And yes, since 2004 (The last couple of election cycles) the LP has been doing well. We’ll talk in November 2010.

Incorrect. It fell from 33k or so in 1999 and kept falling with very few interruptions until 2007, to a low of about a third of its high. It has grown a little since then – which usually happens around every presidential election.

Vote percentages are also doing well. In Texas, the LP has gained and maintained ballot access over the last couple of elections cycles (Taking at least 5% in at least one state wide office).

When I petitioned to get the LP back on the ballot in Texas in 2004, it was the first time we had to do that since the 1980s. Nationwide, the LP has the same number of states with retained ballot access after the 2008 election as it did after the 2004 election. The biggest bright spot is North Carolina, which changed its retention requirement from 10% to 2% in the Governors race.

You are mistaking winning with becoming a real political party. Before enough people vote to put people in office, they have to have confidence in the party’s viability. That confidence is growing.

Sorry, I have yet to see evidence of that.

Fewer people are saying “If I thought a third party could win…” less often and starting to actually vote third party.

Show me the vote totals.

I was at a PAC meeting in October where there were thousands of people. The majority of people said they had heard of the LP but didn’t know enough about the LP to decide if they would vote for us. That tells me a lot considering 6 or even 4 years ago no one I talked to had ever heard of the LP. We are becoming known. As people learn of our existence, more people will begin supporting us, and have.

I what manner are they supporting the LP? With money? With votes? I agree that the potential is there and while I was out petitioning around the country in 2007-8 I noticed a libertarian current in the air.

Ron Paul took advantage of some of that, mostly by being bold and standing up to Giuliani on foreign policy, and then pissed some of it away by sitting on a lot of his money and running conservative anti-migrant TV ads.

The LP failed to take advantage of it with the tepid Barr campaign and toned down national office rhetoric which fails to inspire, the constant pandering to the dead enders of the reich wing, and the lack of proper nuts and bolts management. It is true that some state parties did better in the nuts and bolts department than national, with Texas being the best example.

Wes Benedict is a competent manager. He knows how to grow a small business and a county and state LP. He has applied to be executive director at national, but is probably not likely to get the job, because it is given out on the basis of cronyism rather than demonstrated achievement.

I don’t recall seeing the BTP on my ballot. For that matter, the only three parties I saw were Republican, Democrat and Libertarian parties. No constitution, no BTP, no Green, no Socialist (Thank GOD!!!), no Reform, etc…

I have no idea why you would be thanking God for the ridiculous ballot access barriers imposed by the ruling gang of Texas. (I’m assuming it’s Texas based on what you said earlier, my apologies if I got that wrong). I want ALL those choices on the ballot. No party should gain its votes by keeping other parties off the ballot.

As for the Socialist Party, they are good on many peace and civil liberties issues. The LP mostly is too, but tends to vacillate and sweep them under the rug. The Socialists are now better than the LP in some ways on the issue of corporations, since the Libertarians no longer call for an end to corporate personhood and nonconcensual limited liability. However, the Libertarians are better in that they realize nationalization of the means of production and bureaucratic management does not work.

Ballot access, alone, is enough to show the LP is growing as a party. We had over 170 candidates on the ballot under the LP name in Texas for 2008. I believe there were only 2 Independents. Zero other third party candidates other than token write-ins available.

It’s true that the Texas LP did a great job of candidate recruitment thanks to Wes Benedict. The national LP, not so much. There were way more candidates nationally in 2000, 2002, 1998, and several other times. It’s also true that Texas keeps other alternative parties and independents off the ballot. I don’t see how that is anything for an advocate of freedom to celebrate.

The LP is growing.

You will need better evidence than what you have presented so far.

The objective of elections is to replace those in power. I see that you are just another worthless supporter of the powers that be.

“I, as any LP member, would love to see the total removal of drug prohibition. A stepped compromise is to persue the more popular issue of medicinal marijuana. Once thqat has been achieved, we can move to the next compromise step of allowing testing of other prohibited drugs which will lead to their legalization, and so forth.”

So, how is that going? That stupid compromise ideology has been around for decades, and we’ve seen referenda in a dozen or more states pass. And, guess what? You haven’t fixed the problem. Marijuana is “legal” in many states and is still prosecuted as a crime by the feds, with the cooperation of the police and other state gov’t agencies in those states. So, your compromise policy has failed.

“Myself and other LP members that I talk with see that as progressive compromise. Take a little at a time. Why? Because we have spent 30+ years not accepting compromise and we have lost over and over and over.”

Nonsense. We’ve spent most of the last 37 years listening to whiners and losers like you tell us to compromise, and push agenda items like the medical marijuana strategy, and it has repeatedly failed. You keep failing to produce any real freedom. But you keep your buddies in the established power structure happy. So, that’s nice.

“In losing so much without compromise, we also lost ground.”

You should know.

“People are tired of voting for a losing strategy toward freedom.”

What people have been voting for freedom? Not even 1% of the population votes for a given freedom candidate at the national level.

But, to the extent that the top down, opaque, and corrupt strategy of the LP has not been working, I offer the fresh bottom-up, transparent, and corruption-free strategy of the Boston Tea Party. We’re also new, so people who are tired of the old can enjoy the new.

“People want freedom but the LP of old will have never won a position to help win that freedom.”

And that’s because the people you say want freedom have never voted for freedom. So….

“The LP cannot win trying to sell freedom, alone. We need to sell positions. Those positions move us toward freedom.”

You need to sell positions? Like, a position in the government? Or a position with a government contractor? You are saying that you support corruption as a strategy?

“We didn’t get into the position we are in, today, overnight. It has taken time. It has taken slow compromising steps by two parties who’s only goals are self serving and ignore the Constitution for which the U.S. government was formed.”

The two parties have the goal of corruptly allocating contracts and positions. Which is what you think the LP should be doing, I gather.

“For the Anarchist, it doesn’t matter about the Constitution as it is only another piece of paper that legitimizes government.”

It was your current president, Bush, who said it is only a goddamned piece of paper. It is not a piece of paper that legitimises anything. It is a noble, classical liberal notion that government might work out if it were limited. Have you followed the progress of that experiment? It has been falsified. The constitution has not managed to limit the power of government. If you cannot see that, then you are truly blind.

“For the Libertarians, and I’m sorry for those who cannot see the difference, it is the guide from which the U.S. government is designed to work, and it has been ignored time and time again.”

It has either allowed all the tyranny under which we suffer now, or the constitution has been powerless to prevent any of that tyranny. Those words were first written by Lysander Spooner in 1874. The constitution has not improved things one bit in the time since.

“Zero compromise has gotten us no where.”

So you would propose compromising on matters where the constitution says one thing and the government does another?

“I’d rather achieve a little bit at a time, over time, than to never to achieve anything at all.”

No, you are gullible. You would like to be gulled into thinking that you are getting something done, while actually accomplishing nothing. You have no principles, so you won’t be able to tell when you fail to get anything done.

Found your house upon the shifting sands of expedience, and it is going to fall down.

Found your house upon the solid rock of principle, and it will stand for generations.

“No compromise achieves nothing when you have no strength to influence those in power.”

Endless bickering over the free expression of Angela Keaton and a persistent failure since at least 1984 to maintain consistent principles has failed to inspire even the 100,000 or so people who have over time signed the pledge to be members of the LP. Only 16,000 of those who once did so are currently paying dues. That’s 16% for you compromisers.

“Taking less than 1% of the vote provides us with zero influence.”

So, um, how is that consistent with the great vote percentages? I don’t get it.

“We are increasing our percentage of votes since we have begun to compromise.”

Only the candidates with the strongest principles have been winning election.

“We are increasing our ability to influence those in power.”

And that’s what you want. You want to be useful to the established order.

“I’m sorry for those who cannot see that.”

I spit on your pity.

No, it has not. LP membership has fallen dramatically since peaking in 1999-2000.

“Vote percentages are also doing well.”

You mean that elections are being won? Where? How many? Vote percentages that generate losses do not elect candidates. Didn’t you just get done telling me that electing candidates was the only thing that mattered?

“In Texas, the LP has gained and maintained ballot access over the last couple of elections cycles (Taking at least 5% in at least one state wide office).”

Yes, I was there when we did that in the 1990s. And then lost it. You seem to think that everything is grand in this brave new world. ‘Tis new to thee.

I see the Boston Tea Party as being people who are interested in actually furthering the cause of freedom. In at least two instances, that has involved winning elections. Since we’re already winning elections, I don’t really seek your advice on how to be electable.

“To be electable, we must concentrate on issues that are important to the majority of the voting public.”

What do you mean we? Are you a member of the Boston Tea Party? If not, then you and I don’t belong in the same pronoun. I’m not with you, ever. I don’t get my freedom from majority approval.

I would ask you whether the days of anticipatory angst and the minutes spent disciplining Angela Keaton seem, to you, like things that make LP candidates more electable. Do you think a majority of voters cares about Angela Keaton’s blog?

“I see nothing be hidden with the LP.”

Then their efforts to hide things are working, at least in your case.

“The LP is just emphasizing the more popular issues rather than concentrating on the fringe issues.”

Yes, the LP is emphasising how clever it is to attack one of its own national committee members for exercising her freedom of speech. How droll.

“The LNC/LP is starting to come of age as a political party.”

The LP is getting old and tired and dull and boring and stodgy and unworkable. Been that way for about ten years that I can see.

“We are beginning to see that being totally unwilling to compromise will get us no where.”

You sound like an NRA gun compromiser. The thing about compromising principle is: it means you have none.

“The big two parties got where they are because they slowly worked toward greater goals through gradual growth. That growth came from compromise.”

The two big parties got where they are by working together to outlaw third parties as much as possible. They got where they are by being corrupt, by using the FBI and CIA to spy on people who oppose the established order, and, when necessary, kill them. They got where they are by providing money to the big defense contractor companies like Westinghouse (which owns CBS) and General Electric (which owns the NBC networks).

“What I hate more than compromise is to get nothing for my efforts.”

So you don’t want to have principles, because it annoys you that you have to put lots of work in at first for very little out, to build up a system that can ultimately give out lots of results for very little in. I don’t agree with your priorities.

“No matter how noble the cause, no matter how much better things can be, if you can’t get elected to make changes, none of it matters and those changes aren’t going to make themselves happne, they need people to convince people.”

You are very badly mistaken. Most change does not occur from people getting elected. Elections are a useful sideshow for generating interest in the problems and their solutions.

Your vote sent out a message (even though it was just one vote out of millions of people it still sent out a message) that all of the shenanigans from the Barr campaign and from LP National are OK with you.

Andy – Did you read what I wrote? I KNOW, and I don’t care. The “shenanigans” ARE “okay” with me because the national party is irredeemably corrupt. Having any care of what it does it a complete waste of time. It’s not the party of people like Mandudeo. GIVE UP.

I, as any LP member, would love to see the total removal of drug prohibition. A stepped compromise is to persue the more popular issue of medicinal marijuana. Once thqat has been achieved, we can move to the next compromise step of allowing testing of other prohibited drugs which will lead to their legalization, and so forth.

Myself and other LP members that I talk with see that as progressive compromise. Take a little at a time. Why? Because we have spent 30+ years not accepting compromise and we have lost over and over and over. In losing so much without compromise, we also lost ground.

People are tired of voting for a losing strategy toward freedom. People want freedom but the LP of old will have never won a position to help win that freedom. The LP cannot win trying to sell freedom, alone. We need to sell positions. Those positions move us toward freedom.

We didn’t get into the position we are in, today, overnight. It has taken time. It has taken slow compromising steps by two parties who’s only goals are self serving and ignore the Constitution for which the U.S. government was formed. For the Anarchist, it doesn’t matter about the Constitution as it is only another piece of paper that legitimizes government. For the Libertarians, and I’m sorry for those who cannot see the difference, it is the guide from which the U.S. government is designed to work, and it has been ignored time and time again.

Zero compromise has gotten us no where. I’d rather achieve a little bit at a time, over time, than to never to achieve anything at all. No compromise achieves nothing when you have no strength to influence those in power. Taking less than 1% of the vote provides us with zero influence. We are increasing our percentage of votes since we have begun to compromise. We are increasing our ability to influence those in power.

I’m sorry for those who cannot see that.

I will not to be compromised in my defense of liberty.

Any LP member who speaks of compromise within the party should be perceived for what they are: fainéant Republicans, who watched idly by while their party was compromised, and now are attempting to use the lessons learned from that experience to pollute the LP.

I think this shows a poor understanding of how political parties function in the US’ two-party system. Being ‘willing to compromise’ essentially means being willing to be folded in as wing of one of the two power parties. Being uncompromising *as a party* means continuing to offer your undiluted ideas so that the major parties *compromise in your direction* to woo your support.

LP membership has been growing over the last few election cycles. Vote percentages are also doing well. In Texas, the LP has gained and maintained ballot access over the last couple of elections cycles (Taking at least 5% in at least one state wide office).

You are mistaking winning with becoming a real political party. Before enough people vote to put people in office, they have to have confidence in the party’s viability. That confidence is growing. Fewer people are saying “If I thought a third party could win…” less often and starting to actually vote third party.

I was at a PAC meeting in October where there were thousands of people. The majority of people said they had heard of the LP but didn’t know enough about the LP to decide if they would vote for us. That tells me a lot considering 6 or even 4 years ago no one I talked to had ever heard of the LP. We are becoming known. As people learn of our existence, more people will begin supporting us, and have.

I don’t recall seeing the BTP on my ballot. For that matter, the only three parties I saw were Republican, Democrat and Libertarian parties. No constitution, no BTP, no Green, no Socialist (Thank GOD!!!), no Reform, etc…

Ballot access, alone, is enough to show the LP is growing as a party. We had over 170 candidates on the ballot under the LP name in Texas for 2008. I believe there were only 2 Independents. Zero other third party candidates other than token write-ins available.

The LP is growing.

Do you have any real world metrics proving that this theory is borne out by observed facts? Vote totals, membership totals, fund raising totals, take your pick, suggest a category…

I see the BTP as being nothing more than people that are upset that the LP has begun working toward becoming a real political party rather than just and activist group or debate community.

To be electable, we must concentrate on issues that are important to the majority of the voting public. I see nothing be hidden with the LP. The LP is just emphasizing the more popular issues rather than concentrating on the fringe issues.

The LNC/LP is starting to come of age as a political party. We are beginning to see that being totally unwilling to compromise will get us no where. The big two parties got where they are because they slowly worked toward greater goals through gradual growth. That growth came from compromise.

No one likes to compromise. I don’t. What I hate more than compromise is to get nothing for my efforts. I’d rather work and get a little at a time than to work and get nothing at all, ever.

No matter how noble the cause, no matter how much better things can be, if you can’t get elected to make changes, none of it matters and those changes aren’t going to make themselves happne, they need people to convince people.

I do not believe that the LP as currently organised at the national level is serving liberty activists well. I stopped having any such belief in 1998, and stopped paying dues to the group. I have, in the time since, been a critic of the LP. Happily, in 2006 and again this year, I found a party that could serve my interests, the Boston Tea Party.

I do not say that it hasn’t been ugly. At times, it has. But, it has been open. When you look at the Boston Tea Party, our web site, our national committee discussion lists, you know where we stand, and how we got to these views.

And I think that’s important. It is important to know what the leaders of the party are doing in the names of the members of the party. After all, if the LP is to generate more freedom, for whom is it to do so? For the members of the LP, for starters.

Why not look at the conduct of the LNC? If the LP members are not willing to hold the leaders of their party to high standards of conduct, such as integrity, commitment to liberty, and appreciation for principle, then how can the members of the LP ever hope to bring any portion of those things to government? If the LNC is to behave absurdly, waste its time on castigating one of its own, ignore its budget problems, and oversee a convention that nominates distinct and hated foes of liberty, what good is it?

I think rather than ignoring the wrongdoing on the LNC and at LP HQ, the members should offer to withdraw their support. I think it is high time that LP activists choose whether the LP is going to be worthy of their support. And if the LNC thwarts that choice, then LP activists should have other choices available.

In this point, I like Terry Hulsey’s comment that an alternative party can be an option. It costs less and may be exercised when the standard parties fail to serve. The BTP costs nothing – there is never any fee to join.

Since May of this year, people are increasingly exercising the BTP option. Not always because they think we’re the greatest, but because we’re becoming a viable alternative to something which no longer serves.

Andy – Here’s what I just told Richard Winger, who was equally shocked I voted for Barr:

I did not want to reward the Libertarian Party’s decision to nominate a non-libertarian candidate. I thought it would set a bad precedent if Barr got a lot of votes. But as the election drew nearer, two things became clear to me: 1) Bob Barr was not going to get a lot of votes, and 2) the LP, under your friend Bill Redpath and his criminal cronies, has become irredeemably corrupt and not worth caring about. So I voted for the lesser of five evils.

I will have you know that I originally wrote in Ron Paul, but there was a problem with my ballot (a machine-printed dot on one of the write-in ballot lines for a low-level office). On being given a second chance, I voted for Barr. I took it as an omen that voting for Paul (which would not have counted) was a bad idea and I chose the least repugnant candidate.”

GE, I think that you made a bad decision by voting for Barr. Your vote sent out a message (even though it was just one vote out of millions of people it still sent out a message) that all of the shenanigans from the Barr campaign and from LP National are OK with you. Your vote will not be interpeted by them as you voting for whom you percieved to be the least toxic candidate on the ballot, it will be interpeted as an endorsement of Bob Barr, the people that surround him, and the manner in which they conducted their campaign. Judging from your posts over the last few months you are clearly unhappy with the Barr campaign and with LP National, so it would have been better if your actions on election day reflected your that. It would have been better if you had left the Presidential section of your ballot blank.

I happened to vote in a state where Ron Paul was officially registered as a write-in candidate, so that is why I wrote in Ron Paul. Had Ron Paul not officially been a write-in candidate I probably would have left the Presidential part of my ballot blank.

I sure as hell was not going to reward the Barr campaign and LP National for the shit that they’ve pulled over the last year. You having voted for Barr kind of undermines your criticisms of the Barr campaign and LP National since you voting for the LP Presidential candidate in spite of Barr is the same thing that you would have done had the LP nominated a good Libertarian candidate (like say Mary Ruwart) this year.

“That, I’m afraid, was NOT protectionist-idiot Baldwin.”

While I know that Baldwin has some flaws from a libertarian standpoint, I’m not convinced that Barr is better than Baldwin. If anything, I suspect that Baldwin (flaws and all) is more libertarian and more trustworty than Barr.

That strikes me as a double standard.

Why publicly trash the party? Are you somehow gaining something for the broader Libertarian movement? I disagreed with Ron Paul’s decision to endorse Baldwin. I wrote a blog explaining my position, I ceased supporting the C4L until after the election, and voted for Barr (I might not have if I though he would get elected, but what mattered was the Libertarian vote total).

That was sufficient. One does not have to spasticly joust at every windmill he sees to be consistantly opposed to windmills.

Oh, snap! Did I type that out loud? lol

Good. We agree there.

*Your* government should level the field and tax and regulate imports from Cuba just as Cuba taxed and regulated imports from the U.S..

In what sense does this ‘level the field’? It punishes the would-be consumers of Cuban goods.

Trade is still allowed.

Not free trade. Managed trade.

The U.S. simply retaliated on behalf of U.S. based companies to show the Cuban government that the U.S. government does not appreciate the Cuban government taxing and regulating imports from the U.S..

What if the American companies don’t want ‘retaliation’ on their ‘behalf’? What if American consumers don’t want retaliation?

Those taxes and regulations prevent proper pricing for sales and impedes true market value for goods and/or services.

Well, yes, exactly. And the American ones compound the problem.

If Cuba attacks Florida, I would expect the U.S. government to retaliate on behalf of the state of Florida.

It a form of aggression against Florida from Cuba. Taxation and regulation of U.S. based companies is aggression of the Cuban government against U.S. based companies. I have no problem with the U.S. government responding in kind.

Taxation and regulation of trade by a government is a form of aggression against the citizens of that particular country, not against another country.

Yes, an unfortunate mix of terminology on my part. Minarchists don’t normally call themselves statists, but technically they are.