Libertarian Party

... is that they deal with Libertarians in the same way: they don't want our policies, just our votes.  The Hammer of Truth brings it home.

What if I told you there was one -- in a race with two major-party candidates -- and that result was obtained as a write-in candidate?  Would you be interested?

Forget the hypotheticals: go read about a poll conducted by the Louisville Courier-Journal's Dale Moss.

The re-election of U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel won approval, and he was picked too as the champion of public service. Then again, he tied with President Bush atop the list of those whom people suspect of being out for themselves. Better to be both cheered and booed than ignored, Sodrel said he has heard.

"I understand that I have disagreements (with some) -- what is in their best interests," Sodrel said.

Sodrel, a Republican, is opposed both by his Democratic predecessor, Baron Hill, and by Libertarian Party nominee Eric Schansberg. The latter received 72 votes, a pleasing total for a candidate whose name was not among the choices included on the survey. Does the result hint of public dissatisfaction with both Sodrel and Hill? Schansberg likes to think so.

"We'll see how it goes," he said.

Twenty-six people who wrote Schansberg in also singled out U.S. Rep. Ron Paul as their No. 1 good guy in government. Paul, of Texas, is also a Libertarian, although he won his congressional seat as a Republican.

In the Moss survey, Paul finished higher than dozens of supposedly better-known local and state officials.

That's a pretty striking result when you're talking about a write-in candidate. Now, it should be noted that the poll was "unscientific", which in this context probably means the results are being reported straight to the readers.  That's actually a bit of a good thing.

You see, the normal political polls ask a lot of people a lot of questions.  They don't just ask who that person supports or would vote for; they ask if the respondent has voted before, and how often, what political party they belong to, and so on.  They then run those numbers through a statistical analysis to try to weight the numbers properly to match exit polls, so that they can predict who will win an election better.  One of the steps in that process is often weighting the results by party affiliation; that is, they look at their sample, compare it to the expected Republican/Democratic split, and adjust the results to match what they think the results would be if their sample party split matched what they think the real party split is.

There's a place for manipulations like that, and predicting elections is as fair a place for it as any.  But when you are trying to guage public support for a candidate's proposals, or the candidate himself, playing too many games with the party split is a good way to lose information about those candidates who don't fit neatly into the two party system.

The Libertarian party is rapidly becoming the biggest thing in politics that nobody wants to talk about.  The man is Eric Schansberg.  He's an economist and public policy analyst with 15 years of experience as a university professor.  Despite that environment, he's pro-life, and has a more coherent and a more rational position on Iraq than the national party's presidential candidate in 2004.  Oh, and he has a blog.

Full-Disclosure: I don't know him personally, but I know people who do, and that's where I got the information.

There have been reports that Aaron Russo, one of the most prominent Libertarian candidates for President, has sent out spam for his campaign. I didn't get it myself, but it was posted to one of the most popular anti-spam mailing lists. This is a great way to alienate a lot of technically-inclined voters, and I'm frankly embarassed by the whole thing. I'm hoping it's in the realm of a stupid mistake, rather than what it seems to be at first glance, but that doesn't seem to be likely.

Up until I saw this report, I thought Russo was probably the best candidate the Libertarian party had to offer -- based primarily on Russo's perceived ability to get attention, rather than any familiarity with him personally, I admit. (There's generally little room to differentiate between the Libertarian candidates on positions, unfortunately). Now I have doubts. This is a significant blunder, especially since the tech community is strongly opposed to spam in general but libertarian-leaning otherwise. Way to poison the well, Aaron.

I've emailed the Russo campaign asking for comment. If I get a response, I'll post it here. As of 5/10/2004, about 10:30 CST, the associated websites appear to have been suspended for spamming by the ISP, so I'm not really anticipating one.

The network administrator of their ISP has posted to the same forum where the spam was reported that he has suspended the account; or, in other words, their own ISP thinks they did it, and cut them off. So, that's why the campaign website is (UPDATE: was) down.

UPDATE: The Russo campaign has now gotten back to me. Their website is back up, and they are investigating. They don't have an official (ie, quotable) conclusion yet, but I think it's fair to say that they are denying any intent to spam and are investigating the matter. This is reassuring. More details when I have them (and can quote them).

UPDATE: The investigation continues. There is much confusion among all and sundry. Nothing quotable yet. Declan, of PoliTech, has an article up on this topic.

There have been scattered reports of spam from the Russo campaign that predates this incident. No one has produced an example, so far, but one of the accounts says that the spam included the usual Bayes poison (that is, strings of random words intended to confuse spam filtering software). This concerns me because the campaign manager had represented to me that spam from their campaign had never happened before. (And I did check on that assertion, but obviously my research methods are not omniscient).

And then there's the Bayes poison. THAT means that the spam allegedly sent for the Russo campaign was sent either by a professional spammer-for-hire or, at a minimum, by someone who knew damn well they were spamming. I now have a lot of trouble supporting the Russo campaign, and I won't feel easy about it until I hear a really, really, really good explanation .

Virginia Beach Libertarian Robert K. Dean drew 43 percent of the vote in a three-way mayoral race in his city on May 4, nearly defeating a 27-year Democrat incumbent for the non-partisan post.

The incumbent, Meyera Oberndorf, drew 50 percent of the vote.

"Robert Dean deserves tremendous thanks and praise for running such a credible campaign that obviously resonated with so many voters in his city," said Virginia LP chair Steve Damerell.

The Republican challenger drew 6%. Good work down there.

This is the Libertarian Purity Test, which is intended to measure how libertarian you are. It isn't intended to be any sort of McCarthyite purging device -- just a form of entertainment, hopefully thought-provoking. I like it a lot better than the more famous "World's Shortest Political Quiz" because I haven't stated the questions with any intent to give an upward bias to a test-taker's score, and because it gives a clearer breakdown between hard and soft-core libertarians. Enjoy, suggest your friends try it out, and see how you compare to other test-takers...

We're about to get the big show started again. The big conventions where the Democrats and Republicans will officially name their Presidential and VP candidates so that the competition can begin in earnest.

The "big games" of this political World Series are the so-called debates between the candidates. These televised debates can make or break a campaign.

The problem with these "debates" is that they are all form and no substance. Bush and Kerry will give nearly the same replies to the softball questions in a mutually agreed-upon setting that is designed to keep anything really interesting from being said or done.

The shows will be judged on which candidate sounds and looks best while stating a position more-or-less the same as his opponent's... Which is to say, the middle-of-the-road, poll-guided, trying not to piss anyone off, candy-assed sellout position.

The chance of getting a Libertarian (this year, Michael Badnarik) into any official debate between Kerry and Bush is slim at best. Generally, the two major parties work together to exclude third party candidates, because it is normally in both of their interests to do so. They don't want to legitimatize someone who might take votes from their campaign. But there's a catch...

The third parties lean right or left on their own. The Libertarians are closer to the right; the Naderites (whatever they are calling themselves this year) are closer to the left. Bush would love to give the Naderites credibility if it won't hurt his own votes; ditto Kerry and the Libertarians.

What if the Libertarian Party approached Kerry to debate, just one on one? Kerry wants to credit the Libertarians, in order to weaken Bush's support among libertarian-leaning conservatives. It's actually to Kerry's benefit to debate the Libertarians, regardless of who "wins".

And once Badnarik has debated Kerry, Bush will be forced to debate us -- because otherwise, he'll lose that tough Texan never-run-from-a-fight image.

If you're one of those Bush supporters who is a little leary about a third party "stealing" votes, ask the Naderites to issue the same challenge to Bush.

That's the first half of the plan -- suppose it succeeds. Suppose both Bush and Kerry agree to debate Nader and Badnarik, respectively. And let's be honest; if we can get one candidate to agree, the other one pretty much has to, just to keep things even. That's the beauty of having two minor-party candidates this year.

So suppose they both agree. Arrange the debates so that the questions are not revealed in advance; structure it so that the moderator asks a question, and both candidates then get two opportunities to answer -- one before and one after seeing the opponent's response. Ideally, run the debates on the same day, but at separated locations; this is a nice bonus but isn't strictly necessary.

With me so far? Now it gets tricky: the Libertarians and the Naderites make sure the moderator uses the same set of questions. Do the debate as usual... and then, after both debates, get together in the editting room and you can produce a single-response debate between all four candidates.

If you're feeling especially vicious, approach each candidate afterwards and show them a tape of the four-way (editted) debate... with the extra (second) responses included. And then offer them a chance to come back and produce their own extended responses, or have the tape distributed without their second responses.

Who knows? It might work.

The Libertarian Party of Colorado is dead. All that remains is a walking corpse without a soul.

From May 21-23, the LPCO held its annual convention in Estes Park. Fewer than 45 voting members nominated a Libertarian candidate for state legislature who has pledged to violate the right of self-defense.

According to Steve Gresh (and others), only one person voted for None of the Above to protest the nomination of Mark Brophy, who signed a survey from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners saying he supports the so-called "assault weapons" ban, local ordinances that limit the right to bear arms, and Brady registration checks at gun shows.

This should concern any libertarian. One of our main strengths against the two major parties is our status as the "party of principle". If we attempt to compromise on issues like this, we will ultimately lose our ability to make a difference. Being a libertarian is not about getting elected at any cost.

The Libertarians need to limit this notion that they're going to get into government and disband everything. They need to take a moderate libertarian approach and recognize that people do, in fact, need government to do some things.

The question is, which things? Government does a whole lot right now that it shouldn't be doing, and no Libertarian wants to let that continue. I agree that the party needs to focus on "winnable issues" when possible, in order to use the incrementalist strategy against the enemies of liberty, but it's hard to pick and choose when you're talking about a candidate for President. Especially when the candidate, to be frank, has little chance of actually winning. The presidential race is all about getting the ideas out -- the state and local races are about winning on those ideas.

And why do the Libertarians devote so much of their resources to the presidency? They really need to focus on local and state elections to garner a base.

This one's easy: the presidential race is a shortcut to ballot access. Even with a very small percentage of the vote, you get ballot access much more easily than if you don't run anyone and don't get any noticable number of votes. The Libertarian Party actually has more infrastructure at the state level than most other third parties, and runs more state and local candidates than other third parties.

The Michael Badnarik campaign has started a weblog. In case you have been living in the major-party media blackout zone, Badnarik is the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2004.

UPDATE: Corrected the link to the Badnarik weblog (they changed it later on).

SayUncle discusses the role of government under a libertarian philosophy. Unfortunately, he gets it wrong. In fact, it's the classic error: assuming that government can provide what you want it to provide, but not also provide what some others want it to provide, without making a clear differentiation between those two requests. After covering the basics (defense, regulation of commerce, police), on which we don't disagree, here's what he thinks is authorized by the general welfare clause:

1. No one should starve to death
2. No one should go without health care
3. No one should be denied basic education

Welfare

I will answer the first argument not in my own words, but in the words of Davy Crockett:

"Mr. Speaker ? I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

His point is simple: it is not the role of government to provide charity. With the principle "No one should starve to death in America" I heartily agree; yet private charity is more than capable of addressing this issue, and would be even more capable of doing so if the government was not so busy taking our money to do it for us.

Health Care

To the question of health care, I ask you, "By what right do you lay this burden upon me? By what act of malice or negligence do you seek to lay upon me the legal duty to care for the injuries of another?" Indeed, should I find a man dying upon the street, certainly I would aid him to retain his life in whatever manner I could. Such is my moral duty, laid upon me by the twist of fate that had brought me to that place at that time. And certainly those whose acts of malice or negligence bring about injury to another should be compelled to pay the costs of their actions.

But those who have acted with care and justice can be assigned no such legal duty. The costs of man's actions are borne by those responsible for those actions, not by society as a whole. Were it otherwise the least of fools would quickly bankrupt us all. Though it be the moral duty of man to save the fool from his folly, there are too many fools and few enough of the wise. Indeed, how are the fools to become wise if they never feel the consequences of their foolishness?

To tax all the people for the privision of medicine is no more noble than a subsidy of injury, paid for by picking the pockets of the healthy and canceling the debts of criminals.

Education

To speak of education, even a basic education, as a fundamental right is to grievously misunderstand the nature of our rights. Rights are liberties, not entitlements. I have the right to speak freely, yet I can call upon no one to subsidize my speech. I have the right to keep and bear arms, yet I must purchase the arms. I have the right to an education, but no power to compel another to teach me.

People have rights, independent of government. Alone on a desert island I retain the right to speak as I choose, to go armed as I choose, to educate myself as I choose. My rights do not depend upon government for their existance, nor do they impose a duty upon any other being. Should I build a bonfire to an uncaring God upon my island, to demand that He send an entire school system to satisfy my right to an education? Should I be offended if none appears?

Step back from the brink of heresy, and consider a simpler situation: me on my island, you on yours. If I am an illiterate dropout, have I then the right to demand that you, a tenured professor of multiple disciplines, educate me at your own cost? Shall you fashion books of coconut bark, and standardized tests written with a stick in the sand, timed by the tide? Of course not. I have no more claim upon this hypothetical, professorial you than I would upon any other man. Perhaps we can trade coconuts.

Education is a issue for children and parents; what we call "school" is better termed "raising a child". Therein lies the solution. It is with the parents that responsibility for a child rests. A parent who chooses to have their child raised by others is welcome to do so, provided those others are willing to do so -- and, in practical terms, this means financially compensated. We can no more compel a man innocent of responsibility in the matter of a child to support that child's education than we can compel him to purchase food, clothing, and christmas presents for said child.

I will concede that it is a good thing indeed for children to be raised, but I will concede neither that it is my responsibility to provide for their raising, nor that allowing the state to dictate the manner and nature of their education will be good for anyone. Can we doubt that a public education is the greatest tool of potential indoctrination ever devised? On what other pretense can we imprison our citizens, guilty of no crime save youth, for the a fifth of their entire lifespan at the least? By what other means can we force such victims to learn and recite the chosen doctrine of the state, over and over, to the point that any other competing views of the world are suppressed reflexively?

The argument against public education is not that it does a "bad job" -- though, certainly, in some cases it does. The argument is much more powerful than that. On whom does the responsibility for the child rest? By what right is a financial duty imposed upon an innocent man? By what right is a child compelled to submit to indoctrination?

The classic mistake of people who describe themselves as "libertarian-leaning" is to begin with a good idea (such as charity to feed to hungry, tend the sick, and educate the youth), and then to believe the idea retains its virtue when expressed as a mandatory government program.

Quinnipiac University is a tiny little college in Conn. that would be completely unknown, except they have developed a name for themselves in the Northeast because of the amount of polls they do. Well they did it again!! They took another poll in PA, labeling it a 3-way Bush/Kerry/Nader race. We have called them on this in the past, and they still REFUSE to include Libertarians. We have called them on this in years past when they have left off our other candidates.

We need to BLAST them this time - and not stop until they include us - I'm sick of seeing their polls with our candidates left out!

Here is their main number, you can ask for the "polling institute" and Doug Schartz is the director of polling.

(203) 582-8200 doug.schwartz@quinnipiac.edu

The Badnarik Blog brings us an opportunity to convince a university that does a lot of public opinion polls to include Libertarians in their polls. So far they have been casting the 2004 race as a three-way race between Bush, Kerry, and Nader; if we put a bug in their ear, so to speak, they may start including Barnauik in their polls. Give them a call or email today, then leave a comment with the message you sent.

By now, most libertarians know that the Libertarian Party chose as its presidential nominee Michael Badnarik, the darkest of dark horses, and a figure hardly known within the party and virtually unknown to non-LP libertarians. Badnarik is a self-taught constitutional scholar whose views were scarcely known to most LP members and delegates prior to the nomination.

Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."

This article has been getting a lot of play in the blogosphere lately. It's long, and informative, especially for those who don't know much about Badnarik. I confess that it worried me somewhat, but after thinking it through, I don't think the problems are nearly so bad as they are portrayed here.

First, the Browne scandal (which I had heard of, but not encountered a great deal of detail on) is obviously a bad sign. It explains a lot about the party's performance in those two elections. It also explains why the nomination this time around was so heavily contested, and why anti-establishment candidates Russo and Badnarik both did so well. (For the record, I supported Russo going into the convention because I thought he could use his skills and contacts to get the word out effectively; I wasn't familiar with Nolan at all; Badnarik interested me because he comes from Austin, TX, but not enough to overcome Russo's advantages).

With respect to Badnarik himself... obviously he has opinions, often unusual ones and frankly unPresidential ones. But they are just ideas; they are not part of the party platform, and since the nomination Badnarik has backed off of the more outlandish ones. There's a difference between ideas and policy, and that's being showcased here. Of course, you don't run on ideas which are not policy -- and that's exactly why those statements are being consigned to oblivion.

Just so you know what I'm talking about, the most widely talked about idea is that of confining those in prison to bed rest for their first month or so -- the idea being to reduce their physical condition and make it easier for the guards to handle them. Obviously it's got a lot of flaws; but similarly, so does the current prison system that allows (and provides equipment for) prisoners to exercise. With little else to do with their time, prisoners can build a fairly impressive physique. That's the problem Badnarik was trying to address. So, I can't really blame him for having an odd idea on how to solve a legitimate issue when he isn't running on that idea or proposing it as policy.

The other "odd idea" that gets a lot of play is "blowing up the UN building". That's the sort of dramatic statement of position that can safely be taken as exaggeration. The UN is not well regarded within the Libertarian Party, and certainly one of the items on the agenda of a Libertarian president would be how to reduce their influence. I'm not sure I would go so far as to leave the UN entirely and demolish their headquarters building, but it's certainly an idea that's on my radar screen. Badnarik's position on this issue is a radical one by modern standards, but it is derived from sound principles with which I agree.

Another major issue with Badnarik is his dispute with the IRS. It seems that Badnarik has been a tax protestor; that is, he has refused in the past to pay income tax without the IRS specifying the laws under which he is required to do so. This is, in my opinion, a fairly risky stance to take. I think the income tax is Constitutionally valid, which means it should be paid as a matter of law, and opposition to it should take the form of political efforts to repeal the appropriate amendment. A large part of this stance is based on simple pragmatism: I'm willing to pay taxes to keep the IRS off my back.

But there is a long tradition of civil disobedience to unjust law, and the IRS's actions in this regard are extremely unjust. I can't disagree with Badnarik's decision to engage in civil disobedience on this matter; as the Libertarian candidate it would doubtless be embarassing to be arrested and convicted of tax evasion, but it might well generate publicity as well. Anyone willing to stand up to the IRS gets points for sheer spunk in my book. Properly handled, it could even be a positive thing for the party.

Finally, the driver's license thing. As a Texas resident, Texas requires a thumbprint and a social security number in order to get a driver's license. Badnarik refuses to give a thumbprint or give out his social security number, therefore he doesn't have a Texas driver's license. That's one of those positions that many Libertarians hold in their secret hearts, but don't have the guts to stand up and say "No!" to the state.

So... is Badnarik an embarassing candidate? Sure, a little bit; there are things that I would have liked to have known before the convention. But they are tactical considerations. None of the information suggests to me that Badnarik's principles are wrong, only that we have tactical differences... and that Badnarik is a man who stands up for his principles even at great personal cost. I can respect that. I think it's a quality that far too many politicians had surgically removed when it began to trouble their conscience.

How would the Democratic party react to a candidate who was arrested for participating in anti-war protests? How would the Republican party react to a candidate who was arrested for a technical violation of concealed-carry laws with a valid license? I suspect they would be a little embarassed -- but I doubt it would change many minds. Indeed, I think it would be taken as a refreshing change to have a candidate who visibly practices what he preaches. And that's how the Libertarian party should deal with the Barnarik situation: we don't need to apologize for our activists.

It seems that Alexa has a three-way comparison of web traffic to the Bush, Kerry, and Nader websites. The problem? They are excluding Badnarik. Which is odd, because Badnarik's website is getting more traffic than Nader's.

The report by the September 11 commission is missing one obvious way the U.S. government could reduce the chance of another terrorist attack, Libertarians say: Quit meddling in foreign nations.

"The intelligence reform needed most right now is a more intelligent foreign policy," says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. "Pulling U.S. troops out of nations where they don't belong would make America much safer than appointing a thousand new intelligence czars."

The present Libertarian party holds two positions relative to war. It holds that war, in general, is not a good idea, and specifically that the war in Iraq is a bad idea that should be ended as rapidly as possible. The latter position grows from the former; the Libertarian party does not call itself the Party of Principle for nothing. And it is also indicative of the problems within the party, in several ways.

Fundamentally, the Libertarian Party does not expect to win. The party, and their candidates in most cases, expect to make speeches about libertarian principles, collect donations, needle both of the parties in power, and generally try to attract attention from the media and the public. This is done primarily in the hope that attracting attention will result in votes, and votes will result in more attention the next time around, and more attention will result in more votes, until eventually the party can mount a significant challenge to the established parties.

This is a reasonable long-term strategy, except that it's been 30 years since the party was founded, and it hasn't worked. It's time for some new thinking.

Being "the Party of Principle" has its downside, especially when you consider the principles of the party. While they are good principles, morally and Constitutionally right, they are also unfamiliar and even radical to the majority of the public. (This shouldn't surprise anyone; the Founding Fathers were radicals even in their time). And the voting public is nervous about a party that talks about principles when those principles involve shutting down most of government. If you elect a libertarian as your Mayor, will you even have a government by the next election?

If you elect a libertarian as your President, will you have a nation left by the next election?

A Libertarian presidential candidate might proclaim that, if elected, he would shut down the IRS by executive order. That's a principled position. But there are millions of government employees and contractors who will ask, "But where will my next paycheck come from?" To the candidate, that's the point; government will have to shut down many of its unconstitutional operations when the revenue source for those operations is removed.

But telling millions of people they will be out of a job if you win is not going to get votes.

The same applies to the situation in Iraq. The Libertarian Party takes to heart the admonition of our Founding Fathers to trade freely with other nations, but form no entangling alliances. The foreign policy of the Libertarian Party is basically nonexistent: free trade, bring the troops home, and you're done. And that's the right policy in general.

But sometimes a specific situation requires actions contrary to the general principle. Just as surgery requires cutting the patient open, inflicting wounds in order to heal others, so does the situation in Iraq require specific actions contrary to the general principles. There are many reasons for this, but foremost among them is responsibility: the Libertarian Party did not make the decision to go into Iraq, but now that we are there, we owe it to the people of that nation to repair the damage we have done and give them a leg up to a proper democracy.

Like a doctor on the operating table, we as a nation cut the patient open. In doing so we assumed a responsibility to them. If we walk away now, the patient will die on the operating table, and it will be America's fault.

That, in large part, is why the Libertarian Party cannot afford to take the principled stand on Iraq in this election. We are the party of principle, and one of those principles is responsibility. By the same token we cannot endlessly proclaim our intention to eviscerate the government immediately upon election: such actions are in accordance with principles but demonstrate no responsibility.

If the Libertarian Party seeks to win elections, we must assume that we are going to win, and we must present a plan to the public: a plan for practical implementation of Libertarian principles. The general public will not vote for a candidate who promises to trash the IRS unilaterally, but they might vote for a candidate with a detailed plan to phase it out over time. The public will not take seriously a candidate who proclaims a unilateral retreat in the face of adversity, but they will listen to a candidate who understands responsibility.

Until Libertarians can demonstrate that they are trustworthy in positions of power, by advocating specific, gradual implementations of Libertarian principles, the general public and the media will continue to marginalize our candidates. It's not enough to proclaim our principles; we must also proclaim how we will implement them, and we must reassure the public that we can do so without throwing our nation -- or the Iraqi nation -- into chaos.

Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik is soundly defeating Ralph Nader and all other third-party candidates in the "the battle of the ballot," as his name currently appears on 48 state ballots, compared to just 39 for Nader.

So why is it that Nader gets media attention again? Couldn't be... media bias, could it?

The Smallest Minority points us to the neolibertarian network.  Hmm.

In this column about an unrelated issue, there's a correction to a previous column by the same author.  I've reproduced it verbatim:

In my June 26 column "The high cost of prohibition," Duquesne University economics professor Matthew Marlin was described as a libertarian who "doesn't believe there is a valid moral argument for prohibiting adults from using drugs -- or alcohol or guns ...." In fact, he believes there are moral arguments for drug prohibition and he is a strong advocate of gun control.

How, exactly, do you end up describing a proponent of government control of guns and drugs as a libertarian?  Even of the little-l variety?

The Libertarian Party of Texas has 75 days between March 10 and May 24, 2004 to collect 45,540 valid signatures in order to get Libertarians on the Ballot for the November 2004 elections. To be safe, we'll try to collect up to 90,000 raw signatures because many usually get disqualified. Although we are counting on volunteers to turn in tens of thousands of signatures, we're trying to raise $150,000 to pay professionals to help collect signatures as well. Paid signatures cost up to $2 per signature, so your volunteer help is very valuable. Also, we are far below our fundraising goals.

The Texas Libertarian Party is having ballot access troubles, and could use some help. There are less than four weeks left to make this happen. If you're in Texas, or know someone in Texas, with libertarian leanings, then send them to this page and they can help.

Aaron Russo, a successful movie and music producer, warned a small crowd of Auburn students about what he considers to be a bleak future. "When I look out at this crowd of young people, I fear for your future," he said. Because of his fears, Russo made the transition from the entertainment industry to the world of politics. He is now seeking the Libertarian party's nomination as a 2004 presidential candidate. Russo said that politicians of both parties are ignoring the freedoms of Americans.

I'm running for the Presidency of the United States because I can't stand what's happening in America. I just feel like America is becoming a police state, a totalitarian country. We're losing our rights every day, nobody running for office that I can see is going to change it, and so I just put myself out there because the Libertarian Party is the only Party that has the principles that can change things.

I believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights at its very core, and when I look at the candidates running on the Libertarian ticket, I don't think they have a high enough profile to get the attention that's necessary to make a difference, so I just decided to put myself out there to Libertarians so that they could say "look, here's Aaron Russo: he's got six Academy Award nominations, he's won an Emmy, he's won a Tony, he's won a Grammy, an NAACP Image Award, a Golden Globe nomination". I've got all this stuff that the press will use if I'm the nominee, that can give the party a higher profile, that'll give freedom a higher profile, and that will allow us to put a fight up against what's happening.

I put myself out only because there's no one in the Party running who has a higher profile than I, that can make the differences.

The question has been asked recently if we ought to forge an alliance with the Greens. They also are a third party struggling to compete with the duopoly, to borrow Mr. Nader's excellent reference, and perhaps we can both gain by pooling resources to move farther down the road. This has gone back and forth, some declaring that we have many objectives in common, others stating that an alliance with the Greens would be an unholy one. If the question is to be resolved with any certainty rather than becoming just another topic that is divisively beaten to death, there must be a clear reason why or why not. I hope the following perspective will serve that end.

It's worth pointing out that we can pick and choose the issues on which we make alliances. The Greens certainly aren't an ideal Libertarian ally on real policy matters, but they are just as impacted by the two-party lockout as we are. That makes the two-party system the natural front for any cooperative efforts.

In the past, when an important debate excludes the Libertarians and the Greens where both had candidates, both parties would make separate press releases and make separate announcements condemning the decision. There's no reason not to unify them -- and thus double the newsworthiness of the complaint.

Lately, more and more, I've noticed a problem arising in our libertarian movement; namely, that people talk the talk, but fail to walk the walk. What do I mean?

The American government, as it stands today, does not believe Americans are competent, responsible individuals. The government believes it must act as a parental figure, telling us what we can and cannot do. It believes that without governmental regulation in all aspects of life, American society would cease to be productive, and would fall into a chasm of laziness, destruction and waste.

The heightened terror alert is actually a ýGovernment Incompetence Alert,ý Libertarians say, because the government is admitting that it cannot perform its most basic function: national defense. ýWhatýs truly alarming is that a government that will confiscate $2.2 trillion from its citizens this year is powerless to protect them,ý said Libertarian Party Chair Geoffrey Neale. ýAnd that should make Americans more angry than afraid.ý As the directors of the CIA and FBI testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, they described new threats from al-Qaeda and elaborated on their decision to raise the terrorist threat level from yellow to orange.

The California LP has joined an effort to recall Democratic Governor Gray Davis. At its annual convention in Ontario, California on February 15-17, the party passed a resolution endorsing a "Dump Davis" drive. In doing so, it became the first political party to officially sign onto the recall effort. Gray is a "corrupt, abusive, and incompetent politician," said California LP Secretary Lori Adasiewicz. "The recall is not based on Davis' status as a Democrat, but [on] his complete mockery of the representative system and the laws of the state of California." Gray, who has an approval rating of only 24%, has been criticized in the past by the state LP for excessive spending, for mishandling the state's 2001 electricity crisis, for accepting pay raises in violation of a campaign promise, for signing a ban on so-called "assault weapons," and for stalling legislation to implement Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana.