Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/06/2005 3:45:17 AM PDT by freepatriot32
MONTROSE - The political party with Front Range roots will be looking for fertile ground in Montrose this weekend.
The state Libertarian Party, whose national organization was founded in Colorado Springs in 1971, will host its state convention in Montrose this weekend, with the heart of the gathering taking place all day Saturday at Friendship Hall.
"It's terrific. We were lucky to be able to host it," said Western Slope Libertarian Party member and Montrose business owner Tim Jacobs. "We're looking forward to having the members from around the state come to Montrose and enjoy the Western Slope. We've got some activities planned for them so they can see what life is like on the correct side of the mountains."
State Party Chairman Norm Olsen said the convention will be a great chance for many of its members to become more acquainted with their Western Slope counterparts.
"Right now we know each other's e-mail addresses," he said. "We'd like to get to know each other on a personal basis."
Olsen said that the decision to hold the convention in Montrose also serves a strategic interest: It will give the party a chance to reach part of its base.
"Our experience shows that people in more rural areas are more likely to be Libertarians," he said.
Moreover, Olsen added that the two major parties are not as well funded in the western part of the state, which gives the Libertarians a better chance to gain some footing in the area.
Lastly, the state party felt that by holding the convention outside the Denver metropolitan area, it would be easier to get media attention.
"In the more densely populated areas we tend to be ignored," he said.
The convention will also be a chance for the party to expose newcomers to a philosophy that places strong emphasis on individual liberty, individual property rights, the free market, and minimal government intrusion.
When summing up libertarian philosophy, Jacobs likes to quote from Michael Cloud, a speechwriter for Libertarians at the national level.
"Freedom is the prize and responsibility is the price."
"Generally, Libertarians see what's been going on in our community and we see government intruding at every turn when it has no right to do so," Jacobs said, ticking off examples of how government involvement has ruined the schools and violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with gun control laws.
The public can gain some exposure to the party's ideals Saturday morning from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. when five speakers will take the podium to address the gathering, headlined by 2004 presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.
Among those scheduled to speak are author Kenneth Royce, who's known as Boston T. Party, tax code expert Peter Hendrickson, and media critic Justin Plumlee, who will have an open-mic session about the mass media's failure to provide complete information.
The vendor hall, featuring books on libertarian ideas and other items, will remain open from 8:30 to 5 p.m.
From 12:30 to 5:30 p.m. the party conducts its business meeting, which is open to the public, although only party members can vote.
During the business session, the members will elect five of the nine state party officers, and consider some changes to the party bylaws.
The party's national immigration policy, which currently calls for the elimination of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and full amnesty for illegal immigrants, will likely come up for debate according to Olsen.
"This is not going to be some stuffy protocol-driven affair. It's going to be a good chance for people to come by and see what we're all about," Jacobs said.
Come evening, the convention goers will let their hair down, with the Liberty Jam, a concert featuring five bands.
Montrose's Toxic Zebra will be joined by the Burrito Bandits, Severed Souls, Immoral Majority, and the New Waveforms for the free, all-ages show that starts at 6 p.m.
WSLP chair Lane Mills said the concert is a way to attract a growing segment of the party's base.
"One of the successes we're having is that we do find that we're attracting young people," he said. "It's exactly the kind of entertainment we want to provide for local kids."
Contact Matt Hildner via e-mail
at matth@montrosepress.com
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
I understand that, but...open borders?
Even the most limited government should exercise sovereingty over its territory.
All I needed to know about the Libertarians, I learned after they joined the Greens and the Democrats in attempting to have the Ohio election results overturned via the courts.
Harry Brown's take on what we should do after 9-11 sealed it for me.
Apparently the Armed Forces are solely for repelling invasions.
If I wanted to be Swiss, I'd move to Switzerland.
Crime & Violence Drug Prohibition Environment Family Budgets Foreign Policy Freedom Of Speech Gun Laws Internet Immigration Poverty & Welfare Privacy Social Security Taxes
I think that the open borders part of the platform will be removed before the 2008 convention.They are bringing it up for debate at this local convention to se if a majority of them wanto eliminate it and here in indiana they are debating trying to get this eliminated from the national platform as well 9 11 changed a lot of peoples stance on open borders
It's cool to see one of our own Freepers quoted in the article!
That would be wise. Open borders are national suicide.
Sounds like Montrose is getting Californicated. I lived in that nice little Western Slope town 20 years ago, and it wasn't a place to put up with Burrito Bandits, Severed Souls, or Immoral Majorities back then. It was about as redneck as any place I've ever been, and I'm from Iowa. I mean that as a compliment, by the way.
Open borders are a facet of anarchy, not of libertarianism. Members of the LP who support that kind of thing are registered just as wrong as Republicans who support the welfare state.
Before stating something to be "a facet of anarchy, not of libertarianism," you first should familiarize your self on what libertarianism is. To start with, both anarchy and minarchy fall under the Libertarian Party umbrella. And this is not just a matter of LP history.
Misleading acts of political expediency may have made a wrong impression on you. But I assure you that the primary movers and shakers in the LP are not going to let it lead to an abandonment of their principles. I apologize to you if you got mislead by the current wrongheaded LP outreach strategy.
For me that's the one issue where I completely disagree with the LP. And Mr. Browne left a bad taste in my mouth.
Exactly so, and since it is a symbol of the United States and what it stands for, the LP is beholden to operate within the bounds of the founders' libertarian vision. Open borders are specifically not part of that vision. Vis:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Quite obviously open borders are not the intention of the framers of that document.
...you first should familiarize your self on what libertarianism is.
As should you. Henry David Thoreau did not invent libertarianism, he perverted it.
To start with, both anarchy and minarchy fall under the Libertarian Party umbrella.
Wrong. Read someone besides Thoreau. Try starting with Locke, then move on to Jefferson and Madison. Libertarianism is still concerned with the social contract.
I apologize to you if you got mislead by the current wrongheaded LP outreach strategy.
And I'll apologize in advance for those of us who are coming to restore libertarianism to the LP when we cause ill will among anarchists who couldn't find a comfortable home anywhere else. Libertarian conservatives are leaving the Republican Party in droves. They will likely end up in the LP if nothing else changes. Anarchists and "minarchists" should start looking for a new home.
...the LP is beholden to operate within the bounds of the founders' libertarian vision. Open borders are specifically not part of that vision.
Since when? First off the LP is beholden to the vision of no person, past or present. The LP is not a people worshiping cult. As for the founders, they endorsed "open borders," as did the founders of the larger movement.
As far as the founders of the United States of America go, they were not libertarians. True they were great men, of great achievement in the areas of freedom and liberty. But still, they were not libertarians.
The only document Libertarian Party members as Libertarians are beholden to is the very short Libertarian Party's Statement of Principles, which opens with:
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state...
The Libertarian Party has consistently promoted itself as the Party of Principle. The Constitution of the United States is not mentioned in it, and has no more relevance to the Libertarian Party than it does to a Christian church. For the individual members it may be a legal basis to take a stand for protection of existing rights and to defend when being subverted or violently attacked, but that has nothing to do with the LP. Read the LP Statement of Principles. Note the word "we" every time it occurs. Are you suggesting that the LP lies and is not a Party of Principle.
And I'll apologize in advance for those of us who are coming to restore libertarianism to the LP when we cause ill will among anarchists who couldn't find a comfortable home anywhere else. Libertarian conservatives are leaving the Republican Party in droves. They will likely end up in the LP if nothing else changes. Anarchists and "minarchists" should start looking for a new home.
Of course you are not "coming to restore libertarianism to the LP." You obviously do not know what the word means. As far as making the anarchists uncomfortable, that is quite all right with me, they have been a constant pain since the birth of the Party. What is interesting however, is that you losertarians coward out of the Republican when the going got tough. So now, by your own admittance, you seek to steal that which you had no part in building, so as to spread your losertarian point of view.
You might very well succeed. The LP did invite you in. So why shouldn't it pay the price for its mistakes? Heck, already 80% of the libertarians have already left the party over its partial abandonment of its goals, leaving the national LP now sending letters pleading with former members. But those of us who remain as supporters of the LP will stick around long enough to document its fall so as to learn from our mistakes. When we leave the LP, we won't go looking for another party to dishonestly subvert. We will create and build another LP. And that one, we won't give away to a bunch of losertarians.
If I am wrong here, and we already have the safeguards as so many libertarians have told me, then you and your ilk will not succeed in subverting the LP. I guess only time will tell.
i don't know why 9/11 would have changed much of anything. While i certainly have mixed thoughts about the open borders platform of the Party, there are some historical questions that linger:
I don't think you selected the most appropriate words to quote from the Statement of Principles. More to the point would have been:
...we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.... They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders...
There also seems to be a contradiction between two of your claims.
---But I assure you that the primary movers and shakers in the LP are not going to let it lead to an abandonment of their principles.(from post 14)
Then in post 17 you seem to be saying the opposite.
---You might very well succeed. So why shouldn't it pay the price for its mistakes... libertarians have already left the party over its partial abandonment of its goals... But those of us who remain... will stick around long enough to document its fall... so as to learn from our mistakes. When we leave the LP, we... will create and build another LP... we won't give away to a bunch of losertarians.
Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
One additional question-- Since we don't, now, live in a libertarian society, and such a society is quite a long way off, do you propose we immediately do away with immigration laws even without the rest of the protections Libertarianism would afford?
As for your second question, I definitely do not favor eliminating immigration laws at this time. I do however endorse the LP stand on their elimination without reference to any time frame or establishment of any prerequisite libertarian norms first. My endorsement of the LP position is based in part on the knowledge that such laws are not going to be eliminated any time soon, and the LP is not going to be in any position to effect such change in the near future.
As I see it, the advantages to the LP are greater taking an unqualified stand against immigration laws at this time than qualifying that stand by making it dependent on other libertarian criteria being implemented first. While such prerequisites should be considered by LP members, they should not tie the party down to them at this time, when so much can be gained from flexibility.
Additionally, far to many leading libertarian writers have done an excellent job in answering most all criticisms of open borders and have made excellent cases that such borders would not due the harm that the critics of it claim it would. While I do not agree with this position, I do recognize its supporters as having made an excellent case. But even if they are wrong as I say they are, it does not make any difference. The LP, as I have said, is not going to be effecting policy regarding borders any time soon. Therefore, the best policy for the LP at this time is to leave its options open and stick to principle without further qualification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.