Starchild does not represent the Libertarian Party.

He does not represent me.

He does not represent you.

The only way ANYONE could use his theater to embarrass YOU… is if you take ownership of the “shame”. It is YOU that accepts any shame. It is you, and you alone, that is responsible for any shame you feel. It is you and you alone that is responsible for adding any more shame to the public gestalt of shame.

Stop assuming Starchild is your responsibility and get on with your campaign. That is if you actually have a campaign.

LG – YOU are a grandma? ) WOW. Like me, you ARE NOT old enough.

I wish your family the best possible outcome, and y’all have my best wishes; plenty of bright, healing light from The Real Washington (TM).

You start from an undemonstrated assertion, namely that most Americans currently prefer radical change that is not directed at mainstream concerns.

I don’t recall making any such assertion, since I don’t believe that to be the case. Can you please quote what made you think I made such an assertion?

There is a difference between showing the mainstream voter how Libertarian principles benefit them specifically, and tailoring your principles to fit temporary voter profiles. I am arguing for the former, while you are erroneously accusing me of supporting the latter.

Again, I don’t recall making any such accusation. Would you please quote it?

Libertarian principles do apply to the mainstream voter. Reagan won the Presidency by tieing principles he had advocated for decades to the concerns of the average voter. Compared to the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party, Reagan was far more libertarian.

I dispute that assertion. I think that on social issues and foreign policy/military spending, Reagan was less libertarian than the establishment, whereas on economic policy he was full of rhetoric he never lived up to. I could get into the argument of whether redistributing wealth upwards and the tax burden downwards is a libertarian economic policy, as well.

I would argue that Reagan has shown that a platform of radically smaller government (note: radically) and radically more personal freedom will be radically appealing to the mainstream voter IF SOLD CORRECTLY.

Please go ahead and argue for this assertion, then.

When did Reagan argue for “radically more personal freedom”?

And when you say he argued for “radically smaller government,” can you be more specific?

You will not win if you arrogantly assume that the voters will come to you….because you are so brilliant that by merely being on the ballot and radical, the voters will pull the lever to bet their families, their homes, their jobs, their futures on a radical idea….because it is radical.

Again, you are arguing against an argument I have not made.

Most people are risk averse.

Thus, unlikely to risk voting for an unknown, untested party that they haven’t voted for before and which promises major changes.

However, not all people are risk-averse.

Logically, the ones who are much less risk-averse than the average person are much more likely to risk voting for an alternative party.

I would happily lose your single vote in a hypothetical election in order to garner the thousands likely gained by addressing mainstream concerns rather than fringe, trivial, and irrelevant issues.

What makes you think that gaining those thousands of votes for each one you lose is “likely”? Do you have any actual evidence for this?

What is that, exactly?

May its followers legitimately be called “libertarianists”?

Another reason for Libertarians to support Prop 14 — both the child-molesting faction and the anti-molestation factions can put up candidates to the general public.

The party than can see which stand on molestation draws more votes, and modify the platform accordingly at the next convention.

Thanks for the assinine comment.

Of course, if prop 14/88 passes, that will be the end of Libertarians (and other third party and independent candidates) on the November ballot (when far more voters pay attention than during the primary). And there’s no “child-molesting faction.”

I don’t think it should wait till tomorrow

I just realized: it IS tomorrow. Article coming right up.

But generally speaking, I try to limit my addictive tendencies (including posting here) as well as allow some room for the other IPR writers to post articles.

The party than can see which stand on molestation draws more votes, and modify the platform accordingly at the next convention.

There is a difference between showing the mainstream voter how Libertarian principles benefit them specifically, and tailoring your principles to fit temporary voter profiles.
I am arguing for the former, while you are erroneously accusing me of supporting the latter.

Libertarian principles do apply to the mainstream voter. Reagan won the Presidency by tieing principles he had advocated for decades to the concerns of the average voter. Compared to the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party, Reagan was far more libertarian. I would argue that Reagan has shown that a platform of radically smaller government (note: radically) and radically more personal freedom will be radically appealing to the mainstream voter IF SOLD CORRECTLY. You will not sell it correctly if you do not show the typical voter how libertarian principles relate to their concerns.
You will not win if you arrogantly assume that the voters will come to you….because you are so brilliant that by merely being on the ballot and radical, the voters will pull the lever to bet their families, their homes, their jobs, their futures on a radical idea….because it is radical.
Most people are risk averse. They buy various types of insurance, even when uncoerced to do so. They eat unhealthy food at chain restaurants…because they know what they are getting, and as average as it is, it is a known. They pay extra for brand name merchandise, because when they buy the brand it is a guarantee of a certain level of value. Anyone with an introductory course in economic theory should understand this phenomenon. To ignore it indicates that you have little grasp of politics.
I would happily lose your single vote in a hypothetical election in order to garner the thousands likely gained by addressing mainstream concerns rather than fringe, trivial, and irrelevant issues.

This country is on the brink of losing its fundamental freedoms, and along with them its prosperity. Those are my concerns, those are the concerns of the vast majority of Americans, and it damn well better be your concerns if you intend to see this party through to successfully capturing some degree of political power in the next two national elections.

But I don’t think it should wait till tomorrow because of some daily story quota. Nor I don’t think the article should wait for a Phillies contribution. I’d suggest putting something up now and updating it later when Phillies posts a video.

A lot of people will probably want to comment on this LP Chair’s debate.

If I’m the first one to get to it, I’ll retitle it.

Also, if Dr. Phillies would like to record a response, I can post that as well.

Thanks for the tip – it will be.

I think I’ve posted enough stories for today, although of course other IPR writers are welcome (and invited) to beat me to the punch and post it first.

If not, I’ll post it tomorrow.

This should be an IPR story:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/065099-2010-02-15-ernest-hancock-vs-wayne-allen-root.htm

This is part of an article I wrote some years ago, the rest of which is trapped in the bowels of a mySQL database that used to run an obsolete version of one of my sites. I’m posting it here because I intend to refer to it in comments elsewhere.

Excerpt:

The cargo cults are religions (or something resembling religions) which took root in South Pacific Islands after WWII. Observing that Westerners had such amenities as refrigerators, air conditioners, etc., and that Westerners were brought shiny new things by airplanes, the cargo cultists hypothesized a connection. They built elaborate replicas of technological devices — refrigerators of wood and bamboo which looked exactly like the Kenmore^[TM] in your kitchen, in the hopes that, if they looked and acted enough like Westerners, the airplanes would arrive with shiny new stuff for them. Yes, this is an over-simplification, but it’ll do for the point I’m trying to make.

Cargo Cult Libertarians observe that successful Republican and Democrat politicans wear suits and power ties, that successful Republican and Democrat politicians exude confidence, that successful Republican and Democrat politicians shy from the radical, and that successful Republican and Democrat politicians take a smooth, milquetoast, middle of the road, “well, Bob” approach in media interviews.

From this, they hypothesize that if they, as Libertarians, wear suits and power ties, exude confidence, shy from the radical, and take a smooth, milquetoast, middle of the road, “well, Bob” approach in media interviews and public appearances, that they will magically become successful Libertarian politicians.

Needless to say, it doesn’t work that way. Voters who want cuddly, well-dressed, moderate, confidence-exuding, “well Bob” politicians already have them. We call them Republicans and Democrats. The LP’s future, if it has one, lies precisely with those Americans who sense a need for a radical, in your face, “well, Bob, fuck the conventional wisdom” alternative.

Notes:

While I still think the above is solid, I also believe I drew some erroneous conclusions from it at the time. To clarify: I don’t have anything against suits, power ties, confidence or smooth rhetorical delivery per se.

What I do have a problem with is the idea that any of those things trump, or can be usefully substituted for, libertarianism in a libertarian campaign.

I don’t believe that libertarian ideas can only succeed if they’re disguised and smuggled in rather than openly advocated. I don’t believe that libertarian ideas can be implemented in the real world by jettisoning them at the first hint of controversy.

And I sure as hell don’t believe that the Libertarian Party should submit to extortion on the part of Cargo Cultists whose main threat is “if you don’t ditch your libertarian presidential candidates and nominate a Cargo Cultist, we’ll …. TALK ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM!” Just because Cargo Cultists find libertarianism embarrassing and controversial, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us do too.

Now, granted, my strong preference this year is to run a “mainstream” campaign for Congress, focusing on issues that American voters care about and that large numbers of American voters tend toward the libertarian side of: Ending the war on Iraq, cutting taxes, repealing the USA PATRIOT ACT, ending marriage apartheid, etc. Not non-libertarian ideas, but rather the libertarian ideas that are most likely to elicit a positive response. Leading with your most timely and popular positions just makes sense.

But … I don’t negotiate with terrorists. When the Cargo Cultists tell me that if my party doesn’t nominate one of their ilk for president they’ll spend the summer and fall hyping the issues they find embarrassing, my reaction is simple: Go for it, and right back at ya.

To put it a different way:

- If the Libertarian Party nominates a libertarian (Steve Kubby or Mary Ruwart, for example) for president, I’ll happily spend the summer and fall campaigning on ending the war on Iraq, cutting taxes, repealing the USA PATRIOT ACT, ending marriage apartheid, etc., exactly as I expect that presidential candidate will.

- If, on the other hand, the Libertarian Party nominates one of the Cargo Cultists’ preferred candidates [bolded material edited after initial publication] (Wayne Allyn Root or Bob Barr, for example) for president, I may just forego my own campaign aspirations and instead spend my time promoting the presidential campaign … by circulating brochures featuring private ownership of nukes and legal heroin for six-year-olds.

Go ahead. Try me.

Sure, I don’t see why not.

Right, but for Starchild we’d be winning presidential elections?

See

http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/05/excerpt-and-notes-cargo-cult.html

To go after “the fringe” at the expense of the majority is political suicide.

The majority are those who tend to be happy with the status quo.

We need to reach those who are not.