Interesting that he doesn't provide any links to back up his indignation.

I'm a long-standing small-l libertarian myself, but I've never heard anyone among the Big-L crowd say what he says they said.

Through the 2000 cycle, I had always voted for the Libertarian candidate for president. Not that I think he'd win, but I didn't want to support either of the big government nanny state parties.
However, when my contry is attacked, I want a robust foreign policy that takes down the perps and anyone reasonably associated with them. I do not believe in the ostrich solution.

I voted Libertarian from 1988 through 1996, realized how much of a stranglehold the "legalize it" crowd had on the party, further realized that Al Gore simply could not be allowed to be president, and cast my first Republican vote for Pres in 2000 -- followed up with more of the same in 2004.

Unfortunately the Republicans are doing their darndest to drive me away again, and the Libertarians are even fruitier.

Time for a new party? How about the Republican-Libertarian party? In the early 19th century there was a Democratic-Republican party, founded by Jefferson and Madison. It later became the Democratic party, but don't hold that against them.

The Republican-Libertarians could stand for the constitutional tenets of both the Republicans and Libertarians, without the social silliness of either.

Who's with me?

I beat this guy out the door several months ago (after a 15+ year membership in the LP). Since I no longer get their paper, I can't say if his allegations are true. But I can say that the party has returned to its pacifist roots, and does not welcome anyone who believes we are in a war (against anything - terror, fundamentalist Islam, all of Islam, or even just stupidity).

Geez, I hope that official Libertarian publications aren't printing that Bush blew up the World Trade Center.

I can see how the party might come up with an official platform against foreign intervention. I'm sort of against that myself. At the very least I think that foreign intervention should be honest. Either we keep our hands off, or don't, but stop pretending that sanctions and various things don't violate sovereignty every bit as much as war. So I suppose that I sort of agree with war on the grounds that it's honest. And since I don't agree with the loss of liberty that would be necessary to keep us safe at home *without* this war, I'm very glad we have leadership that's willing to fight it.

(And not Dems, who are every single bit as willing to use the military but who think it is *bad* and are likely to make erratic decisions because of that.)

Libertcontrarian might be refering to this,
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2006/03/troubled_consci.html

which also appeared in the Colorado LP's latest newsletter. Rather weak stuff.

skymuse wrote,"I voted Libertarian from 1988 through 1996, realized how much of a stranglehold the "legalize it" crowd had on the party,"

I'm trying to imagine how one could be a libertarian (big or small L) and not be part of the legalize it crowd. Or the lower taxes crowd. It goes by definition.

Not saying I believe it, but it IS a very intriguing theory.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=alex+jones+9%2F11&pl=true

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2032865563019209801&q=9%2F11&pl=true

I don't think its too unreasonable to ask our government to release the video camera footage from the hotel roof. That would clear up many things.

good lord i am so sick of conspiracy theorists. is bush a retard or evil genuis - make up your mind. even in midhigh school debate i argued that oswald was the lone gunmen. my arguement was the tinhat crowd couldnt come up with who was behind the assasination. johnson ? republicans? cubans ? the mob ? the soviets ? all working together - whatever. with all the screwups the republicans been doing lately their platform can be - hey, at least were not farking nuts. thanks god the american people can rise above all this cr@p.

Thanks Mark for the moonbattery comment of the day. I can't believe people believe this stuff...

Just watched the avove linked video's. Mark, seriously, don't go developing any allergies to tinfoil or anything. In your case it could be fatal.

I guess the only question this raises in my mind is this --- does anyone really think that the Libertarian Party ever had, or ever will have, a serious chance of influencing American political life.

Didn't think so.

The LP hit its high water mark in 1980, and that was thanks to a billionaire who ran for President and used his own money to finance television ads (TV ads I still remember seeing, thanks Ed Clark). And then they promptly booted him, and most of his supporters out of the party.

The self-dealing by the elements of the Browne camp that was covered by Bill Bradford in the pages of Liberty from 2000 through 2004 (not to mention the fact that the LPs one "shining star", Ron Paul, went back to the GOP) should be all the evidence anyone needs to conclude that these people shouldn't be taken seriously.

I last voted Libertarian in 2000, and don't think I ever will again.

skymuse -

I am totally with you, although I suggest we call it the "New Libertarian Party", and when someone asks what the "New" part means, we answer "It means we aren't FRIKKIN' INSANE."

"Legalize it" is a libertarian hallmark, but I do think that it likely attracts people who are in it for the drugs in much the same way that someone might be a Democrat for the government handouts.

So what are the party options for someone with definate libertarian or objectivist leanings but without the tinfoil? I've always figured that the influence of the Libertarian party, realistically, is to push the larger parties a tiny bit in the libertarian direction rather than to win national elections themselves.

Heh. Okay Ash. I'm with you on that. What's the first step?

Ash,

Or, we could reach back into history and call the new party the Whig Party. Of course, most Americans would probably think it had something to do with toupees.

I haven't changed my voter registration yet, but I quit giving the LP money when they refused to take the war on terror seriously.

I love the one fundraising letter I got that said to the effect: "Have we done something to upset You?" I also didn't renew my "Liberty" subscription because simply being contrarian is not enough to keep me reading.

Folks can have a reasonable disagreements regarding Iraq, but when the LP questions going into Afghanistan it became time to move on and become politically homeless, again.

Always a shame to see somebody leave the LP, but understandable. I've been with the LP since I turned 18 (only 4 years) and the only reason I remain in the party is that I have nowhere else to go. Everyone in the party is a wacko (for all the right reasons) but nobody is politically realistic.

I haven't read my newest LP newsletter, but if they are barking about conspiracies in the US government, it's no wonder a sensible person wants to leave. I can understand why people get libertarians confused with the LaRouche movement...

I don't follow the LP closely or do I give much thought to all the LP bashing thats inherit to any discussion concerning libertarians. Seems to me some people lose sight of the forest...

I voted libertarian in '04 because I liked what I saw and heard from Badnarik in interviews he did. He seemed practical and spoke true to classic liberal ideals. I was really impressed when Badnarik took to civil disobedience (with David Cobb of the Green party) outside the so-called "presidential debate" at Arizona State University. I'll loosely associate myself with the LP so long as they preach to protect my rights. Once we elect a libertarian president, we can sort out the minor details that cause so much conflict.

"realized that Al Gore simply could not be allowed to be president, and cast my first Republican vote for Pres in 2000"

This is the reason America should have preferential voting. It allows you to cast your vote for a minor party without it being "thrown away"

Whatever happened to the Libertarian plant to have all the party members move to New Hampshire and take over the state politically?

Re: the "first steps" towards forming a new, non-insane libertarian party:

The first steps would be to do the following in the most efficent way possible:

(1) Establish a means to communicate our ideas between ourselves to determine if there is even enough common ground to make it feasible. (For example, my definition of a "non-insane" libertarian party involves more than just a rejection of silly conspiracy theories.)

(2) Do some sort of search to determine whether there is already a group or groups with similar goals and, if so, merge with them.

(3) Get the word out.

All of these steps involve the web in obvious ways.

A New Libertarian Wiki? I'm not real clear on how those work, though.

Julie:

I have installed a few wikis before, including installing the same wiki engine that Wikipedia uses.

I am a very busy person. However, the idea of creating a non-insane libertarian group has been in my mind for years, so I'm willing to explore this a bit further.

I found you'r e-mail address on your blog and I'm sending you an e-mail. (My comments here do not have my real e-mail).

I can't find skymuse's e-mail, so I'll just post a comment on his latest blog post.

(I did not mean to imply that I installed the Wikipedia wiki, merely that I downloaded the same wiki software that Wikipedia uses and got it running.)

G-mail seems to be unavailable to me at the moment, so I'll write later...

Major Dad heard a report on NPR a couple weeks ago, with some yammering Indonesian explaining how Bush had caused the Sunami by setting off an underground Nuke-you-ler explosion exACTLY where he knew the biggest wave could be caused. I designed a t-shirt lampooning McChimpy's all-encompassing culpability for the world's ills, natural and unnatural. Our original post on the subject (A numerical listing of all Bush's ee-ville deeds) is like the Energizer Bunny ~ it just keeps growing and growing...

The Libertarians will never be a serious party until they quit chasing the phantom of electing a Libertarian President. Why are they always trying to start at the top? admittedly I'm not hooked into the LP political scene, but I don't see them working seriously to elect city mayors, county supervisors, state assemblymen, Representatives, or Senators. How could a Libertarian President even hope to get his ideas through Congress with *no fellow party members in it*? President Bush can't do it even with a majority. :-P

Addendum: Why aren't Libertarians working to elect *judges*, for heaven's sake? (In places where judgeships are elective offices, obviously.) Since we're all in thrall to judicial activism anyway, a Libertarian judge might be the best bang for the political buck. Imagine the Kelo decision under a Libertarian judge, for example...

But no. For the LPers, it seems to be the White House or nothing. As I said -- they're not a serious political party.

I will be voting for a libertarian candidate for governor of Ohio this year. If you live in Ohio or no anyone that does, please express your support. http://peirceforohio.com/

The libertarian candidates are out there, just don't expect to hear about them on the front page of whatever daily you read.

Two points:

1. Libertarians and conspiracy theorists are joined together in a distrust of government.

The difference is that libertarians don't have to make up shit. Unfortunately, both libertarians and conspiracy crackpots get lumped into the same category because ot the fundamental distrust of government.

2. Libertarians are too individualistic to make any collective political impact.

The reason the Democrats and the Republicans make such progress in their agendas is that they will sacrifice individual beliefs or aims to the aim of the collective. Loyalty to the party is prized more highly than loyalty to principle.

The biggest impact that libertarians can make is in the cultural arena. South Park has done more to advance the libertarian cause than any party ever will.

God, I always run across these new third party threads two days too late.

Sigh.

Does anyone else see the inherent contradiction of "libertarians" trying to gain "power"? Libertarianism is either a set of guiding principles (philosophy, religion, whatever) or it is nothing. As a political party, it is impossible if its members are sincere, and fraudulent if they are not. As such they have a natural affinity for the far left: "You WILL be tolerant... or else."