Something not too specific. Yeah, wishy washy. Let the candidates be able to point to it in regards to their own platforms and say stuff like, "the policies I have in mind match with the LPCO platform."
When the platform gets too specific on answers to issues, then the candidate can't use it. In fact, if the candidate comes up with a good libertarian response to an issue and that is not what the LPCO platform says, then s/he is in danger of alienating voters and other LP members. One of the things that got me to leave the Rs was that candidates do not follow there platform. There are instances of Rs that I like that are clearly not following the R platform because they've come up with solutions that work, even though they counter the Rs so called platform. But that wasn't and isn't the case with all Rs. A lot of them act like Ds, who haven't paid attention to their own platform for eons. I could demand that L candidate follow a stringent platform, but I would say that we are too young for this sort of nonsense. We don't have a canned solution to every issue that really follows the libertarian ideal. The governmental mess didn't get to be where it is overnight, and simply stated applications of libertarian ideal don't look straightforward to most. Many voters and even many Ls can't easily see how we are getting from what is now to what is desired. To unwravel the mess we may have to take several steps, and the path should be up to those in office or running for office. Candidates try to show the methodology. But if the path for them to follow is too tight, they not only can't be very creative, but they will also spend far too much time trying to show how their personal ideals match LPCO ideals. Simple statements of libertarian idealism generally applied to issues. The more specific you get, the harder it is to live up to. Tough to keep my thoughts together at this hour, I am wandering. paul
