaining a rigorous campaign schedule and keeping in the public eye. If it had "nothing to do with Johnson", but hatred of the Rs and Ds, the other parties would have done better. No one else even broke 1%.

That's fine, If y'all want to just mundane yourselves into obscurity. Mark my words, run someone like Johnson in a year where the majors are not so hated and he will be lucky to break 0.1%

2016 was the year for the LP to break out and claim 10% or more of the vote. The fumbled by nominating a candidate who was almost as hated as the two majors. Now they think this was "success" and want to continue to nominate loser fake libertarians into the future.

lol

Good luck clearing a tenth of a percent with that strategy.

phill4paul
11-15-2016, 08:39 PM
Because the LP is perceived as a known quantity, not nearly as fringe as the Greens, but available in all 50 states. Most Americans will see it appropriate as a protest vote where other smaller parties are not.



That's fine, If y'all want to just mundane yourselves into obscurity. Mark my words, run someone like Johnson in a year where the majors are not so hated and he will be lucky to break 0.1%

2016 was the year for the LP to break out and claim 10% or more of the vote. The fumbled by nominating a candidate who was almost as hated as the two majors. Now they think this was "success" and want to continue to nominate loser fake libertarians into the future.

lol

Good luck clearing a tenth of a percent with that strategy.

Given a choice I would have voted Libertarian. I wasn't given that choice by the Libertarian party. They were on the ballot. But, that's not what I mean.

GunnyFreedom
11-15-2016, 08:43 PM
Given a choice I would have voted Libertarian. I wasn't given that choice by the Libertarian party. They were on the ballot. But, that's not what I mean.

Same here. I wanted to vote LP but I simply could not give my franchise to that anti-constitutional anti-liberty space cadet.

AuH20
11-15-2016, 08:55 PM
The only bright spot for the LP was Joe Miller.

RJ Liberty
11-15-2016, 08:56 PM
Because the LP is perceived as a known quantity, not nearly as fringe as the Greens, but available in all 50 states. Most Americans will see it appropriate as a protest vote where other smaller parties are not.

You're missing the point that the Green Party, the Constitution Party, etc., remained small, whereas the LP gained 100,000 members this year, under Gary's campaign.


Mark my words, run someone like Johnson in a year where the majors are not so hated and he will be lucky to break 0.1%

Did you really forget? Johnson already ran in a year when the R and D candidates weren't so hated (2012) and broke LP records then, too. He just never has had access to a half a billion dollars (where are our Koch friends?), or unlimited amounts of free press (courtesy of Clinton telling the media to cover Trump heavily, a strategy that backfired on her).

No, Johnson did really well, for only having $10 million. He estimated he'd need $20 million to run a competitive campaign, and only got half that amount. Clinton spent 18 million dollars on attack ads against him, she sent the press to destroy him, and he still broke the LP record for highest percentage and most voters.

CCTelander
11-15-2016, 08:58 PM
Since this doesn't seem to be getting through to some:

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

And this:

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

Is it getting through yet?

Here's actual HARD evidence that it most certainly IS possible to succeed running on a "purist" platform. Smith is about as "purist" as they come and he managed to garner 10 times the votes of the best libertarian candidates at the time, running a "purist" campaign, and with an expenditure of a mere $8.00.

The idea that it can't be done is pure bullshit.

In my 40+ years as a liberty activist the pragmatists have always been in the majority, and have always held sway. In that time things have gotten worse and worse. If people insist on clinging to the idea that electoral politics is going to do some good, it's about goddamn time to try something different, IMO.


Obviously, this is STILL not sinking in.

GunnyFreedom
11-15-2016, 09:06 PM
You're missing the point that the Green Party, the Constitution Party, etc., remained small, whereas the LP gained 100,000 members this year, under Gary's campaign.



Did you really forget? Johnson already ran in a year when the R and D candidates weren't so hated (2012) and broke LP records then, too. He just never has had access to a half a billion dollars (where are our Koch friends?), or unlimited amounts of free press (courtesy of Clinton telling the media to cover Trump heavily, a strategy that backfired on her).

No, Johnson did really well, for only having $10 million. He estimated he'd need $20 million to run a competitive campaign, and only got half that amount. Clinton spent 18 million dollars on attack ads against him, she sent the press to destroy him, and he still broke the LP record for highest percentage and most voters.

smh. I understand that this is what you want to believe.

Good luck with that.

It won't pay out, but at this point I perceive trying to convince you all of the truth will do more harm than letting y'all find out on your own.

CCTelander
11-15-2016, 09:11 PM
smh. I understand that this is what you want to believe.

Good luck with that.

It won't pay out, but at this point I perceive trying to convince you all of the truth will do more harm than letting y'all find out on your own.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?199677-Left-Brain-Right-Brain-No-Brain

GunnyFreedom
11-15-2016, 09:24 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?199677-Left-Brain-Right-Brain-No-Brain
Indeed.

P3ter_Griffin
11-15-2016, 09:25 PM
Obviously, this is STILL not sinking in.

Consider my mouth zipped on the issue of pragmatism. Worth saying I think, not everyone here is a libertarian so... essentially the crowd you are speaking to is limited, so not everyone will get on board (as opposed to it 'not sinking in'), but that isn't a reason to get disheartened or to get pulled away and distracted by the noise.

Krugminator2
11-15-2016, 09:25 PM
Since this doesn't seem to be getting through to some:

And this:

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

Is it getting through yet?

Here's actual HARD evidence that it most certainly IS possible to succeed running on a "purist" platform. Smith is about as "purist" as they come and he managed to garner 10 times the votes of the best libertarian candidates at the time, running a "purist" campaign, and with an expenditure of a mere $8.00.

The idea that it can't be done is pure bull$#@!.

In my 40+ years as a liberty activist the pragmatists have always been in the majority, and have always held sway. In that time things have gotten worse and worse. If people insist on clinging to the idea that electoral politics is going to do some good, it's about goddamn time to try something different, IMO.


So I Googled those quotes. I have been a libertarian for basically as long as I have had political views. I have never heard of L. Neil Smith. I was curious what race this pure libertarian got 15% on $8. Sounds impressive. People must have just been overwhelmed by the purity.

Here are the results on page 64 the race he is referring to. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/Abstract/pdf/1900-1999/1978AbstractBook.pdf

He got 15% in a race for Colorado state legislature in 1978 vs a Republican with no Democratic challenger. Great work. I am sure voters for a state house race were overwhelmed with his pure message. If the Republicans can just convince the Democrats not to run candidates they will really start to set records.

And the LP has nominated hardcore libertarians in numerous races. Michael Badnarik was a nutjob and got 0% of the vote. Harry Browne did slightly better than *%. Ron Paul got the usual .5%.

fisharmor
11-15-2016, 09:37 PM
Obviously, this is STILL not sinking in.
ETA thank you Krugminator for finally acknowledging what CCT posted.

RJ Liberty
11-16-2016, 08:57 AM
So I Googled those quotes. I have been a libertarian for basically as long as I have had political views. I have never heard of L. Neil Smith. I was curious what race this pure libertarian got 15% on $8. Sounds impressive. People must have just been overwhelmed by the purity.

Here are the results on page 64 the race he is referring to. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/Abstract/pdf/1900-1999/1978AbstractBook.pdf

He got 15% in a race for Colorado state legislature in 1978 vs a Republican with no Democratic challenger. Great work. I am sure voters for a state house race were overwhelmed with his pure message. If the Republicans can just convince the Democrats not to run candidates they will really start to set records.

And the LP has nominated hardcore libertarians in numerous races. Michael Badnarik was a nutjob and got 0% of the vote. Harry Browne did slightly better than *%. Ron Paul got the usual .5%.


So the quote is regarding a libertarian run for the Colorado state legislature in 1978, where there was only a Republican in the race. Sounds totally relevant to a national presidential campaign, against multiple parties, in 2016, doesn't it? ;)

I can't believe that quote was posted over and over like that, as if we're supposed to believe a campaign from nearly 40 years ago in a single congressional district, against one challenger, bears any relation whatsoever to the 2016 national presidential campaign, when a billion dollars was spent by the major parties.

Then again, we've got people still claiming Gary Johnson "would" only attract 0.1% of the vote. Even though that hasn't happened... twice already. Sure, let's go back to getting .32% of the vote because Gary got 3.2%.

Johnson was outspent by Clinton by over a half a billion dollars; Clinton spent nearly twice as much money attacking Gary than he even had in his entire campaign budget. Johnson was outspent by Trump by over $300,000,000. It is remarkable that Gary managed the numbers he got. And in fact, he spent far, far less per vote than either Trump or Clinton. It's not even close.