Radar, I respect your drive and focus. Undertoad had that kind of burning desire but it wasn't sustainable. He knows what he's talking about. You may want to have a civil conversation with him. He put in his time.

Myself, I'm a lifestyle libertarian. I won't vote for the evil or the stupid party. The LP represents my ideals and Brownes writing is inspiring. Unfortunately, the clique at national are career politicians. Although we may need careerists, people who choose politics are by definition manipulators. All politicians are evil, some more some less, the LPers are generally less, since their personal power grabbing goals involve government divesting power.

If that were actually true, it would be a great deal easier for someone like myself--who beleives in much of the LP platform--to vote LP. The reality is that there is often important differences among the republicrat candidates--our recent gubenatorial race here in PA being a case in point.

The LP candidate for govenor came to <a href="http://www.pinkpistols.org">our shooting club</a> meeting. Over lunch he told us how he was able to enlist the aid of the Democrtatic candidate's campaign to make sure he had sufficient signatures on the petition putting him on the ballot.

So--this is the party that wants me to--on the basis of "principle over practicality", crowing that "you get whet you vote for"--use my vote as a political statement to publicize their cause instead as a tactical tool to prevent the election of a gun-grabber with heavy socialist leanings?

I do believe that there many more people supporting LP values than there are people registered or even voting LP--and that their numbers actually are growing. Someday I hope that growth leads to a situation where an LP vote is more than just a protest vote.

Until thern, when it really *doesn't* mattter which republicrat is elected, I *do* vote LP. Unfortunately that doesn't happen often.

<h4>MaggieL</h4>

Cool site! It's not just gays that don't get bashed while armed though. The second amendment works for all of us, whether you want to take advantage of it or not.

:thumb:

OK. I told you you didn't want me to pull LP rank.

In 1992 I helped to re-energize my county party which quickly became the largest county party in PA, then the LP's second most important state.

In 1993 I worked as secretary for that county.

In 1994 I worked as vice-chair for that county, and started to develop local candidates as we ran 5 candidates for US House, more than ever seen before in PA. That year I also found the PA-Libernet mailing list which becomes a focus for state liberty activity.

In 1995 I was chair for the county.

In 1996 I encouraged my wife to run for statewide office, and then operated her campaign. We polled over 100,000 votes, four times that of Harry Browne's statewide total and she was fifth nationwide in LP candidate vote totals. At the same time our county ran 6 candidates for US House and got awesome local news coverage.

In 1997 I became secretary of the state party. That year I operated Ken Krawchuk's campaign for a local-level office. The campaign included four direct-mail pieces, out-spending the D and R by a factor of 5, and complete precinct walking. It is listed in the LP News as one of the three most important campaigns to watch that year. The campaign fails but we are invited to speak to the natcom about it.

That year I also work at recruiting a ton of candidates for election worker offices. By the end of the year PA has a tenth of the local office-holders in the entire country.

In 1998 I became an advocate for ballot access. At their state convention, I unsuccessfully lobby the League of Women Voters, working many 20-hour days putting together a campaign (to encourage them to study the issue, it's a technical thing) that misses by two votes.

It all turns out to be prescient as the state legislature passes a bill that would increase ballot access petition requirements and make it completely impossible for any third party candidate to get on the ballot. For a week my house becomes ballot access central as we write faxes to state media outlets telling everyone about the bad bill. The president of the LWV speaks out against it. Eventually the NY Times even catches the story. All the major papers in the state editorialize against the bill. The governor vetoes the bill. (That governor: Tom Ridge.)

In 1998 I also work as Ken Krawchuk's closest advisor in his gubernatorial campaign. I help him to develop his debate strategy and my wife is his campaign treasurer.

In 1999 I come to a few slow-but-steady realizations about the LP. I set it aside in order to focus on starting my own business.

In 2000 my realizations become more well-formed and I quit altogether: membership, volunteering, everything.

Why did I leave? The LPers fantasy about why people leave is all wrong, with me. With me, it's the LPers worst nightmare. I didn't become fed up. I got burned out, but I could have come back.

I left because without the constant din of LP activity and LP, yes, propaganda, my mind was free to examine the situation from a new perspective, and I did not like what I saw. I saw that politics was inevitable, that the law was fluid and must always be interpreted. I noticed that the LP was terrible for the entire liberty movement. I realized that the political conditions were not right for the party. I figured out that most LPers are very politically naive (albeit very bright philosophically). I learned what it takes to win elections and saw that the LP could not do it by definition. I realized that consent of the governed is the most important aspect of government and that if the people did not want libertopia then it was wrong to force it on them. Whoa!

Am I a bitter little man? Oh you betcha, but that's a style quibble and I'll be satisfied to be bitter and RIGHT THIS TIME. I'm speaking out of experience.

Thanks. My lifepartner is pretty much their webmistress these days.
The local chapter page is at http://delawarevalley.pinkpistols.org
We hope to have mpeg1 files of our appearances on local TV (a 5 minutes on the local Fox affiliate's news, and a 30 minute call-in show on a local PBS station) available on-line soon.
Quite true. But there is a perception that gays are uniformly politically liberal gun-haters. Being presumed to be unarmed is a very dangerous thing. We're working to change that perception, and we support the right of self-defense for *everyone*. And when people no longer assume that queers are defenseless, it benefits *all* queers. Even the gun haters. :-)

We also work to change the perception amongst queer folk that they'll be reviled and excluded in the shooting community, the range and the gun shop. It's not true at all. Most shooters are staunch enough believers in personal freedom that they don't care about your sexual orientation.

I think all this talk about the LP (which I was registered as at one time, surprising as that may seem) is indicative of a greater problem in American politics: the stranglehold of the two party system. Most democracies use a parliamentary system, where more parties have a chance at getting their voices heard in the government. I don't know that I really like that system, but it spawns the question: what can be done to expand the American political system? I would vote Green if I could, but I don't feel like throwing my vote away and helping the Republican candidate win. Much the same has been said on this board about the LP candidate and the Democratic victory that could result from voting LP. Bush Sr. lost in '92 (partially) because many Republicans crossed over to the Reform party, and some Democrats blamed Nader for Gore's poor showing in certain regions.

I've seen a variety of solutions suggested to combat this trend, from instant runoff, where voters rank their candidate choices, to a complete overhaul of the entire system. What do cellarites think?

Since the two parties run the system, I don't see a change of form coming. What I'd like to see would be a serious attempt to create a libertarian-green hybrid party. Get the greens to shake off anti-capitalism and the libs to embrace a more realistic view of corporations at least to the point of acknowleging that companies play the government. I don't know that creating an individualistic green is possible but its something to chew on, write on, think on. Anyway the point is the Democratic Party is ripe for the picking, some kind of lib/green could take them.

I've worked on both Harry Browne Campaigns, I'm the creator of the Libertarian youth outreach program in California, I've created websites, collected signatures, and run entire campaigns for several candidates in California ranging from state assembly, to city council and mayor. I've helped campaigns of other libertarian candidates in other states and helped pass out information on libertarian initiatives and laws. I am THE california state LP office computer network guy. I've helped arrange protests, political rallies, music festivals, voter registration booths, etc.

I've done as much or more than you have for the Libertarian party and my conviction and dedication are stronger now than ever.

Perhaps you never were much of a LIbertarian if you give up so easily.

I see the law as clear and easy and in no need of translation. Congress, the USSC, and the President answer to the constitution, they don't define it.

The LP is the only thing good for the Liberty movement. Everything else is crap. Political conditions couldn't be better for the Libertarian party. The American public is more sick than ever of Republicrats.

I'm politically very sharp and have always known what it takes to win elections. It takes money. But the way you get that money is just as important or more important as how much you get. I'd rather lose an election than win it the way that Republicrats do. If we act like the monster, we become the monster.

Registering voters and getting people elected is hardly forcing Libertarianism on them. And Libertarians don't believe in utopia or promise it. Libertarians recognize that there can never be a utopia and live in the real world. Most people in America are Libertarians but just don't know it.

I've been disappointed before and upset when my efforts didn't pan out. But when that happens I step back and look at what I could have done better and then I get back into the fight. I'm sorry that you're a bitter burnout but don't think you've done more for the party than I have and don't think your efforts were wasted because both of those are false. I don't want to get into a look at my libertarian resume discussion with you. Let's just say we've both done a lot for the party.

And for the record, you're NOT RIGHT THIS TIME. Your just burned out and bitter and upset. You sound like you wanted more results. And you sound tainted by Republicrat propaganda. The word "propaganda" suggests lies, and that's what the Republicrats are good at. Libertarians don't lie to get votes. We don't need to. And Libertarians who have been elected actually do what they promise. We walk the walk instead of just talking the talk like Republicans. We take actual steps to reduce the size, cost, and scope of government. Even when we don't win elections, or initiatives we get the message out there that people are sick of the way things are going.

I'm sorry that you've given up on Libertarianism, but don't expect me to stand by while you bash the party or tell outright lies claiming Libertarians candidates are corrupt, or in any way like other politicians.

I'm in it for the long haul. Heck I'm just about he right age to be the first Libertarian president myself. I hope you get over yourself and come back to the only political party that is offering valid and reasonable solutions to Americas many problems and don't continue contributing to them by supporting Republicans or Democrats.

Radar, principle gets nowhere if you play by the rules. You have to work within the system to change it, and if that means getting campaign contributions to get elected, then that's what you have to do. Calling on a sense of principles will energise a base, but if you can't afford to get the message out past that base, you're not going to get anywhere. The important thing is to remember your principles if you do get elected.

I think it would be a good idea to see Greens and Libs work together on the issues that they concur on. It would provide a good counter to the 2 party system. They can retain their individual parties, but form a coalition when their interests converge.

Perhaps you never were much of a LIbertarian if you give up so easily.

One of the things that the hard-core Ls do is to routinely conduct witch-hunts in which various people are accused of not being Libertarian or not L "enough" in various ways. Purity is a big criterion amongst the faithful, and those who stray from 100% get harsh criticism.

This is rewarding inside the party, because the hard faithful are needed to do the heavy lifting. The more you believe in the cause, the more likely you are to do things like setting up youth outreach programs.

From outside, it looks like cult-like exclusivity through rigorous testing. But most importantly, it's a curse for any political party, which in order to succeed needs to create and foster a "big tent" atmosphere where the many are welcome and gather to create political blocs of power.

LPers routinely ask themselves whether they would be better off without the 1/3rd of the party that are impure, or who are nay-sayers, or who complain about the internal workings of the party, etc. etc. It would have the result of making the faithful even more faithful. But also, even more cult-like, as potential members are put through even more rigorous testing and pre-education. ("Are you one of us? Take this test!")

Perhaps I never was much of a Libertarian? What does the question itself indicate? What would it say about an organization where I was a "principled" hard-working leader for years upon years, only to be told I was somehow lacking, in ways that I could not determine?

The LP is the only thing good for the Liberty movement. Everything else is crap. Political conditions couldn't be better for the Libertarian party. The American public is more sick than ever of Republicrats.

And as long as you keep repeating those things, you'll be fine. I know; I was repeating 'em in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

But there is a saying that is sometimes heard in the party that applies here.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again... and expecting different results."

When I stopped repeating those things, the facts could seep through. Facts like the membership decline, which you could not accept when it was put right before your eyes. Do you know what you are, if part of your decision-making process is actively ignoring facts? Do you?

A convert.

I'm politically very sharp and have always known what it takes to win elections. It takes money.

You've never worked on a campaign where you massively outspend the opposition by factors of 4:1 and 5:1 and still only get 11% of the vote.

Whoa, you need to chill <I>way</I> the fuck out, man. It was a joke. Yes, I realized it was a typo, which is why I posted the sarcastic "now you're probably gonna say you made a typo or something".

I just thought it was a funny typo and commented on it. Next time I'll be sure to include a :) so you know I'm joking.

Very true. But the LP IS getting different results. We're getting more and more elected members. We're becoming more and more mainstream.

I don't find the LP cultlike in any way. I'm sorry if you found it that way.

Actually I did accept it once I was given a verifiable source. And I said I was wrong.

No I haven't. My candidates are usually poor. It also takes a charismatic and well spoken candidate who is well-known throughout the community. The last candidate I ran a campaign for asked me to stop campaigning because she didn't want to actually win. She was convinced to run just to get on the ballot bud didn't want to move to Sacramento. This is NOT the kind of candidate we need. Recently I was discussing with some other Libertarians if our efforts were better spent on backing a very select number of candidates and issues to get them elected and have more credibility or if it's better to have candidates in every place Republicans and Democrats are running. Which would be better for the party? I'm not sure.

I'm all for getting contributions as long as those contributions aren't from special interest groups, wealthy corporations or individuals, or federal matching funds. All of those things make you beholden or corrupt.

If you cross the line once to get elected, you'll cross it after you're elected. Just as allowing government to step beyond the bounds of the constitution is wrong even for a good reason because you open the door later for someone to do it for the wrong reasons.

The greens and libertarians are diametrically opposed. Greens are socialists with strong ties to special interest groups. They are statists, and authoritarians who think the role of government is to stop any possible negative situation that people might get themselves into.

We are both against the drug war, so are groups like the ACLU, etc. But our efforts don't need to be combined to be effective. All of these groups can tell people the drug war is wrong in their own way and the message will be spread to the same number of people if not more. Our solution to end the drug war is to vote for Libertarians, their is to vote for greens. I don't see how we can work together unless it's in support of an initiative as everyone did in 1996 with prop 215 (the compassionate use act) which made medical marijuana legal to grow and use in CA. The fed keeps sweeping in with the DEA and shutting down these places and arresting people.

I don't find any of the parties to be a good match for me right now b/c I find that...

--The Democrats have the wrong people leading them right now (Gephardt stepping aside is encouraging though)...and they get all stupid on the death penalty

--The Greens are anti-business.

--The Republicans...different ideology.

--The Libertarians are not interested in protecting the civil rights of minorities.

--And the Aloysius party is run by some chucklehead who graduated from Southeast Missouri State University, where you can get a B by just sleeping through a class. ;)

Libertarians are interested in protecting civil rights for EVERYONE, not just minorities. They won't give up civil rights for security like the major two parties. Libertarians won't support hate crimes legislation because it places the government position of being the "thought police" and won't support reverse discrimination through institutionalized racism like affirmative action. We're all about meritocracy regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. Nothing could be more fair than that.

Most everyone's for that, Radar. Everyone except reality.