“2) I can’t agree that the LP is perceived as being part of the “religious” right. Our positions have been consistently pro-choice and pro- personal freedom, and I’m pretty sure the LP has never invoked any deities in its publications or national meetings.”

If the basis of libertarian thought is the zero aggression principle then libertarians should be pro-life. Killing a baby, no matter how old is definitely an act of agression. I’ve seen many libertarians try to argue the issue on the basis of property rights, as if the baby is a trespasser on the mother’s property (her womb) this is a fallacious argument.

I consider myself a pretty moderate libertarian but on the issue of abortion I strongly disagree with the LP platform. The platform basically says the issue should be left up to individuals, as if they somehow have to right to kill another person merely because they’re inconveniencing them.

I agree completely with your motives and goals, so (in typical Libertarian fashion) I’ll only write about a few disagreements about strategy and tactics.

1) You say Ed Clark’s presidential candidacy turned you into a Libertarian, and then you say we shouldn’t run presidential candidates. I want more people like you in the LP, so I favor running more Ed Clarks for president.

2) I can’t agree that the LP is perceived as being part of the “religious” right. Our positions have been consistently pro-choice and pro- personal freedom, and I’m pretty sure the LP has never invoked any deities in its publications or national meetings.

3) Libertarian campaign resources aren’t really fungible in the way you seem to think they are. Nearly all LP campaigns are self-financed by our candidates, and there isn’t much hope in getting our candidates to stand down en masse and focus their resources on a few races. However, there is an LP organization that seeks to focus LP contributions in a similar way: http://www.lncc.org/. I hope that all Libertarians who favor your strategy will donate generously to this effort.

4) I agree that being a swing minority voting bloc in a legislature could help us move public policy. I think the same is true for being a swing voting bloc in elections themselves. I agree with a strategy of not opposing a major-party candidate when 1) he is sufficiently better than his major-party opponent and 2) the absence of LP opposition could plausibly tip the race to him. The Republican poster child here would obviously be Ron Paul. Who would you say is the Democrat poster child?

5) I agree that now is a great time to weaken the Republican Party and recruit from the debris, but we must do so in a way that doesn’t make us seem more conservative/Right. Our branding must always say that we are the only choice that is neither Left nor Right, neither liberal nor conservative.

6) Deference to the LP’s anarchists prevents the LP itself from officially saying very much in response to your excellent questions about the purpose of the State, how to reform taxes, etc. However, our Platform now gives room to both minarchist and anarchist candidates to offer their own best answers to your questions. My favorite answers are to promote 1) a strict interpretation of the Constitution and 2) a Green Tax Shift: http://knowinghumans.net/2008/01/tax-bads-and-untax-goods-with-green-tax.html

and best wishes for PROGRESS

in the real world!

1. How should ballot access laws be fixed ?

2. Beyond movements and interests what role does a third party ever realistically play ?

3. What have you run for recently or helped with ?

4. How does ‘meaningful’ immediately parlay into practical realism ?

5. Media expectation is driven by results which typically only fall into an either/or scenario. Will you bring in a new breed of liberty candidate who can wield this issue ?

6. How do other debating societies around the world fare when doing things all political ?