Skip to main content

A de-centralized Libertarian Alliance: an idea whose time is coming

First, let me admit a dangerous truth: I have always liked the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps even better than the US Constitution. Those history textbooks that indoctrinate students to believe that the Articles were a failure because they denied the national government the power of taxation annoy the hell out of me.

That having been said, I've always wondered why the Libertarian Party chose a hierarchical approach that far more resembled the Federal structure of a powerful State embodied in the Constitution than the loose alliance generated by the Articles.

John P. Slevin, in a comment at Independent Political Report, captures this contradiction rather nicely:

You have the right idea, wrong solution.

Certainly support local candidates. Bust your butt doing so. That’s where it IS at.

ALL govt money IS spent locally, THERE ARE 2 reasons the LP is stuck on the presidential elections process.]

First, they are idiots.

2nd, it makes them money (and the “them” are the people who receive the money deposited into those accounts).
Those are the ONLY 2 reasons the LP has stuck with the top down model.

Deny them this. Simply don’t support it.

Either you understand that the purpose NEVER has been to support a strong or stronger LP or you do not.

It’s NOT about party building. It IS about negating the powers which control us.

You do that locally. You do it thru city councils and everything below and above LOCALLY.

Aside from candidacies at the local level, and for my money MUCH MORE important are citizen movements. Things like local referenda are FAR, FAR more effective.

The voters ALREADY are on our side (have been since the inception of the LP).

It long is past the time for the LP to think “outside the box”.

What has to happen is for the idiots who are the national LP to understand that they are not the show.

Equally important is for principled LP members NEVER to support those who will wield power.

EVERY LP member “of note” who strives for reform always seeks simply to replace the idiots at National instead of simply acknowledging the very obvious truth.

The LP cannot succeed at dismantling the state as long as it structures itself in accordance with State rules.

Defy your local central committee. Tell your State Party you will NOT give them a dime. Don’t give a dime to anything in which you have no say.

Now, dangerously, that is a libertarian solution, and it NEVER has gained creedence among Libertarian “top dogs” but it is so obvious that anyone, anyone ought to recognize and act upon the central truth of that.

And, finally, always remember, you have not lost as long as the locals are on YOUR side.

ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL.


The majority of Americans are naturally libertarian in many aspects of their lives.

It has taken a lot of work, and a lot of talent, for us to fail to reach them with the present organization.

Think outside the box? Shit, folks, it's time to get outside the box.

Comments

ChrisNC said…
I think this overstates the case. A presidential candidate is essential for three reasons. From least to most important: first, it guarantees that every person (at least in most states) will have a chance to see and vote for a Libertarian candidate, even when there are no local candidates; second, it supports the credibility of the entire LP ticket, verifying that the local guy isn't just a lone ranger; and third, and most importantly, in many states, the presidential candidate counts for ballot status (here in NC, ONLY the votes for president or governor count toward ballot status). Local candidates are the face of the party, and can best reach their neighbors, but that is why the laws remove those votes from consideration for ballot status. Where I do agree is on the emphasis of resources. Just as the top of the ticket validates the rest of the candidates, the down-ticket candidates direct voters up the line. We ignore them at our peril.
George Donnelly said…
To cede the presidential elections is a big step. There is a lot of power there that can be used to advance the liberty agenda. And more votes for president can mean savings on future ballot access.

And this Mr Slevin, his tone is counterproductive.

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 ...