Replies

Liberty Magazine says that a lot of money donated to Browne's '96 and 2000 campaigns went for the enrichment of Mr. Browne.

Very true. The magazine has been following that one for months. So was Jacob Hornberger, a writer with the Future of Freedom Foundation who is also a longtime LP official and activist. But the money issue, while certainly impossible to ignore (I was unaware of it myself until well enough after the 2000 elections), is matched even-up by an even more disturbing point: that Harry Browne violated the Libertarian Party's explicit enough rules against engaging members of the party's national office or various party-employed workers to work on behalf of a specific candidate before the candidate has the final LP endorsement for office. It was because of these issues, Mr. Browne's rather disingenuous attempts to duck giving straight answers to questions about them, and the party's national office apparently not giving a rat's derriere about either it or the fact that Mr. Browne's shenanigans have actually driven LP vote totals down - while Mr. Browne, interestingly, engages practically unchallenged in Clintonesque spin about falling numbers equaling unseen or unseeable victories - that I began cooling on the Libertarian Party. This nation may well need a libertarian party yet, but the incumbent Libertarian Party, I fear, is not quite it.

Whatever libertarian positions I take (and I take many) have always been of the small "l" type.

Hard for me to take that crap about not initiating violence seriously. I mean if someone threatens me, I'm a firm believer in a pre-emptive first strike.

The magazine has been following that one for months. So was Jacob Hornberger, a writer with the Future of Freedom Foundation who is also a longtime LP official and activist. But the money issue, while certainly impossible to ignore (I was unaware of it myself until well enough after the 2000 elections), is matched even-up by an even more disturbing point: that Harry Browne violated the Libertarian Party's explicit enough rules against engaging members of the party's national office or various party-employed workers to work on behalf of a specific candidate before the candidate has the final LP endorsement for office.

Whatever.

I don't mean to be flippant. This is important WITHIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY. Who OUTSIDE the Libertarian Party was harmed by this? And it's even less important now that Harry Browne will never be a candidate again.

This nation may well need a libertarian party yet, but the incumbent Libertarian Party, I fear, is not quite it.

Oy, vey! "This nation may well need a libertarian party..." Do ya think??! The frigging federal government is spending 25 PERCENT of the national income! Do ya see the Republican Party doing anything about that? (Rhetorical question: Of COURSE they're doing something about it...G.W. Bush proposed to RAISE federal spending by a whopping 9% in FY 2003! That's a greater percentage raise than BILL CLINTON ever did!

If you're at all interested in a small federal government (not to mention your civil liberties, like free speech!), you certainly won't get it with Republicans! But I have serious doubts whether most people on these boards really ARE interested in a small federal government.

As I understand it, the LP and the LNC have severed relations with Browne and some of his more implicated cronies for the forseeable future.

And Bumper hornberger is running for the Senate fromn Va as an independent.