Skip to main content

Suppose there were a Libertarian National Committee that opposed freedom of speech and freedom of thought?

Suppose there were a Libertarian National Committee so fearful of its own membership that it couldn't take criticism, satire, and even disdain from its own members?

Suppose there were a Libertarian National Committee so enamored with clouds of secrecy that to reveal the nature of its deliberations or the foibles of the participants represented original sin?

Suppose there were a Libertarian National Committee so politically correct and devoid of character that its membership hid behind speech codes modeled on those created by the Federal government to suppress political thought.

Suppose there were a Libertarian National Committee so gutless that it had to ask for permission from the grandson of Robert (as in Robert's Rules of Order) for permission to exorcise the witch queen who looked down her nose at them in a naughty T-shirt.

Suppose there were a Libertarian National Committee so hypocritical that it would support a presidential nominee whose PAC donated money to the political opponents of Libertarians (while serving on the LNC), and then turn around to censure somebody else for suggesting that--in the current f**ked up state of the Party--anybody who'd join would have to be a fool.

You don't have to suppose.

That's exactly what we have in the current Libertarian National Committee.

Details soon to come, or at least breathe hard. (pun intended).

Last tease: you have to wonder if they know that Angela Keaton has been nominated for Chair of the Boston Tea Party?

Comments

Brian Miller said…
This is the last chance to fix the LNC and put it back on track. If they succeed in ejecting Angela (and revoking her party membership, as some are muttering about doing), then the LNC should be allowed to go out of business.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...