By John Spivey at the Whited Sepulchre:
As Chair of a County Libertarian Party, I’ve seen tremendous gains in our local libertarian scene. We’ve gone from 6 members meeting every two years to affirm a handful of pre-nominated and non-contested candidates to a group whose grassroots ranks are numbering in the triple digits, alliances with philosophically aligned ‘major’ political party campaigns and supporting candidates who, doggone it, looks like they have a very legitimate chance to win an election to a high office in the county’s largest city (population 700,000-ish)! Libertarian straight ticket voters increased by a greater margin than the overall increase in total voters in this Obama-fueled electionapalooza. Straight ticket Democrats increased, but not as much as the overall total. Even with the total turnout increasing by over 60% in our county, straigh ticket GOP voters, DECREASED by about 4%. Seems like the GOP’s message of warfare state, daddy-state smack downs of civil liberties and personal freedoms, exclusivity and intolerance is wearing thin. Even in this formerly deeply red county.
However, truth be told, in saying that, it’s like saying that our regular savage beatings by two large giants are slightly less savage and by slightly smaller giants. Until we do a few things, we’re still going to get smacked, but, as you may have read, David gets his eventually. First, since the LP caters to no special interest group, we’re not going to get much in the way of mega-corporate/union ‘sponsorship’. No biggie, since Ron Paul showed that you can raise $35 million, one person at a time. The trick is getting those donors over to our side. Tough to do when the LP Presidential candidate, Bob Barr, basically bitch slapped the good Doctor during election time. However, I believe with time, that wound will heal and those Republicans will leave the GOP and find their proper home with us. They bring money, volunteerism and best of all – infectious and rabid enthusiasm!
Also, we’re going to have to work to improve our image. Taking the “Apple vs. PC” advertisement as an example, we’re definitely the ‘PC’ guy. We HAVE to get ‘cool’. Generally speaking, that means getting celebrities to flog our message. Penn and Teller are OK, John Stossel is better, but what we really need is a Leo DiCaprio or two to bang our drum like they do for Rev. Al Gore. Cultural relevancy.
It will take time. Hopefully not as much time as Cato Insitute studies report that New Deal programs prolonged The Great Depression (eight extra years). But eventually, our message of sound monetary policy, sane fiscal policies, peace and personal freedom will find its place in the mainstream of American politics. It may take some failures of nationalized industries first. Ayn Rand may have not been too far off the mark. I hope we can get going before Atlas goes into full shrug.
I’m becoming more and more convinced that we must take a bottom up approach. We’re just going to have to win some local races first folks. That means locally, you’ll need to support our candidates with your time and money – and of course, votes! My toast for the new year and for libertarian victory nationally? Bottom(s) up!
Spivey is party chair in Tarrant Co., Texas, which includes Fort Worth.
77 responses so far ↓
1 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 11:28 am
We should focus on principled populism. We should also depose of incompetent chairmen.
2 Thomas M. Sipos // Dec 28, 2008 at 11:34 am
Tough to do when the LP Presidential candidate, Bob Barr, basically bitch slapped the good Doctor during election time. However, I believe with time, that wound will heal and those Republicans will leave the GOP and find their proper home with us.
Your error is in thinking that Ron Paul appealed to traditional Republicans.
Ron Paul sparked a revolution the day he stood up against the war during that debate. The one in which Giuliani went ballistic, and Paul refused to back down.
The Ron Paul Revolution was fueled by an aggressively, blatant antiwar stance.
Barr reached out to traditional Republicans. Big mistake.
And Root, who’s trying to distance himself from Barr’s failure, is even worse. Root’s constantly appearing on Fox News as a welcome guest.
Guess what? If the Fox News crowd likes Root, it’s a guarantee that the majority of Paul fans will not like Root.
Root claims (recently) that’s he’s becoming more radical. I’m sure his book will try to spin himself as Paul II, and simultaneously as whatever else Root thinks will get him votes.
But unless Root, or the LP, embrace an in your face, blatant, no apologies, antiwar stance, the kind that makes Fox News and right-wing radio sick to its stomach, they won’t win over Paul supporters.
3 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 11:38 am
Your error is in thinking that Ron Paul appealed to traditional Republicans.
I did not read Spivey’s post as either saying or implying that.
4 VirtualGalt // Dec 28, 2008 at 11:44 am
We do need to get some people running for local races.
In my town, there were several races that were Unopposed. Knowing some of the people, it’s not like the incumbents were Christ Himself or something.
My personal thought was holding off till 2012 or 2014. But I may accelerate that.
I can see running for a US House/Senate or Governor race if the intention was to build name recognition for a state legislative race.
I wish my state party had it together. But they do not. They don’t return my emails and I have no idea when — if — they ever do anything. Maybe I should start a county chapter, and…
5 Ross Levin // Dec 28, 2008 at 11:48 am
There’s a large and growing “legalize it” movement on the left. This could potentially be a boon for the LP if they made themselves an ally.
6 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 11:50 am
You can’t ally with a movement. It just is
7 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 11:53 am
There’s a large and growing “legalize it†movement on the left.
Legalize…drugs?
If so, it’s far from just being on the left; libertarians have long been very involved.
8 Trent Hill // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Your error is in thinking that Ron Paul appealed to traditional Republicans.”
For the record, Paul DID appeal to the Trads (traditionalists)–just not the ESTABLISHMENT Republicans.
9 Ross Levin // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Legalize marijuana. The more conservative you get, the more support there is. That is, there’s the most support for legalizing medical marijuana, there’s still a good amount for legalizing marijuana, and then legalizing other drugs is considerably less popular.
And I’m sure libertarians have been promoting this for a while, but a large amount of liberals/progressive/Democrats are now starting to embrace it.
You can ally with the people and organizations within a movement.
10 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I think we should legalize all drugs.
11 Melty Rox // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Yes! The LP needs to stop shying away from the message of legalization of marijuana. The Party need only advocate freedom for soft drugs for now, and now and how. It seems only the Greens got the guts to bring it up. I don’t know, but it seems to me this is neglect, or failure, on the part of Andrew Davis and Bill Redpath to give voice to current Party Platform stance on drugs.
12 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Quite obvious you’ve never read the LP platform.
Let me guess, you’re a green socialist?
13 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:17 pm
And I’m sure libertarians have been promoting this for a while, but a large amount of liberals/progressive/Democrats are now starting to embrace it.
You can ally with the people and organizations within a movement.
We do. Many of the most prominent people in drug policy reform are libertarians, and those who aren’t libertarians are well aware of their presence. In fact, this is how many of us (me included) became libertarians to begin with.
14 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Paulie, you became a libertarian because you want drug legalization? That’s one of the most pathetic things I have ever read.
15 Melty Rox // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Thomas is right. The strong anti-war message. We hear about the economy without mention of the expense of empire these days from LP spokesmen.
16 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:22 pm
It’s more important to maintain a strong anti-state message.
17 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:22 pm
principled populism wouldn’t hurt
18 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Thomas is right. The strong anti-war message. We hear about the economy without mention of the expense of empire these days from LP spokesmen.
I agree that we should emphasize peace and civil liberties issues more, as well as explaining our economic positions better to people coming from the left. It’s mostly a matter of emphasis and terminology.
19 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:27 pm
We shouldn’t leave Iraq & Afghanistan. We should dismantle their states, and replace them, with nothing. You can’t say you ever heard this plan before. I’m trying to come up with new ideas, not act like Paulie and regurgitate everything Ron Paul says.
20 Ross Levin // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:30 pm
So basically you spew different phrases based on nothing?
21 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Ross: bingo.
22 42 // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I myself think it’s absurd that gay people overwhelmingly supported Obama. I suppose he is better for them than McCain, but even he is against gay marriage.
Being that the LP is all about civil liberties, and the gays are not on our side, we apparently aren’t doing something right.
From asking around, I find that the average voter doesn’t even know what a Libertarian is. The average voter “might” have recognized the name “Nader”, but probably never heard of the other candidates, let alone knew their stances.
23 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I myself think it’s absurd that gay people overwhelmingly supported Obama. I suppose he is better for them than McCain, but even he is against gay marriage.
Not completely absurd. They are far from being the only constituency that supports one of the big parties (for the most part), only because the other one is even worse.
Being that the LP is all about civil liberties, and the gays are not on our side, we apparently aren’t doing something right.
I agree, we apparently are not doing something, right.
24 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:37 pm
From asking around, I find that the average voter doesn’t even know what a Libertarian is.
That is actually not nearly as bad as it used to be a few years ago. The name recognition of the clunky term is way up, but the party’s ability to capitalize on that has not occurred – at least yet.
25 Melty Rox // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I’ve read Platforms 2004, 2006 and 2008. Under “Personal Liberty” there’s terse blanket coverage without use of “drugs” or “sex” specifically, Joseph. What’s up your ass?
26 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I’ve been considering where left leaning and radical libertarians might go if we are completely pushed out of the LP by a Republican influx.
From a conversation at Ballot Access News.
P= me
PS = Phil Sawyer
ED=E*** D****** R*******
27 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Conversation continues….
Phil Sawyer responds:
The anarchists of the left have been trying to do that (lead us) for a long time. I have been trying to tell them to go join the Libertarian Party and leave the rest of us alone.
If people want anarchy, they should go live in Mexico.
I respond:
Mexico doesn’t have anarchy, they have a gang of thugs which collects protection money, interferes with peaceful people, and calls itself a government just like the US does.
Even if that was not the case, there is no reason that peaceful people should have to move thousands of miles, leave behind their families, friends, jobs and communities just because armed thugs claim illegitimate “turf†there.
I see no more reason to move anywhere due to the existence of the armed gang known as the US regime, any more than I see a reason to move because of armed gangs known as Bloods, Crips, MS13, mafia, triads, yakuza, local police departments, hell’s angels, vice lords, gang disciples, etc.
There is, of course, no moral difference whatsoever between these gangs.
The proper solution to living in a gang-infested neighborhood, city, bioregion, continent, hemisphere or planet is to help shut the gangs down. Moving is suboptimal, and moving onto another gang’s self-proclaimed turf does not solve the problem.
By the way, although Brad Spangler (who wrote the section in bold above) is an anarchist like me, as noted in comment 24, there is nothing to that strategy that would not also apply to limited government libertarians as well.
As he says, For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps…
Phil Sawyer says, “The anarchists of the left have been trying to do that (lead us) for a long time. I have been trying to tell them to go join the Libertarian Party and leave the rest of us alone.”
Actually, Phil, we’re probably coming your way in larger numbers, since the Libertarian Party seems intent on kicking us out so they can try to bring in more right wing Republicans.
I like names like Green and Peace and Freedom better than libertarian anyway, at least they are words the average person can pronounce: and those words are wholly compatible with what I believe in, even though the current platforms of those parties are not.
Perhaps it’s time to revive the libertarian caucus in the peace and freedom party … it was before my time, but I understand there were quite a few libertarians and anarchists in the Peace and Freedom party before 1974.
Since many Libertarians want to go in a Republican direction, and Peace and Freedom wants to be a national party again, maybe real libertarians should join the peace and freedom party. And with a name like that, it would be more true to its name if it became a libertarian party (to oppose corporatism, church/state, war/militarism/imperialism, and bureaucracy/regime; support small business, workers cooperatives, social liberalism/liberation, peace, and privately organized community self defense).
28 42 // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:56 pm
tl;dr
I’ve always thought of it as the best of both worlds. Conservative with the money, and Liberal with the freedom.
29 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Dismantling the states of Iraq & Afghanistan is based on nothing? It’s actually based on the philosophy of anarchism and voluntary social interaction. The US created those corrupt governments, so we can shut them down. Then we just allow the people to be free, to voluntarily associate, to build voluntary societies, to freely trade, a truly clean slate and a chance for the free market.
30 LibertarianGirl // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:06 pm
LJ:_Paulie, you became a libertarian because you want drug legalization? That’s one of the most pathetic things I have ever read.
I geuss that makes me pathetic as well , as I got my start as a drug war reformer and anti-prison activist when I got asked to speak at a LP meeting . At the time I had no idea what a libertarian was.
not everyone got here by reading Ayn Rand in college and/or studying austrian economics
31 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I’m not, LG. I became a libertarian because I agreed with it that it truly is the correct set of economic politics. I’ve since branched out into other areas and am now coming up with my own ideas.
32 LibertarianGirl // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:08 pm
saving people from cages for non-crimes is noble , not pathetic.
33 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:09 pm
policies*
34 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:09 pm
You can be for drug legalization and not be a libertarian.
35 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Look, the most you will get in the forseeable future is the legalization of medical marijuana. That’s about it. I hope you’re not clinging to outright legalization.
The best we can hope for is a total financial collapse of the US economy that prevents the US government from enforcing its drug laws.
36 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:13 pm
foreseeable*
37 LibertarianGirl // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Since Ive been a drug war reformer , I have seen changes I never thought possible . Medical pot is a given now . Personal use pot is the on its way out now .
Here in Nevada in the last 10 yrs its gone from 1 seed being a felony to an oz or less being a misdemeanor and 4 oz or less a gross misdemeanor.
thats progress!:)
its not the liberty ideal I dream about being the norm some day , but its sure moving in that direction .
38 LibertarianGirl // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:20 pm
. Personal use pot is the on its way out now .
I mean the illegality of
39 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Alright. In NJ, no matter how minor the drug charge,you lose your driver’s license, even if you weren’t even driving. It’s pretty bad :p
40 LibertarianGirl // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I don’t think the trouble lies with convincing States to change drug laws , it is evident that is happening now.
The trouble comes in getting the feds to recognize those laws .
41 LibertarianGirl // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm
It doesnt mean much to have a medical pot license if the Federal gov can still arrest you
42 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I geuss that makes me pathetic as well , as I got my start as a drug war reformer and anti-prison activist when I got asked to speak at a LP meeting . At the time I had no idea what a libertarian was.
not everyone got here by reading Ayn Rand in college and/or studying austrian economics
I would never even have considered Austrian economics at all if it were not for libertarian involvement in the drug policy reform movement, although I’m into Austrian economics now.
From my bio:
43 michaels // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:33 pm
First, since the LP caters to no special interest group, we’re not going to get much in the way of mega-corporate/union ’sponsorship’.
Is this true? It seems to me there are a number of areas where the LP position aligns with corporations, especially when it comes to reducing regulations and taxes. I wonder if it is worth it for the LP to target heavily regulated industries such as the Pharma industry.
44 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The LP used to call for getting rid of government granted corporate charters and non-concensual limited liability. It should do so again, and make it a central issue.
45 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:37 pm
It doesnt mean much to have a medical pot license if the Federal gov can still arrest you
The feds have limited enforcement budgets…98% of all arrests are state and local. So it does mean something, even though getting the feds to respect their 9th and 10th amendments on this would be a big positive step.
46 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:39 pm
The LP should talk about allowing citizens to “opt out” of the US and state governments. That’s an important issue for me.
47 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Conversation at BAN (see comments 26-7) continues
Phil Sawyer: Most of the libertarian people left the Peace and Freedom Party of California after 1974 (and formed the Libertarian Party of California) because the socialists and communists in the Peace and Freedom Party won the power struggle. PFP-CA has been since that time a party that officially promotes socialist democracy. Speaking for myself and many Party members, we do not want the anarchists and libertarians (many of whom are simply anarchists in business suits) back in our Party. Just do your own thing and leave us alone, thank you very much.
Oh well, whatever happens will be the new reality. I am also a member of the Communist Party USA. CPUSA utilizes democratic centralism as the primary operating procedure. My intuition tells me that you all will not be asking for membership in that Party. I am not too worried about the Peace and Freedom Party dealing with a bunch of anarchists and libertarians. We have plenty of spirited debates among the various factions as it is and a few more factions should not do much more harm (hopefully).
Me (awaiting moderation):
PS] Most of the libertarian people left the Peace and Freedom Party of California after 1974 (and formed the Libertarian Party of California)
p] LP CA was already formed before that.
PS] because the socialists and communists in the Peace and Freedom Party won the power struggle.
P] I know. That’s why I am proposing revisiting that mistake and having the libertarian/anarchists win this time.
PS] PFP-CA has been since that time a party that officially promotes socialist democracy.
P] Hopefully that will not be the case for too much longer.
PS] Speaking for myself and many Party members, we do not want the anarchists and libertarians (many of whom are simply anarchists in business suits) back in our Party.
P] Well, we many of us did not want the Libertarian Party to become so Republicanized, but you can’t always get what you want.
48 LibertarianGirl // Dec 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm
but if you try sometimes , you might find you get what you need:)
49 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 28, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Yeah, I know that song
50 johncjackson // Dec 28, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I don’t really get “economic libertarians” who see drug legalization as so far-fetched. While the mainstream view is that “drugs are bad,mmkay. save the children”, millions of people have had mostly or entirely positive experiences with illegal substances or legal substances used “illegally.” I would assume that more people sympathize with victims of the Drug War and see the point of legalizing/decriminalizing at least pot than those who understand free market economics let alone embrace it.
Advocating legalization of drugs ( including all hard drugs) is no more a fantasy than advocating the elimination of the income tax/IRS/FED/whatever. Both/all should be advocated.
51 JimDavidson // Dec 28, 2008 at 6:40 pm
@26 Eric Rittberg (aka Dondero) writes, “8 of 9 of all past Libertarian Party Presidential candidates came from the Republican Party, or have since returned to the GOP.”
Eight out of 9 would be 89%. I’ve been able to demonstrate that Rittberg is full of crap before on these percentages. Let’s see how it turns out this time.
The last 9 presidential candidates of the LP were: Barr and Phillies, Badnarik, Browne and L. Neil Smith, Browne, Andre Marrou, Ron Paul, and David Bergland. Of these, Barr and Paul are identifiably from or to the GOP. That would be 2 out of 9.
I can find no information to suggest Phillies was ever a Republican. I find no evidence of Badnarik, Smith, Browne, Marrou, or Bergland having been or becoming Republicans.
There are only three others to work with, Ed Clark, Roger MacBride, and John Hospers. MacBride was a Republican elector in 1972 when he went faithless and gave Hospers his electoral vote (the largest number of electoral votes by any LP presidential nominee: 1).
I don’t find any information to suggest Clark was ever a Republican. His wikipedia page, for example, makes no mention of this word. Although I can find no mention of Hospers being a Republican, I note he rather stupidly endorsed GW Bush in 2004. In his endorsement, he makes no mention of having become a Republican. So, I don’t credit him as one.
So, I come up with a grand total of 12 candidates who have appeared on the ballot in at least one state as the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party. I find 3 of them, Paul, MacBride, and Barr, ever were or ever became Republicans. That makes 3/12 = 1/4 = 25%. And not 89%.
So, Mr. Eric Dondero Dumb-ass Rittberg doesn’t seem to be able to do math. Kinda sad. You’d think the Navy might have drummed some into him.
52 JimDavidson // Dec 28, 2008 at 6:43 pm
@26 Rittberg again “3. The 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential ticket was made up of two Republicans: Bob Barr and Wayne Root.”
Was Wayne Root actively a Republican at the time of his running on the LP ticket in November? I suspect everything Rittberg says is false.
“4. 10 out of 11 of all Libertarian State Legislators ever elected to office, were either elected as dual-party Republicans, or caucused with the Republican Party immediately upon being sworn into office.”
Well, gosh, that sounds like yet another number pulled out of Rittberg’s sphincter.
53 TheOriginalAndy // Dec 28, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Thomas Sipos said: “Guess what? If the Fox News crowd likes Root, it’s a guarantee that the majority of Paul fans will not like Root.
Root claims (recently) that’s he’s becoming more radical. I’m sure his book will try to spin himself as Paul II, and simultaneously as whatever else Root thinks will get him votes.
But unless Root, or the LP, embrace an in your face, blatant, no apologies, antiwar stance, the kind that makes Fox News and right-wing radio sick to its stomach, they won’t win over Paul supporters.”
YOU JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!
54 GaryChartier // Dec 29, 2008 at 11:45 am
@43 But the pharma industry relies heavily on the enormous state subsidy provided indirectly through the patent system. Taking a genuinely anti-state position isn’t going to win any friends in this industry.
55 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 11:53 am
That isn’t the only type of regime help the pharma industry gets. It’s heavily regulated to keep out the competition, and ensure protectionism of the existing players. They are making megabucks and the last thing they want to do is have a real free market in their industry.
56 George Phillies // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“I can find no information to suggest Phillies was ever a Republican.”
My original party registration, in New York in time for the 1966 election, was “Conservative”. That’s “Conservative” before the conservative movement was taken over by the warmongers, the war-crimes-advocates, the racists, the drug warriors, and the folks who want our daughters to die in back-all abortions.
If Barry Goldwater were alive and well, he would long since have joined our Libertarian party.
57 hogarth // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:49 pm
But unless Root, or the LP, embrace an in your face, blatant, no apologies, antiwar stance, the kind that makes Fox News and right-wing radio sick to its stomach, they won’t win over Paul supporters.
Root could make some interesting waves within the LP if he did this. It’s not impossible to imagine, but it may make his early mentors in the Party uncomfortable.
58 tarrantlibertyguy // Dec 29, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Hey – I’ll answer a few questions…
LibJo – I agree with a focus on downstream elections, and libertarian based “principled populism”. And ouch – on the “deposing incompetent chairmen statement”. If that was directed at me, If I’m incompetent or exhibit malfeasence, I can be thrown out per our bylaws. I’d hope somebody here would tell me first though. I’m just trying to build up the libertarian movement in our formerly blood red county. I think everyone who embraces our philosophy has a place with us – even bitter LPers who throw bombs without investigation. I’d probably ask them to limit their public exposure to licking envelopes… (I KID, I KID!!)
Michaels: re: not aligning with mega-corp donors or unions, etc. Right, we’ll not get millions donated to our candidates through the Big Pharma/UAW/Financial Industry PACs/Teamsters/ACORN, etc… And a following post re: Pharma’s alignment WITH regulatory agencies sums it up well. However, there are a few big corp’s with founders who are described as libertarians (Fred Smith of FedEx; John Mackey of Whole Foods and many more). FedEx could definitely benefit from removing the monopoly powers of the USPS, for example. Why aren’t we exploiting these natural alignments that do not compromise our principles?
Thomas Sipos: the next reply to your post sums it up well… I categorize the GOP into two groups; the Ron Paul/Goldwater Republicans (I call them Republicans) and everyone else (I call them GOPers and their portion of the party is the GOP). Tradtional Republicans aka ‘Classical Liberals’ (Paulists) should be attracted to the LP.
Moving on – it looks like this devolves into a debate on high level national issues like War vs. Peace, etc… My take is, these things are VERY important. The LP is the Peace and Prosperity Party. It is about personal freedom and reducing the size and scope of government. However, it’s tough to take on the Big 2 on a national stage right now. Best for us to focus on the local/state scene – primarily local! When we begin winning high profile local non-partisan races; when we begin dethroning more and more entrenched Dems/GOPers; when we start shaking things up from the bottom – the cocoanuts at the top of the tree may eventually shake loose!
Lastly, I hope you’ll join me in ‘going out and doing stuff’ and not particpating in the endless debate over minutae that we libertarians are known for. Let’s stop arguing over crap and get to knocking on doors, making donations and putting out signs for local candidates!!
59 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 8:26 pm
You mean the Goldwater who was against the Civil Rights Act and supported “states’ rights”?
I want your daughters to stop being such sluts.
60 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Now, what fun would that be?
61 JimDavidson // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:28 pm
GE, I want your daughters not to be sluts. I want Paulie’s daughters to be complete sluts. Is that okay?
62 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Fine by me.
63 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:34 pm
You can want whatever you want, but it ain’t happening.
64 JimDavidson // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Paulie isn’t having any daughters? Or….?
65 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm
This is distasteful. Stop.
66 Trent Hill // Dec 30, 2008 at 1:19 am
It wasnt distateful to call Phillies’ (probably non-existent) duaghter’s sluts?
67 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 30, 2008 at 8:18 am
“we do not want the anarchists and libertarians (many of whom are simply anarchists in business suits)”
Uh, what? I don’t wear a business suit. I’m about as blue collar as you can get. I also pretty much live in the ghetto.
68 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 30, 2008 at 8:21 am
Then again, I am a former socialist. I’m not sure how I transformed into a libertarian. Just stumbled on the wikipedia page of libertarianism and went from there… It was odd. I was like, “how can they defend corporatism like this” it was hard for me to grasp because there are no small government people in my neighborhood or in my family. They’re all liberal to moderate-democrats
69 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 30, 2008 at 8:31 am
Socialists [or left-anarchists] in essence believe that you can bring on anarchism through abolishing capitalism by using the state as the tool for the job. Unfortunately, I believe that Karl Marx was attacking mercantilism and then calling it capitalism. Now we have a well established group of morons that attack and want to regulate or abolish voluntary cooperation. Not my cup of tea. I couldn’t go back to socialism, even if I wanted to.
70 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 30, 2008 at 8:35 am
the government partnered up with certain corporations. that’s how mercantilism started. hell, the british government invented corporation regulation, in order to be able to properly regulate them and keep track of their big money earners. They would then partner up with them and restrict competition in the industries. That’s what Marx was attacking. Mercantilism, but yet calling it capitalism. That’s some real ignorance right there
71 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 30, 2008 at 8:44 am
@58
I wasn’t calling you incompetent. I’m not even sure who you are lol. I just meant that wee need new strategy. Instead of waiting to be found by people, we should be looking for people. Take some notes from the socialists. Outright communism might have fell out of flavor, but they still have a huge activist base, they were working on getting Obama elected.
You’re more of a right-libertarian, I understand. Maybe you can pick up some disenfranchised repubs, but definately not that many traditionals, the social cons over at the repub party don’t want anything less than a federal ban on abortion and gay marriage, not libertarians ideals, if you ask me.
which state are you from?
72 G.E. // Dec 30, 2008 at 8:45 am
No, because they don’t exist and he brought them up by implying they would be “forced” into having “back alley abortions.”
73 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 30, 2008 at 8:49 am
I’m not pro-life because I honestly don’t care what strangers do with their fetuses. I only care about the goings on within my own circle.
74 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 30, 2008 at 8:51 am
It’s like if I read the news and it says a mother shot her kid. So? I don’t know them. I have no emotional connection there. My “law” has no jurisdiction there, imo
75 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 30, 2008 at 8:51 am
I’m over here, in my own “country”
76 G.E. // Dec 30, 2008 at 9:32 am
Then you don’t care if the government starts murdering Jews?
77 paulie cannoli // Dec 30, 2008 at 12:48 pm
#
JimDavidson // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:28 pm
GE, I want your daughters not to be sluts. I want Paulie’s daughters to be complete sluts. Is that okay?
#
62 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Fine by me.
#
63 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:34 pm
You can want whatever you want, but it ain’t happening.
I think GE may have missed the word not in the first comment?
And as for my daughters, assuming they exist (and they do, if I’m not infertile) – most of them are probably “sluts” – their mothers were, and their grandmothers, and their mothers and grandmothers…
And so am I.
Not just figuratively, either – why be discriminatory about it?
Not nearly as much opportunity these days, bust still almost as much motive…
Leave a Comment