Libertarian Party Convention Recap (Sunday)

All I wanna know is did this chestnut be retained or not?

d.) support the repeal of all taxation;

if thats still in there, then all they did was make it easier for opponents to find.

For those keeping score at home, I looked up the retained planks and added them to George’s email on my blog http://ncway.blogspot.com/ . But I have no idea if these are amended planks except where noted nor how they were amended, if so.

Tim, you’ll be happy to know Taxation is not one of them. And I know it’s a different thread, but Tom Knapp, keep yer pants on my friend. We have two years to write a new platform which should express a truly Libertarian big tent in time for the 2008 elections. In the meantime I’m sure our candidates and other party representatives are perfectly capable of letting people know where we stand on the issues. ;-)

Thanks Brian, that is extremely good news.

Congratulations on gutting the LP. I don’t suppose you’ll have the decency to rename it something more accurate, such as Republitarian, or perhaps American Know-Nothing party?

I do have have Starchild pics . . perhaps in the morning.

Just in from the final dinner. I hovered around the ad-hoc LRC meeting and I still don’t get it. Basically abolishing the platform and howling about the pledge has nothing to do with real electoral strategy or resonance. The avg. person just doesn’t care.

Strong candidates like Barry Hess from Arizona are uncompromising when it comes to principle. I hope he does well. What difference is a pledge or platform in Congressional races, if 60% of voters don’t have an LP choice anyway ?

*cousin.

BTW, why not just call it the Reform Party?

the pledge remains unchanged.

However, it is belied by the new “platform”, and by the votes of the delegates against resolutions to stop the war, impeach King George, and have a real investigation into 9-11. It’s OK to be for Clinton impeachment, but not Dubai-ya?

The party now apparently also believes that the whole country is the property of the government (thus, the regime has a right to control “its” borders).

Reputedly, the biggest applause line of the con-vention was “I’m not an anarchist”.

Clearly, most people taking the pledge either don’t understand it or don’t mean it. Why would someone who is FOR force and fraud be expected not to USE fraud in joining a political body?

There are no consequences for lying when taking the pledge, so you may as well get it over and done with and repeal it.

Congratulations, guys, you win. It’s your party now; “libertarian” is now another term that used to mean freedom, just as “liberal” once did.

of course, you know as well as I do that the delegates who go to convention tend to be much harder core than the average party supporter.

and knowing that —> 50% of the delegates voted to get rid of the anarchist language in the pledge anyway…. I personally would have gone with a pledge for candidates and officers, just not one based on the force principle.

I’m really not so sure why you’re convinced that the LP has been gravely compromised, paulie. It doesn’t look to me as if it had. Nothing can destroy principled people.

I’m really not so sure why you’re convinced that the LP has been gravely compromised, paulie.

Let’s see.

The LP no longer feels it’s necessary or proper to impeach criminal white house residents (even if they happen to be far worse than their predecessor by any libertarian measure) because it might alienate potential recruits from the national socialist GOP party (as if even more of those were what the party needs). Note that the LP passed a resolution to impeach Clinton in 1998.

The LP can’t pass a resolution against the war (or even consider a a real one), and believes the official conspiracy theory about 9-11 must note be questioned.

The LP believes the whole country is the property of the state, thuse “we” must protect “our” borders.

The LP takes no stand whatsoever on most issues.

The LP which saves its loudest appaluse for “I am not an anarchist”.

No, I guess there’s no problem at all here.

pledge allegiance to a state or pledge allegiance to a debating society, what’s the difference.

Well, for starters, debating societies don’t kill millions of people, as the US state has (including about two million Iraqis in the last 16 years, and going all the way back to millions of indigenous inhabitants at the very start of this state).

Debating societies don’t steal or extort two or three trillion FRN a year.

Debating societies don’t put two million people into captivity, the vast majority having not done anything wrong.

Debating societies don’t torture, rape, poison…

But the state does.

The vote on the impeachment resolution was by voice vote, and it needed two-thirds to pass. To my ear, there was a slight majority for the impeachment resolution. But no one asked for “division” since it needed two-thirds and clearly didn’t have that.

I am truly amazed that the LP platform has been gutted to the extent reported above. This is not merely rewording a few planks in the platform or tweaking around the edges. I truly believe that the LRC has acted in a destructive manner to the LP which may result in a LP that will have few libertarians in it.

I also believe it will result in the loss of an energetic libertarian base of activists who do much of the outreach.

Perhaps this will attract a few small government conservatives and wishy washy middle-of-the-road types. But it has been my experience that these folks generally do not pull the lever for libertarians once they enter the voting booth.

I hope I am wrong, but I think we will soon see “libertarians” who think cutting the rate of increase in the size of government is a victory for liberty. This is the history of moderates and conservatives. This is a big victory for the fifth columnists in the LP and all those who hate libertarian principles.

It is a sad day.

I now officially can say that I am not voting in the future. If the LP does not support ending this war – it has no principle as far as I’m concerned.

Remember it’s never the end. It’s another part of a bigger process. The LP didn’t cease to exist in 1984, when it lost the “Koch machine”‘s funding.

Here’s a picture of Starchild . . .

http://www.sundwall4congress.org/weblog/2006/07/the_freaks_geeks_1.html

The platform structure as it now stands, after the second retention vote:

* I.1 Freedom and Responsibility
I.2 Crime >- I.3
+I.4 The War on Drugs
+I. 10 Fredeom of Communication
+I. 11 Freedom of Religion
* I.12 Property Rights >- III.9, IV.D.3, IV.C.3
* I.13 The Right to Privacy
+* I.16 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
I.17 Conscription
I.18 Immigration
I.20 Reproductive Rights >- III.5
I.22 Sexuality and Gender
II.5 Government Debt
II.6 Corporate Welfare, Monopolies and Subsidies >- II.7
II.9 Public Services >- III.13

* indicates approved by over 50% of delegates for retention on the first vote
>- indicates consolidation
+ indicates approved by over 50% of delegates for retention on the second vote

Full text should be available soon.

Join us here to plan out the next steps:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpplatform-discuss/

No”¦ and debating societies don’t stop the people in charge from doing any of that, either.

Neither does a sellout LP. In fact it is no longer even trying to.

Less government, lower taxes, and more freedom for all people.

Less metastasizing cancer in your body….

Calm down, Boys:

I am here and the fight is not over yet.

Angela Keaton

Nicholas: No, obviously I haven’t met him. However, it does say something about his character that he attends a political party convention as a delegate and goes on the floor to vote and debate dressed like that.

In 1996 I watched the LP National Convention on C-SPAN. I saw people with clown wigs, in costumes, with battery-powered propeller beanies on. I was on the outside then, and I laughed.

Today I’m on the inside, I see those people, and I groan.

Kris:

Once again, a “reformer” must rely on distortions, hyperbole and strawman arguments instead of rational and truthful debate.

The LP platform does not advocate that people own nukes and no LP candidate that I know of has ever advocated this.

The LP platform does not advocate private toll roads and no LP candidate for any national office that I know of has advocated that.

While libertarians have always advocated free market health care (which would be better for people for reasons you probably can’t comprehend), LP candidates have always recognized the need for govt to honor existing commitments.

Whatever bigoted actions Walmart wants to take is done at their own peril. As you probably don’t know, most states have no protection for gay employees now. If Walmart wants to sell only to Christians, who really cares, but you?

Your smug diatribes reveal a depth of ignorance that is embarrasing. It is also telling that you use the lies of opponents to smear libertarians

If it sounds like I’m being rough on Kris, maybe it is because he apparently has nobody honestly advising him on how his opponent will exploit such a website.

It might be too late for Kris to clean this mess up. But maybe future candidates will learn that putting out this type of eccentric weirdness can damage their campaign.

If I were his opponent, I would immediately add a web page on my site picturing Kris in the Confederate uniform along with quotes about porn and chronic unemployment (taken out of all context).

All this while Kris groans about people acting foolish at a political convention. Apparently he has never seen a GOP or Democrat convention.

Real candidates have advisors that point out fatal campaign errors and rehearse talking points and debating points. They point out flaws in the rhetoric and might even suggest to the candidate ways to communicate more effectively.

But honestly, if Kris is the best the “reformers” have to offer, the LP is truly doomed.

Now, back to the platform.

The 2004 platform advocated total deregulation of all nuclear technology- including weapons- and supported the right of individuals to own any weapon whatever- including nuclear weapons.

The 2004 platform called for the complete liquidation of all publicly owned or controlled property- including every public road in the nation- to the highest bidder. That means the street where you live would become a private road- run for profit- and thus a toll road.

The 2004 platform called for an immediate end to all taxation and an immediate end to all government entitlements. It also called for default on all government debts and commitments. Libertarian candidates- including Badnarik- have advocated the end of Social Security and Medicare since before I’ve been a member.

As for discrimination, the “right to be a bigot” is an extremely unpopular one- except among bigots. Did you wonder why so many white supremacists try to join this party?

Kris, I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when you claim the platform calls for complete liquidation of all publicly owned property and I challenge you to cite which plank this is in. The platform does call for parks and water projects to be transfered into private ownership.

The platform specifically mentions firearms, not nukes, except for where it says:

“We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe.”

I suppose you can really stretch it and claim this calls for people to own nukes – I suppose it might mean that people can own secret death lasers and space-based death rays too. However, the platform says:

We call on the U.S. government to continue negotiations toward multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security.

Hardly a pro-nuke agenda there.

Tom B: Quoting from the 2004 platform- let’s see you deny -this.-

The platform does not call for an immediate end to all taxation and it does not advocate default: “default is preferable to raising taxes or perpetual refinancing of growing public debt”.

The two halves of your sentence are contradictory. The sentence, “Default is preferable…” damn well DOES advocate default. As for the platform itself, the “transition” includes only two items- the call for default on government debt and the total repeal of any ability for government to enforce taxation. There’s nothing that says, “We’ll cut taxes and eventually eliminate them.” “We demand the repeal of all taxes.” It’s that simple, that blunt, and that unrealistic.

As for nukes: “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be abolished.” as transition. That is, the law enforcement body that controls nuclear power AND nuclear weapons should be abolished. No regulations, no law enforcement, come get your plutonium. (more)

“We call on the U.S. government to continue negotiations toward multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security. “

Where did it say that? I certainly don’t remember it- and since we call for the repeal of all regulations on nukes and the abolition of the people employed to enforce those regulations, and for a free market in nuclear energy and materials, who on Earth would trust us to enforce our half of any such agreement?

Thankfully, most of this is now moot- except for the RKBA plank, all of these have gone by the wayside. What we have now isn’t perfect, and it still has a few corn-flake bits in it like the aforementioned “absolutely no weapons laws ever” stance, but it’s a vast improvement over the old- and much easier for us to refine and rework in 2008.

It’s certainly no surprise to see that freak-bashing is alive and well in the LP. As a tall, bookish and mildly butch gal, that’s the sort of thing that keeps me from joing the LP. Vote for the fine collection of wrench-in-the-works amateurs the LP runs for office, you bet. I wanna see ‘em win and gum up our out of control government but good! But the sneering boys who make the the rank and file, on the other hand, are 33% of why I own and carry firearms. Y’all are not safe to be around. The knife-in-the-back blackball, the slashed tire and the fist in the face are ever options for many supposed LPers.

Never said you have to *like* Starchild — he gives me the creepy-crawlies! — but if he fulfilled the requirements to be a delegate, that should be that and no need to press the issue. For shame.

As for the LP imploding, that’s been coming ever since they started dissing the ZAP. Lose it and the rest was sure to follow.

Orwell predicted our future. Enjoy!

Kris, since you don’t seem to remeber much of the platform, I’ll make it easy for you.

First, click here: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

Then go to Military Policy at IV(B)(1) for the plank on nuclear disarmament

Then to refresh your memory, check Resource Use at III (9)

You will not find anything there that backs up your spurious claim made above:

“The old plank, “Resource Use,” called for the liquidation to the highest bidder of all government-controlled public lands and property. This would obviously include roadways.”

This plank says exactly what I said it did at #50 above.

I suppose it is possible that in a plank that repeatedly refers to firearms and ammunition, but uses the word “weapons” once, some paranoid conspiracy crank could interpret “weapons” to mean nuclear bombs. I’ll give you that. I suppose it could also mean biological or chemical weapons also. It could also mean knives and swords. It could even mean missiles.

“and since we call for the repeal of all regulations on nukes and the the people employed to enforce those regulations”

The platform does not advocate the repeal of all regulations on nuclear weapons.

The NNSA is only tasked with maintaining, designing, testing, and producing nuclear weapons for the US nuclear weapons stockpile. It has no enforcement power. It is part of the Department of Energy, which the platform calls for elimination. But the platform also calls for building no more bombs anyway.

The United States Strategic Command controls US nuclear weapons. It is (obviously) part of the United States Defense Department. The platform does not call for elimination of this department.

If you managed to aquire a nuclear weapon, it would not be the NRC, NNSA, or the USSTRATCOM that would show up at your door. It would most likely be the FBI, which the platform does not advocate abolishing.

Mr. Moore, you should become an attorney.

I will admit to secretly calling for the legalization of concealed pocket nukes by next Wednesday, unless they are unsafe or risky. Americans have suffered too long under the tyranny of those who seek to deprive us all of the safe pocket nukes that the founders clearly intended us to conceal pursuant to the Second Amendment.