It's official
I collected enough signatures and now I will appear on the ballot for California's 35th congressional district. I will be running against Maxine Waters (socialist), a guy in the American Independent Party (socialist), and another democrat (socialist). There is no republican running.
This means after the primary one of the Democrats will be removed from the ballot because the incumbant (Maxine Waters) will get the Democratic Party nomination. It will be a 3 way race and I'm pretty sure I will come in second place even though the other guy has ran several times before.
I will raise as much money as I can to buy business cards, yard signs, bumper stickers, pens, pins, etc. and I want to host 2 BBQ's this summer. One will be burgers and franks in a mainly black neighborhood (I can't afford ribs), and one will be a carne asada in a hispanic area. I'll try to have a band and a stage at each party with a PA system so I can give a short speech. I'll do one in Spanish and one in English, though I'm tempted to do one in Japanese and one in Vietnamese also.
I need all the help I can get in terms of volunteers, and money. My website needs a lot of work but it's tough to find time between my job (10-12 hrs per day), my marriage, and other responsibilities.
http://www.electpaulireland.comGood luck, Radar. I wish you well.
Best of luck -- give Waters hell. Become a thorn in her side and expose her for the commie scum she is.
I'm not even joking.
Nice.
Maybe you'll be in office by the time I have my next business trip out there. I looked up a
map of the district. I can't be sure if it includes LAX. If it did that would mean a lot of construction contracts, taxes and unions.
Those district boundary lines, HAD to be drawn by a committee.:lol:
Have fun, Radar.
Those of us allergic to Flash can't view the website. Oh well.
I just looked at your endorsements page. How come you didn't ask any of us for an endorsement? If we can come up with Cellar slogans, endorsements should be a piece of cake.;)
You're going to make some interesting friends/enemies with your abortion position.
The district is gerrymandered, and it does include LAX. :)
I'm hoping to get the endorsement of police associations who HATE Maxine Waters. She shows up with Al Sharpton and badmouths them whenever a black kid gets hit by a white cop. I think she's been at demonstrations shouting "no justice, no peace!", etc.
The real endorsement that would be the crowning jewel for me would be that of Magic Johnson. He owns a LOT of businesses in this district. He wants to re-develop the area and I'm all for that.
The problem is he's black and she's the "black candidate". I'm sure he'd be torn between endorsing a candidate who would help him do business better, and voting for his soul sista.
And for those who don't view flash, you can view the site here...
http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl18.asp?Trial=false&SiteID=887&PageID=13234Just looked through your site looking for some common ground we might have. The issues page was looking pretty bleak until I saw this;
I believe to make this economically feasible, we must first eliminate all unconstitutional entitlement and social welfare programs so those who are coming here are seeking opportunity rather than handouts. They will come to contribute rather than leech.
For that thought alone I'd vote for you if I was in that district. Of course, you would be as powerless to change this as any other.
I'd know that you mean it though.
Just looking through your issues a bit more and come to the basic conclusion that "fixing" the above situtation might iron out more of the others.
And where's the second A statement?
And this.....
.... If he's not elected we should kiss our collective asses goodbye right now."
I spit popcorn clear across the room reading that one!
Interesting Issues section, Radar. However, if you were trying to run as a political candidate over here, then I'm not sure you would get on to the starting blocks with some of them, let alone off them and into the race. Think you need a bit more if/then analysis to dig out the weak spots and to strengthen your case and motives.
You're going to be putting in a lot of time and effort so you want to give yourself the best opportunity for the maximum return on this investment
There are inter-dependencies that seem to have been missed. Your various stands hit fair and square between the eyes, so they're OK as initial eye-catchers but some quickly turn woolly under scrutiny, and that could cause many to turn away that might otherwise be potential supporters.
A couple of examples: Drugs and a real issue that the desire for drugs feeds criminal activity at many levels. With immigration - at what point would an immigrant qualify for help with social services?
All the best.
Unless you think that a significant amount of your audience would speak it, I think speeches in Vietnamese & Japanese would just be pretentious, whereas Spanish & English are, particularly in California, the two main languages of an increasingly bilingual nation, & are for that a valid selection.
I wish I had more time for the website. I may have to resort to using canned LP answers to issues.
Unless you think that a significant amount of your audience would speak it, I think speeches in Vietnamese & Japanese would just be pretentious, whereas Spanish & English are, particularly in California, the two main languages of an increasingly bilingual nation, & are for that a valid selection.
Those outside of CA don't realize what a melting pot it really is here. In Jails, everything is repeated in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The high school here is 60% asian. A fourth language is unclear. Hindi is unneccessary beacause all the Indians speak English. Too many Chinese languages, and the Japanese community is smaller. Vietnamese is entirely a valid selection.
Surely there must be a translation handbook of the dozen facist slogans we've been hearing repeatedly for 50 years?
If we can come up with Cellar slogans, endorsements should be a piece of cake.;)
Drop that ballot, perp.:D
Best of luck, radar. Go get 'em.
I'd be careful with the "ethnically correct" barbecues. That could backfire, be spun as racist stereotyping on your part, even if you clearly don't mean it that way.
You're going to make some interesting friends/enemies with your abortion position.
Wow. The "at any stage of pregnancy" surprised me. Abortion in the last couple months is pretty close to just killing them at birth if you can't afford the high cost of a late trimester abortion. That particular stand is too extreme for me.
That child in that woman's body also is half of some mans organism too, or is he only involved if she wants a few hundred dollars a month from him? If she has all of the decisions, right down to the life or death, shouldn't he at least be able to opt out of parenting? The other half of this organism isn't mentioned at all.....
She does have 100% of the decision making freedom and the responsibility for those decisions. That's why I also believe if a man tells a woman he does not want to be a father, and she tells him she can't get pregnant, or that she's on the pill and she "forgets" to take it, he should be able to opt out of any financial obligation. He should be able to say, "If you choose to have this child, you'll do so on your own. I won't have any interaction with the child, and won't pay for any support.". Then she can choose whether or not to keep it or to have an abortion.
This would be fair.
That would be way, way, way too easy to lie about and abuse.
I notice that Maxine Waters has been in Congress for 25 years, and she now has "the influential leadership position of Chief Deputy Whip of the Democratic Party".
I wish you best of luck in running, and truly do wish that you win.
I'd be careful with the "ethnically correct" barbecues. That could backfire, be spun as racist stereotyping on your part, even if you clearly don't mean it that way.
More importantly, he isn't going to win any votes in a black neighborhood without ribs. Burgers and franks? At least go for some pulled pork sandwiches!
More importantly, he isn't going to win any votes in a black neighborhood without ribs. Burgers and franks? At least go for some pulled pork sandwiches!
Little Debbies sent in care packages to your overseas constituents in Iraq. I understand that Army personnel now serving in Iraq would kill for a Little Debbie, a baby wipe, a pack of Kool Aide, or a piece of candy - in that order.
I just got through sending a $200 care package to 18 guys over there, so I know.
I understand that Army personnel now serving in Iraq would kill for a Little Debbie, a baby wipe, a pack of Kool Aide, or a piece of candy - in that order.
Ahh... so many jokes, here. I shouldn't, though.
So, on a serious note: girl scout cookies. You can buy boxes and the troop will have them shipped over and donated to the troops. Both last year and this year I've put off buying the fattening treats for myself and had them shipped to someone who will really enjoy them, instead.
Best of luck, radar. Go get 'em.
I'd be careful with the "ethnically correct" barbecues. That could backfire, be spun as racist stereotyping on your part, even if you clearly don't mean it that way.
I was glad to see this post of wolf's. My gut feeling didn't feel right when I first read about the barbecues, but wolf expresses the feelings of caution better that I can put into words. Be careful there Radar, and I, too wish you the best of luck and second what wolf says here....
Go get 'em.
Actually the thought of racial sterotypes did cross my mind which is why I thought I'd go with burgers and franks rather than Ribs and Watermelon. As far as the Carne Asada thing with the Mariachi band, that's just good clean fun, and my Mexican friends assure me it wouldn't be taken the wrong way. In fact they think it will win me a lot of votes and they all want to attend.
I must admit though pulled pork sandwiches does sound good with some macaroni or potato salad. That's good eats.
I must admit though pulled pork sandwiches does sound good with some macaroni or potato salad. That's good eats.
Don't forget the Brunswick stew. Damn, now I've made myself hungry for BBQ!
If you can, Radar, could you take snaps some pics? I'm sure we'd all be interested in how this goes!
Good luck, sir!
I agree with pretty much everything posted (better than I could have written) and would like to second the pictures/updates idea. For me, this would be a very interesting thread to follow and learn about the whole process from someone actually DOING it. Oh, and GOOD LUCK. :beer: :thumbsup: !!
=
Radar She does have 100% of the decision making freedom and the responsibility for those decisions. That's why I also believe if a man tells a woman he does not want to be a father, and she tells him she can't get pregnant, or that she's on the pill and she "forgets" to take it, he should be able to opt out of any financial obligation. He should be able to say, "If you choose to have this child, you'll do so on your own. I won't have any interaction with the child, and won't pay for any support.". Then she can choose whether or not to keep it or to have an abortion
This would be fair
I think this would be fair, too. I guess I feel pretty strongly about this issue because of what both of my brothers have gone through......but I do think that men's position on these issues are just as important as the womans'....
(Edited to say I just realized - my son, who is "that age" (19), is probably a lot of the reason that I feel strongly about men's rights too....)
You need to slow down the flip to the index page on your little video opening. I didn't have enough time to read the text, and I'm a really fast reader.
You probably also want something that expresses your intent more succinctly. Go into the explanation on one of your interior pages ... for the flash intro, you want something with punch.
Yes, but Radar ... when you're president will you still post here?
Good luck!
I just found out on the very last day for filing, a Republican candidate signed up to compete against me. He's got money because he spent the $1,620 to pay the filing fee. I think he may be running just to stop me from getting Republican votes.
... Maxine Waters. She shows up with Al Sharpton
This has always mystified me. Why would anyone appear with Al Sharpton? His negative approval ratings are so massively negative that I could not see any positives from appearing with him. I don't forget about Twana Brawely. But then maybe that is why I will never understand the advantage of being seen with Al Sharpton.
Politicians. Say anything you want but spell my name right......and often. ;)
[COLOR=dimgray]This has always mystified me. Why would anyone appear with Al Sharpton?[/COLOR] His negative approval ratings are so massively negative [COLOR=dimgray]that I could not see any positives from appearing with him. I don't forget about Twana Brawely. But then maybe that is why I will never understand the advantage of being seen with Al Sharpton[/COLOR][COLOR=dimgray].[/COLOR]
If you break down those approval numbers a little bit, the answer will leap off the page.
I'm starting to get my first campaign donations. I want to raise $10,000 to get yard signs, bumper stickers, business cards, tri-fold pamphlets, etc. and to have the big barbeque in the park. So far, I've got $70 in donationsl That's a long way to $10,000, but you can help.
My mailing address for checks is:
Paul T. Ireland
14506 1/2 South Vermont Avenue
Gardena, CA 90247
If you want to make a credit card donation or paypal, you can use my paypal email address:
[email]ptireland@charter.net[/email]
or visit my still unfinished website at:
http://www.electpaulireland.com
I appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks.
Cool...now you can say that you've actually given the California Republican Party a moment of pause, and forced them to spend money. No matter what else may happen, at least you've made that much of a splash.
Now...go kick their asses, man.
Everyone should take a moment to review
Radar's stance on issues. He'd get my vote.
Maybe UG will donate a knife.:rolleyes:
I salute your initiative. don't really share your platform, but I salute your initiative. Congrats for jumping in and making yourself heard. Have a good run.
Thanks for the kind words.
I've got some good news, the Republican took papers out the day before the due date but didn't turn them in on time so it's going to be...
Paul T. Ireland
Carl McGill
Gordon Mego
Maxine Waters
McGill will be eliminated after the primary in June, and then there will be 3 of us. Me, a Democrat, and a psycho.
I'm trying to scrape up the money I'll need for bumper stickers, yard signs, road signs, pamphlets, business cards, etc.
I've already gotten a pretty generous donation from one of the people here. I will as that person if it's ok to say who they are before I mention them, but I was very touched and appreciative.
I'm hoping to raise $10,000 before November half of that before 6/6/6 so I can start putting the signs all over the place and to start getting a little name recognition.
Anything you can give will help, even if it's not money. If you are good with graphics, I can use help with that. If you write well, maybe you can help me with web page content, etc.
Yeah, I like the status quo shaken up a little. Give the voters an alternative, a way to register their disgust without being lumped with the too lazy to vote group.
I've seen the way Radar can bring out the best in people. :lol:
I actually stand a decent chance of getting into a debate with her assuming someone is willing to host one.
Power to you, dude. I just looked at your stances on issues, and I think i agree with every single one. I especially liked your stance on gay marriage, and I think I may have to borrow that explanation to throw in the faces of my more right-wing... 'friends'.
There is a company called ABC distributing (
www.abcdistributing.com) who sell lots of personalizable pens, pins, bumperstickers, pencils, t-shirts, keychains, etc cheep.
Then I realized you're down in LA, so you can prolly find that stuff cheaper in the industrial parts of town. I think you should stay with businesses in your district if you can, maybe they'll cut you a break on price as a "contribution".
And I'd go with vietnamese on the website. IIRC, your area has a high Vietnamese population, and that would probably be one step your opponents have not thought of (although I havent visited the other sites.)
Dang, I wish you running out here in Pennsylvania. I especially like your position on immigration, although I wish you good luck in trying to deny them the free handouts. The Republicans would recoil from your suggestions to allow unlimited immigration, and the Democrates would try to tar and feather you for suggesting that we don't owe these people cash on arrival. I salute you:thumb:
Thanks for the kind words. I'm still trying to raise up $2,600 so anything you can give would help. I'm at almost $700 right now. I need the money to build name recognition.
A friend of mine used to be a gameshow host (Supermarket Sweep). His name is Dave Ruprecht. He said he'd be willing to help me with a fund raiser or two. But really my best bet is getting people online to help me. A lot of people dislike Maxine Waters, so I'm hoping they'll help me beat her.
As a fellow Libertarian, it is nice to see a real one and not what many here in the South have used to name to represent.
Also, I think you have a decent chance in that area if it is still like it was when I lived in LA.
When was acting I did some temp work with Hughes just after GM purchased them and was at the LAX area campuses for a while, in all departments.
It is actually a lot more conservative in that area than many people would think... not like LA proper.
Also, the Libertarian ideal has a lot to offer true liberals (not feel-good hippie liberal), I often tell others that, as a Libertarian I associate myself with liberal ideals more than traditional conservative ideals.
Unfortunately, current definitions of liberal and conservative/Democrat and Republican have almost inverted and confusion ensues...
Good luck man and I look forward to hearing of your progress... I just posted on your bumper sticker thread.
So? How goes your quest for world domina... er, I mean, your bid for gettin' into Congress?
Also, the Libertarian ideal has a lot to offer true liberals (not feel-good hippie liberal), I often tell others that, as a Libertarian I associate myself with liberal ideals more than traditional conservative ideals.
Yeah, the LP is lousy with liberals these days. :-)
So, rkzen, you're a left-Libertarian? I'm a right-Libertarian.
Every time I say that, a bunch of the Leftoids around here squawk like chickens getting out from under the wheels. If they can get their protests into something coherent, it usually amounts to saying I'm really a Republican. I tell them you can often agree with Republicans without being one, but it never sinks in. Guess it wouldn't be as much fun for them if it ever did.
It depends on the issue... I can be very liberal or very conservative. I believe in freedom, but sometimes that means being free to help others and free to take responsibility for being an adult.
About 50/50. Anyone who is just one or the other is not thinking for themselves.
There are a couple of equivalents of "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" around. I don't have them both bookmarked, but the one that wasn't TWSPQ, I tested out 6 degrees right of center, out of a possibility of eight or so on either side of the liberal/conservative axis, and on the libertarian end of the libertarian/authoritarian axis by about two to two and a half degrees -- on the questions that were presented, anyway. I've never had a reason to really question the results: evidently I'm not crazily licentious, and definitely not a centrist any more, either.
Where did you score on the pompous windbag axis?
and definitely not a centrist any more, either.
Say it ain't so, UG. Say it ain't so.:rolleyes:
So, rkzen, you're a left-Libertarian? I'm a right-Libertarian.
Every time I say that, a bunch of the Leftoids around here squawk like chickens getting out from under the wheels. If they can get their protests into something coherent, it usually amounts to saying I'm really a Republican. I tell them you can often agree with Republicans without being one, but it never sinks in. Guess it wouldn't be as much fun for them if it ever did.
There are no left or right libertarians. Libertarians are neither conservative, nor liberal. They are an entirely different animal. You are not a libertarian of any kind except on bizarro world.
Where did you score on the pompous windbag axis?
He blew up the chart!
Bye the way, I have been officially endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus.
http://www.republicanliberty.org/candid/c_info.asp?cYR=2006&cID=00004250
I may also be endorsed by the NRA, the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business), and I'm talking to tax groups, police associations, etc.
So.....you've sold your soul to the devil. :lol:
Hope it brings in some money, Man.
Bye the way, I have been officially endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus.
http://www.republicanliberty.org/candid/c_info.asp?cYR=2006&cID=00004250
I may also be endorsed by the NRA, the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business), and I'm talking to tax groups, police associations, etc.
Check in with the California Pink Pistols chapters too.
I know a couple of the members. I'll give 'em a call
So.....you've sold your soul to the devil. :lol:
Hope it brings in some money, Man.
I didn't get very much for my soul either. Sheese, inflation sucks.
Seriously though they endorsed me without me even contacting them. One of their people contacted me.
Where did you score on the pompous windbag axis?
Only just enough to give you a flimsy excuse to get snarky, glatt. Sure, I'll try my best, but wouldn't model rocketry make a more rewarding hobby? :p The windbag chartbuster is known by his lowercase initials and Blame America First attitude.
Libertarians are neither conservative, nor liberal. They are an entirely different animal. You are not a libertarian of any kind except on bizarro world.
Radar, that remark puts you into the bizarro world, I'm afraid. I'm libertarian whether you want me to be one or not. Where is your understanding that libertarianism's three main philosophical streams were or are left-libertarian, right-libertarian, and anarcho-libertarian? It perhaps now languishes in the place you left your willingness to permit other libertarians freedom of thought.
Until you recover that capacity, radar, you'd do well to shut the hell up. You, buster, ain't free-minded enough, not for me. I'm never particularly worried about
anyone's ideological purity, as this seems to be the hobby of third parties who are never in power (and thus never compromised or corrupted by any actual responsibility), and is pretty conspicuously absent from the Big Two parties who stay in power in this Republic so perennially. Reckon they might know something? I'm persuaded they do. Talent trumps ideological certification in the parties that win.
No. Money trumps ideological certification in the parties that win.:eyebrow:
Radar can thank the mislabeled ideology of UG for my small donation to the cause. I'm not huge on ideological purity but when faced with the threat of anti-freedom folks destroying the brand name we've got to show our support.
Only just enough to give you a flimsy excuse to get snarky, glatt. Sure, I'll try my best, but wouldn't model rocketry make a more rewarding hobby? :p The windbag chartbuster is known by his lowercase initials and Blame America First attitude.
Radar, that remark puts you into the bizarro world, I'm afraid. I'm libertarian whether you want me to be one or not. Where is your understanding that libertarianism's three main philosophical streams were or are left-libertarian, right-libertarian, and anarcho-libertarian? It perhaps now languishes in the place you left your willingness to permit other libertarians freedom of thought.
Until you recover that capacity, radar, you'd do well to shut the hell up. You, buster, ain't free-minded enough, not for me. I'm never particularly worried about anyone's ideological purity, as this seems to be the hobby of third parties who are never in power (and thus never compromised or corrupted by any actual responsibility), and is pretty conspicuously absent from the Big Two parties who stay in power in this Republic so perennially. Reckon they might know something? I'm persuaded they do. Talent trumps ideological certification in the parties that win.
There are libertarians and there is everyone else. There are no right-libertarians, or left-libertarians, etc. You either support the non-aggression principle (the cornerstone of libertarianism) or you don't, and you're not a libertarian.
No matter how much you CLAIM to be a libertarian, it's a lie. You're nothing but a liar, a moron, and a wannabe.
You're free to think whatever you want....not that you actually do much thinking. But if you think you're a libertarian, you're only fooling yourself. All of the rest of us know you're not a libertarian, you're just an asshole.
Radar can thank the mislabeled ideology of UG for my small donation to the cause. I'm not huge on ideological purity but when faced with the threat of anti-freedom folks destroying the brand name we've got to show our support.
Thanks for the donation Griff, and for recognizing UG as the non-libertarian he is.
Radar, I am a libertarian; you cannot stop me nor slow me down; and what part of "Free Minds and Free Markets" did you just forget?
Libertarianism shall contend, and bloodily, with totalitarianism -- for this is in the nature of totalitarianism. It shall aggress against us. I shall see to it libertarianism is ready for the struggle.
P.S.: And where does shouting "asshole" fit into a "non-agression principle?" Really, radar, for a wannabe politician, you are most impolitic.
Only to those who richly deserve it. And your not a libertarian. Nor is anyone else who promotes or supports the war in Iraq.
I didn't see any shouting. He just called it like we see it.
Sorry, guys, check Political Compass II. The numbers say I'm libertarian, your opinions fly directly into the face of the evidence, and I say Radar is a hothead, and that until he quits it, he cannot win an election.
Leaving ultra-statist dictatorships alone is not a pro-libertarian action, Radar. Overthrowing them and installing a more-libertarian social order is both libertarian, and inherently morally right. You cannot bring me to your view on this, because it is not well to leave antidemocracy/antilibertarianism in the flower of its strength. Quite the opposite: it is well to cripple it or kill it outright. In the case of the Iraq campaign, the Afghan campaign, and all other campaigns (each but a fraction of the actual war), democracy's foes initiated the aggression, and we therefore undertake countervailing violence to end it. About time, too: they initiated the aggression about five times over a 17-year span, starting with the Beirut Marine barracks truckbomb in 1983, and counting the east African embassies as just one time.
It is the Libertarians' responsibility to cause and make libertarianism, even over the objections of any slavemaker, however violent. Be prepared to use violence to smash the ultra-statists -- for the Non-Aggression Principle does not forbid this. See discussion on the Non-Aggression principle for that -- there's rather a lot of it on the net, I see.
V, "asshole" isn't a term of endearment, nor is it quiet. He's shouting, and he screams at me every time I show independent thought.
P.S.: And where does shouting "asshole" fit into a "non-agression principle?"
I didn't see any shouting. He just called it like we see it.
Sorry, guys, check Political Compass II. The numbers say I'm libertarian, your opinions fly directly into the face of the evidence,
UG, you can be a Libertarian and still be an asshole.
He's not a libertarian, and he is an asshole. The Nolan chart has never been what determines who is or isn't a libertarian. It is only used to find those who have libertarian leanings. The Non-Aggression Principle alone determines who is or isn't a libertarian.
You know who told me that? David Nolan, the creator of the chart you keep falsely claiming makes you a libertarian.
You can't shout using text on a screen. Perhaps it's the voices in your head. I didn't even type in all caps, so you have absolutely nothing to back up your "shouting" claims, just as you have nothing to back up your claims of being a libertarian.
Let's see what the Libertarian Party's platform says about military interventionism...
Foreign Intervention
The Issue: Intervention in the affairs of other countries has provoked resentment and hatred of the United States among many groups and nations throughout the world. In addition, legal barriers to private and personal aid (both military and economic) have fostered internal discord.
The Principle: The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.
Solutions: End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. Individuals should be free to provide any aid they wish that does not directly threaten the United States.
Transitional Action: Voluntary cooperation with any economic boycott should not be treated as a crime. End all limitation of private foreign aid, both military and economic. Repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws, which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments. End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.
Radar, I'm going to trust the numbers over you, and I'll say the same to David Nolan whenever I see him. For somebody who's supposed to be in a free-minded organization, Paul, you are damned reluctant to allow me any freedom to differ from you -- which is purely unlibertarian, and a major personality flaw. This is why I ignore your arguments about this, and why I always will ignore your arguments: I conceive them to be wrong
ab initio. I am supported in this by among other things the very first search result on "non-aggression principle" -- what do I find in the first paragraphs of the Wiki entry on "non-aggression principle" but the remark that there is quite a range of interpretation of the idea among libertarians. And that same googling shows a fair bit of discussion over what, exactly, it means or should mean.
Human politics. You should not take differing views as either an oversetting of the laws of nature, nor as a personal betrayal to be avenged with fire and sword, Paul. Until you have this much common sense, you have no hope of winning office. Once you do, your chances should be far better.
UG, you can be a Libertarian and still be an asshole.
Or have somebody call me one, regardless of the actuality. Doesn't change things much. I'm the temperate one here, as anyone who reads what has passed between Radar and me will agree. I can still be a Libertarian and annoy the
fuck out of Paul Ireland. Literally -- he gets such a rush of blood to the head there's nothing left for an erection.
This dispute will be all the more intense for the fact that there is really so little at actual stake: theoretical formulations, 'trons, internet provider subscriptions and composition time.
We can have opposing opinions, and still both be libertarians. We don't have to walk lockstep and agree on everything to be libertarians, but we do have to agree on one thing, and that is the non-aggression principle. This is the core belief of libertarianism. It defines who is or isn't a libertarian, and you are not one. David Nolan made the chart you cling to as a means of outreach to find those who happen to lean toward libertarianism. Then they could be approached to see if they were really libertarians...which you are not.
You can disagree with me all you want, and you can lie about being a libertarian all you want, but I will continue to correct you everytime you do it because you are a filthy liar, and an asshole.
I could care less how you feel about it. It's the truth. It's not merely my opinion. Your views, directly violate the philosophy of libertarianism, and the Libertarian Party platform.
Nobody who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian. That's a fact. I know it bothers the shit out of you, but that's too fucking bad. Get over it, you're not a libertarian.
There are no "numbers" that will make you a libertarian. Being in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan chart does not make you a libertarian, and it never will. Every single time you lie to people and say you're a libertarian, I'll let them know you are not one, and that I'm speaking from a position of authority within the party, and I can back all of it up with books, websites, and other verifiable sources while you are just talking out of your ass.
I realize you can't help talking out of your ass, because that's where your head is, but this doesn't lend you any credibility.
Do you mean anyone who supports the war on principle or anyone who thinks we haven't completely f^&*ed it up beyond all reason?
Non-aggression means not picking fights, whether we do a great job or not... So I assume not.
I can be a libertarian (I am) and still say that there are things worth fighting for. If there wasn't, the all libertarians by definition would turn into anarchests.The divide is we do not try to stop behavior that is not malicious or costly to other people. I throw in the second criteria because I don't think it is in the nature of libertarianism to force people to take responsibility for the behaviors of others.
don't look at me, I'm not the one saying you HAVE to be ONE-HUNDRED-PERCENT behind non-aggression to be libertarian... All I said was that, logically, supporting it on principle doesnt work for non-aggression.
You cannot be a libertarian and be ok with our current Imperial aspirations, not even a little.
Well. I confess to a considerable degree of excitement. Here goes.
We can have opposing opinions, and still both be libertarians. We don't have to walk lockstep and agree on everything to be libertarians, but we do have to agree on one thing, and that is the non-aggression principle.
And do you not see a logical contradiction between the beginning and the ending of this statement? I do. There is more than one understanding of the non-aggression principle, varying mainly in the initial consideration: how much aggression is enough before you may rightly countervail even by violent opposition? There is further the point I raised and you've never given thought to: is it wise or well to permit an antilibertarian enemy the first blow? I don't think it is. He may get it in, but we don't as a matter of principle have to give it to him. That you won't acknowledge that adult libertarians are going to have more than just one reading of the NA principle isn't a matter of Libertarian philosophy, but a product of your own habit of mind, which is "my way or the highway."
This is the core belief of libertarianism. It defines who is or isn't a libertarian, and you are not one. David Nolan made the chart you cling to as a means of outreach to find those who happen to lean toward libertarianism. Then they could be approached to see if they were really libertarians...which you are not.
It would be more accurate to say of me that I mix a lot of neocon philosophy into my libertarianism. Particularly prominent is the neocon commonplace that a democracy prospers best in a world completely full of other democracies, who also prosper themselves in like manner. I think the more libertarian the democracy (or republic), the better a democracy it is. It is really the things I agree with that make me a libertarian, and not some quibble over exactly how to approach and actualize some principle. The neocon finding about democracies applies with equal force to libertarian societies: they too should prosper best in the company of other libertarian societies. There will be others, you know: for better or for worse the nation-state is not going to wither away altogether. There will always be some need for the coercive elements of a social order to deal with the unsocializable. The problem presented by the sociopathic and the would-be overlords is a bit more glossed over than I would like.
It is also true that the places that would benefit most greatly from a libertarian society are precisely those places which have it the least: the tyrannies. The tyrants do not sit idly by once aware of something that may threaten their power, which libertarianism can hardly avoid doing. I say we must be prepared to prevent tyrants from doing anything effectual to forestall their overthrow -- which among other things means being better at fighting than they are.
Something I haven't studied very hard yet is exactly who takes care of the public roads.
You can disagree with me all you want, and you can lie about being a libertarian all you want, but I will continue to correct you everytime you do it because you are a filthy liar, and an asshole.
I could care less how you feel about it.
That is indeed evident in yet another hotheaded try at hurting my feelings. Namecalling again, Paul? It's something you resort to much too easily, especially for a would-be holder of political office. You just lost this argument. See above for my prediction about the intensity of this debate.
It's the truth. It's not merely my opinion. Your views, directly violate the philosophy of libertarianism, and the Libertarian Party platform.
My views are about expanding the Libertarian Party base, as I think libertarian ideas are well worth trying. Your determined efforts to purge this Party, to kick just about all and sundry out of the treehouse because they're not quite your sort, make the party weak. This is a strategic mistake which must be righted if we are to succeed. What kind of dummy forms a political party with the intent of losing?? Don't blame party failures on the boneheadedness of an electorate that didn't take up your study hobby. And don't rely on the electorate being boneheaded either. That's what the socialist Democrats are doing.
Nobody who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian. That's a fact.
And somebody willing to countenance the continuation of an ultrastatist dictatorship IS? Really. I have something for you, Paul: the people who support Iraq going to a freer, more libertarian social order ARE the libertarians here.
I know it bothers the shit out of you, but that's too fucking bad. Get over it, you're not a libertarian.
You'll be nearer serenity if you get over it yourself. I spent the nine years of my military service within a totalitarian social order. Military services are not in themselves very conducive to innovation because in these rigidly structured, command societies, it is all too easy to become stultified, to think, "It's not my job, man." Yes, it stultified me, and I don't want that sort of thing around me ever again. This same thing colors all the unfree societies -- initiative isn't let to grow, bloom, and take the whole joint over, yet without doing that, an economy, blighted by its social order, permanently underperforms. Militaries have other goals than creation -- they are designed as organizations that function even under severe damage. That is the true characteristic of successful militaries. A side effect of this is the stultification I spoke of. It's unfortunate, but I also don't see how it may be avoided -- and a libertarian nation cannot dispense with its army, because there will ALWAYS, in every generation, be outsiders who would try coercion on this nation. Insiders, too; societies are never perfectly functioning machines. Absolutely never. Radical-politics people tend never to understand this.
There are no "numbers" that will make you a libertarian. Being in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan chart does not make you a libertarian, and it never will.
It also shows I cannot very well be anything else. Thinking of this kind, Paul, is why the Libertarian Party remains a tiny, politically ineffectual group. A nice social club, but where is the libertarian ideal nationwide? And how can we make it greater? There has been no thought in your end of the LP on this, and certainly none in your head, or you'd be sounding rather more like me.
Every single time you lie to people and say you're a libertarian, I'll let them know you are not one, and that I'm speaking from a position of authority within the party, and I can back all of it up with books, websites, and other verifiable sources while you are just talking out of your ass.
I realize you can't help talking out of your ass, because that's where your head is, but this doesn't lend you any credibility.
I tell the people the truth. I am a libertarian. You, in opposing this, are condemned to permanent falsehood with every utterance on this point. You shall not prevail in this. Not yesterday. Not now. Not ever. Never. You must not, can not, and shall not prevail over me, not if the Libertarian Party is to grow to both greatness and effectiveness. Brawling with you will no doubt make me a stronger libertarian through the stimulus: me bodybuilder, you barbell.
Perhaps that is true, but the right way is rarely the easy way...Libertarians don't feel it is our place to go around forcing others to have those other democracies.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders . . . All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Gestapo
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1908
It would be more accurate to say of me that I mix a lot of neocon philosophy into my libertarianism. Particularly prominent is the neocon commonplace that a democracy prospers best in a world completely full of other democracies,
Imperialism...
You cannot be a libertarian and be ok with our current Imperial aspirations, not even a little.
We haven't got any.
We never really did. Yeah, we glommed the Phillippines for a while -- more or less because it was the fashion then. And we turned the Phillipines over to the Filipinos.
We never really did because our nation started out on a firmly anti-imperialist footing and this has remained a fundamental. Economic pressure kept us that way: the expenditures of empirebuilding are simply bad for business. And we Americans instinctively hew to that which is good for business, however imperfectly we may do so from year to year. Even our most send-in-the-Marines times have most often been in the service of economics.
I'll believe you when we walk away without taking a drop of oil and the Kissinger pipeline proves to be false.
Too late... seen the plans drawn-up already dividing-up the oil fields with Cheny's signature on it.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
- Abraham Lincoln, November 12, 1864
Radar, I'm sorry, but I'll have to side with UG this time. I don't like the guy any more than you do (well, okay, maybe a little more than you do), but if you ask me, its kinda un-libertarian to declare whether or not someone is libertarian. I agree that non-aggression is important, but UG has a rationalization:
There is more than one understanding of the non-aggression principle, varying mainly in the initial consideration: how much aggression is enough before you may rightly countervail even by violent opposition?
I may not agree with him, but his interpretation, however distant from mine or yours it may be, is an interpretation nonetheless. A GOOD libertarian he may not be, but who are we to say what he is or isnt? Whether he is or he is not, we have no right to declare him otherwise until he gives CONCRETE proof, which as I said before, his views on nonagression are not.
The truth is I'm for as large a party as possible, as long as all the people in the party subscribe to the non-aggression principle (the cornerstone of libertarianism) and actually ARE libertarians. This means they don't support unprovoked wars against non-threats like Iraq, they don't want to close the borders or promote larger government to do so, they don't support stealing money through force like income taxes, etc.
I'm a big tent libertarian. As long as all people in the libertarian tent are libertarians, I'm fine.
The accusatory tone of some of the messages suggesting that use the term "purists" as though it were a negative are genuinely laughable.
In fact, they are exactly like this...
======================================
George: Father Tucker, I live in this neighborhood and I'd like to become a member of your Catholic church.
Father Tucker: That sounds great George. Do you believe in and worship Jesus Christ?
George: No, I prefer to worship Satan and I don't believe Jesus ever existed. But I do believe in some of the other stuff in the Bible. I wanted to use the church for our animal sacrifices every week.
Father Tucker: I'm sorry to hear that son. We don't allow Satan worshipers to use our church for animal sacrifices or to become members of our church.
George: But father, I've been watching your parking lot, and I have been seeing your membership dwindle. If you started allowing people to use the church for Satan worship, your membership would increase by 10 fold.
Father Tucker: That may or may not be the case, but we are not flexible on this. Membership in the Catholic church belongs solely to those who those who share the same beliefs of our current members. That is to say they believe in and worship Jesus Christ. We also never allow our church to be used for Satan worship or animal sacrifices. There are no exceptions. I hope you find Jesus and choose to worship him. In fact I'd be willing to spend some time talking to you about him. If you change your mind and agree in the existance of Jesus Christ and choose to accept him as your lord and savior, we can work on making you a member of the church through baptism, education, and confirmation.
George: Father, why do you have to be such a purist? You are losing members left and right. If you really want to fill those pews, you'd let me come here with my fellow Satan worshippers. It's guys like you who keep this church from growing as large as it could be. What if we just got rid of a few things like baptism? Isn't baptism antiquated anyway? I think a lot of people don't join the church because of baptism. And don't you think Jesus Christ is a hard sell? It's pretty radical and a lot of people won't go for it if they have to stop sinning. How about if we get rid of baptism, allow Satan worshipping, and only have 5 commandments? Maybe then we could grow a lot?
Father Tucker: No. I'm sorry, but we can't do any of those things. Our belief system is what it is. We don't change our core beliefs simply because it might attract more people. We believe them because we consider them to be the truth. We can be flexible on many things, but not on our beliefs. I'm sorry.
George: Geeeze father. Who made you the Czar of Catholic purity? I'm sure in your mind, a tiny church is a GOOD thing. I guess you just don't want your church to grow. We need to get people like you out of the church. Why are you trying to FORCE people to believe a certain way or follow ancient rituals?
Father Tucker: We're not trying to FORCE anyone to do anything. We have a certain belief system, and we welcome everyone who share it, but we will not change our belief system or our message for expediency or growth. Nobody is forcing them to join our church or to believe a certain way just so they can join.
George: With that attitude, your church will never amount to anything.
======================================
Nothing I've said contradicts anything else I've said. We don't have to agree on everything, but we do have to agree on 1 thing, and that is the core belief of libertarianism... the non-aggression principle. And no, there are no degrees of it. Non = none. Meaning it's never ok to use aggression against those who have not used it against you first. Iraq did not use aggression against the United States of America and America's defensive military is not for defending any people but our own.
Before people get their panties in a wad over the church analogy, the example doesn't have to be a church. It can be any private organization with a set of shared beliefs. It could be an atheist organization where people want to become members who only pray to one god and who want to mix church and state. It could be a vegetarian group where a prospective member says they eat beef, pork, and lamb, but no fish or chicken so they want to become members, and to change the rules to allow other meat eaters to join and to use the resources of the group to promote eating meat. It could be a person who wants to join the NRA or JPFO but who supports restrictions on certain types of weapons, and who calls the removal of all gun control laws "radical".
The point is that a particular group was created with a common set of principles and core beliefs and someone wants to join the group despite not sharing those beliefs and often times has the exact opposite beliefs. They further demand to be allowed into the group and want to change the group to suit themselves. In many cases they drive long-time and loyal members out of the group out of frustration.
The LP has done this and more by allowing these interlopers to actually be allowed into leadership positions within the party.
Some people want to be "Buffet Libertarians". They want to pick and choose which issues they happen agree on without regard for the principles or philosophy behind the traditional stands taken by the party. They want to toss out the pledge because it makes them uncomfortable by shining a light on the core beliefs that created our party, which they don't agree with and because it could be used to hold them accountable when they violate those principles or promote unlibertarian things.
I have no problem with people who don't agree with the Libertarian Party 100% of the time. We don't have to walk lockstep and agree on EVERYTHING, but we do have to agree on one thing, and that is the non-aggression principle. In the example of the church, you have to believe in Jesus Christ. In the example of the vegetarians, you have to agree that you don't eat meat.
Those who support the completely unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional war in Iraq do not support the non-aggression principle. There is no valid libertarian justification for the war in Iraq. There is no legitimate claim that Iraq ever posed even the slightest danger to America, or that America has EVER had a valid reason to invade Iraq at any time in history whether it was 1991, 2006 or any time between.
I'm not too convinced by your protests about the church analogy. The L party is much closer to a church than a political party.
A political party is for grouping people of perhaps dissimilar beliefs, together for the purposes of concentrating political power in a bloc.
Clearly Radar's L party is not this at all, but a vehicle for evangelism to promote a belief system which promises a form of paradise if the true believers can convert enough people.
Consider this imaginary dialogue. You won't have to work your imagination too hard.
=============
Joe Voter: Hey, aren't you that guy Paul? Some of the things you say make sense, I think I'm gonna vote for you.
Paul: That's great!
Joe Voter: Yeah, the Ds are sending us a bunch of morons to vote for and the Rs only care about Terri Schaivo.
Paul: I feel the same way.
Joe Voter: I think I'm going to register in a third party, the two big parties don't really represent me any more. I'm OK with public schools, but our taxes are way too high, they should be about half what they are. Do you have a registration form, I want to join your party.
Paul: NO! You're clearly NOT one of us!!
=============
Does Joe vote for Paul? No way. But appealing to Joe and getting his vote is not Paul's goal anyway. Which begs the question: what is Paul's goal?
Now if Paul is smart he will not argue with any of the above. It makes perfect sense in every way and is an accurate description.
But it doesn't make sense at all as a strategy.
The LP in fact acts as a net negative to the "liberty cause". It is a poor advocate for its own "philosophy". Why is that?
A) It is a poor substitute for a philosophy, even a political philosophy. Real philosophies address much more than the non-aggression principle addresses. For example, the NAP doesn't directly address the question of abortion, national boundaries, etc. Real, hard political issues and the NAP provides no guidance at all. Maybe a framework but no guidance, ya follow?
B) As a principle, it is so VAGUE that it has been interpreted to mean wildly different things. Some feel it permits an activist foreign policy, some don't. Some feel it requires 100% anarcho-capitalism, some don't. Some feel it must be implemented entirely overnight - no matter what the result - some feel it can be gradually rolled in. Some feel it permits modern environmentalism, some don't. Is this any way to run a political party?
C) The utter failure of the LP as a political engine is seen as a failure of the movement. Although polls show a good quarter to third of people are generally libertarian in nature, the party's 0.5-1% results delegitimize the entire movement. With all due respect to our present company, there are more transsexuals in the US than there are LP members. Of course, the transsexuals have an even harsher core entrance requirement.
D) Some people are just not good public advocates and should not be encouraged to head out into the public square to make their points. In the case of the LP, this is roughly half the candidates. They are not "crisp advocates for the liberty cause". They are "loony whack jobs attracted to a contrarian movement". People hear them and freeze in fear. This delegitimizes the entire liberty movement.
I could go on.
Now many thinkers, such as the Objectivists, see that the LP is promoting a competing philosophy and not a political party and refuse to become involved with it. What's that you say? The Objectivists are not Libertarians? But WTF? They can't possibly be more closely aligned, right?
The LP is a net negative to the liberty movement. Now that you've read it here, think about that, while you look at what happens over the next few years. Watch what you see. It's not only the Objectivists. Does CATO work with the LP? Never! Why does political success happen only to people such as Ron Paul, Gale Norton, etc. after they LEAVE the LP? Because the LP is a net negative.
Some points I thought were interesting: (all emphasis mine)
Libertarians say they favour political freedom. But even to simply enforce the outcome of the market, the apparatus of a state would be necessary - an army to prevent invasions, a police force to suppress internal revolt, a judicial system. Most libertarians go much further: they want a libertarian regime. Some of them have written complete and detailed constitutions. But like any state, a libertarian state will have to enforce its constitution - otherwise it will be no more than a suggested constitution. Even if the state is founded on the planet Mars (as some libertarians suggest), someone else with different ideas will probably arrive sometime. The libertarian constitutions might work in a freshly established libertarian colony, inhabited only by committed libertarians. But sooner or later there will be an opposition, perhaps resolutely hostile to the founding principles. States, which fail to enforce their own political system against opposition to the state itself, ultimately collapse or disappear. If libertarian states want to survive in such circumstances, they will use political repression against their internal opponents.
In the case of libertarianism within existing states, the position is much clearer. There is no question of a fresh start with a fresh population. The Libertarian Party of the United States, for instance, seeks to impose a libertarian system on the United States. It is an imposition, and can not be anything else. Unless they are prepared to accept the division of the country, they will have to deal with millions of anti-libertarians, who reject the regime entirely. They might call the riot police the Liberty Police, they might call the prisons Liberty Camps, but it's still not 'political freedom'.
and
non-coercion:
The principle of non-coercion, or non-initiation of force, appears in most self-definitions. It is the equivalent of the liberal concept of 'negative liberty' and some libertarians use that term. Libertarians say they are against coercion, but they support the free market. The introduction of a free market in Russia after 1989, lead to an excess mortality of about 3 million people. I call that force (and not defensive or retaliatory force): libertarians do not. Some US employers require their employees to smile at all customers, or lose their job. I call that coercion: libertarians call it freedom of contract. There is no point in further discussion of these issues: they are examples of irreconcilable value conflicts.
sourceNow if Paul is smart he will not argue with any of the above. It makes perfect sense in every way and is an accurate description.
But it doesn't make sense at all as a strategy.
The LP in fact acts as a net negative to the "liberty cause". It is a poor advocate for its own "philosophy". Why is that?
A) It is a poor substitute for a philosophy, even a political philosophy. Real philosophies address much more than the non-aggression principle addresses. For example, the NAP doesn't directly address the question of abortion, national boundaries, etc. Real, hard political issues and the NAP provides no guidance at all. Maybe a framework but no guidance, ya follow?
B) As a principle, it is so VAGUE that it has been interpreted to mean wildly different things. Some feel it permits an activist foreign policy, some don't. Some feel it requires 100% anarcho-capitalism, some don't. Some feel it must be implemented entirely overnight - no matter what the result - some feel it can be gradually rolled in. Some feel it permits modern environmentalism, some don't. Is this any way to run a political party?
C) The utter failure of the LP as a political engine is seen as a failure of the movement. Although polls show a good quarter to third of people are generally libertarian in nature, the party's 0.5-1% results delegitimize the entire movement. With all due respect to our present company, there are more transsexuals in the US than there are LP members. Of course, the transsexuals have an even harsher core entrance requirement.
D) Some people are just not good public advocates and should not be encouraged to head out into the public square to make their points. In the case of the LP, this is roughly half the candidates. They are not "crisp advocates for the liberty cause". They are "loony whack jobs attracted to a contrarian movement". People hear them and freeze in fear. This delegitimizes the entire liberty movement.
I could go on.
Now many thinkers, such as the Objectivists, see that the LP is promoting a competing philosophy and not a political party and refuse to become involved with it. What's that you say? The Objectivists are not Libertarians? But WTF? They can't possibly be more closely aligned, right?
The LP is a net negative to the liberty movement. Now that you've read it here, think about that, while you look at what happens over the next few years. Watch what you see. It's not only the Objectivists. Does CATO work with the LP? Never! Why does political success happen only to people such as Ron Paul, Gale Norton, etc. after they LEAVE the LP? Because the LP is a net negative.
That is because the Libertarian Party does not believe in micro-managing everything and making everyone's mind up for them. Some things are up to the individual.
That it is above the Games of the other parties is it's strength.
Sad... I would have thought you would know that.
That it is above the Games of the other parties is it's strength.
We measure the strength of political parties in terms of how much influence they wield.
Sad... I would have thought you would know that.
You need to know this phrase is annoying, insulting, and a totally unconvincing appeal to your own sense of superiority.
HTH
1. I don't have to waste my time arguing because it is laughable, and doesn't resemble reality in the slighest.
2. The LP is absolutely NOT a net negative toward the cause of liberty and in fact is the ONLY organization that is a net positive for it. Liberty has never been furthered through the major parties, including through Ron Paul.
3. The NAP is not vague or ambiguous in the slightest and it addresses every issue you mentioned.
4. The LP is not a failure. There have been many people who failed at being good libertarians like Undertoad, but the party has not failed. In fact it's done very well considering the fact that we don't compromise our principles and don't take dirty money. If anything the Libertarian Party is the single most successful third party since the Republican Party was a third party before Lincoln was elected.
5. The results of an election don't delegitimize the beliefs of those running. Popularity does not mean something is right. Once it was very popular to believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around it.
6. Libertarians on the whole are far better educated, articulate, and better able to make a "crisp", witty, intelligent, and cogent argument than those in any other party.
Not one part of anything you had to say had anything legitimate to back it up. It was nothing but a display or your own ignorance and bitterness.
The Libertarian Party is a success. With more money it would be a greater success. But the LP should not now, nor ever give up the pledge, or adherence to the NAP (which is better and more complete than any other political philosophy).
There wasn't a single part of your post that even remotely resembled anything close to the truth or reality.
Now if Paul is smart he will not argue with any of the above. It makes perfect sense in every way and is an accurate description.
But it doesn't make sense at all as a strategy.
The LP in fact acts as a net negative to the "liberty cause". It is a poor advocate for its own "philosophy". Why is that?
A) It is a poor substitute for a philosophy, even a political philosophy. Real philosophies address much more than the non-aggression principle addresses. For example, the NAP doesn't directly address the question of abortion, national boundaries, etc. Real, hard political issues and the NAP provides no guidance at all. Maybe a framework but no guidance, ya follow?
B) As a principle, it is so VAGUE that it has been interpreted to mean wildly different things. Some feel it permits an activist foreign policy, some don't. Some feel it requires 100% anarcho-capitalism, some don't. Some feel it must be implemented entirely overnight - no matter what the result - some feel it can be gradually rolled in. Some feel it permits modern environmentalism, some don't. Is this any way to run a political party?
C) The utter failure of the LP as a political engine is seen as a failure of the movement. Although polls show a good quarter to third of people are generally libertarian in nature, the party's 0.5-1% results delegitimize the entire movement. With all due respect to our present company, there are more transsexuals in the US than there are LP members. Of course, the transsexuals have an even harsher core entrance requirement.
D) Some people are just not good public advocates and should not be encouraged to head out into the public square to make their points. In the case of the LP, this is roughly half the candidates. They are not "crisp advocates for the liberty cause". They are "loony whack jobs attracted to a contrarian movement". People hear them and freeze in fear. This delegitimizes the entire liberty movement.
I could go on.
Now many thinkers, such as the Objectivists, see that the LP is promoting a competing philosophy and not a political party and refuse to become involved with it. What's that you say? The Objectivists are not Libertarians? But WTF? They can't possibly be more closely aligned, right?
The LP is a net negative to the liberty movement. Now that you've read it here, think about that, while you look at what happens over the next few years. Watch what you see. It's not only the Objectivists. Does CATO work with the LP? Never! Why does political success happen only to people such as Ron Paul, Gale Norton, etc. after they LEAVE the LP? Because the LP is a net negative.