The first one consists of one word, four letters: LINO.

The second thought is that this recent anti-libertarian press release only helps the agorist case that real change cannot come from party involvment. I don’t know if I’ve come to that conclusion myself, but this recent episode nevertheless has me extremely depressed about the nature of the LP. The only reason the LP is as relevant as it is now is that it has, up until 2008, promoted radical change—nobody would ever bother voting for a third party that’s very similar to the two Establishment parties since the chances of having one’s preferred Establishment party win are greater than the push created by the third party vote. Only by having a radical third party does the third party give voters a reason to support it instead of an Establishment party. This was Harry Browne’s argument, and I’ve yet to see a good argument to the contrary.

I think Mr. Antman is too kind. He uses the term “conservative-libertarians” where I would simply use the term “conservatives.”

I agree with Dr. Long (I assume that’s Dr. Long). As for Mr. Spangler’s suggestion, I think merely changing it to “Liberal Party” would suffice. All true liberals are market liberals, after all.

Yours,
Alex Peak

Right; liberty is not a suicide pact; it’s not /any/ pact. It’s not an agreement between parties; it’s the absence of an agreement.

It’s the absence of coercion by the State or others: it’s freedom! the freedom to defend oneself against coercion, to enter into agreements voluntarily. Is our “agreement” with the State voluntary?

The State will never shrink by itself; it will never give up its power, which is power over us, without a mighty fight. We must /never/ give it /more/ power; that’s the bright line.

Even our beautiful, supremely well-thought-out U.S. Constitution is not proof against the rapacity of today’s politicians and apparently neither is the present-day LP.

I certainly agree that we have a right to restrict individuals who actually pose a threat. Belonging to an enormous group some tiny percentage of which pose a threat doesn’t cut it.

I suspect I do think “liberty is a suicide pact,” though — at least in the sense that it’s better to suffer injustice than to commit it.

I would not call people who are anti-immigration for either law and order or xenophobic reasons “Centrists.” Such people are right-wing LINOs who should be voting Republican.

That being said, if the H1M1 flu were as lethal as it could have been (but seems to not be now), it is not really a hard call to call for either border restrictions or out and out quarenteens. Had the lethal amino acid been present in the virus measures would be called for to make it possible for everyone to stay home – including mandating a suspension of payments to creditors so no one has the motivation to cheat.

Liberty is not a suicide pact. It is an agreement to allow others freedom – but making another person sick does not count as a freedom in my book (any more than allowing a practicing and inebriated alcoholic to drive unmolested by the state – preferably such an individual would be hospitalized in both cases).

Thanks for the endorsement.

The exception should never have been approved by the delegates and I voted against it in Denver. I wouldn’t describe those wanting that clause as “centrists,” as they are a minority, but with planks requiring 2/3 support, that minority was able to insist on it to get an immigration plank at all. It was a judgment call to let them have their way, and this press release shows it was a mistake.

Mercifully, this is probably the worst plank in the current platform from a libertarian standpoint, but it shows that compromises with conservative-libertarians cannot be allowed. Next time, NO plank is best if they still represent more than 1/3 of the party, but more important is to replace the current national regime with mainstream libertarians so that the national office isn’t allowed to be so far from the membership. If we have the same leadership in 2010, the party is over.

Oh, stop cheering, Brad!