National Committee Removes all Presidential Candidates from LP.org

From the Libertarian Party blog:

The candidates running for the Libertarian nomination for president have been removed per the vote of the Libertarian National Committee.

See the only one-sentence blog entry on the LP website in recent memory here.

————————————-

Interestingly, this decision is exactly the opposite of what the general membership apparently desires.  According to the most recent poll, the membership thinks all candidates should be listed, without qualification.

Here are the results of the most recent poll:

Should the Libertarian Party list presidential candidates at its web site?

Yes. List every Libertarian presidential candidate that we know of without qualification.
27% (712 votes)
Limited: List every candidate who is a dues-paying member of the LP and has a functioning web site.
21% (557 votes)
Limited: List every candidate who meets the above criteria, plus meets the approval of at least 5 LNC members.
16% (421 votes)
Limited: List every candidate who meets the criteria and is not disqualified by at least 12 (2/3rds) of LNC members.
15% (404 votes)
Limited: List every candidate who petitions LP members and gets at least 100 to approve their being listed.
10% (270 votes)
Use other limits, or do something else: Go to our Facebook page and post your ideas!
3% (68 votes)
No. Candidates should generate their own publicity and makes themselves known to LP members.
7% (191 votes)
Total votes: 2623

————————————-

198 thoughts on “National Committee Removes all Presidential Candidates from LP.org

  1. George Phillies

    Carla Howell asked them, while the LNC was already voting on a motion from the non-Hinkle faction.

    The effect, from Hinkle’s appointee as executive director, is to embarrass his opponents on the LNC.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    Apparently, the people who count the votes in this year’s Republican race taught the LNC how to respond to their poll.

  3. Brian Holtz

    I doubt the 48% who favor promiscuous linking know we’d be linking to campaign sites that

    • talk about the stigmata that once appeared on the candidate’s palms
    • advocate free health insurance and free eeducation for all
    • advocate building a border wall with Mexico
    • discuss the candidate’s conviction for stalking a female news anchor, his theory that the FBI framed him for his political views, his history of mental illness, his SSI disability, and his efforts to avoid homelessness
    • say it’s very important that all men vote for a female for President while all women vote for a male
    • don’t disclose the candidate’s felony conviction for attempted kidnapping
    • have a plan for LP electoral success built on spam and free vocational education
    • say the candidate is still learning campaign finance rules in this, his 5th consecutive presidential race

    Sadly, these are eight different candidates that I’m talking about.

  4. Dr. Tom Stevens

    Re: 7

    That sounds like a great list of interesting candidates although I doubt many LP delegates will vote for them unless they stand for other things in addition to those you listed.

  5. paulie

    Carla Howell asked them, while the LNC was already voting on a motion from the non-Hinkle faction.

    The effect, from Hinkle’s appointee as executive director, is to embarrass his opponents on the LNC.

    Is that the effect? If it were, one would hope that more of the LNC members would have voted differently than they did.

    93% want at least some of the candidates listed. Most of the votes appear to have been drawn from the LP’s email list, so there are relatively few random LP.org visitors in that 93%.

    Does the LNC majority care at all what such an overwhelming supermajority of their constituents want?

  6. paulie

    Who has the list of which Nat.Comm. members voted to remove the Presidential candidates from the site?

    I don’t have it yet, but I suspect (unless it was a secret vote) that it will be well publicized before and at the national convention.

  7. paulie

    I doubt the 48% who favor promiscuous linking know…

    Some do, some don’t, and some don’t care.

    Am I to understand, then, that you consider keeping the candidates that you don’t want listed off the site to be more important than it is to list the ones that you (at least in the prior threads, iirc) agree(d) should be listed?

    Most of the people on your list were already removed prior to this latest change.

  8. paulie

    Added to the Knapptionary:

    stupid adj. rationally ignorant

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

    From that link

    Ignorance about an issue is said to be “rational” when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so.

    93% want some or all of the candidates to be listed and the LNC majority takes the side of the 7%.

    Rational ignorance, from the definition above, implies having a choice. That is the exact opposite of what the LNC majority is giving the overwhelming majority of the party that have expressed an interest in having LP.org
    let them know what their choices are before they vote.

  9. William Saturn

    @7

    We all know who the fourth and fifth bullets refer to, but what about the others? Some of us are curious.

  10. Brian Holtz

    @14 To have the site say we’re not listing our candidates is almost as embarrassing as listing the embarrassing candidates. It’s good we were informed (to a proximate cause) why the list was taken down, but the site shouldn’t have a permanent tombstone for the list.

    While our IPR commentariat has gotten worked up over the topic, it remains a minor issue as long as the list/tombstone isn’t prominent either on LP.org or in search results or in the real media. It still would be nice to have our serious candidates showcased on the front of LP.org, but by now we all know why we can’t have nice things.

    @15 I don’t understand. Voters in the poll had a choice of listing options. Delegates will have a choice of nominees. To me the listing issue is not about informing delegates, but about showcasing LP candidates to LP.org visitors.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@11,

    You should be careful with those Kn@pptionary additions and only add when warranted.

    I don’t have any strong opinion on whether or not any or all of the candidates should be listed at lp.org.

    I am, however, of the opinion that the LNC is signaling “we think you’re stupid” when it conducts a poll on the subject and then decides to do the opposite of what the vast majority say they think it should do.

    Like the question I was responding to goes, “why ask, if … ?”

  12. Robert Capozzi

    This sounds like a bad joke. If they bothered to ask, why on Earth would the LNC then do the opposite of the sentiments expressed. On its face, that sounds contemptuous to me.

    Maybe taking the listings down was the appropriate decision PRIOR TO polling. Once the decision was made to poll, then abide by the poll results.

    IF there’s a mitigating argument, tell the membership what it is! Letting this contempt just sit out there is, I’m sorry, bone-headed….

    Jeez!

  13. George Phillies

    The LNC did not ask. The LNC’s executive director asked. The LNC had a considered set of concerns, which may be covered in the next LfA depending on what else happens in the mean time. There is only so much space per issue.

  14. Robert Capozzi

    21 gp: The LNC did not ask. The LNC’s executive director asked.

    me: That may be technically correct. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the website is published by the LNC. The effect of this is the “publisher” asked, and then the “publisher” disregarded the results of the poll and did the opposite.

    If the ED was unauthorized/rogue in this matter, then an explanation/apology is in order. Near as I can tell, the ED speaks for the LNC.

    Technicalities don’t excuse what is in effect a disrespectful turn of events.

  15. Nate

    @7:

    Why is “discuss[ing] the candidate’s conviction for stalking a female news anchor” a bad thing to have on a candidates website, while also *not* “disclos[ing] the candidate’s felony conviction for attempted kidnapping” is as well?

    I realize you’d probably rather have someone without any prior convictions, but how does this make the linked website damned if it mentions it, damned if it doesn’t?

    In addition, wouldn’t at least some libertarians not view stalking as a crime? In addition to any crime beginning with the word “attempted”?

  16. Scott Lieberman

    I don’t have the time to type the entire narrative of what happened from the time the LNC first started discussing this issue until the Presidential candidate names were removed from http://www.LP.org

    Major points:

    0. Do you really want the LNC listing EVERY person who just says “I am running for the Libertarian Presidential Nomination” to be listed on our web site? If you think that that criteria is not tight enough, then you need some way of deciding who should appear on the web site, and who is a totally unserious person who is just interested in seeing their name up in lights.

    I don’t like the FEC, but since the FEC will FINE YOU if you raise $5000 for your Presidential campaign and don’t report to the FEC, the LNC originally thought that we should require candidates to have filed with the FEC. However, we heard complaints from one or two candidates that they refuse to file with the FEC, but that we should still list them as candidates. So, the LNC felt compelled to remove that criteria from the requirements to be listed on http://www.LP.org.

    I would like to know – do you think it would have been a good idea for the LNC to list on our web site Presidential candidates who up front say they will never file with the FEC? The words “fiduciary duty” come to mind…

    1. The LP.org poll was “commissioned” by the LNC Chair without the approval of, or even the knowledge of, of the rest of the LNC.

    2. The poll was not created until AFTER voting had started on this issue. Needless to say, that is not standard operating procedure. The LNC did not feel bound to abide by the results of a poll with self-selected participants that we did not have a chance to even see before it was made available for “voting.”

    For example, I voted three times in that poll, and the ED admitted that all 3 votes would count. That means the results of the poll are likely wildly inaccurate.

    The LNC would have been interested in the results of a well-crafted, reasonably stastically valid poll had someone broached the idea while we were discussing this issue.

    The *probable* reason we did not think of conducting a poll was that designing and creating a reasonably statisically valid poll takes a good amount of time. Since the Convention is only a few months away, we did not want to waste a month coming up with valid poll questions and conducting a poll.

    The LNC does listen to input from LP members. And some times, the LNC changes its position on an issue based on that input. However, it is not feasible to run a poll for every decision that we have to make.

    Also – why are some of you so skeptical about the ability of Libertarian Party Delegates to use Google or Bing? Just for grins, I just typed in libertarian presidential candidates 2012 into Google, and the names of three candidates appear on that first search page. Surprisingly, Gary Johnson is not one of those names.

    If you assume that most people interested in this topic probably already know about Gary Johnson, that means that after looking at that one Google page, the person searching already knows the names of 4 of our Presidential candidates.

    Scott Lieberman Region 1 Alternate, Libertarian National Committee

  17. Robert Capozzi

    24 sl: 1. The LP.org poll was “commissioned” by the LNC Chair without the approval of, or even the knowledge of, of the rest of the LNC.

    me: OK, that’s a mitigating circumstance.

    sl: 2. The poll was not created until AFTER voting had started on this issue. Needless to say, that is not standard operating procedure. The LNC did not feel bound to abide by the results of a poll with self-selected participants that we did not have a chance to even see before it was made available for “voting.”

    me: If this is true, offering a poll to members sounds like a REAL bad idea. Launching a poll mid-stream? Really?

    sl: For example, I voted three times in that poll, and the ED admitted that all 3 votes would count. That means the results of the poll are likely wildly inaccurate.

    me: This tracks. I’m not a fan of these online polls for this very reason. Still, the fact remains that the membership’s opinion WAS solicited. If the Chair was ham-handed in this matter, that’s certainly forgiveable. What does NOT track is how this has been handled, as the contempt is compounded.

    This is not an OR situation. I’m supportive of the idea that the LNC should act in a fiduciary manner, even if I might not agree with the decision (although, in this case, I’m sympathetic). But to whipsaw the membership is just dumb.

    Hinkle should put this behind him by putting it to rest with a plausible explanation. If his take on the events in question differ from SL’s, he should lay it out and, if necessary, apologize to the membership for this misfire.

  18. paulie

    @7

    We all know who the fourth and fifth bullets refer to, but what about the others? Some of us are curious.

    I know 7 of 8 without cheating:

    talk about the stigmata that once appeared on the candidate’s palms….Waymire

    advocate free health insurance and free eeducation for all….Scott Keller

    advocate building a border wall with Mexico…Holtz has me stumped on this one.

    discuss the candidate’s conviction for stalking a female news anchor, his theory that the FBI framed him for his political views, his history of mental illness, his SSI disability, and his efforts to avoid homelessness….Milnes

    say it’s very important that all men vote for a female for President while all women vote for a male….Ogle

    don’t disclose the candidate’s felony conviction for attempted kidnapping….Sloan. (Actually, close Sloan friend Tom Stevens says that Sloan is eager to talk about it, even if it’s not mentioned yet on his site).

    have a plan for LP electoral success built on spam and free vocational education…Person

    say the candidate is still learning campaign finance rules in this, his 5th consecutive presidential race
    ….Burns

  19. Robert Capozzi

    more….

    This:
    24 sl: …The LNC did not feel bound to abide by the results of a poll with self-selected participants …

    is no excuse. To “not feel bound to abide” is understandable and justified, IMO. To not think through the implications and to package this properly is a collective mistake by the LNC. Poor leadership, I’d say…

  20. paulie

    To have the site say we’re not listing our candidates is almost as embarrassing as listing the embarrassing candidates.

    It’s even more embarrassing, especially when the link to it is still there and the poll is still up. Not that sweeping those under the rug would fix this.

    . It still would be nice to have our serious candidates showcased on the front of LP.org

    For the time being at least, Wrights and Harris have one blog entry each on the front page and Johnson has a press release on the front page. We’ll see if that continues.

    I don’t understand. Voters in the poll had a choice of listing options. Delegates will have a choice of nominees. To me the listing issue is not about informing delegates, but about showcasing LP candidates to LP.org visitors.

    Yes, delegates will have a choice of nominees, but some of them would like to be informed about their choices ahead of time through the party’s website, as the vast majority of party members/supporters are indicating they do. Some may even decide whether they will be delegates or not as a result. The LNC didn’t vote to allow people to not be forced to know about the candidates, it voted to keep LP.org visitors in the dark, contrary to what the membership has indicated we want.

    That isn’t rational ignorance, it’s keeping information less accessible after the people who could use that information have said overwhelmingly that they want it to be more accessible.

  21. Robert Capozzi

    still more…

    IOW, if a promise is made and then retracted, a respectful communicator is obliged to explain the retraction.

    Otherwise, the NEXT promise will be…what? Ignored? Laughed at?

  22. paulie

    The LNC did not ask. The LNC’s executive director asked. The LNC had a considered set of concerns, which may be covered in the next LfA depending on what else happens in the mean time. There is only so much space per issue.

    In other words, your dislike for Hinkle and Howell trumps your dislike for the faction that makes up the LNC majority? From past threads on this I thought you were in favor of a fairly inclusive listing?

  23. Darryl W Perry

    I guess another question is: will the precedent set to not list candidates seeking the LP Presidential nomination be used to exclude listing candidates in contested primaries in future elections?
    Will the LNC be required to approve the listing of all candidates for Federal, State & local office?
    Seems to me that a single rule should be made and followed.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    paulie@30,

    Many now on the LNC would have said, if you had suggested, say 10-15 years ago, that the executive director (in consultation with the chair) should be in any way constrained by guidelines of any type, that you were a no-good micromanager who needed to (in David Bergland’s words, in response to a suggestion that perhaps sending a copy of one presidential candidate’s book to every new member and never mentioning the other candidates displayed bias) “sit down and shut up.”

  25. paulie

    Do you really want the LNC listing EVERY person who just says “I am running for the Libertarian Presidential Nomination” to be listed on our web site? If you think that that criteria is not tight enough, then you need some way of deciding who should appear on the web site, and who is a totally unserious person who is just interested in seeing their name up in lights.

    It’s not overly difficult to program a drop down menu that asks whether someone looking at the site wants to see all candidates, only candidates who are LP members, only candidates who are filed with the FEC, only candidates that are not running for any other party’s nomination, only candidates who meet several criteria that the reader checks off, etc.

    Alternatively, a candidate’s name/link could have several check marks next to it showing which of these criteria they have met and which they haven’t.

    If that’s not good enough for you, even the criteria that existed immediately before the list was taken down could have still been used.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    still more…

    Doing the fiduciary thing with anti-fiduciary means is a bad idea.

    If a public company promises or sets a goal and states it publicly and they fall short, investors expect an explanation. “Didn’t make it, sorry,” doesn’t cut it. Institutional investors call that “management incompetence.”

    DWP, no, this is hardly a precedent. This can easily be reversed with a thoughtful policy.

  27. paulie

    1. The LP.org poll was “commissioned” by the LNC Chair without the approval of, or even the knowledge of, of the rest of the LNC.

    2. The poll was not created until AFTER voting had started on this issue. N

    I don’t think that’s a good reason to sweep the results under the rug or ignore them.

    The LNC would have been interested in the results of a well-crafted, reasonably stastically valid poll had someone broached the idea while we were discussing this issue.

    The *probable* reason we did not think of conducting a poll was that designing and creating a reasonably statisically valid poll takes a good amount of time.

    If your concern is people voting repeatedly, it wouldn’t have been hard to have the email go to a non-linked subpage with a code that would only work once per one email address on the LP.org list. I’ve seen several polls like that which were sent to me by the platform committee, etc.

    Even with people being able to vote repeatedly, I don’t think the poll results were that far off the mark. You can see the IPR comments on past threads about this to get another sampling of opinion on this.

  28. Darryl W. Perry

    @35 –
    Did you only read my first question? Did you miss the other half of my comment?

    Will the LNC be required to approve the listing of all candidates for Federal, State & local office?
    Seems to me that a single rule should be made and followed.

  29. Robert Capozzi

    34 p, your solution sounds convoluted. The reason to list the candidates is to promote the LP, not the candidates. Letting non-serious, brand-damaging candidates on LP.org to promote themselves using LP assets sounds like self-sabotage.

    If there’s not a fair way to list the serious candidates only, list none. If there can be no consensus about what constitutes “serious,” list none.

    My take is that promoting prez candidates on LP.org is probably not a significant INSTITUTIONAL opportunity for the LP, anyway. It’s probably more significant for, as MNR liked to rave about, INreach.

  30. paulie

    The LNC does listen to input from LP members. And some times, the LNC changes its position on an issue based on that input.

    That’s good.

    I hope the LNC gets plenty of input from members asking that this decision be reversed as soon as possible.

    Also – why are some of you so skeptical about the ability of Libertarian Party Delegates to use Google or Bing?

    I’m reasonably sure most delegates can, but many still find a listing at LP.org to be useful, and that is probably why people have left so many comments about it at IPR and other such places, voted in the poll, etc.

  31. Robert Capozzi

    37 dwp, no, I think those are different things. Those seeking nomination is largely INreach. Candidate promotion is largely OUTreach.

    Now, if David Duke were to be the LP’s nominee for, say, LA guv, that’s something to look at. My gut tells me that the national LP shouldn’t promote a hater, even if he gets the nomination, for ex. In concept, I’d support suppressing that candidate from LP.org.

  32. paulie

    your solution sounds convoluted.

    I offered a range of solutions, none of which are all that complicated (I could probably implement all of those myself given a few hours, and I’m hardly a real programmer), and one of which was to simply continue doing what they were already doing at the time they removed the remaining candidates. That wasn’t my first choice, but I still thought it was better than what they actually did.

    If there’s not a fair way to list the serious candidates only, list none. If there can be no consensus about what constitutes “serious,” list none.

    When has there ever been consensus about anything in the LP?

  33. Darryl W. Perry

    Mr. Leiberman asked “why are some of you so skeptical about the ability of Libertarian Party Delegates to use Google or Bing?”

    I’m not skeptical – I just think a party should make the list of eligible candidates available to party members. Maybe even produce a “voter guide” of sorts.
    By the way, I intend to produce one to be distributed at the LP National Convention.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    42 dwp, hmm, “always”? It’s a fairly rare allusion of mine. Duke has publicly used the L word to describe himself, and he’s a (once) prominent hater, near as I can tell.

    I’m open to alternative foils, though…share one if ya got one…

  35. Doug Craig

    I voted to keep the candidates on the website. Yes we do have some extreme candidates but I am of the thought process poeople need more info not less.I also not a big fan of writing more rules and doing less work. We spend way to much time writing new rules on the LNC then just about anything else. It will be hard for me to run again and spend the time and money to get nothing done like the past two years.
    Doug Craig LNC region rep. (770-861-5855)

  36. Robert Capozzi

    43 p: When has there ever been consensus about anything in the LP?

    me: That we should have a prez candidate and that s/he should promote liberty to a national audience. There are some Ls who don’t, but I’d say it’s a matter of consensus.

  37. George Phillies

    @30 “The LNC did not ask. The LNC’s executive director asked. The LNC had a considered set of concerns, which may be covered in the next LfA depending on what else happens in the mean time. There is only so much space per issue.”

    I’m sorry, but what do these remarks have to do with whether or not I like these people? I’m simply clarifying who sent out the poll.

  38. paulie

    December 1971

    From what I understand, there was considerable disagreement then about whether starting the LP was a good idea or not. That question remains controversial in the libertarian movement even now.

  39. paulie

    I’m sorry, but what do these remarks have to do with whether or not I like these people? I’m simply clarifying who sent out the poll.

    Sorry, I thought your comments implied that you were siding with the LNC majority on this.

    Do you think that removing all candidates was the right decision?

  40. Robert Capozzi

    p, “consensus” =/= “unanimous”. I use that ex. for that very reason…there is a NOTA element, but my sense is they are few.

    There will always be malcontents/”principled” contrarians, esp. in L circles.

  41. Brian Holtz

    @18 My point about rational ignorance is that, rather than the LNC thinking the poll-takers were stupid, it’s more charitable to assume the LNC thought of the poll-takers as rationally choosing not to each invest in discovering the information I listed @7.

    Paulie, the Mexico wall candidate is Leroy Saunders. He said a lot of strange things in the LPFL debate, but I don’t recall anyone commenting on it on IPR.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    mhw: I wonder how many people have left the Libertarian party because of petty bickering like this?

    p: A lot more than remain as members.

    me: It’s an interesting question. To my knowledge, no even semi-rigorous exit interviews have been conducted. My guess is “petty bickering” might be a top 5 matter, but I’d guess “party is too theoretical/futile,” “party has ‘sold out’,” “party not worth my effort,” and “death” might rank higher as the primary reason for leaving.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    more to dwp…

    Sorry, I’ve been rude. If Duke received an LP nomination for public office, would you be inclined to support the LNC NOT listing him on LP.org?

  44. Darryl W Perry

    @RC – assuming that Duke were to ever join the LP and somehow manage to get a nomination for public office; having Duke listed on the LP site would not do any more harm than having Duke on a ballot as an LP candidate.

    note: I believe Duke has about a 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% chance of ever being an LP candidate for any office.

  45. Robert Capozzi

    dwp 60, I hope your odds are correct. Given that haters like Stormfront swirl around RP, I’m a bit more concerned about this element filtering into the LP.

    After all, we’ve seen Ls like Rockwell and Rothbard cozying up to the hater community, it seems not inconceivable that the haters might come our way.

    As for how to handle someone like Duke trying to use the LP as a vehicle, I would not only support not listing him on LP.org, but I’d hope that the LNC would take further steps to immunize the rest of the LP from the brand damage that would likely cause, including outright repudiation. So, it appears we disagree here.

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    Fear of “haters” running on LP tickets is not paranoia.

    Back before I joined the LP, one of the first times I heard it publicly mentioned was on one of the daytime talk shows. It may have been Donahue.

    The guest was Tom Metzger of “White Aryan Resistance,” and in his conversation with the host, he mentioned in passing that he had run for state legislature on the Libertarian Party’s ticket.

    Metzger has also run for office as a Republican and as a Democrat. And I doubt that either of those parties went out of their way to promote his candidacy.

  47. George Phillies

    Incidentally, the poll is still up, even well after the LNC had voted for its policy of the week on Presidential candidates. The poll has much more space than the LNC policy of the week. The poll disagrees with the LNC policy of the week.

    On the bright side, every single one of these policies is better than the extortion racket the LNC used in 2008 for Presidential candidates.

    The National Chair or Executive Director are using the LP.org front page to attack their opponents on the LNC.

  48. NewFederalist

    “I wonder how many people have left the Libertarian party because of petty bickering like this?”

    I know of at least one.

  49. Robert Capozzi

    gp 63: The National Chair or Executive Director are using the LP.org front page to attack their opponents on the LNC.

    me: Is this PollGate matter an example of this “attack”?

  50. Jill Pyeatt

    NF @ 64: I don’t like the petty bickering, but I must say every group of people I’m involved with does it: my family (big time!), my work, social groups–it just must be human nature. In my experience, men do it as much as women, although in a different way (not that anyone asked).

  51. June Genis

    Seems like the real question we should be asking first is “What is the primary purpose of LP.ORG? ”

    At least one person here has stated that it is to present the LP to any and all visitors. In other words, its primary goal is marketing. A lot of others are implying (by calling for maximal inclusion) that it’s purpose is to inform members about things they need to know if they will be delegates the NatCon. These two views are in potential conflict with each other.

    Generally I favor openness and inclusion but I think I have to come down on the side of some reasonable criteria to be listed on the website. Non-LP members are just likely to subscribe to the “kooky” libertarians theory if they find links to websites that are anti-libertarian or even just weird.

    Seems to me that the best compromise is to stick to the marketing angle for lp.org but have the DC office mail a more complete set of info on who is running as they receive the names of selected delegates. Some states will not be selecting their delegates soon enough to give them a lot of research time but its the best compromise I can think of right now.

  52. Michael H. Wilson

    I find it interesting that some people are apparently concerned about what some candidate says regarding an issue, but that same concerned person ignores what the LP web site says about issues since some of the statements made in the issues section are out of date, or historically inaccurate and have been for some time. Hell the LNCC web site is better on the issues for that matter.

  53. Darryl W. Perry

    In case anyone was curious, Politics1.com lists the following as seeking the LP nomination for President:

    LIBERTARIAN PARTY:

    Ralph Beach (South Carolina)
    Jim Burns (Nevada) – Ex-State Party Chair, ex-police officer, USMC veteran and frequent candidate.
    Roger Gary (Texas) – Ex-State Party Chair, marketing executive and ’10 State Railroad Commission nominee.
    R.J. Harris (Oklahoma) – Businessman, Army veteran, Ron Paul campaign activist & ’10 US Rep. candidate.
    Gary Johnson (New Mexico) – Ex-Governor and businessman.
    Scott Keller (Florida) – Computer programmer.
    Robert Milnes (New Jersey) – Progressive activist and ’08 Presidential candidate.
    James Ogle (California) – Parliamentary system advocate.
    Carl Person (New York) – Attorney, Army veteran & ’06/’10 NY Attorney General candidate.
    Dave Redick (Wisconsin) – Retired businessman, engineer, Army veteran & frequent candidate.
    Leroy Saunders (Georgia) – Limousine company owner.
    Sam Sloan (New York) – Libertarian activist & ’10 Governor candidate.
    Bill Still (Virginia) – Author.
    Mosheh Thezion (California) – Electronics technician & ’10 US Sen. candidate.
    Dean Tucker (Texas)
    Joy Waymire (California) – Tea Party activist, ranch manager and tax preparer.
    R. Lee Wrights (Texas) – Ex-Libertarian Party National Vice Chair, writer, journalist, newsletter publisher & USAF veteran.

  54. NewFederalist

    Jill @ 66… Thanks for even acknowledging my response. I left a long time ago… after the 1985 Phoenix convention. The LP has a strange way of treating dedicated activists!

  55. Jake Porter

    @70

    I am no longer a member of the national party because of things such as this and I certainly don’t send them anymore money.

    Wars and rumors of wars continue, the national debt greatly increases, the government continues to violate the 4th amendment and the LNC spends their time fighting over listing Presidential candidates on their website. Having this discussion is far more embarrassing than anything one of the Presidential candidates could say.

  56. Steven R Linnabary

    I wonder how many people have left the Libertarian party because of petty bickering like this?

    Mosey over to some Ron Paul events, you will find many that were active in the LP 5, 10, 15, 20 or even 25 and 30 years ago.

    PEACE

  57. Michael H. Wilson

    @b 71 BH writes “MW@68, what are the issue statements on LP.org that you consider as embarrassing as the stuff listed @7?”

    Brian where did I use the word embarrassing in my comment?

  58. Ad Hoc

    @74 The Texas debate will have several candidates, unless something has changed. The newspaper article only mentions Johnson by name, but it does not say other candidates will not be included. When the debate was schedule for February it included Harris, Gary and Wrights, two of whom live in Texas and one next door in Oklahoma.

    The date was changed, probably because it was a schedule conflict with this weekend’s scheduled debate in Georgia.

  59. Ad Hoc

    @BH – MHW has listed out of date and/or inaccurate statements on the issues page in numerous past threads as well as discussions on email lists etc.

  60. Steven Wilson

    An omission of information equals issuing misinformation. If the powers that be want to appear to be open that is fine.

    My point was that I understand media and if a debate were to take place and I was promoting not only the event but a persona of impartiality or objective service, I would then issue press releases will the full listing of players.

    The media does it through editors all the time. There might be many game players, but the media just told the reader who to focus on through language game.

    *We didn’t have enough space to list all of them, sorry*

  61. Michael H. Wilson

    re Brian @ 76. That is not the point. You said I used the word embarrassing and I did not do so.

    Secondly I don’t have a lot of time to be on here. I spent time yesterday at two local government meetings and have plenty of research to do related to them. I suggest you go and read the issues section. If the problems are not obvious to you then I don’t know what to tell you.

  62. Brian Holtz

    MW, I didn’t say you used the word "embarrassing". What I did was imply that you found the issues pages embarrassing — which you evidently do. You tried @67 to make a connection between 1) alleged problems with the issues pages and 2) embarrassing candidates, but clammed up when I asked you to connect the dots.

    I have a full-time job at a software startup (at work until 8:30pm last night doing a site launch), I’m a father of three kids in elementary school, and I’m president of my town’s water board. I don’t have a lot of time to be on here either, but when the subject is the LP embarrassing itself, I make time.

    I spot-checked the 3 LP.org issue pages most likely to be stale: “current issues”, healthcare, and foreign policy. Didn’t see any “obvious” problems.

  63. Starchild

    Scott @24:

    You present a good argument for why the LP’s executive director should always be accountable to the entire Libertarian National Committee, and not strictly to the chair.

    Nevertheless, I think that the LNC acted unwisely in removing all candidate listings from LP.org, when they could have adopted one of the reasonable solutions suggested by Paulie @34 (have a drop-down menu allowing site users to apply their own candidate filters, or simply have a series of check marks next to a candidate’s name or link showing which conditions they meet and which they do not).

    It is unfortunate that neither of those options were included in the poll on LP.org, as I suspect they might have garnered even more support than the options that were listed.

    Either of those approaches to listing candidates could also be accompanied by a disclaimer stating that neither the views expressed by listed candidates, nor their personal histories, necessarily reflect the views of the Libertarian Party or the principles of libertarianism for which it stands.

    The above missed opportunity notwithstanding, the LNC’s action was far from the worst possible resolution of this matter. It would have been even worse for the LNC to set itself up as the top-down arbiter for which candidates visitors are allowed to see on our party website and which candidates they are not allowed to see. If that was the main alternative the body was debating, then it is better that committee members voted as they did.

    A couple additional questions:

    • I was surprised to hear you say that you voted multiple times in the poll. Why did you do this, and how did you vote? Did any other LNC members vote multiple times, to your knowledge?

    • What are your views on the practice of Libertarian Party bylaws committee chairs putting out polls not approved or debated by the LNC, and then using the results of this polling of self-selected participants to justify their bylaws proposals?

  64. Starchild

    P.S. – A few words about “fiduciary duty”…

    Virtually every time I’ve heard this term invoked in relation to the Libertarian Party, it has been to justify support for some bad idea or other (e.g. not supporting libertarian candidates because they aren’t in the party, following various government regulations that are contrary to our principles even when it would be more practical to ignore them, etc).

    I’ll go out on a limb here and propose that the LP and its state affiliates consider adding language to their bylaws explicitly rejecting the concept. At the least, I would like to see the issue debated.

    A fundamental problem with Libertarian leaders being bound by fiduciary duty is that it essentially obligates them to put the organization first, when their first loyalty ought to be to the libertarian movement and the freedom for which it stands.

    It seems to me that any legitimate application of the concept that might be relevant to us as a party (e.g. taking action against a treasurer who absconds with party funds) could be adequately handled without invoking it. But I’m interested in hearing what exceptions people responding to these comments will undoubtedly come up with.

  65. Tom Blanton

    @81

    I don’t have a lot of time to be on here either, but when the subject is the LP embarrassing itself, I make time.

    How ironic coming from a guy that uses his poster of Conspiracy Theorist Wayne Allyn Root the way most boys use their daddy’s old Playboy Magazines, when he isn’t busy water-boarding.

  66. JT

    A fundamental problem with Libertarian leaders being bound by fiduciary duty is that it essentially obligates them to put the organization first, when their first loyalty ought to be to the libertarian movement and the freedom for which it stands.

    I totally disagree with this statement. Libertarian officials are elected by

  67. JT

    LP members, not the entire libertarian movement. It’s to the members of the LP that they owe their “first loyalty.”

    P.S. I accidentally posted the above without indicating that the first paragraph was a Starchild quote.

  68. Darryl W. Perry

    the purpose of the LP based on the bylaws:

    The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth and activities; nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office; and, entering into public information activities.

  69. George Phillies

    On the bright side, because the LNC removed the listing and condition on FEC filing was also removed, they need not suffer the slings of criticism related to listing Gary Johnson, whose FEC filing efforts are now in arrears. However, perhaps he has a new treasurer and there is needed catch-up first.

  70. Michael H. Wilson

    re Brian @ 81 or somewhere like that in the numbers. It is now 9:55 where I am and my work has just finished for the day. I don’t intend to tell you what my life is like and I doubt you care. I also will not debate this issue with you since you seem little interested in fixing errors but more interested in being the winner of a debate. So I am not going to waste my time. Good luck in your new job.
    MW

  71. Brian Holtz

    MW, you’ve already persuaded me to advocate removing the three words you don’t like in the platform healthcare plank. I don’t care about me winning, I just care about the best ideas winning.

  72. Robert Capozzi

    83 sc: A fundamental problem with Libertarian leaders being bound by fiduciary duty is that it essentially obligates them to put the organization first, when their first loyalty ought to be to the libertarian movement and thefreedom for which it stands.

    me: As one who uses the term “fiduciary” in intra-LP matters a fair amount, let me suggest that when I use it, it’s not “just” about financial matters. A fiduciary acts in the best interests of the principal, and is someone who acts without conflicts of interests. Because a fiduciary is fair, s/he earns the trust of the principal. Narrow, (perceived) self interests are set aside for the greater good.

    In the case of the LNC, the LP is the political component of the LM. Ensuring the smooth functioning of the LP while remaining true to its bylaws and the membership as a whole is, as I see it, the LNC’s job. Sometimes, there can disagreement about what is the fiduciary thing in a certain fact set. However, IF those in a fiduciary position are NOT acting in the membership-as-a-whole’s interests, trust is broken. The agent is now acting as a principal.

    For ex., 63 GP sez: “The National Chair or Executive Director are using the LP.org front page to attack their opponents on the LNC.”

    If true, that is non-fiduciary behavior.

    When 91 BH sez: “I don’t care about me winning, I just care about the best ideas winning,” that is fiduciary thinking.

    In this particular situation, I’m convinced that it is fiduciary that LP.ORG exercise prudence in promoting (or NOT promoting) people who CLAIM to be candidates to be the LP’s nominee. If you are saying that it’s “freedom” that anyone can be listed on LP.ORG like one can on Craig’s List with NO filters whatsoever, I can’t say I agree. Ever open-minded, though, please make the case for your formulation of “freedom.”

  73. Starchild

    JT @85 – Libertarian Party officials are not elected by the entire Libertarian Party any more than they are elected by the entire libertarian movement.

    However, that is all somewhat beside the point, if one presumes (as I do) that the whole purpose of the LP, and therefore of its elected officials, is to promote libertarianism.

    “The libertarian movement” is not a formal organization, or group of people or organizations. At any given moment, “the libertarian movement” consists, by definition, of whichever individuals, and whichever organizations, are promoting libertarianism.

    The Libertarian Party of the United States, by contrast, is a specific legal and formal entity. Unless something independently occurs that results in its name being changed, it will still be known as the Libertarian Party, regardless of how little or how much it happens to be promoting libertarianism at that point in time.

    This is why our first political loyalty as individuals, just as the LP’s loyalty as an organization, should be to the movement — because *any* formalized organization is inherently inconstant and therefore ultimately unreliable when it comes to winning the struggle for freedom. They are vehicles, means to that end, not ends in themselves. Organizations wax and wane (as do leaders, who are likewise ultimately unreliable) but the Non-Aggression Principle is eternal.

    Robert @92 – As described above, the party is not the greater good — freedom is the greater good, and whatever individuals and groups consistently seek to advance freedom are, by definition, the libertarian movement.

    Therefore when you say that a fiduciary acts in the interest of the greater good, what I am hearing is that you think the good of the movement should come before the good of the party.

    I agree with that, but people seem more likely to use the term “fiduciary” to argue for loyalty to the party. You are the first person I have heard use the term to argue for loyalty to the movement. Therefore I must question the utility of using this term for what we are talking about, since common usage appears to favor a different meaning for the term.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@92,

    “the LP is the political component of the LM”

    It may be a political component of the libertarian movement.

    Starchild @93,

    “Fiduciary duty” isn’t that complicated. It’s not about some over-arching concept of “loyalty” to X versus Y, it’s about acting consistently with voluntarily undertaken obligations.

  75. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 91 Brian writes; ”I don’t care about me winning, I just care about the best ideas winning.”

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe that is not how others read what you write? I will grant you that we all make the same mistake especially me.

    When our words are used to convey a message to the public it is important that we think through what we say and it seems to me that in many cases the LP has done little thinking, or at least those who wrote some of what the party uses to convey its message have done little thinking.

    Here are some comments on the healthcare issue. The part in italics is what is on the issues section of the web site. My comments are limited to the first paragraph. If I have time I will work on more later.

    ” Making Healthcare Safe and Affordable

    As recently as the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone in America – including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days’ pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare.”

    This reads like it was written by a publicist for the AMA or the same people who created Marcus Welby, M.D.

    In fact in some states hospitals were racially segregated in the 1960s. The health care options for African-Americans in the South in the 1960s are best described as pathetic. Many low income whites experienced the same and Native-American did not have anything better. Mothers had no choice in birth attendants. Midwives did not start to make a comeback until the late 60s.

    The AMA was fighting to keep chiropractors and osteopaths out of business. Seventy-five percent of people had health insurance in the 1960s, but in most cases it was purchased by their employer. Low cost health insurance may have been available to virtually everyone, but what did it cover? Surgery was more likely to be covered than primary care from what I can find. Interestingly this may have been a driving force behind much of the unnecessary surgery in the nation, but that is my opinion. The elderly were less likely to be able to afford insurance than others, which was a driving factor behind Medicare and Medicaid.

    The McCarran-Ferguson Act, passed in 1945, has balkanized the health insurance business and limited the choices consumer have today and had in the 1960s in some states. Blue Cross and Blue Shield were given special privileges written into law in many states.

    I have not studied all the state insurance policies, but I think it is fair to say that consumers could not buy insurance from an out of state company in the 1960s just as they cannot do so today until new laws are passed. I don’t know of any case where you could buy health insurance from an out of state firm in the 1960s. This seriously limits the choices people have and drives up the cost of insurance.

    One of the worst things about this section of the issues page is that it is a generalization about the public from a party that claims to care about individuals.

  76. Brian Holtz

    0) What exactly are you saying is false in that paragraph?

    1) How would you describe American healthcare in the 1960s in the same amount of space taken by the italicized paragraph?

    2) What do you think of just dropping that intro paragraph (and the following “Since then”), and leaving only the actual policy prescriptions?

    3) Was your comment @68 trying to compare the italicized paragraph to the embarrassing candidate positions I listed @7?

  77. Ad Hoc

    Wes Wagner

    It would seem that national has removed the links to all state affiliate pages now too , none of them are working.

    http://www.lp.org/state/alabama

    http://www.lp.org/state/oregon

    Previously it was states/ with an s on the end; the listing of all states is down (as far as I have been able to tell at this point) as is the information previously contained on each of those pages other than the link to each state website.

  78. Wes Wagner

    @98

    I noticed it from trying to traverse the links from the drop down on the main page.

    It also seems to be a case-sensitive thing as well… all the mainpage links have some uppercase

  79. Robert Capozzi

    93 sc: Therefore when you say that a fiduciary acts in the interest of the greater good, what I am hearing is that you think the good of the movement should come before the good of the party.

    me: No, not exactly. I would say the party should promote liberty by maintaining an institution that does exactly that. Virtually all LP matters are not in conflict with the (amorphous) LM.

    The Ron Paul phenomenon does unearth a situation where the LP might do things that are not strictly LP business. When the LNC publicly solicited RP to come back to the LP in 08 iirc, I found that to be a fiduciary yet extra-institutional move, at least at the time. When NewsletterGate broke soon thereafter, it seemed far less fiduciary, given the new information.

    In this case of listing prez candidates on LP.Org, all things considered I think NO listing is more fiduciary than an unfiltered, Craig’s List approach. However, the means used to effect this reversal were highly irresponsible, since the membership was solicited for feedback. In a sense, the means were anti-fiduciary, IMO.

    The attempted purge of Lee Wrights may have been technically valid in some ways, but I found it to be non-fiduciary move. Wrights’s continuing on that LNC in no way threatened the institution, and the attempt to purge him generated massive amounts on ill will, predictably so. A phone call to heads-up Wrights would have been the fiduciary move, IMO. Being “fiduciary” is not the same as being highly technical.

  80. JT

    Starchild: “Libertarian Party officials are not elected by the entire Libertarian Party any more than they are elected by the entire libertarian movement.”

    They’re not elected by the entire LP, but they’re elected by LP members. My point was that in their capacity qua LP officials, they’re beholden to LP members first and foremost, the scope of which is circumscribed by whatever level to which they’re elected.

    Starchild: “However, that is all somewhat beside the point, if one presumes (as I do) that the whole purpose of the LP, and therefore of its elected officials, is to promote libertarianism. ”

    I think the whole purpose of the LP is to promote liberty through direct political action.

    I also think the purpose of elected officials within the party is governance of the national party and its affiliates. Their fundamental responsibility in that capacity is to make decisions in accordance with current bylaws and what they deem to be in the best interest of the LP to advance liberty. So to say that such people should be loyal primarily to the rest of the libertarian movement as such just doesn’t make sense to me.

    Starchild: “The Libertarian Party of the United States, by contrast, is a specific legal and formal entity. Unless something independently occurs that results in its name being changed, it will still be known as the Libertarian Party, regardless of how little or how much it happens to be promoting libertarianism at that point in time.”

    No quarrel there.

    Starchild: “This is why our first political loyalty as individuals, just as the LP’s loyalty as an organization, should be to the movement — because *any* formalized organization is inherently inconstant and therefore ultimately unreliable when it comes to winning the struggle for freedom.”

    A “movement” is the sum of many different people and organizations. Those entities are mentally integrated by some common goal or direction, but they’re still separate entities. How would an organization’s first political loyalty be to others in the movement?

  81. Robert Capozzi

    101 jt: How would an organization’s first political loyalty be to others in the movement?

    me: I second the question. Starchild seems to have something specific in mind, yet I don’t know what it is?

  82. Michael H. Wilson

    Brian Holtz // Feb 23, 2012 at 3:50 pm
    BH: What exactly are you saying is false in that paragraph?

    MHW: The section is misleading and vague. It doesn’t grab you. Where is the hook?

    BH: How would you describe American healthcare in the 1960s in the same amount of space taken by the italicized paragraph?

    MHW: “As recently as the 1960s” laws which restricted the practice of midwives were on the books in many states and today many states still deprive mothers of a choice in birth attendants. Midwives were not the only practitioners restricted by laws. The practices of chiropractors, osteopaths, naturopaths and others were restricted by law. Not only were the practitioners of alternative forms of medicine denied an opportunity to practice their crafts, but patients were denied a choice as well.

    BH: What do you think of just dropping that intro paragraph (and the following “Since then”), and leaving only the actual policy prescriptions?

    MHW: I’d remove the comment about MSAs since the LP wishes to abolish the income tax or find a simpler, flatter tax.

    MHW: I might write something like this. “Since” 1873 when the first modern medical licensing law was passed in Texas, governments at the state and federal level have restrained the freedom (rights, or liberty) of medical practitioners to practice and restricted the liberty of patients to choose the type of care they want. Whether it is licensing laws, corporate practice of medicine laws, which deny doctors the right to contract, certificate of need laws, the growth of Medicaid and Medicare, or the Ferguson-McCarran Act, which limits the opportunity for consumers to buy health insurance, interference by the government at all levels has only increased the costs to patients and done little or nothing to improve safety.

    The Libertarian Party calls for the repeal of state licensing laws and the state boards that enforce those laws. These boards do little to improve patient safety, but do work to protect the interest and image of the medical profession.

    The LP calls for the repeal of corporate practice of medicine laws, certificate of need laws, the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

    As the restraints on trade begin to be reduced and new opportunities begin to be accepted the nation will be able to reduce Medicaid and Medicare.

    BH: Was your comment @68 trying to compare the italicized paragraph to the embarrassing candidate positions I listed @7?

    MHW: No. I think the comments by the candidates tell us a lot about them and if the comments are foolish it is better to read them now then to find out later. If anything I might find the comments on the issues section of the national web site to be embarrassing. There is no reason for that section to be so far out of date on some issues or historically inaccurate.

    MHW: That’s all I have time for. I have more comments about that page but they will have to wait for another day.

  83. LibertarianGirl

    Had our LPNevada convention yesterday , WOW , Wayne Root really has it in for Hinkle, he publicly bashed him and in his convention speech no less…Plus all his “people” were talking trash about Carla and Hinkle…….bad form for Wayne to attack a fellow ex-com member , a sitting Chair even with new people in the room .

  84. NewFederalist

    What does Root have to gain by bashing Hinkle? I can’t understand bashing Howell, either since that puts him in the company of George Phillies which is odd at best.

  85. paulie

    Clearly Root has allies and opponents on the LNC. I would guess he will support Rutherford for Chair, since Rutherford ran on a team with Wayne for Chair/Vice Chair last time.

    They have different priorities for the LNC/LPHQ and they are voicing their differences.

    Speaking of which I have sent this to the candidates that I know of for LNC Chair (Hinkle, Rutherford and Wagner) and the other IPR writers. Input from IPR readers is welcome also.


    Questions for LNC Chair candidates from Independent Political Report. Here is what I have thought of so far. I copied the other IPR writers to see if they have other questions they would like to add. Chair candidates are also welcome to suggest questions for each other. Obviously, no one is under any obligation to answer anything, but we hope that you do.

    1) What do you think has been done well in the current LNC term? Why?

    2) What do you think has been done poorly in the current LNC term? Why?

    3) What do you propose to do better in the next LNC term? Do you believe you have a good chance of getting it accomplished, and why?

    4) For those of you already on the LNC, do you have specific lessons you have drawn from that experience that you would like to discuss, and how will you apply them next term to make things better?

    5) Again for those of you already on the LNC, to what extent did you achieve what you planned when you ran? To the extent that you did not, why would you say that was? Do you believe you can be more successful next term, and if so why?

    6) For everyone, what are your top priorities for the next two years for the LNC?

    7) Do you believe the current executive director is doing a good job? Why or why not? If the answer is no, are you planning on hiring someone else, and if so, do you have someone in mind?

    8 ) Do you plan on moving the national office out of the Watergate? If so, do you plan to keep it in the DC area or look for locations in other metro areas?

    9) Do you have a website ready for the chair race that you can share at this time?

    10) Do you have a slate of candidates you are running with? If not, do you have candidates you are endorsing or unendorsing for other LNC positions?

    11) Which activities do you think the national LP should do more of, and which current activities should be de-emphasized or made lower priorities?

    OK, that’s a start, I’ll try to think of some other questions and hope some other people help w/ that.

    -paulie
    415-690-6352 cell

  86. paulie

    IPR also received the following from the side allied with Root and Rutherford (from Illinois chair Lupe Diaz)


    “Observations of the status of our Party”

    I have been talking to quite a few party members, and outside people throughout the states.

    I am hearing quite a bit of concern about the future of our party.

    Here is what I have concluded by reading the State Chair emails for the last month.

    The IT Project the LSLA was planning is now on hold because, in spite of the LNC voting for it, the National Chair is refusing to release the funds needed to move the project forward.

    The LNC Convention will not be having workshops sponsored by the LSLA and the LNCC.

    This is because the delegates are only coming to Las Vegas to do party business relating to the Bylaws and the Presidential nominations.

    The thought is that they don’t have time to spend on training that will help the party push their candidates further into the mainstream.

    Given these conclusions, it seems to me that the LNC Chair and the Executive Director are afraid that the LSLA and LNCC will make this party successful.

    The LNC has had 40 years to make us successful and have yet to make this happen.

    One can conclude that the LNC Chair and the Executive Director want to keep us at the 1% mark and a small tent party.

    I have actually heard rumors that our Presidential Candidates are making deals to pay off their opponents for endorsements later on.

    That said; does it really matter who gets the nomination for President?

    It is time to practice what we preach.

    As a political party we should focus on voter numbers, not membership numbers.

    If the party can not support new initiatives that help us take advantage of ballot access, like the LSLA IT project, I question the need to push for ballot access at all.

    The only thing that really matters is who becomes our next National Chair.

    As we all can see, the National Chair controls the direction this political party organization takes into the future.

    If we don’t change the current Chair, I predict the end is near for our party.

    If Mark Hinkle is re-elected, I will be leaving the Libertarian Party once my term ends in September as State Chair of Illinois.

    Thanks,
    Lupe Diaz, State Chair
    Libertarian Party of Illinois

  87. Nicholas Sarwark

    @111: The LP has had good chairs and bad chairs over the 40 years of its history. None has catapulted into the big leagues and none has killed the party.

    This is an important chair election; they are all important chair elections. It matters who is our chair, but it doesn’t matter as much as people think.

    Mr. Diaz is welcome to take his ball and go home if the chair election doesn’t go his way. As for me, I’m in it for the long term and won’t quit based on one election for chair.

  88. Paulie

    Has anyone inquired with LPHQ what is going on with the state links, or know whet’s up with that?

    I asked one of my regional reps, Stewart Flood, about it on the phone today. He was not aware of this and said he’ll look into it. He was having to deal with a bunch of work related stuff, but said he will try to send me the additional Florida poll result data from two weeks ago that was mentioned in past threads.

  89. Jill Pyeatt

    GROAN.

    I’ve been disappointed at what Hinkle has not accomplished, but I think perhaps the opposition he’s had from within the Executive Committee itself might have been greater than I was aware of. I haven’t heard Root’s speech, of course, but publishly bashing Hinkle was phenomenally inappropriate. As a small businessman, as I’ve heard Wayne describe himself once or twice, there are some things you just don’t do.

    I’m looking forward to the National Convention a little bit less all of a sudden.

  90. paulie

    why not ask ALL LNC members of their thoughts on this term. That allowed?

    Absolutely.

    1. All LNC members and declared candidates are welcome to post their thoughts in IPR comments at any time.

    2. Anyone, LNC member/candidate or not, is welcome to do so as well. They can do so under their own name or under a pseudonym. Obviously, if they identify themselves as LNC members their comments will carry that additional credibility, but I also understand if some people want to remain anonymous.

    3. ALL LNC members and anyone else is also welcome to send essays for publication to contact.ipr@gmail.com

    4. They are all welcome to call me at any time at 415-690-6352. I love to hear from all sides, and if you ask me not to repeat something, I won’t; if you do want me to repeat it, but not identify who it came from, I will respect your wishes.

    5. You are also welcome to email me privately (to the extent any unencrypted email is private) at travellingcircus at gmail dot com, or you can contact other IPR writers (the list is at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/about/ and you probably already have contact info for several of them).

    6. If none of that works for you, ask to sign up to write at IPR, and I will sign you up. We ask that you not post your own editorials, but if two of you do it you can post each other’s.

    7. If someone comes up with a list of questions for all LNC members, please send it to them, or to me, or to us (IPR), or all the above.

    8. If and when I have a better idea of who is running in various contested LNC races I will try to come up with specific questions for those.

    9. Your suggestions here.

  91. Kevin Knedler

    Good questions Paulie @ # 110.
    KJK
    At-Large on LNC
    Executive Committee on LNC
    Executive Committee state chair Ohio LP

    Oh, can I play?

  92. Kevin Knedler

    @ # 118
    Answer to # 9 question for each LNC member.

    “What are some of your accomplishments on the LNC”?

  93. Kevin Knedler

    Accomplishments?
    Please realize I am not the guy to talk with about libertarian philosophy. My thang is building teams and organizations. I will leave the other topics to other people to figure out.

    Nov 2010: Motion accepted to plan national conventions further out, in order to get a bigger selection of sites at better pricing. Result is that we have 2014 already selected and will decide 2016 site on March 10, 2012. Other organizations work this far out.

    August 2011: Motion accepted to hire professional meeting planner company Helms Briscoe to help with pre-planning and negotiations for national conventions. This would save the volunteers on the LNC a huge amount of hours. And H.B. doesn’t charge the LNC. Let H.B. do what they do best: find sites.

    Proposed the reboot of the various contribution levels and sync them up with monthly pledges. We did this is Ohio and is works fine. Also to raise the lifetime membership from the $1,000 level that was set back in early 1990′s. A committee was created, which I was part of. The plans were approved at the December 2011 LNC meeting. Lifetime membership will go to $1,500 on July 1, 2012.

    Led the way for the LSLA IT project with the presentation of a “New Vision” at the August 2011 LNC meeting. Of course many others in the LSLA are now making this happen. They just need the funds to complete the project.

    December 2011: Made motions and supported the reboot of some LNC committees, to allow members from outside the LNC to jump and get to work. There is a lot of talent out there. Committees included Convention Oversight Committee and Affiliate Support Committee.

    November 2010: I made sure David Nolan’s motion was brought to the LNC table. I recall he had asked for this. At the time we passed this, nobody realized he had passed away.

    LSLA: I couldn’t let it die. It is TOO important. We must develope county and state affiliates in order to support candidates. The LSLA was effectively DOA in early February 2011. By March 2011, the plan was in place to put the LSLA in Columbus Ohio, the day before the LNC meeting. Thanks to Sam Goldstein and Chris Spangle and Evan McMahon of Indiana and Lupe Diaz of Illinois. We pulled it off with a VERY nice LSLA day of workshops. 71 people attended and this was the catalyst to some evolution we may see in the LSLA and the LP party as a whole. I wanted to see which members would step up . They did, they took charge, and they are still pushing. The future of the LP is in their hands now. My job is to make it possible for them to excel and take the LP to higher levels.

    Paulie does this work?

  94. Steven Wilson

    @122

    Your list is the empirical data to prove the LNC has no utility. As a state chair in a specific location, your business model was combined with social activitism wherein there were no book club or roberts rules. I assume.

    You openly admit to no philosophy outside of the real world.

    Would a senior officer in the private sector maintain dead capital (a building lease) that offered no ROI?

    Would a senior officer allow a separate entity to exist that shared data and spent funds on personal campaigns wherein there was no check or balance of power?

    In the private sector you prove yourself by results. Not promises. You applied and did the work.

    The LNC has wasted funds, burnt bridges with donors, went gestapo on Oregon and Nevada state parties, membership has gone down last I heard, and the national website operates like a pez dispenser.

    No one on the LNC would remain employed in any firm I have ever worked for. People here posting may never admit to it, but when you enable you encourage that behavior.

    The LNC should be shut down and the state chairs work as a senate. My two cents and change.

  95. Starchild

    JT @101 – You ask, “How would an organization’s first political loyalty be to others in the movement?” given that the libertarian movement is the sum of many different people and organizations.

    I did not say that the LP’s first political loyalty should be to others in the movement. It should be to the movement as a whole.

    Another way to put this, which some may feel expresses the idea more clearly, is that the first political loyalty of Libertarians and the Libertarian Party should be to libertarianism.

    The reason I did not simply formulate it that way, is that libertarianism is an abstract concept. To bring it to the concrete level, I say that our loyalty should not be simply to the abstract idea, but to its real-world manifestation, i.e. whichever individuals and organizations are upholding and advocating libertarianism.

    This may well include (let us hope it always does!) the Libertarian Party, and to the extent it does, Libertarians should be loyal to the LP.

    JT, you also state @101 that “I think the whole purpose of the LP is to promote liberty through direct political action.”

    That sounds overly restrictive to me, as if it might preclude certain types of actions which could be effective in promoting liberty. If you just ended your sentence with the word “liberty”, I would second the sentiment.

    But I confess that I really don’t know exactly what “direct political action” means in this context, and I suspect that no one else has a clear definition either. Can you give some examples of direct and indirect political action?

    That confusion aside however, we are in apparent agreement that the whole purpose of the Libertarian Party is to promote liberty. Taking it as a given that the LP’s whole purpose is to promote liberty, it therefore follows that the whole purpose of LP members working via the party is to promote liberty, and that even if the party strays from its mission, party members should not stray from theirs, but should continue to promote liberty, even if that means going against the party.

    Another way of phrasing this is to say that our first loyalty should be to libertarianism (i.e. the libertarian movement) and not to the party.

  96. Starchild

    Kevin @122 – You wrote, “December 2011: Made motions and supported the reboot of some LNC committees, to allow members from outside the LNC to jump and get to work. There is a lot of talent out there. Committees included Convention Oversight Committee and Affiliate Support Committee.”

    I didn’t hear about this, but I am interested in serving on the Convention Oversight Committee. I have written a document on convention organizing, attended lots of LP conventions both state and national, participated in organizing a Libertarian Party of California convention, and am interested in helping make the convention organizing process more transparent and accountable to members.

    Will you nominate me to serve on this committee?

    I am also interested (as I’m sure some others would be as well) in seeing a list of the various LNC committees and the names and contact info of the committee members and committee chairs, including the Platform and Bylaws committees. Can you point me to such a list?

  97. Robert Capozzi

    124 sc: Another way of phrasing this is to say that our first loyalty should be to libertarianism (i.e. the libertarian movement) and not to the party.

    me: My first loyalty is to inner peace, not to a political philosophy. My second loyalty is to outer peace. My third loyalty is to maximizing individual liberty.

    Whether that’s sufficient for you to include me in your tent is entirely up to you. I would hope that you don’t want to dictate your preferences on me, because I ain’t buyin’.

  98. Kevin Knedler

    Starchild there is no limit on the size of the committee, but a limit of two people from outside the LNC. Those two members are Ruth Bennett and Nancy Neale. So, I can’t nominate you because the two seats are taken, for now.

    Bylaws headed up by Dan Karlan.
    Platform headed up by Alicia Mattson.

    As for members of the committees, its a great idea and one I have asked for . I think it is good that when we attend the LNC meetings, we see a list of the members, with their chair. Otherwise, I have to ask during the meeting, which takes up time.

  99. Kevin Knedler

    @ 123
    Thank you for the comments and inspiration.
    I never expected you to approve of anything that anybody does on the LNC.

  100. Michael H. Wilson

    Re KK @ 127. One thing that irked me is that the nominations for the platform committee came in the LP News ten days before those same nominations closed. And I never did see anything on the bylaws committee and never heard who is on it.

    The membership should have 90 days to make nominations and they should be announced in the LP News and emailed to as many of us as possible plus posted on the website. I don’t think that is asking too much. In fact I think it makes good business sense.

  101. Starchild

    Kevin @127 – Thank you for your response, and sorry to hear that there is apparently no existing list of LNC subcommittees and their members, but glad to hear you also recognize this as a problem.

    One would think that getting such a list would be simple, but sadly my experience on the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee tells me that’s not necessarily true.

    In the case of the LNC, can you tell me whether you’re aware of any particular roadblocks to such a list being produced, made public, and kept updated? I would be happy to help lobby for this, if you can direct me to whom such communications should be sent.

    The artificial limit of two non-LNC members per committee also strikes me as counter-productive, and a bit absurd given that there is no overall limit on committee size. Would you be willing to introduce a motion to strike this arbitrary limitation?

    Michael @129 – Indeed, and I completely agree!

  102. Chuck Moulton

    Ad Hoc wrote (@104):

    Has anyone inquired with LPHQ what is going on with the state links, or know whet’s up with that?

    I phoned LNC chair Mark Hinkle, told LP executive director Carla Howell in person at the LPVA convention, told LPHQ employee (and Maryland LP chair) Bob Johntson at the LPVA convention, and told my LNC regional representative Jim Lark at the LPVA convention. It was news to all of them except Bob (who probably read about it on IPR earlier).

    I’m reasonably confident this will be fixed on Monday.

  103. Chuck Moulton

    Starchild wrote (@125):

    I am also interested (as I’m sure some others would be as well) in seeing a list of the various LNC committees and the names and contact info of the committee members and committee chairs, including the Platform and Bylaws committees. Can you point me to such a list?

    The credentials committee was appointed at the December 2011 LNC meeting in Las Vegas (page 9). Credentials committee: Mark Bodenhausen, Jo Coleman, Jeff Dimit (chair), Scott Lieberman, Emily Salvette, M Carling (1st alternate), and Carla Pealer (2nd alternate). The top 5 states by membership (as of a certain date) also get to appoint platform committee members… I’m not sure who they appointed.

    The bylaws committee was appointed at the November 2010 LNC meeting in New Orleans (pages 10-11). Bylaws committee: Dan Karlan (chair), Mark Rutherford, Michael Johnston, Vicki Kirkland, Marc
    Goddard, Rob Oates, M Carling, Jonathan Morris, Aaron Starr, Chuck Moulton, and Alicia Mattson (alternate). It adopted this report.

    The platform committee was appointed at the August 2011 LNC meeting in Columbus (page 13). Platform committee: Chris Barber, Jeff Dimit, Randy Eshelman, Sam Goldstein, Joe Hauptmann, Brian Holtz, Alicia Mattson (chair), Richard Randall, Rebecca Sink-Burris, and Aaron Starr. The top 10 states by membership (as of a certain date) also get to appoint platform committee members… I’m not sure who they appointed. It adopted a report.

    I agree that it would be nice if contact information for committee members were published, but I don’t know of a place where it is right now. I am on the bylaws committee and you can reach me at chuck@moulton.org or 215-768-6812.

  104. Kevin Knedler

    To Starchild. Opening up the LNC committees further may work in the future. It took a LOT of work to get some folks to agree to opening the door up ever-so-slightly. Change is not easy for some. I was only one vote on an eighteen vote committee. You will see the LNC votes on this at some point. The committee change I am most proud of is the Affiliate Support. It now allows members of the LSLA to be on this. Why not sync-up the ASC and the LSLA? They are both trying to help state affiliates. There is so much networking opportunity.

  105. Starchild

    Chuck @131 – Yes, thank you!

    Kevin @133 – Are you saying you are the only supporter of greater committee openness on the LNC? I find that hard to believe with members like Mary Ruwart, Doug Craig, and Vicki Kirkland, but even if a few others support openness, the fact that many do not is outrageous.

    I would like to know who on the LNC has opposed opening up the door on these committees even “ever-so-slightly”? Please name names!

    LNC members who think it is desirable to limit non-LNC members from serving on party committees and instead have many of the same appointees serving over and over again, denying ordinary party members the chance to participate, should either step up and publicly defend these practices or get out of the way of reform!

    This party is in serious need of more transparency and accountability!!!

  106. Steven Wilson

    @127

    Results are the currency here. Counterfeiters are abound in the LNC. Kevin, you and I may not get along here, but I know your work in the midwest is getting results. The results are the combination of state chair and application.

    You have great soldiers left in Illinois and Wisconsin. They get burned out on crap. Results keep them going. Crap does not. The LNC is still crap as long as it counterfeits results.

    You apply and get results. You do the work.

    And as for myself, I will always be an enemy of central planning as long as the people in control help themselves at other peoples expense.

    I am no friend of the LNC. sorry for the confusion.

  107. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 132 Chuck wrote “The top 10 states by membership (as of a certain date) also get to appoint platform committee members… “

    The one problem I have with this is when you start with a large base you should have more members but what does that indicate for growth.

    California has a population of 37 million and about 1800 members as of Dec, but they come in about 17th in members per capita. I believe New Hampshire has far fewer members but the most per capita.

    The party needs to have some discussion about this method of allocating committee members and delegates to the convention.

  108. Kevin Knedler

    @ 135.
    I have initiated some changes, and yes it took a lot of other folks on LNC to vote “yes”. Others on LNC want change also.

    @ 136.
    LNC and crap. Well, that is why I want to see some changes. I want the LNC to help facilitate the state affiliates growth as long as the affiliate is open to the idea. The LSLA IT project is an example. Let the state chairs and leaders of the state parties to come up with a IT platform and database. Then, allow the LNC to step in and help provide some $$$ to make it happen. Everyone wins. The states have a database and the national will ultimately gain as a result of stronger affiliates. I am a firm believer that the LNC, LSLA, LNCC, and some PAC’s need to network in a more positive manner. We are not big enough to go it alone, but together we may have better results.

  109. Kevin Knedler

    @ 136.
    It took about 4 years to get Ohio LP turned around. Still far from perfect, but there is a resemblance of an organization that can go into the future now. We need the present leadership preparing the future leaders. This is what all successful volunteer organizations do. We don’t have time for infighting in the LP Ohio.

  110. Robert Capozzi

    138 mhw, are you suggesting per capita allocation? Walk us through the logic of why this is a problem, please, worth discussing. 13k spread over 50 states with 313MM…it’s mouse-nuts numbers, no matter how you dissect it using a microscope.

    If one L moves from CA to WY, WY might jump from 30th to 2nd, using per capita numbers down to the 10th place, I’d guess. But, ever open minded, why is the current allocation a problem and why does per capita allocation represent a solution?

  111. Michael H. Wilson

    No Robert!

    But there needs to be a different way to allocate the members of committees. How about giving positions to the states that have had the most growth, or the least decline?

    California has the largest number of members but they have also had one of the largest declines in membership since 1999, whereas New Hampshire has not had such as steep a decline.

    Is it even fair to give a position to California since they start with the largest base of some 37 million as compared to so many other states which have less than 10 million in population?

  112. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@141,

    “138 mhw, are you suggesting per capita allocation? Walk us through the logic of why this is a problem, please, worth discussing. 13k spread over 50 states with 313MM…it’s mouse-nuts numbers, no matter how you dissect it using a microscope.”

    It doesn’t seem that complicated to me:

    1) “Members per capita”may be a better metric of measuring how successful a state party is than “gross number of members.” Ten members from a group of one hundred is significant. Ten members from a group of one million, not so much.

    2) If that is indeed a better metric of success, then it may also be a better metric to consider when choosing people to shape the upline organization., the premise being that the people who are doing a better job of party-building at a lower level probably have better ideas for building it at the higher level too.

  113. Starchild

    Kevin @139 – So who on the LNC is supporting more openness and transparency, and who is resisting it? Who is doing what? Please give us specifics.

  114. Robert Capozzi

    mhw and tk, IF mhw is only concerned about the make-up of 3 committees, I’m just not seeing why credentials, bylaws and platform allocation is much of an issue.

    Personally, it’s not obvious to me why the 10 at large/10 top states make-up of PlatCom is a big deal one way or the other. I’d be OK with 20 at large.

    If 1 on 21,000 CAans are LP members and 1 in 19,000 AKans are LP members, I just don’t see those as:

    a) significantly different
    b) necessarily a reflection on how that state party does in recruiting and retention in the near term
    c) not necessarily a reflection that the members they send to sub-committees will be any more or less able to be effective on the sub-committee. (It may be that that state’s “worst” member raised his or her hand).
    d) what’s REALLY not obvious to me is why this is a problem worthy of discussion. Let’s say that it’s “unfair” that CA always gets to send someone to Platcomm and Credentials. So what? Has CA been sending disruptive, unprepared illiterates to these subcommittees? There seems to be something behind this that I’m not aware of, since the LP’s list of dysfunctions seem rather long, and this seems like a minor thing on its face to me….

  115. Chuck Moulton

    LibertarianGirl wrote (@107):

    Had our LPNevada convention yesterday

    I haven’t heard much about this Nevada convention. If you have some time, I’d appreciate a brief synopsis of the convention.

    How did the convention go? Were you able to get the county parties back? Did they abolish the judicial committee? Who was elected to the leadership this time? Were longtime activists who were not allies of the leadership able to get slots as delegates to the national convention?

  116. Starchild

    Robert @126 – If you look earlier in that same message of mine that you quoted, you will see that I said our “first political loyalty” (emphasis added) of Libertarians and the LP should be to libertarianism.

    I said it that way specifically so that people like yourself wouldn’t misinterpret me, deliberately or otherwise, as saying that the libertarian movement must take priority over everything else you might have going on in your life.

    But I guess that wasn’t enough; I should have made sure to use that specific phrasing in every single instance.

    As for the size of “my tent”, the libertarian movement is bigger than the Libertarian Party, or haven’t you noticed?

  117. LibertarianGirl

    @ chuck , it went good and bad

    the event was well organized , in an excellent venue and I really liked alot of the new folk.

    the body endorsed Gary Johnson who skyped with us

    we did not get the county parties back and the new com has no immediate plans to do so , even tho Wayne Root said he’d reinstate them early this year whether Silvestri liked it or not.

    there was alot of Hinkle bashing

    They had new bylaws proposals the highlights being – ditching the judicial committee entirely , ditching regional reps – making sure the North and Central NV LP members have no rep and making the excom 5 people instead of 7- granting themselves the right to remove excom members by a simple majority – forever holding every convention in Clark County to name a few…

    instead of submitting amendments individualy they presented all new bylaws , with a copy of such being given to delegates but no copy of the old ones. They wanted to adopt them as a whole , a few like myself did not and at the 1st challenge to amend their proposal they argued we could not do that. Alicia ruled we could and the body overruled the ruling of the chair , they wanted no dissent and called the question… the new bylaws were adopted with 3 no’s and 1 abstaining.

    In addition , people like myelf and longtime activist Tim hagan were not elected as delegates , I didnt even try , and the majority had their list picked and thats who they went with. They are all 1 voting block and several of the old folk didnt even show , their tired…

  118. Robert Capozzi

    147 sc, yes, the LM is larger than the LP. I’m still not clear on what your loyalty differentiation point is. Perhaps you could share an example of where loyalty to the LP differs from loyalty to the LM, since – except for the Paul campaign – I can’t think of a case where the loyalties differ.

    In my case, I’m more interested in peace than I am in political liberty. It might take pages for me to fully explain why that’s significant, but SINCE I am a peacenik first, L second, I generally prefer moderate reforms to dramatic abolitionism. Politically, I’m all about domestic tranquility. Rights can be helpful in sorting out perturbations to that tranquility, but rights are not the be-all and end-all. IMO.

  119. LibertarianGirl

    oh and we only nominated 3 candidates for office , the least Ive ever seen and certainly not filling me with confidence to retai ballot access. plus 40 fewer delegates attended this year , 40…….

  120. LibertarianGirl

    Id like to state publically and emphatically Alicia Mattson is a stand up woman . Regardless of her personal opinions and alliances she is always bound by a higher integrity and I hope she Chairs every LPNevada convention

  121. Starchild

    Being from California myself, I personally could give a hoot whether or not the people on the LNC and other bodies are from this state or some other state.

    What matters to me is whether they are going to stand up for libertarianism and good governance practices.

  122. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote (@132):

    I agree that it would be nice if contact information for committee members were published, but I don’t know of a place where it is right now.

    I was just made aware that the delegation chair’s manual includes the names of all committee members (including state appointed) Starchild asked about with email addresses (pages 17-19). It also includes the platform committee report and the bylaws committee report.

    See the convention website for links:
    http://www.betonliberty.com/node/7

  123. Starchild

    Debra @148, @151 – I’m sorry to hear about the Nevada convention. How many people were present? I find it hard to believe that a majority of Nevada Libertarians are okay with the heavy-handed way that it sounds like W.A.R. and his faction have asserted top-down control over the organization.

    So Alicia Mattson isn’t all bad when it comes to LP internal politics? That’s reassuring, I guess. I don’t regret giving her hell in the message I just sent to the LNC, because this culture of secrecy and control has to stop, but I’m glad to hear she tried to be even-handed in Nevada. I have to wonder though — isn’t she from Tennessee? What was she doing chairing your state convention?

    Anyway, don’t give up hope! Governments may still be getting bigger, but I think the people of the United States and the world are gradually moving in our direction. This is a moral battle like abolition of bondage slavery or women’s suffrage, and radical moral arguments will eventually carry the day.

    So have faith in knowing you’re on the right side of history, and that people won’t likely be looking back and asking, “Why weren’t the Libertarians more cautious and politically expedient”, but rather “Why on earth weren’t the Libertarians more radical in the face of everything that was going on?”

  124. LibertarianGirl

    The majority of Nevada Libertarians don’t but after deaffiliation and with many tired of the crap lotsa folk just didnt want to go and many werent eligible because of registering for caucusing with RP. Had the folk on our side al showed and been eligible we would have easily won…

    make no mistake I dont love everything Alicia does either. Im just saying she’s a fair Parliamentarian and follows the rules..Im NOT saying she may not hav an agenda or affiliations of her own.she has lived in NV for over a year and chaired our last convention also….having had nothing but Silvestri or Duensing chair for the many previous years , she’s a welcome change actually…

  125. LibertarianGirl

    SC_”So have faith in knowing you’re on the right side of history, and that people won’t likely be looking back and asking, “Why weren’t the Libertarians more cautious and politically expedient”, but rather “Why on earth weren’t the Libertarians more radical in the face of everything that was going on?””

    me _ well said:)

  126. LibertarianGirl

    there were like 17 to 22 delegates thruout the day and 10 onlookers . last year we had over 60 delegates and way more onlookers and silvetsri’s team lost by 1 or 2 votes everytime …

  127. Robert Capozzi

    154 sc, worrying about posterity seems neurotic to me. But, my guess is if the founder of L thought, Lao Tzu, were here, he’d ask: What makes you think that being radical and being moderate are mutually exclusive? His book in effect says otherwise….

  128. Starchild

    Robert @149 – An example of where loyalty to the LP differs from loyalty to the libertarian movement? You’ve already named your example.

    It’s not a matter of having a specific loyalty differentiation point — it’s realizing that the Libertarian Party, like every other libertarian organization, is a means to the larger end that is freedom, not an end in itself.

    As long as you keep asking yourself what’s best for the overall cause of freedom in the world, and not what’s best for the LP, or what’s best for America, and you’re honest with yourself about the answers, the differentiation points should become clear to you if and when they arise.

  129. Starchild

    Robert @154 – According to the legend of Lao Tzu, it was somebody who was thinking about posterity who made the philosopher stop at the city gates and tell him his thoughts before heading off into the wilderness, so that he could write them down. If the story has any basis in fact, then if it wasn’t for that guy, you wouldn’t have any idea about what Lao Tzu might have said.

  130. Robert Capozzi

    159 sc, yes, I agree. When engaged in anything, incl. politics, keeping eyes on the prize – being clear about intentions – is something to keep top of mind, mos’ def’.

    I love the idea of viewing oneself and one’s associates as vessels for a greater good.

    If there are instances where accepting short-term concessions or yielding to another person/institution is the wise thing to do, I’m open to them. In the case of the Paul campaign, I’d say the LP did that, and it somewhat backfired. While the rEVOLution has much to commend it, a case can be made that NewsletterGate 1.0 and 2.0 hurt the cause of liberty in important ways, as it associates liberty with haters. Someone like GP, for ex., was foursquare against any yielding to the (putative) greater good of the rEVOLution, and his point has much validity, IMO.

    sc 160, assuming the legend is accurate, one could simply want to share wisdom without a sense of worry about future ramifications. I’d like to see the LM return to its Taoist roots and reject this NAP absolutist diversion we’ve had these past 50 years or so. That’s because I believe peace always works, now, as well as tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow. This angry, strident thing will run its course when it does. When you have peace, you have everything.

  131. LibertarianGirl

    Silvestri for Congress 5 , 2 Pojunis guys Brett and his dad for Congress 1 and 3. That leaves congress 2 and ever state senate, county commission and state assembly office with no libertarian choice . Not good planning whn you need to be putting people in as many ballot access winning races as possible.

  132. Michael H. Wilson

    RC the idea is to reward success not simply giving states a seat at the table. Since 1999 California has lost about 70 or more of their membership while states like Ohio and Indiana have only lost half. Why not make membership retention one metric to rate state success by and reward then accordingly?

    Otherwise just do away with the delegating seat from the states and just put everyone’s name in a hat and draw two or three.

  133. Robert Capozzi

    166 mhw, yes, that’s not an unreasonable way to look at it.

    I’m not sure I buy into the collective guilt that seems behind your idea. Bylaws and Platform especially require specialized skills. If the people best suited and available to serve on these committees happen to be from states that are in “bad” states, I’d say your idea is not in the LP’s larger interest.

    And, I’m not sure national should be playing the carrot and stick game for purely institutional functions.

    Finally, the effort to shift over to the MHW structure is justified relative to the potential (if any) benefit. There may well be benefits, but in the grand scheme of things, it feels like a distracting endeavor.

    I do think that highlighting state LP best practices makes a LOT of sense.

  134. Darryl W. Perry

    @164 – what rationale was used for not running anyone against Heller (for US Senate)?
    Could someone step forward to be a candidate in any of those races without an LP candidate?

  135. LibertarianGirl

    we could get sigs and run as independents is all , we didnt ru anyone against Heller because that would make sense and really I cant tell you why , im not in the inner circle:)

  136. Michael H. Wilson

    RC obviously I am not being clear because you are a smart guy.

    If the LP is going to give a state an extra seat at the table then make sure it is for something positive they did, such as not losing as many members as the other states did.

    California, which I understand will get an extra seat at the table, so to speak, has lost more members than almost all the other state parties.

  137. Robert Capozzi

    170 mhw, I understand your point, but I’m framing the issue differently. The person from CA, for ex., who gets a seat on PlatComm has nothing to do with his or her ability to perform the function on Platcomm. If the LPC is poorly run, that also has nothing to do with the quality of the person they send as their delegate to PlatComm.

    IOW, a Wilsonian merit system BY STATE will not necessarily lead to a better-performing Platcomm, which is what the exercise is about. The inducement of allocating Platcomm seats by a Wilsonian merit system might provide some minor incentive for state parties to run “better,” but I’d say it’s pretty darned minor.

    Since the numbers are so small, one can imagine bizarre monkey business to get a seat on Platcomm. For ex., if the LP-OK has only lost 1 member and that puts their per capita ranking at 11, they might gin up fake members just to get a seat on Platcomm. $25 to get one’s cousin to “join” so you can be on Platcomm is not beyond the realm of possibilities. That, IMO, would be dysfunctional and petty.

  138. Starchild

    Robert @162 – “I’d like to see the [libertarian movement] return to its Taoist roots and reject this NAP absolutist diversion we’ve had these past 50 years or so. That’s because I believe peace always works, now, as well as tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow. This angry, strident thing will run its course…”

    Not committing aggression is always more peaceful than committing aggression. Whether an advocate of the Non-Aggression Principle chooses to be angry or arrogant about it is up to him or her.

    I’ve met plenty of politically/tactically “moderate” types who’ve struck me as being angry or arrogant at times, so it hardly seems fair or accurate to me (or “in harmony with nature” if you will) to claim that only radical, principled advocates of the Non-Aggression Principle are disposed to such disharmonious traits.

    And isn’t “strident” essentially just “principled” plus “angry”?

    Was Mahatma Gandhi angry and strident? Was Gandhi peaceful? Was Gandhi arrogant? What makes you think championing non-aggression and being Taoist are mutually exclusive?

    Re: Tossing “GP” into the middle of an otherwise unrelated conversation — I’m guessing you mean George Phillies, as I guessed by “LM” you meant the libertarian movement, but why this habit of just using initials? Why not write in such a manner that those readers less familiar with the rotating cast of characters around here will be more likely to understand who/what you are talking about?

  139. Aaron Starr

    Starchild @ 125 writes:

    “I am also interested (as I’m sure some others would be as well) in seeing a list of the various LNC committees and the names and contact info of the committee members and committee chairs, including the Platform and Bylaws committees. Can you point me to such a list?”

    Alicia Mattson has already included the list of the members of the Platform and Bylaws Committees in her Delegation Chair’s Manual, which was first distributed to the State Chairs back in December, shortly after the Platform Committee was populated, so you can get that from your state chair. I believe that document is also posted on the Convention website.

  140. Robert Capozzi

    173 mhw, actually, I don’t think I’ve won. I think I understand your point, and I hope you understand mine.

    174 starchild: Whether an advocate of the Non-Aggression Principle chooses to be angry or arrogant about it is up to him or her.

    me: True. Agreed. Based on their writings, I’d say Rand and Rothbard sounded like 2 angry, judgmental people. The branding of other as “evil” and so forth was common. Those traditions have been continued. While I love the NAP’s sentiment, it is also the case that this is and always has been a world full of aggression. Positing and then literally measuring all human action against the NAP standard seems like a sure-fire way to be disappointed if not outright angry.

    Starchild: I’ve met plenty of politically/tactically “moderate” types who’ve struck me as being angry or arrogant at times, so it hardly seems fair or accurate to me (or “in harmony with nature” if you will) to claim that only radical, principled advocates of the Non-Aggression Principle are disposed to such disharmonious traits.

    me: Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean it that way, ie, ALL Taoists and moderates are always chill and ALL NAPsters are always angry. It’s more about where someone’s coming from and the propensity for how that come-from will show up emotionally. If one believes and advocates extreme, rapid change from the norm on virtually every political issue and legal standard, odds are high that such a person is far more likely to be disappointed and unsatisfied with outcomes. That need not lead to outright anger, but it often does, is my observation.

    Gandhi was a moderate figure, IMO. He was mostly advocating an end to colonialism in India, which in the 1940s was a ripe matter. He was not advocating a wholesale change to a self-determined nation.

    And, yes, GP is Phillies. I do it for reasons of typing economy, and also for the same reasons that people talk about FDR and JFK. In some circles, initials are enough! Similarly, yes, LM = L movement, while LP = L party. Sorry that convention doesn’t work for you, Starchild.

  141. Ad Hoc

    Delegation Chair’s Manual is at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/02/lp-2012-delegation-chairs-manual-released/ and as for the largest states having seats, it’s so that they are big enough to have people like to be able and willing to serve on these committees. IE if some other state party goes from 5 members to 15 it may be the “best” in growth, yet have no one who wants to serve on national platform, bylaws etc committees much less do a reasonably good job on those.

  142. Ad Hoc

    I doubt the Nevada LP got anything in return from the Republicans. Shameful. Almost as shameful as Barr saying that Libertarians should support Gingrich.

  143. Wes Wagner

    AH #178

    As another commentator noted, there are people in the LP who would like to sell out, but no one is buying or paying anything.

  144. Ad Hoc

    Just checked LP.org

    State links still go nowhere. However, removing the second s in states for each state link goes to a page that lists that state’s website.

    For example http://www.lp.org/states/Nebraska, which is what the dropdown menu at the top of the page goes to, goes to an error page.

    However, http://www.lp.org/state/Nebraska works.

    And, returning to the original thread subject, the first link under elections at the top of the page still goes to http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2012-libertarian-presidential-candidates , which still reads “The candidates running for the Libertarian nomination for president have been removed per the vote of the Libertarian National Committee.”

    And, this is still open, on the front page of LP.org:

    “LATEST POLL

    Should the Libertarian Party list presidential candidates at its web site?”

  145. Johnson hides finances

    “The candidates running for the Libertarian nomination for president have been removed per the vote of the Libertarian National Committee.”

    As I emailed Carla Howell several days ago, the LNC did not remove the candidates, the way we almost removed Andre Marrou back in the ’92 election cycle.

    The LNC removed the list of candidates.

    It’s different.

  146. Rob Banks

    Ha!

    I never thought of drawing that conclusion. I can see how that makes sense though.

    Does Howell still even talk to you?

  147. Starchild

    Aaron @175 – Thank you. Chuck Moulton noted @153 that the Delegation Chair’s Manual with a listing of the Bylaws, Platform, and Credentials committees and their members is published at http://www.betonliberty.org/sites/default/files/Delegation%20Chair%27s%20Manual%202012.pdf

    I still don’t know where one can find a listing of the various subcommittees of the Libertarian National Committee (e.g. the Convention Oversight Committee), with the names and contact info of their members.

    Robert @176 – Libertarianism — even your moderate approach to it — is a philosophy that represents a significant change away from the status quo. Therefore it makes sense that people who are unhappy with, or angry about, the status quo, are more likely to be Libertarians than people who are happy about how things are going.

    So I think how angry people are, or are not, has very little if anything to do with belief in the Non-Aggression Principle, but plenty to do with the fact that people who are passionate about wanting major changes of *any* sort are more likely to be angry than those who are not.

    As for how you might fit this into your worldview, Krishnamurti said that it is not a sign of good health to be well-adjusted to a sick society.

    I’ll agree that Ayn Rand seemed to have a lot of personal anger (although to imply there’s anythng wrong with that is being judgmental, isn’t it?) , but I don’t see the case for making this criticism against Murray Rothbard.

    I’ve often heard Rothbard described in terms like “cheerful” and “relentlessly optimistic”. For instance, Amazon.com’s description of the biography “The Irrepressible Rothbard” states,

    “These essays show forth not only Rothbard’s intellectual vigor, but the complete joy with which he embraced life, and how his extreme optimism made even the most severe setbacks tolerable.”
    (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1883959020/universityblo-20)

    Rothbard was certainly passionate, but that’s not the same thing as being angry. If you’re arguing that libertarians should not be passionate advocates for libertarianism, I must passionately disagree with you. :-)

    Regarding Rand and Rothbard talking about “evil”, so did Lao Tzu, apparently:

    “In one of the few genuine utterances of Lao Tzu which have survived the wreck of time, we find an allusion to a spiritual world. Unfortunately, it is impossible to say exactly what the passage means. According to Han Fei (died B.C. 233), who wrote several chapters to elucidate the sayings of Lao Tzu, the following is the correct interpretation:

    ‘Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish (i.e. do not overdo it).

    ‘If the empire is governed according to Tao, evil spirits will not be worshipped as good ones.

    ‘If evil spirits are not worshipped as good ones, good ones will do no injury.’”

    (from http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_earlychinrel3.htm )

    If one aims to minimize the worship of evil spirits (evil ideas? evil people?) as good ones, it seems prudent to call out the bad ones for what they are, does it not?

    Regarding your habit of referring to people strictly by their initials, it’s not so much that it doesn’t work for me as that it may not work well for readers less familiar with the people/things to which you refer. I mentioned it because I’ve noticed that you seem to use initials more than other people posting here.

  148. Starchild

    Oh, I almost forgot Gandhi. Here’s an interesting passage about his radical, rather libertarian-sounding political vision:

    “What Gandhi was looking for was what he called swaraj and swadeshi. These two terms taken together represent the type of society that Gandhi was looking for. Swaraj, very badly translates as independence/autonomy/home rule/self rule. Swadeshi can be translated as self-sufficiency or self-reliance.

    “Swaraj for Gandhi was not simply a question of ousting the British from India and declaring independence. What it implied was a wholly different type of society. He did not want the British to be replaced by Indians doing exactly the same. If that was all they achieved, they would not have achieved true freedom but merely the same type of government run by a different set of men. He wanted the value system and life style of the British Raj to be done away with and totally replaced by a simpler, more spiritual, communal life. This new type of society, reflecting the old values of pre-colonial days, was to be based on the village. He stated that:

    ‘[I]ndependence must begin at the bottom. Thus every village will be a republic … having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs. Thus, ultimately, it is the individual who is the unit.’”

    (From http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gand.htm )

  149. David Colborne

    @169: I can’t explain why nobody ran against Heller, but there’s actually a very simple reason why the LP Nevada didn’t run anyone against Amodei. It’s because, owing to the dissolution of our local affiliates, there was nobody available that was a member of the LP Nevada in good standing that lived in CD-2 and was interested in running for office. CD-2 doesn’t extend into Clark County anymore, so it’s up to the rurals or the 395 corridor (Washoe/Carson City/Douglas) to throw a warm body at that race.

    As for the Senate race, I’m guessing nobody down there wanted to run for a race that would actually require them to leave Las Vegas. I highly doubt Heller’s campaign was even slightly concerned by the 0.3-0.5% we normally eke out in that contest; the 0.8-1.0% that the IAPN has been able to field in statewide races is probably a more serious concern at this point.

  150. Robert Capozzi

    185 sc, coupla reflections…

    I agree that “anger” is more likely from those who desire a major change in direction. Personally, it’s my observation that little positive comes from anger. Some of the biggest mistakes I’ve made were when I was angry, and I see that with others as well.

    Yes, I’m glad we agree that Rand was angry. It should have been a “tell” when she told the fictional story of a dude blowing up a building over a contract dispute, and apparently found that to be not only justified, but righteous!

    Yes, I’ve met Rothbard, and he could project a sunny disposition. Yet, from this mind came the notion that fetuses are parasites. Read his Libertarian Forum newsletters…my take is this was one angry, borderline actor.

    Yes, I do see Krishnamurti’s point. Salvatore Dali could pull off being NOT well adjusted as an artist. Whether eccentricity works in politics…I’m generally skeptical.

    Yes, the Tao uses the term “evil spirits.” Others may talk about “bad karma.” That is different than the Randian/Rothbardian penchant for labeling people as “evil.” It was Gandhi, after all, who is quoted as saying: “Hate the sin, love the sinner.”

    And, yes, I’m a big admirer of Gandhi. He may well have had a larger agenda than simple political independence. But his time and place were such that a non-violent protest approach to de-colonization were ripe.

    My assessment is that Ls staging sit-ins in government buildings for the right to practice bestiality is not ripe. When Ls DO protest something less controversial (eg, tax-day protests), it generally draws very few protestors. This has been going on for decades. My conclusion is that the protest approach has not been ripe, and still isn’t.

  151. Starchild

    Robert @189 – What makes you conclude that Murray Rothbard was “projecting” a sunny disposition? Maybe he was instead “projecting anger” in some of his articles, and his real disposition was cheerful. That seems more likely from what I’ve read.

    The notion that an unwanted fetus is a parasite doesn’t seem so farfetched to me either, nor do I think someone would have had to be angry to come up with such an idea.

    I do agree that anger is usually best avoided, although I also think there are many times when it is totally justified, and some times when it helps our cause.

    As for being eccentric, it didn’t stop Ayn Rand from having a huge political impact, any more than her anger did. I think it’s quite possible that she played a larger role in spreading the ideas of freedom than any other single person in the last century, despite her shortcomings of personality and such.

    If you would respond that she wasn’t involved in politics, I would beg to disagree — on the contrary, I’d say that she was someone who was heavily involved in politics, someone for whom even “the personal is political”. Trying to win elections simply wasn’t her main thing, although she did some campaign activism.

    A big part of what made Gandhi politically compelling is that he was highly principled, willing to walk the walk and stand for his beliefs, popular or not. And of course he didn’t take a very conventional approach to politics either.

  152. Robert Capozzi

    191 sc, re: MNR’s disposition, I simply meant that he could seem cheerful in person. Who the “real” Murry was, I can’t say.

    For me, if a person was going to sit down to write a serious manifesto, one would choose one’s words carefully. Go back and read the fetuses are parasites passage and judge for yourself whether the language and framing are well thought out, or instead an inartful, bracing, and unqualified statement about what we all were at one point, ie, fetuses.

    I certainly agree that Rand was influential, I’d say in a damaging way. Her thought system has a foundation of sand (ie, it’s weak), which has led the freedom movement off on a bizarre, unworkable tangent. For ex., the LP’s founders were mostly Randians, and it shows in the loopy SoP. I appreciate their efforts, but the grandiosity of mostly 20 year olds deciding that the SoP was SO good that it should be protected by a 7/8ths super-majority is really, really dysfunctional thinking in my book. For me, the profound arrogance of that factset is mind blowing.

  153. paulie

    Paulie does this work?

    Sure.

    If no one else puts it up as an article, remind me to do it when I get back to posting articles (hopefully this week).

  154. LibertarianGirl

    even wanted fetuses can be parasitic .. its a living organism that attaches itself inside your body and wreaks havoc…… an unwanted fetus would def be on the level with a parasite. As a woman Im sure some will gasp in horror …how could a mom say such a thing… lemme let you in on something , its a myth that women are by default supposed to feel a bond right away. In fact , i think if we didnt have the myth convincing us from childhood that having a baby is the greatest thing ever , then more women would opt the fuck out….kinda like the men who can walk away when they dont want ties and its acceptable inasmuch as we say ” thats how men are , the bastards” ……

  155. Former Fetus

    Rothbard was defending abortion in extreme terms, but I understand he became just as rabidly anti-abortion later on in his quest for a “paleo” alliance with the reactionary/isolationist far right.

  156. Robert Capozzi

    LG, I didn’t to suggest that the biological function of a fetus is not similar to a parasite…there are similarities.

    Former, I”d not heard that MNR did a 180 on abortion. Any cites would be appreciated.

  157. Paulie

    A quick search does not reveal any cites of Rothbard doing a 180 on this. The closest I could find was

    http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/10658/251596.aspx

    As for your question, the short answer is: No he didn’t back off from his support of a right to abortion.

    That said, Rothbard lived his last years under the Clinton regime, and was looking for a tactical alliance with cultural conservatives, roughly Buchananite Republicans, at that time. He wrote columns analyzing the political prospects of candidates, sometimes pointing out that a pro-abortion stance might hurt a given Republican hopeful. I think some careless readers came away with the idea that Rothbard was uncritically embracing the views of those Elephant Party voters for whom a pro-abortion stance would cause trouble. Perhaps you’ve encountered loose talk or writing of the kind, and that’s what prompted your question?

    It was immigration, not abortion, where Rothbard abandoned his previous correct position in order to make an alliance with know-nothings.

    I guess it was left to other “paleo” libertarians to deem abortion to be another issue where libertarianism would be recast in a manner to make it more appealing to cultural reactionaries.

Leave a Reply