Paul (and others), >From the perspective of someone who is a dues-paying member of the LP and a >registered Republican, here are my comments on your proposals.
You wrote: 1. NOTA is final. Me: I agree. I don't have anything to add to your comments. You wrote: 2. Candidate requirements. Candidates for public office or for the state party board are required to be voting members of the party for at least one year before the date of the convention. Argument For this Issue: Holding office at the level of the state board or in public office requires knowledge of the party and of the libertarian ideal. Voters should be able to become familiar with candidates and their individual goals. This takes time, and 60 days is not enough time. Before 2002 the LPCO�s requirement for a candidate was one year as a member. We should return to that constraint. Me: I disagree. Any time period, whether it's one year or 60 days or 60 years, is an artificial, subjective constraint. I would contend that the LPCO might shoot itself in the foot someday with this constraint. Here's an example. Although I don't think this is likely to happen, what if Douglas Bruce (a registered Republican who has received the LPCO's Friend of Liberty award at least twice) decides to become a registered Libertarian in March, 2006 for the specific purpose of running for governor as a Libertarian in 2006? I would contend that his knowledge of the LP and of the libertarian ideal far exceeds that of most Libertarian candidates. His libertarian actions and goals are well-known by most, if not all, Libertarian voters in Colorado. Since NOTA is always an option, a candidate who is not well-known or who fails to demonstrate a strong commitment to the libertarian ideal can always be defeated by Libertarian voters. Those voters should be trusted to acquire the information they need about candidates and to make decisions based on that information. You wrote: 3. Elector requirements. Those that desire to vote for candidate for state board; public office; or any issue at the state convention must be both registered Libertarians and dues paying members. Me: While I don't think the requirement to be a dues-paying member is necessary, I agree that only registered Libertarians should vote for Libertarian candidates for the state board, public offices, or convention issues. Clubs have dues-paying members. I continue to pay my $25/yr. to the national LP because I enjoy reading and gaining information from the monthly LP News. Although I was a registered Libertarian for more than three years who was very active in several LP functions, i.e., media, campaigns, and as a candidate, I now consider my involvement with the LP to be akin to membership in the Book-of-the-Month Club. The LP is a political party. Whether some Libertarians want to admit it to themselves or not, that means the LP is competing in an arena controlled by rules and regulations established by government, i.e., the Rs and Ds. It's irrelevant what those rules and regulations are. Protest against them as much as you want. The only way they're going to be changed in the LP's favor, short of revolution, is by learning how to beat the Rs and Ds at their own game by mastering the rules that they've established. Furthermore, I would contend that until the LP starts holding precinct caucuses and county assemblies, in addition to state and national conventions, at which only registered Libertarians vote for Libertarian candidates, the LP will continue to be perceived by the media and most of the public as merely an insignificant philosophical discussion group (or club). Dues-paying membership in the LP club is a factor that registered Libertarian voters might want to consider in deciding which Libertarian candidates to elect, but it shouldn't be an additional constraint on either who is allowed to be a candidate or who is allowed to vote. $25/yr. might not be much money for most people, but like the time period to be a candidate, it's a subjective constraint. Any amount of money that must be paid, no matter how small, limits the number of individuals who want to become registered Libertarians for the purpose of voting for Libertarian candidates for the state board or public offices. You wrote: 4. Removal of the Pledge of the Non-Initiation of Force The Pledge should be removed as a requirement for dues paying members. Me: I agree. Your observations about the pledge are similar to mine. I have a few more thoughts that I've expressed on the lpco-chat list in the past. Families are political and social entities. Responsible parents sometimes must initiate force against their infants to prevent them from harming themselves. The classic example is that of an infant who reaches above her head next to a stove and is just about to place her hand on a very hot burner. A parent who grabs his child's arm to pull her away from the burner has initiated force against a person to achieve the social goals of preventing his child from being harmed, correcting his child's behavior, and saving the family the costs of medical treatment. That child might perceive her parent to be a benevolent dictator of the only political entity, her family in her home, of which she has any awareness. So what? - Steve Gresh
