Skip to main content

Boston Tea Party endorses Libertarian Party of Delaware candidates

The Boston Tea Party, which is advancing its case as the potential nationwide replacement for the essentially non-functional Libertarian National Committee as the central organizing group for individual liberty and smaller government, has turned its attention to Delaware.

The BTP has now formally endorsed LPD Congressional candidate Mark Anthony Parks and LPD/GOP 4th District House candidate Tyler Nixon.

For Tyler, this endorsement can be added to his earlier seal of approval from the Liberty Caucus.

Given that I'd suspect only a few Libertarians and not many others have heard of the BTP (running Charles Jay and Thomas Knapp as their Presidential ticket), what significance does this have for our candidates?

Primarily, it's another piece of national exposure, however modest. Libertarian candidates run not just to win (go, Tyler!), but also to make a point about the erosion of civil liberties and the continuing encroachment of government on our freedoms--both economic and social.

The BTP has a one-sentence platform:

The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.


There is another point to be taken here, however: whether it's Ralph Nader's independent candidacy, the Libertarians, the Greens, the Constitution Party, the Modern Whigs, or any of a dozen other third parties across America, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the exclusionary two-party system we have allowed to be foisted upon us.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: if we are a national that supposedly values social and cultural diversity, why do we continue to put up with a political system that offers only two choices?

Congratulations to our LPD candidates!

Comments

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 ...