1. I follow the idea until the point of “abandoning” the Liberty Party in 2014. What would prevent some other group from taking it over? I see all sorts of possibilities for mischief or worse.

2. There isn’t much usefulness to an outside group “taking over” a ballot-qualified small party in Massachusetts. In 2014, the Liberty Party would go off the ballot unless someone gets on that party’s primary ballot for statewide office and polls 3%, but it is so tough for that person to get on the party primary ballot, it just wouldn’t happen.

3. Gee — what caused the American Revolution to start in Mass on 19 April 1775 — Battles of Lexington and Concord ???

   — and to go for a LONG 6.5 years of death and destruction — until the U.S.A.-France VICTORY at Yorktown, VA 19 Oct 1781.

   How EVIL statist is the New Age Donkey regime in Mass. ???

   Separate is NOT equal — even in super-liberal Mass.

   Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954

4. I don’t mean to be too critical. But if the Libertarian Party ever expects to grow, they are going to have to give up on this nonsense idea of not holding primary elections. Parties grow when they are open and encourage various degrees of the party’s philosophies to compete with one another in primaries. I would think there are such things as “liberal” Libertarians, “conservative” Libertarians, as well as “moderate” Libertarians. But it seems the Libertarian leadership only wants a doctrinare party where all members and candidates cross their “t’s” and dot their “i’s” the same way. Americans do not and will never support doctrinare parties. I would love to see a strong and influential Libertarian Party throughout the United States, even though I do not subscribe to most of its core philosophy. Still, a strong Libertarain Party would do service to our political system. I hope one day, broader-minded Libertarian leaders will recognize this.

5. How difficult (to qualify for a 2014 Liberty Party Primary Election) are we talking about here? I would love to see another group go in and take over the shell of an abandoned Liberty Party in 2014. Perhaps the name could even be changed to the Massachusetts Liberty Union Party and the Party could affiliate with the Vermont Liberty Union Party! That would give the people of Massachusetts another choice.

6. Alabama Independent,

   The Libertarian Party is, as the Democratic and Republican or any parties are, a private organization. We advocate not forcing people to pay for political beliefs they may or may not subscribe to, in this case, taxpayer funded primaries. We believe that if an individual or group believes in something, they should foot the bill.

   We act accordingly – even though state law comes in and states otherwise. The primary issue largely depends on what the state law itself says. So if you want to see a Libertarian primary, it’s a matter of registering as a Libertarian, getting your friends to do the same, and repeating the process until there are enough members to have a primary.

   Personally, I would not see a problem with a primary type of process provided that it was run and paid for by the party and not members outside the party.

   Since we are (and both major parties are as well) a private organization, participation should be limited to party members only. Otherwise, it just defies the very purpose of the organization.

   The other important thing to remember is that we can say “Americans do not and will never support doctrinare parties.” all we’d like. But the fact is that the premise of political parties requires some sort of unifying principle or belief structure. I can understand your objection especially since the Democrats and Republicans really don’t have a solid belief structure of any type – nothing is off the table with these guys. Conversely, Americans used to really have some concept of a party as having an actual platform (ie Federalists, Democratic Republicans, Free Soil, Whig, Know Nothing, ect.).

   When you say “liberal libertarian”, we’re a lot closer to classical liberals (ie Jefferson), though it’s definitely not accurate to categorize us as progressives, which is what the common term “liberal” means today. You have similar issues with “conservative”, another terms that’s been bastardized beyond usefulness or clear definition – it goes anywhere between neocon socialist and fiscal restraint depending upon who you ask, who is framing the discussion and what have you. “moderate” raises similar issues, that in my mind, would really go to the approach but still have the overall goal of libertarianism. But even still, we’re not about to expand government in the name of compromise – that’s something Dems and Repubs do on a routine basis the second they take public financing, ect.

   But if you were to boil down what the leadership of the party wants (feel free to chime in, leadership :), it’s far less government, taxes, spending and restrictions on your liberty than you currently experience.

   The link to my website should appear after I post this, so feel free to drop by, go to the contact page and send questions.

7. Dan Reale. If I were ever to decide to join the Libertarian Party and say run for an office, you folks would most likely not nominate me because I do not subscribe to your unworkable concept of what government should and should not do. The problem with you Libertarians, is you have no logic or reasoning. It’s your little narrow-based concept of the way government should operate based on the outdated writings of some men who lived in a different era and who obviously had no concept or who didn’t care what the nation would be like, economically and morally, in future generations.

   I say government should do more than just maintain the military and operate the post office. In a “perfect” world, we might not have to have as many government services or government controls. But because most people have a “sinful nature” (and I know some reading this resent those trueful words) government has to make people do what they otherwise would not do. Without government we would have anarchy – unless that is what Libertarians truly believe in.

   You Libertarians love to say, “I have a right to do anything I want as long as it does not violate your rights.” Sounds good on the surface, but it won’t and don’t work in reality. For example, many Libertarians don’t think government should require them to have automobile insurance on their vehicle. Well, let’s say you cause a traffic accident, by running into me and cause both you and me injury. You have no insurance. You or your family has no money. Guess who pays your medical bills – and mine – if I have no insurance? That’s right, we do – the taxpayers. And this in the long run, causes taxes to go up.

   And while we’re both recuperating, who takes care of our families if neither of us have insurance? The taxpayers. Again, taxes continue to go up to pay for what you didn’t think government had the right to require you to have to protect yourself against in such an incident. And if you had no insurance, but I did, my insurance would have to pay my medical costs caused by you. And if you have no money either, my insurance company can’t sue you, so what do they do, they raise the premiums on all their policyholders to recoup what they had to pay out for my care, because you chose to have no insurance.

   This is why we have to have government to make us do things we don’t like or want to do. Because if it was all voluntary, our sinful nature would allow us to most likely not do it.

   I could cite you several other examples of why government must make its citizens do things they don’t think the government has a right to do. And it is the application of logic and reason, why most people understand government must have this right and authority.

   I know I most likely haven’t changed your mind or other Libertarians, so this is why I most likely will never become a member of your party – let along run for an office under its label.

   Libertarianism is supposed to stand for liberty, right? Then what about my liberty to be protected from the costly acts of irresponsible people or irresponsible businesses or irresponsible corporations? Only government can make sure I enjoy that liberty.

8. My brother suggested I might like this blog. He was entirely right. This post actually made my day. You cann’t imagine just how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!

9. Glad to have you with us, Alta Sawyer. Are you a politically delusioned Libertarian, an agrarian-age, doctrinaire Constitutionalist, or a common sense, populist Independent like I am?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.