Redefining Rabid Libertarianism

The Libertarian Party candidate for president is skipping campaign appearances because she is being treated for a bat bite.

At first I was puzzled. I hadn’t heard that the LP had picked a candidate already. But then I remembered that I’m not plugged into the backroom talk among work-a-day libertarians anymore and so I wouldn’t have heard about the nominations of a party that isn’t Democrats or Republicans (the PoT) here in the US unless I was actively seeking that information out. I wasn’t, and so I didn’t.

A brief search of her campaign positions reveals a libertarian that isn’t ant-abortion. Now there is a rare bird, or was back in my days in the LP. I’m guessing most of the anti-abortion libertarians are now members of the Party of Trump, so she can get support from the majority of the remaining base without taking that stance.

The rest of her positions are typically libertarian. She still wants to end Social Security and Medicare, and doesn’t want to replace that with something even more sensible like a Freedom Dividend (less overhead, achieves the same purpose as Social Security) wants to reduce government to a tenth of its current size in pursuit of the anarchist dream of government non-intervention in the day to day life of the average human.

…and now she is treating potential rabies. Not looking good for the LP this year.

I vaguely remember her candidacy as Harry Browne’s 1996 running mate. Considering how much time I was spending in the architectural office at the time (60+ hours a week) I’m surprised I can remember anything at all from that period. We were all rabid libertarians back then, in the good ol’ days. We just weren’t potentially a viral threat to our fellow libertarians. Viral memes, maybe. Actual viruses, no.

US Politics Fix – Starting the Process

This will probably turn into a page of its own at some point, a book-length outline of the problems and processes that have to be reformed, and the obstacles in the way of average Americans retaking control of their government from the political bosses, corporate sponsors, and wealthy contributors who currently control it.

We have to start somewhere, so let’s start at the beginning.

A bright, fresh-faced teenager sees the problems in the world, the calcified systems in the US that seem incapable of dealing with these problems and asks himself/herself

how do I get involved in this? How do I change this?

The answer to that question is related to current events, and the image at right.

In the midst of a sideshow barker taking over the Republican primary process on the one hand, and a proud Socialist trying to pull the Democratic primary onto liberal ground it hasn’t seen since the 1970’s, I find myself without a group I feel can align with once again.

I left the Libertarian Party due to their inability to separate their ideological dedication to anarchism from the goal of actually winning the democratic election process.

Now I’m wondering just what the rest of the American populace is smoking, not just the libertarians, because it must be some good shit for everyone to be so clueless all of a sudden.

I really can’t make heads or tails of the purpose of all of this noise. I’m once again reminded of the Babylon 5 episode with Drazi killing Drazi over what color sashes they randomly select.  What I can say for certain is that Americans in general are dissatisfied with the political process as we’ve come to know it.  I can say that because the only reason that two outsiders could dominate the early potential candidate fields in polling is because Americans don’t like either of the two parties.

So what about third parties? is the question now being asked.  That would be backtracking for me.  I’m a veteran of the failed political process that is third party attempts at wresting control from the two major factions. For more than a decade I worked in the trenches, canvassing, promoting, representing the Libertarian Party in Texas in the best light that I could generate for it. I was never very important to the party (as I’m sure local activists will be quick to point out) but it was important to me, until it wasn’t anymore.

The Libertarian party wasn’t important to me anymore because several points of reality became clear to me over my time in the party. The points of reality?

  •  The majority of the U.S. population was never going to embrace anarchism and/or smaller government than currently exists in the US right now.


  • Majority of a population is what determines the leadership in a democratic process.


  • I was no longer personally convinced that the U.S. actually suffers from too much government. What the U.S. suffers from is ineffective and inefficient governance. Looking at the circus acts currently playing, one might well wonder if that wasn’t the purpose from the beginning. Harry Browne said government doesn’t work long before Ronald Reagan said it. Both of them are incorrect. They are incorrect because government works just fine in other nations of the world. It is just that the US government seems doomed to drown in a puddle of its own inefficiencies unless something fundamental to the process is changed.

There have always been third parties. There are several third parties right now (parties 4, 5 & 6?) The system is rigged to only allow two parties to have any real power. Has been rigged since the Republicans rose to national prominence with the dissolution of the Whigs in 1854 over the question of slavery. This is the point that seems to be glossed over. It isn’t that I don’t care about third party politics. The system itself isn’t setup to recognize minority parties in any real way.  It has been codified and calcified over the course of 200 years to the point where, in certain states, it is all but illegal to be a member of any party aside from the Democrats and Republicans.  Third parties, minority parties, minority factions cannot alter the system because it is insulated from their efforts by layers of interference.

And still the question appears “how can anyone vote Democratic or Republican?” The answer is demonstrable; we vote for them because one of the two of them will win. One of the two of them will win because in the vast majority of races throughout history the political system in the US has been controlled by one of two dominant parties in the US.

Whoever the Libertarians nominate (or the Greens nominate) will lose again as they have in every previous election. They will lose because they aren’t Republicans or Democrats; which the rules at the national level and at the state level virtually guarantee will win all electoral races especially the president.

Running for President as a third party is a waste of time, worse it is a waste of resources which could be used to fund campaigns to change rules so that candidates who aren’t part of a party structure can compete. What we get from that investment of time and money is the exact same argument over and over again. Why are you voting for Democrats and Republicans?

First admit that there is a problem and that problem is the electoral rules themselves. Then fix that problem before doing anything else.

Go read Ballot Access News, edited by the magnificent Richard Winger. Top of the page today is a notification that a majority of seats in a particular state are unopposed. Tomorrow it will be a different state. Unopposed means the incumbent will be re-elected. It means no change. It means that the system will remain unaltered.  Why are the seats being handed to the incumbent?  Because ballot access is gated by a huge hurdle in nearly every state.  If the hurdle (be it signatures or party requirements) is topped, the next legislature will simply raise the bar for the next election.

The never asked question is why do Americans insist that voting by itself constitutes meaningful involvement in government? Voting is actually the very least we should be doing if we hope to ever live up to the promise of self-government. Why is the least we can possibly do that constitutes doing something considered active involvement in the political system?

If you concede that voting is not enough, and you should, then the question becomes how to make effective change in our government without reinventing it? The answer to that question is to co-opt an existing party and make it do what we want it to do.

This really isn’t news.  The religious right took over the Libertarian Party with Ron Paul as their nominee in 1980, and then shifted their support to Reagan and their membership to the Republican Party when Reagan invited them to move in and take over the GOP.  The religious right have been the motivating force behind party politics ever since, and were effective at getting their way politically until the election of Barak Obama in 2008.

Even President Obama has been forced to cater to the whims of the religious right, the whims of the minority party, modifying many of his programs specifically to accommodate demands made by them.

This lays bare the how of how to change politics for all to see.  Simply have enough agreement among the population who vote to effect change at the city, state, and national level.  But that agreement is the hard part, the part that requires attention long before you go into booth and cast your ballot.

Political veterans will tell you, it takes work. Years of work.  Which is how we got where we are today, people who went into politics with a clear vision of what they wanted to achieve have been co-opted and subverted by the process of hammering out agreement after agreement in decades of struggle with people who think differently.

Eventually you end up voting for a candidate that you really don’t agree with on any specific issue, but remains the best choice given the compromises required, hopefully not loosing sight of your overall goal in the process.  Not being able to see the forest because of all the trees.

Hillary Clinton is probably going to be that candidate for me. If you read back over this blog you’ll discover that I first abandoned the Libertarian Party to support Barak Obama so that he would be President instead of Hillary.  In 2016 I would vote for Hillary Clinton with almost no reservations.

I will be voting for whoever the Democratic party nominates in this election. I will be voting for the Democrat, because the Republican party has apparently gone over to the magical thinkers, and I don’t believe in magic.  The entirety of the Republican Party has been dispatched on a fool’s errand by the Tea Party’s co-option. Until they can figure out who they are and what they stand for, I don’t have the time of day for the party as a whole.  If they were to nominate someone like Governor Kasich I might have to revise my opinion of them, but I don’t see much chance of that, of Republicans being willing to compromise enough to embrace a man who supports the ACA.

I vote down ballot based on candidate qualities alone, discarding anyone who pretends at being the better conservative. These candidates generally win in Texas (because conservative=correct in the mind of the average Texas voter) outside of Austin, but you can’t fix any stupid aside from your own. In Austin the down ballot offices (state senate and legislature) are held by Democratic incumbents, usually running opposed only by independent candidates. The independents almost always get my vote, because I want to see change and you won’t get change from an incumbent.

But I’m still talking about voting, the last thing on the list.

The only way to change the system is to infiltrate the two parties and alter them from the inside, thereby altering the system they control. It has to start with ending gerrymandering and real campaign finance reform.  Opening up ballot access and ending party control of the ballots in every state in the nation. Not doing this will simply kick the can forward again. That is the forest that we must keep in sight, the big picture. Gerrymandering must be ended across the entire nation. Districts must be drawn blindly with no consideration of the political, racial or social strata that the people in the districts represent. Campaign finance must be addressed, or the corruption of our electoral process by the wealthy will continue in spite of any other change we might put in place.

Changing any of these fundamental corruptions of the system will take a long, hard effort. It will require canvassing of your local precincts to get a feel for who supports or doesn’t support these changes. It will take joining the local precinct and becoming involved, and bringing enough people along with you to alter the votes at the precinct level. It will take making sure that county gatherings and state conventions also support these measures.

Faction is why these rules, this corruption, has taken hold.  Madison was correct when he cited faction as one of the biggest threats to the Republic.  The Democrats are a faction. The Republicans are a faction. Third parties are all factions.  Faction leads generally sane people to do insane things like drawing districts to favor your party (gerrymandering. The solution? Redistricting commission) allowing contributions that favor your party over your opponent (campaign finance. The solution? Public funds) never taking into account that the practices you use to force the system to cater to your faction can be used to exclude your faction when power is finally wrested from you.

…and it will be wrested from you, eventually.

Wildly expanded Facebook comment and status post. It hopefully will expand even further.

Another complaint voiced during the 2016 primary season.

Allowing independents to vote in Democratic primaries would be like allowing non-union members to vote on union contracts. They want the benefits without having to bear the cost of joining.


I agree in principle. The Democrats and the Republicans (as well as the Greens and Libertarians) should be able to say who is or is not a member of their group, who can most effectively carry their ideas forward.

The problem that independents have, and it is a valid concern, is that good candidates can emerge on the political landscape that don’t toe the line of any particular party. Those candidates should be able to appear on primary ballots in spite of not having a political affiliation. Not just for president and not just for independants. There needs to be an overhaul of the entire election process.

Until such time that the ballot is opened up to multiple views (jungle primaries, where ranked voting becomes a solution to a real problem) the voting public will have to be contented with exerting pressure on the parties to conform to popular views; and the only way that pressure can be applied effectively is from within the party.

Facebook comment and status backdated to the blog.

A political party — like it or not — is a continuing institution, an evolving body that reflects the convictions of its various members, and the organizers who keep the party functioning. For someone who is not a member of the party to demand changes … well, remember the story of the little red hen? “Who will help me plant my corn? Who will help me harvest my corn? Who will help me eat my corn?” If you’re not going to do the work, you don’t get a seat at the table.

David Gerrold

The lovely people who created Indivisible did better than create a page, they created a manual and a website and a political force to be reckoned with:

Donald Trump is the biggest popular-vote loser in history to ever call himself President. In spite of the fact that he has no mandate, he will attempt to use his congressional majority to reshape America in his own racist, authoritarian, and corrupt image. If progressives are going to stop this, we must stand indivisibly opposed to Trump and the Members of Congress (MoCs) who would do his bidding. Together, we have the power to resist — and we have the power to win.

We know this because we’ve seen it before. The authors of this guide are former congressional staffers who witnessed the rise of the Tea Party. We saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress. We saw them organize locally and convince their own MoCs to reject President Obama’s agenda. Their ideas were wrong, cruel, and tinged with racism— and they won.

We believe that protecting our values, our neighbors, and ourselves will require mounting a similar resistance to the Trump agenda — but a resistance built on the values of inclusion, tolerance, and fairness. Trump is not popular. He does not have a mandate. He does not have large congressional majorities. If a small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.

Prologue to the Indivisible Guide

The members of Indivisible created an agenda and a movement and they defeated Trumpismo at the polls, the way that power in a democracy is supposed to be wielded. They/We can do it again and again and again. Join us and help make this country what it always should have been.

Harry Browne

He was the first presidential candidate that I actually believed in when I cast my vote for him (two times, even) I wish I could say he was “my friend” or that I “knew him well”, but we only met briefly, once during each campaign. He had what was needed in a presidential candidate, that air of confidence and and charisma that makes you want to trust him.

I love America – the one symbolized by the Statue of Liberty – the America that was the beacon of liberty, providing light and hope and inspiration to the entire world. I want that America back.

The warmongers may say they’re patriotic Americans, but they’re willing to discard everything unique about America in order to satisfy their lust to avenge the September tragedy.

The desire for revenge is understandable. But the rush to permanently abandon the wonders of America to satisfy a temporary rage is not.

I Love America. Do You? h/t TL Knapp

We’ll miss you, Harry.

I think I’ll add a few more tributes.

Harry Browne:
One of My Favorite People



Harry Browne was one of my favorite people in the world.

First I must say (as many, many others will say) he was an extraordinary spokesman for the glorious cause of liberty. He had a way of presenting our ideas in such a no-nonsense, down-to-earth, reasonable way that just about anyone would say, “That makes sense!” Time after time I saw people who were hostile to libertarian ideas warm to them after hearing Harry speak. Even those who refused to consider the ideas would end up liking Harry in spite of themselves!

Harry’s excellence in communication was no accident. He worked tirelessly to become a master communicator. He learned the facts and figures about all the major questions we libertarians are asked, and then he carefully crafted persuasive and succinct answers. He memorized these answers, then refined them through practice and experience. He often used humor, but never at the expense of the listener.

What an incredible legacy he left the libertarian movement!

In conversations I found him to be a good listener, invariably kind and considerate. And he consistently had something valuable and insightful to add. His self-deprecating humor could never hide his extreme intelligence, and I always learned from him, whatever the topic.

He was a superb speaker and an extraordinary writer.

He was a best-selling author and a classical pianist.

I had the great pleasure of working with Harry in The Advocates’ “Art of Libertarian Persuasion” workshops. He was extremely generous with his time and was eager to share with other libertarians what he had learned on the campaign trail. The participants consistently raved about what they learned from him.

And what a joy it was working with him when we published his last book, Liberty A to Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now! He was always readily available, cooperative and supportive.

I guess the primary thing I would say about Harry was that he was the quintessential gentleman. I saw his thoughtfulness demonstrated over and over. Two examples come to mind from the California Libertarian Party convention several years ago.

I was scheduled to speak late on the last day of the convention. Harry approached me and said, “I don’t want to disturb you right before you speak, but I wanted to tell you Pamela and I really want to hear you, but we have an early flight and will have to leave before your speech is over. I just wanted you to know so when we get up to leave you won’t think it’s a comment on your speech.”

The night before was the big banquet. Several months earlier it had been announced as “formal,” but the organizers later changed it to “black tie optional.” Harry wore his tuxedo. Why? Not because he wanted to, but because he, “figured some guys wouldn’t have gotten the news, and I didn’t want them to feel awkward.” (Sure enough, three or four other men wore their tuxes, and I’m sure they were pleased to be in such good company!)

Another personal story. My mother-in-law, Edwina Harris, suffered a stroke in 2003. While staying with us for a brief time shortly afterwards, she began using one of our Harry Browne mugs for her morning coffee. She took it home with her and was fond of saying, “Mr. Browne makes a great cup of coffee,” or “I sure enjoy my coffee with Mr. Browne.” We told Harry about this, and when she was in a rehab center after a fall, he sent her a get-well card signed, “Looking forward to our next cup of coffee.”

Harry Browne and Edwin HarrisEdwina always wanted to meet him, so we arranged for her to come to the Advocates 20th Anniversary Celebration in October 2005, where he was speaking. She brought her cup, and he graciously autographed it for her. Then he kissed her on the forward — and the priceless moment was caught on film!

Harry came to speak at the event — despite the fact that he was at that time wheel-chair-bound. I was expecting to be overwhelmed with sadness at seeing him in a wheel chair, but he had such grace, such cheerfulness, such STATURE, that he still seemed TALL to me. I found myself unaware of any disability.

I am so grateful that he was able to be at the event, where he delivered his last two speeches. Upon receiving a stating ovation, he said, “I wish I could return the favor, as YOU are the ones deserving the praise.”

If I sound like a fan — well I am!

What else can I say about Harry? He was articulate, intelligent, witty, knowledgeable, kind, considerate, humble, dedicated, talented — all this and more.

I miss him terribly. And I will always cherish my memories of him.

I won’t copy this whole page, but there is a good example of what Harry Browne meant to the liberty movement here: Most of the people quoted there can’t agree from day to day on what it means to be libertarian, or how we should go about promoting libertarianism, but they all admired Harry Browne. He brought the movement together.

He was notoriously civil, too, angering warmongering callers on his radio show and making talking heads such as Sean Hannity turn the color of blood simply by stating the truth politely, without raising his voice, allowing his detractors to lose their own arguments in enraged disbelief as Harry just sat there, smiling, good-natured, unwavering and sincere.

Anthony Gregory