Notice of 10.22.17 Board Meeting

A special Board meeting of the LPRC is scheduled for Sunday, October 22, 2017 at ***8:00 PM ET***. Meeting will be conducted through a GoToMeeting interface. Members of the LPRC are encouraged to attend - log in information viewed below. Non-members will be disconnected from the meeting unless there is unanimous consent of all members present to allow attendance and observation by any non-member.

'Members' are those signed up through our website:

http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/join

A copy of the agenda can be found here.

LPRC Board Meeting 
Sun, Oct 22, 2017 8:00 eastern

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. 
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/750168741 

You can also dial in using your phone. 
United States: +1 (646) 749-3122 

Access Code: 750-168-741 

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://link.gotomeeting.com/email-welcome .

Share

Radical Caucus Committee Opportunities

Share

Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Endorses and Funds Candidates for Second Year in a Row

In 2016, just barely over six months since its formal organization the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus (LPRC) disbursed $2208.71 to radical candidates and endorsed many more. Continuing in this commitment, the LPRC has distributed $1,500 to radical candidates in partisan races for the 2017 elections, split amongst three candidates, for a donation of $500.00 each.

The funded candidates were Dr. Joe Buchman (US House, 3rd District, UT), Brian Shields (State Representative, NH), and Matthew Wallace (Sheriff of Delaware County, PA).

Additionally the LPRC endorsed Jennifer Moore (Upper Providence Township Auditor, PA) and Michael Stapleton (Pueblo City Council, CO). Moore requested that any contribution be given to the 2018 candidate fund, and Stapleton was running in a non-partisan race.

Monies have already been put aside for the funds to support 2018 candidates.

Although formally organized in 2016, the LPRC was formed in 2006 by a core group of dedicated activists whose mission was to ensure the Libertarian Party remains true to its ideological foundation. At the core of the LPRC’s ideals is the Statement of Principles, authored by LP Founding Member and first Presidential Candidate, Dr. John Hospers, during the 1972 Libertarian National Convention and amended as part of the Dallas Accord at the 1974 Libertarian National Convention. The LPRC was active during the 2016 National Convention and continues on its mission of re-radicalizing the Party and further to promote a clear, radical vision of libertarianism through education and electoral advocacy both within the LP and outside of it. 

For more information visit the LPRC website at http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org and to join visit http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/join. To ask questions and determine if the LPRC is a good fit for you, join their radical and radical-curious Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/2497146127/.

Further inquiries may be directed to board@lpradicalcaucus.org.

Share

State Coordinators: Tips for Growing Your State Radical Caucus

by Marc Montoni

Why would anyone want to be an LPRC State Coordinator?

Well, let's put it this way: Are you satisfied with always being outnumbered at the convention, by people who want to put a muzzle on you? Are you satisfied with atrocious candidates who run as "Libertarians" but who couldn't name an actual LIBERTARIAN position to save their life? Are you satisfied with atrocious candidates who run as "Libertarians" but who fraudulently promote things like sales taxes, chasing foreign warlords, and doing violence to the right of free association as supposedly "libertarian" positions?

Well, those things are going to continue unless we change our numbers drastically.

Being an LPRC State Coordinator is not intended to be just a nice title with no expectations or responsibility. It's not a reward for calling oneself a "Radical Libertarian".

It's a WORK position, intended to change our numbers.

As outlined in our bylaws [Section 6(c)], State Coordinators are responsible for:

- promoting radical libertarianism and a radical vision for the Libertarian Party;

- recruiting additional members to the LPRC;

- recommending the formal endorsement by the LPRC Board of suitable candidates (for internal LP positions as well as for public office) in their state.

Being appointed as a state coordinator for the Radical Caucus is not just a path to get a vote on Board matters.

It means work.

It means you are expected to recruit more members to the caucus each year and every year. It means you are expected to help us find the GOOD candidates for office. It means you are expected to guide the increase in Radical participation in your state party.

In short, it means you are expected to be one of 50 or more catalysts to re-radicalize the Libertarian Party.

You will be given a copy of LPRC members and prospective members in your state. Every one of those people in your state needs to be contacted on a monthly basis, preferably via some form of *personal* contact, such as a letter bearing a hand-written signature, or a phone call.

Personal contact does not need to be complicated:

****************

"Hi Joe, this is Jim Bob with the Pennsylvania Radical Caucus. Were you planning to attend the LPPA state committee meeting this Saturday?

"In case you're interested, they have a position on the LPPA Platform Committee they will be filling, and I'd love to see a radical apply for it. By the way, I see that you're only one step away from being a full voting member in the LPRC. Would you like to make your support official by donating today?"

****************
If your state caucus has a FB page, monthly send out a general "become a voting member" invitation, and directly message new likes asking them to join.

We already have a "general discussion group", so keep your state page more to radical business within your state. We need action much more than discussion!

The state caucus should be working to set the tone for their state party in terms of messaging. The LP has been largely overrun by Libertarian Lite advocates who think we must never talk about private roads, private police, and abolishing the income tax. The reason that messaging has infested the LP is because THAT'S WHO SHOWS UP.

Your job as a state coordinator for the LPRC is to get radical libertarians to **show up** in greater numbers at state & local LP events. The ONLY way to make that happen is for YOU to talk to them -- and on a regular basis.

Interested?

Then volunteer.

 

Qualifications to be a state coordinator:

1 - Be a current, dues-paid national LP member.
2 - Be a current, dues-paid state LP member.
3 - Donate $100 or more of at least $10/month in dues to the LPRC (see http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/voting).

Share

Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party Endorses, Funds Radical Candidates for Office

Arlington, VA – The Libertarian Party Radical Caucus (LPRC), known as the “libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party”, announced today its endorsement of 19 candidates running for office on the Libertarian Party ticket during the 2016 election cycle. 

The endorsed candidates are seeking positions at the local, state, and federal level. All were vetted by a subcommittee within the LPRC based on an analysis of their platform, positions, and anticipated policies. This process was designed to ascertain if their campaigns reflect core libertarian values as articulated in the LPRC’s own Platform and Mission.

The LPRC was formed in 2006 by a core group of dedicated activists whose mission was to ensure the Libertarian Party remains true to its ideological foundation. At the core of the LPRC’s ideals is the Statement of Principles, authored by LP Founding Member and first Presidential Candidate, Dr. John Hospers, during the 1972 Libertarian National Convention. 

Earlier this year, the LPRC formally adopted its own bylaws and platform before taking an active role at the 2016 Libertarian National Convention in Orlando. One of their many undertakings in the time since the Convention was to solicit, vet, and endorse Libertarian Party candidates, who are as follows:

• Erin Adams, State House, District 33, Oklahoma
• Phillip Anderson, US Senate, Wisconsin
• Tom Bagwell, US House, District 12, Michigan
• Jeffrey Blunt, US House, District 20, Texas
• Chris Cole, State Senate, District 41, North Carolina
• Paotie Dawson, State House, District 18, Colorado
• Jocelyn Fry, State House, District 35, Iowa
• R. Jim Fulner, County Commissioner, District 19, Michigan
• Jeff Hetrick, US House, District 11, New Jersey
• John Jascob, Regent, University of Michigan
• Richard Longstreth, US House, District 2, Colorado
• Sean O’Toole, State Treasurer, Missouri
• Tyler Palmer, State House, District 93, Michigan
• Clark Patterson, US House, District 17, Texas
• Pete Rorhman, Bergen County Freeholder, New Jersey
• Steve Scheetz, US House, District 8, Pennsylvania
• Mike Seebeck, State House, District 21, Colorado
• Nick Serianni, State Senate, District 6, Iowa
• Mark West, US House, District 1, Arkansas

Endorsed candidates who are current members of the LPRC were also entitled to an even disbursement of the funds in the LPRC’s Treasury earmarked for campaigns. The LPRC’s treasury is a combination of membership dues and donations. In accordance with their bylaws, 75% of the funds acquired by the LPRC are to be used specifically to assist candidates for office. During the 2016 Election Cycle, the LPRC was able to disburse $2208.71 amongst the designated candidates. 

For more information visit the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus website or contact Kim Ruff, Secretary, at board@lpradicalcaucus.org

View the official Press Release here.

Share

Wisdom v. Reality

By Craig Bowden:

Radicals in the Libertarian Party were challenged to respond to an article written on LibertyPoint.org entitled Wisdom vs. Reality: Libertarian ‘wisdom’ vs. ‘real’ politicsAs a radical, I decided to offer my two cents to the issue in response. I do this independently of the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, though I am a member. These thoughts are my own and should not be used in an official format as a response from the caucus.

The very first rebuttal I wish to convey is to the following statement within the article:

Unfortunately, as with all too many revolutionary movements, this devotion, dedication and adherence to our tenets sometimes ignores reality.

There is no reality to ignore when adhering to the core of libertarianism. We believe things like taxation being theft, which by definition, it is. You can try to rationalize the “need” for taxation all you want, but when we apply definitions to terms we find that even the dictionary agrees.

From Merriam-Webster’s:

the act of stealing; specifically:  the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

Just because a group voted to steal, instead of breaking into your home and taking it themselves, doesn’t change the fact that your property was taken as the rightful owner.

Another core tenet of libertarian thought is that we believe in the non-aggression principle, which means that we believe the initiation of force against a person is wrong. This is the most basic reality that exists. Every one of us was taught since early developmental years that we don’t hit people, break other people’s things, or take what doesn’t belong to us. Libertarians simply take it a step further and say that just because the majority voted to do so, doesn’t mean it is right.

We do not have the power to give authority to someone, if we do not have the authority to do so on our own. Since I cannot steal from my neighbor, I cannot give the authority to someone else to steal from him. When we do this without “government approval,” once we face a court of law, we are still guilty of conspiracy and held at the same level of accountability as the person who actually took the action we asked of them. Why is it different when we ask government to do it?

The next portion the author goes wrong is in the following excerpt:

One of the leading examples of this is the belief that “most people are libertarian but don’t know it yet.”

Reality is somewhat less appealing. Libertarians who’ve been involved with any municipal planning or zoning process know “it ain’t so.” The reality is that, in the United States, in the 21st Century, “most people” have come to expect government to do certain things.

Most people expect local government to pick up the garbage, maintain the streets, provide water and sewer services and police and fire protection. They expect zoning regulations and local ordinances to prevent their neighbor from building a 24-hour convenience store in his back yard.

Evidently, the author seems to think that only the city does trash pick up, providing of water/sewage, police, and fire. I would have to assume that the author has never hired private security to guard assets, has never heard of a volunteer fire department, and never lived in a Home Owner’s Association that does trash pick up. It is also apparent that the author has never lived in a rural community, where there is no sewage system and you maintain your own septic tank. Examples already exist where people have demonstrated that they can do these sorts of things without municipal planning groups. All you have to do is experience things beyond a narrow world view.

Not everyone has city utilities on the grid. Not everyone has to rely on subsidies on farmed food. What utter chaos there must be in the non-incorporated areas around the nation.

The reality is that individuals like the author are just too lazy to do things on their own, or in voluntarily associations. It takes a lot more work to make sure things get done, but why bother when city councils and state legislatures can just do it for you?

The author paints things as there being a dependence on government as a “modern reality,” yet for anyone who lives in a rural area, reality is very different. The vast majority of things are done through voluntary association and personal responsibility. Want power? Better make sure the windmill is in good repair. Want heat? Better make sure to order that propane. Want indoor plumbing? Better make sure the septic system is in good order.Want fire put out? Put on your boots and gear up, because all that’s available is volunteers.

The next passage is one I believe you will find an immediate contradiction between the two statements:

Self-government, however, may have another meaning if you consider that man is a social animal. While rugged individualism is an American ideal, and has and does exist in our society, most people also need and seek community. Even in the “frontier days,” when a man was striking out on his own, family in tow, other individuals came together in voluntary association to help him build his barn.

In other words, wherever two or three are gathered, there will be government in the midst.

Notice how the author is speaking about voluntary association and adhering it to meaning government. There is nothing voluntary about government. You pay taxes or go to jail. You cut your grass or be fined. You want salt? Too bad, it’s banned. 32 oz. soda? Too much sugar for you. Want to choose cannabis as a medical treatment? Too bad, jail time for you. There is nothing voluntary about what is going on. It is put in place with authority that never existed.

Most people are social creatures, but there are miles of difference between voluntary exchange and forced compliance to societal norms defined by a majority.

The reality of the situation is that while it may currently be accepted by the majority, we must always speak the truth boldly and plainly. Watering things down does no one any good. Is it ok if you are elected to a city council to vote in favor of a partial tax decrease? Of course. Take what you can get now, but never settle for more than absolute liberty in all things. As soon as you vote yes, the very next day you should be right back on the offensive in decreasing taxation more.

When we water down things to fit society’s current status, we get lost in all the noise. We must be bold in our approach and show exactly how libertarianism is different. Give examples of ways to improve and always strive for the highest amount in all areas of civil and economic liberty.

In my own candidacy for the U.S. Congress in 2014 and this year, I didn’t cut corners in what I placed in my platform. In 2014, I doubled the Libertarian vote in my district and set the highest polling third party for federal office in Utah since the 90’s. In 2016, I have polled even higher than 2014, and the election is still a month away.

I didn’t say to cut taxes; I said eliminate them. I didn’t say legalize medicinal marijuana; I said all prohibition must end. I didn’t say cut foreign aid to our enemies; I said it isn’t our business to be involved in other nations at all. I didn’t say that we should only go to war with Congressional approval; I stated that war must end and violence is only a means through defense.  I spoke the truth. I didn’t take half measures. In the end, a new record will be set in Utah because of it.

The reality is that pragmatists like this author cannot do anything without radicals speaking boldly on principle so that people can see the difference between us and the two major parties.

Share

To Krugman, With Love

1bu7xu.jpg

Dear Mr. Krugman,

Thank you for advertising the platform of the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party Radical Caucus (LPRC) is a caucus of activists within the Libertarian Party who believe you missed the mark.

The LPRC was formed in 2006 because its founding members saw a need to encourage the Libertarian Party to stay true to its ideological roots.

Since then, the LPRC has formalized and adopted our own extensive platform (enclosed) expressing positions consistent with the founding of the Libertarian Party and have endorsed over a dozen Libertarian Party candidates whose campaigns reflect the ideas contained therein.

In light of your characterization of the Libertarian Party as the “radical fringe”, the LPRC thought you would enjoy seeing what truly radical libertarians advocate. If inspired, we encourage you to share with your readers that there is a motivated group of activists who consistently hold to libertarian ideology.

After all, Democrats and Republicans alike advocate for policies and practices that:

  • Result in American citizens being added to a “No Fly” List without justification.

  • Enforce mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses.

  • Permit warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

  • Involve aggressive bombing of innocent lives in foreign countries.

  • Allow suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases deemed “terrorist acts.”

  • Turn a blind eye to the murder of upwards of 1,400 Americans by police every year.

  • Use the US Military as the World Police.

  • Manifest in the sale of subsidized military hardware to foreigners.

  • As a consequence of their practice, our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and our ability to defend ourselves are consistently eroded. Now those are the truly “terrifying” ideas.

    In Liberty,

    Gregory S. Faust

    Chair,
    Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 

This letter was sent in response to this article, Paul Krugman Reveals What Libertarian Gary Johnson Really Stands For--And It's Terrifying.

A complete copy of the letter sent may be viewed here.

Share

Principled Pragmatism: Reframing the Debate

Principled Pragmatism: Reframing the Debate

By: Clayton Hunt

In the wake of the nomination of Johnson/Weld for the Libertarian Party 2016 ticket, there have been many that have felt left out of the party, as foreseen by Caryn Ann Harlos in her nominating speech for Will Coley there is a faction of party members that are discontented and are still critical of the ticket. In response many Johnson supporters have deemed them “purists” and “unrealistic” claiming that while Johnson and Weld have flaws in their adherence to the principles of libertarianism, they are the pragmatic choice to represent the party as a radical calling for immediate drastic changes would scare off voters back into the folds of the old parties, or into the unrelenting embrace of political apathy that seems to hold much of the nation.

Though I believe the animosity is rooted in the schism of wonk vs. geek it does raise the question: is someone who is a “purist” or “radical” excluded from being pragmatic? Mike Shipley in the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus members group raised the salient point that no, there is no requirement that a principled libertarian cannot be pragmatic. In fact, it is a strict adherence to the principles that is pragmatic. Radicals don’t go out and work for the party to have a small debate club, or to just recreate it into a think tank, we also aren’t “afraid of winning” either, we just share David Nolan's consideration as to the importance of putting up candidates to properly communicate the message of libertarianism. Would I, and many other radicals push Rothbard’s Button? Of course, until my fingers bled, but even Rothbard, an influential early member of the party laid out that “There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.” So it is not a case of whether or not one can accept gradual pragmatism, but whether one is willing to openly admit their ultimate goal of true liberty, or even don’t share that same goal. As in the big tent of the libertarian party, there are those who may not be able to accept the exiting of the state from one sector or another, to use the “libertarian train” metaphor, they just will be getting off at an earlier stop.

Our approach is to openly admit our goals and educate others to hopefully see what we believe and eventually agree with us. But this isn’t just the work of a think tank, this is the necessary work it will take to forge a political base that will make the Libertarian Party a major player in politics across the nation. While protest votes due to the old parties’ putting up arguably the worst candidates in recent history is a promising feat, bound to give us results like never before, it takes education and differentiation to retain voters and grow the base of reliable Libertarian support. So the Radicals will continue on demanding a world set free in our lifetime, and be planting trees whose shade we may never sit under because Rothbard’s Button doesn’t exist.

Share

Welcome to the Libertarian Party

Welcome to the Libertarian Party.

We have called for the repeal of all Drug Prohibition since our founding in 1971.

We have called for an end to all marriage regulation and licensure since our founding in 1971.

We have called for abolishing the income tax and eliminating the IRS since our founding in 1971.

We have called replacing inefficient, wasteful, and brutal government "services" with private sector alternatives since our founding in 1971.

We have called for abolishing government indoctrination centers (public schools) since our founding in 1971.

We have called for an end to all foreign aid since our founding in 1971.

We have called for an end to all military adventurism and the removal of all US military assets from foreign lands since our founding in 1971.

We have called for the repeal of all regulations on guns since our founding in 1971.

We have called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve and for sound, free-market money since our founding in 1971.

We have called for the elimination of all corporate and individual welfare since our founding in 1971.

We have called for the privatization of transportation infrastructure since our founding in 1971.

We have called for eliminating all restrictions on the right of people to cross imaginary lines since our founding in 1971.

The LP was pro LGBT and anti drug war since the 70s. Libertarians started that conversation long before Democrats embraced it.

So, welcome to the Libertarian Party.

Please remember to leave your previous big party ideologies at the door.

Libertarians believe people should be able to marry who they want, gamble if they want, party with a hooker, smoke weed or partake of other recreational drugs, live as a woman (or a man) if they want ... but they should also be left free to start a business, keep their money and property, and enjoy any guns they can afford.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN * 800-ELECT-US or LP.org

(via Marc Montoni)

 

Share

Why Are Libertarians Easily Duped? by Clayton Hunt

While reading Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock a question dawned upon me, in the book it mentions that when Jefferson returned from his ambassadorship to France in 1789, he returned to an America alien from his previous experience. When he left, the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, rooted in Lockean natural rights, had been abandoned for the cries for a larger and more centralized state. While some libertarians will not claim Jefferson, due to his flaws and abysmal record as president, I think that most will admit that the Declaration of Independence is largely a proto-libertarian manifesto.

This sudden shift in ideology from deeply distrustful of central government powers and an embracing of natural rights theory to the abandonment of those beliefs seemed all too familiar when compared to more recent events. For example, this quote by Ronald Reagan:  “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”. This from a man who basically created the drug war as we know it today, spent hand over fist on military budgets in an arms race against a foe that was already on its death bed, promoted gun control as governor of California in response to Black Panthers engaging in open carry protest against police abuse, and basically did what libertarians generally despise all while using messaging that is appealing to libertarian sentiments about the free market and government incompetence. Ron Paul even endorsed him in his 1976 bid for the GOP presidential nomination, mentioning that he lead the Pro-Reagan delegation from Texas in the 1976 GOP national convention.

But this is only one example, from the Tea Party originating from Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign and becoming the establishment Republican GOTV machine it is today, to Bob Barr being the LP nominee, to Rand Paul. Why do libertarians keep going along with these seemingly promising tasks, which consistently set us back?

I don’t have the answer, or better yet there isn’t one single answer, you could argue that we tend to hero worship too much and that blinds us to the problems of our high profile “promoters”(celebritarians in internet parlance), you could argue that our skepticism of the government is the only time most of us exercise our skeptical faculties, but given the track record of the libertarian movement being co-opted I think it is high time we became a tad more inquisitive when it comes to the policies and beliefs of those we put our support behind. If you want to accept the mantle of libertarian, you have to understand that you are proclaiming a belief and support for the principles that it embodies, your duty is to hold to task anyone who would ask for your help or support to discern if they truly want those ideals to become reality, or are they just trying to ride the liberty fad to further their own goals.

by Clayton Hunt

Share