Talking Points

1. What is the difference between a radical and a purist libertarian?
2. What do you mean by the term “moderate?”
3. What is the difference between a moderate and incrementalist libertarian?
4. I am a radical libertarian. What does the Caucus offer me?
5. Why does the Libertarian Party need to be more moderate in order to be large enough to win elections?
6. Platforms don’t matter. Nobody reads them.
7. Stop wasting time trying to change the platform! We need to get back to work getting the word out!
8. Why are you so concerned about the LP membership Pledge?
9. You have a Pledge as well. Isn’t that hypocritical?
10. What happened in Portland?
11. What do we need to do for Denver 2008?

What is the difference between a radical and a purist libertarian?

A radical libertarian is someone who wants the government to be very, very small – or downright nonexistent. One definition of purist libertarian is one who thinks that the only kind of libertarian is a radical libertarian, that someone who only wants to cut the government in half is not a real libertarian. Another definition is one who thinks that the Libertarian Party should consist of radical libertarians only – or, at least that moderate libertarians should be second class members.

What do you mean by the term “moderate?”

What counts for moderate in libertarian circles is still heady stuff to the outside world. “Moderate” positions could include: taxing and regulating marijuana the same way as we treat hard liquor, privatizing the public schools with school stamps for the poor, and replacing the income tax with something simpler. While some of you may consider these to be whimpertarian positions, they are at the edge of what the public is ready to even consider.

What is the difference between a moderate and incrementalist libertarian?

A moderate libertarian is one who merely wants significant cuts in the size of government and significant increases in personal liberty. In incrementalist libertarian can be more radical, but realizes the need to implement the libertarian agenda bit by bit. The Libertarian Party needs both if it is to move public policy in a libertarian direction.

I am a radical libertarian. What does the Caucus offer me?

We offer you more liberty in your lifetime. And in the near term, we offer you a bigger audience for your ideas. In a broader-based Libertarian Party, you will have more contact with people who partially agree with you, more opportunity to create more radicals. On the other hand, there is a price: your faction will be but one of many; the party as a whole will no longer represent your precise views.

Why does the Libertarian Party need to be more moderate in order to be large enough to win elections?

Look up “bell curve.” There are more people closer to the center. See the Enhanced Precision Political Quiz in 2D stats for data to back up this theory.

Platforms don’t matter. Nobody reads them.

If platforms don’t matter, why the opposition? Humor us. Why are you purists screaming bloody murder?

The answer is: to those who care enough about politics, platforms do matter. Platforms matter to those who write the checks, walk the neighborhoods, put up yard signs, etc. The media and the opposition read the platform, whenever an LP candidate threatens to win.

Stop wasting time trying to change the platform! We need to get back to work getting the word out!

Two answers to this.

1. If people don’t like the message, there is no point getting it out. Prior to Portland, to know us was to hate us. Most people find national debt default, foreign conquest, starving old people, hyper-deflation, unchecked corporate power, and a sell-off of our national treasures to be unpleasant prospects. The LP platform promised these things.
2. A more moderate platform can make it much easier to recruit volunteers and donors to get the message out.

Why are you so concerned about the LP membership Pledge?

The Pledge requires that one be an impatient borderline anarchist, that one must call for the immediate elimination of all taxation. This theoretically limits LP membership to a tiny fraction of one percent of the population.

The LP is as big as it is, because at least half those who sign the Pledge aren’t told what they are signing until later. They are told that the Oath is simply a renunciation of violent revolution. This is bait and switch recruiting, and it is a source of great acrimony.

You have a Pledge as well. Isn’t that hypocritical?

Two answers:

1. A caucus is a much narrower organization than a political party.
2. The LRC’s Statement of Purpose is much broader than the LP membership pledge. The LP could have a membership pledge and still be effective – if that pledge was broad enough to include a wide array of freedom lovers. Debate on possible alternative pledges is ongoing.

What happened in Portland?

Most of the platform was eliminated. Replacement planks were not passed. The membership pledge survived.

There are several reasons why we were able to eliminate much of the platform without being able to accomplish our other goals:

1. It required a mere majority to eliminate an old plank. It requires a 2/3 vote to replace it. It also requires a 2/3 vote to change the membership pledge. (It was close to a 50-50 vote.)
2. Many non-reformers also believed that a platform rewrite was in order. The reformatting in Atlanta (2004) resulted in a platform that read badly.
3. The purists were caught off guard.
4. Portland was expensive to get to. Many povertarian radicals stayed home.

What do we need to do for Denver 2008?

A lot! And it won’t be easy. This time the purists will be ready.

Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page