activism election eng1020 freedom gdcom government inbox liberal libertaarlus libertarian libertarianism libertarianparty liberty madisun party poliitika political political_parties politics positions progressive randomness right rights usa yet

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian Party
Party Chairman	Bill Redpath
Founded	December 11, 1971
Headquarters	2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20037
Political ideology	Libertarianism Non-interventionism
Political position	Fiscal: Free market, Laissez-faire Social: Libertarian
International affiliation	None
Seats in the Senate
Seats in the House of Representatives
Color(s)	Yellow or gold
Website	Libertarian Party

The Libertarian Party is a United States political party founded on December 11, 1971^[1]. More than 200,000 voters are registered with the party, making it one of the largest of America's alternative political parties^[2]. Hundreds of Libertarian candidates have been elected or appointed to public office, and thousands have run for office under the Libertarian banner^[3].

The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects that group's particular brand of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries.^[4]

Contents 1 Platform 2 Current structure and composition 2.1 Leadership 2.2 State chapters 2.3 Membership 3 History 4 Symbols and name 5 Relationship to major parties 6 Size and influence 6.1 Defining measures 6.2 Presidential candidate performance 6.3 Earning ballot status 6.4 Funding candidates 6.5 Party supporters 6.6 Number of candidates 6.7 Election victories 6.8 Registration by party 6.9 Other measures 7 Ballot access 7.1 Ballot access only for presidential candidate 7.2 Working on ballot access 8 Internal debates 8.1 Anarchist/minarchist debate 8.2 Abortion 8.3 Intervention in Afghanistan 8.4 Platform revision 8.5 Membership dues 8.6 Voluntaryists 9 Media misidentification 10 Internal caucuses 11 See also 12 References 13 External links 13.1 Previous presidential candidates campaign sites

Part of the Politics series on

Libertarianism

Origins and history Austrian School Chicago School Classical liberalism Individualist anarchism Liberalism

Theory and ideals Counter-economics Dispute resolution organization Economic freedom · Free market Free market environmentalism Free society · Free trade Free will · Freedom of association Freedom of contract Homestead principle Individualism Individualist feminism Laissez-faire Liberty · Limited government Methodological individualism Natural rights Night watchman state Non-aggression Non-interventionism Non-politics · Non-voting Polycentric law · Property Private defense agency Self-governance · Self-ownership Spontaneous order Stateless society Subjective theory of value · Tax resistance Title-transfer theory of contract Voluntary association Voluntary society

Schools Agorism · Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism · Christian Classical liberalism · Consequentalist Conservative · Constitutionalist Crypto-anarchism · Deontological Free market · Geolibertarianism Green · Individualist anarchism Left-wing · Minarchist · Mutualist Paleolibertarianism · Panarchist Propertarian · Right-wing Thick and thin · Voluntaryism

Topics Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism Controversies · Criticisms Libertarian movement Political parties Theories of law · Views of rights

Related topics Anti-state · Anti-war Civil libertarianism Civil societarianism Constitutionalism Constitutional republic Fusionism Libertarian Christianity Libertarian conservatism Libertarian Democrat Libertarian Republican Libertarian socialism Libertarian transhumanism Limited government Market liberalism Objectivism Small government Small-l libertarianism Ultraliberalism

Libertarianism portal Philosophy portal Politics portal

v • d • e

[edit] Platform

Key tenets of the Libertarian Party platform include the following:^[5]

Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Statement of Principles We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition and would look into the repeal of other weapons' laws, like mace and pepper spray.

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and the income tax, the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. The government can then use excise taxes and tariffs until the day there is no more use for all forms of internal and external taxable revenue, and thus both can be eliminated. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent, and pork barrel spending should be eliminated. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets, not governments bailing them out.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service, including all Selective Service Acts.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. However, parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs instead of government.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

Libertarians state that their platform follows from the consistent application of their guiding principle: "mutual respect for rights." They are therefore deeply supportive of the concept of individual liberty as a precondition for moral and stable societies. In their "Statement of Principles," they declare: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." To this end, Libertarians want to reduce the size of government (eliminating many of its current functions entirely).

Libertarians reject the view of politics as a one-dimensional spectrum, divided between Democrats representing the Left or Center-left and Republicans representing the Right or Center-right.

To illustrate their view that the one-dimensional view of politics is insufficient to describe the myriad political philosophies held by the public, Libertarians introduced the Nolan chart to communicate their belief that politics is at least two-dimensional. A variation of the Nolan chart is enhanced (via a link from the main website) by a ten-question poll (five questions dealing with economic-freedom issues and five questions dealing with personal-freedom issues), which it bills as "The World's Smallest Political Quiz," allowing respondents to classify their political leanings.

Among outside political watchers, some consider Libertarians to be conservative (primarily because of their support of the right to bear arms, their opposition to economic regulation, and their views on taxes and states' rights); while others consider them liberal because of their advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy, the repeal of drug prohibition, and the elimination of laws that interfere with private consensual acts (such as prostitution and gambling). Libertarians consider themselves neither conservative nor liberal; rather, they believe they represent a unique philosophy that is all their own.

The party advocates limiting the government as much as possible within the confines of the United States Constitution. As in any political party, there is some internal debate about the platform, and not all of the party's supporters advocate its complete or immediate implementation, but most think that the United States would benefit from most of its proposed changes.

[edit] Current structure and composition

[edit] Leadership

The members, when gathered at the bi-annual Libertarian National Convention, are the ultimate authority within the Libertarian Party.

The 17-member Libertarian National Committee^[6] (currently chaired by William Redpath) is responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations of the national Libertarian Party and its headquarters, in representative style.

Logan Stenson is currently the acting Executive Director and Operations Director.

The Libertarian National Congressional Committee (LNCC) assists party candidates in state-level races; its current chairman is M. Carling of California.

[edit] State chapters

Each state also has a state committee, usually consisting of statewide officers and regional representation of one kind or another. Similarly, county, town, city and ward committees, where organized, generally consist of party members elected at the local level. State and local committees often coordinate campaign activities within their jurisdiction, oversee local conventions and in some cases primaries or caucuses, and may have a role in nominating candidates for elected office under state law.

[edit] Membership

Since its inception, individuals have been able to join the Libertarian Party by simply signing their agreement with the organization's membership pledge, which states that the signer does not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. During the mid eighties into the early nineties, this membership category was called an "instant" membership; currently these are referred to as "signature members".

Individuals may remit annual dues to obtain additional benefits, such as a subscription to the party's monthly newspaper, LPNews, or to have a vote at party conventions.

In the late nineties, the LNC began sharing annual national dues with the state parties, under a program called the "Unified Membership Program" or UMP.^[7] However, this program was terminated in 2006 due to funding shortfalls at the national level, and the inability of many state parties to fund a staffer or find a volunteer to prepare the required bookkeeping to account for it.^[8]

At about the same time the Libertarian Party was about to abandon UMP, the Democratic National Committee adopted the idea and in 2005 DNC Chairman Howard Dean began a program called 50 State Strategy that uses DNC national funds to assist all state parties and pay for full time professional staffers.^[9] Some Democratic activists have suggested that the DNC program has contributed significantly to the turnaround in Democratic fortunes in state, local, and national elections since 2005.

Paid membership in the Libertarian Party increased 28% in 2006.^[10]

[edit] History

[edit] Symbols and name

In 1972, "Libertarian Party" was chosen as the party's name, narrowly beating out "New Liberty Party."^[11]

Also in 1972, the "Libersign"—an arrow angling upward through the acronym "TANSTAAFL"—was selected as the party's emblem.^[11] Some time after, this was replaced with the Lady Liberty, which has, ever since, served as the party's symbol or mascot.

For many years, there has been a small movement to adopt "LP" the Liberty Penguin as the official mascot, much like the Republican elephant or the Democratic donkey. The Libertarian parties of Tennessee, North Carolina, Utah, Hawaii, Delaware and Iowa have all adopted "LP" as their mascot.^[12]

The first official slogan of the Libertarian Party was "There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch" (often seen as "TANSTAAFL" for short). The current slogan of the party is "The Party of Principle".

[edit] Relationship to major parties

At the local level, the Libertarian Party often joins, and sometimes leads, trans-partisan and non-partisan issues coalitions. It emphasizes, in the words of its co-founder, David Nolan, "consensus and coalition building" on issues important to its members. It also engages in lobbying at the state, local and national levels. The Libertarian International Organization estimates that Libertarians around the country are involved in more than 500 initiatives a year.

The Libertarian Party has substantial points of disagreement with both the Democratic and the Republican parties. However, the party has historically had more influence on and closer ties with the Republican Party. For example, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich claimed to be influenced by Libertarian principles, and was praised by many Libertarians for attempting to shrink government. Analysts within the American right have used the language and social critiques of Libertarians with regard to market deregulation (for example, the frequent citing of studies by the Cato Institute). Republican President Ronald Reagan's rhetoric, notably his campaign promise to "get government off our backs," was often heavily libertarian. Indeed, in a 1975 interview, Reagan said, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ^[13] While crafting economic reforms, David Stockman, Reagan's OMB director, also mentioned his belief in libertarian values. The 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Ron Paul serves as a Republican Congressman from Texas, and is also a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group of libertarian-minded members of that party. On the other hand, there is strong Libertarian influence on some Democrats, too; Mike Gravel, a Democratic senator from Alaska, ran unsuccessfully for the Libertarian Party's nomination in 2008. The Democratic Freedom Caucus is a group of libertarian-minded members of the Democratic Party. It could be said that libertarianism is more "liberal" on social beliefs and more "conservative" on economic beliefs.

Libertarian candidates have occasionally thrown their support behind Republican contenders. In a 2002 South Dakota election for Senate, for example, Libertarian candidate Kurt Evans suspended his campaign three weeks before Election Day and urged voters to support Republican candidate John R. Thune. The Libertarian Party supported efforts to impeach Bill Clinton for different reasons (citing several actions they deemed to be unconstitutional). In 1992, after incumbent Georgia Senator Wyche Fowler won a plurality but failed to achieve 50% and was forced into a runoff, the Libertarian candidate publicly threw his support to Paul D. Coverdell, who then won the election.

On the other hand, the Libertarian Party has also worked towards defeating some prominent Republicans, such as Bob Barr. Interestingly, Barr subsequently spoke at numerous Libertarian Party functions, expressed agreement with many of the party's positions, and, perhaps ironically, in late 2006 became a Life Member of the LP,^[14] joined the Libertarian National Committee, and became the party's nominee for President of the United States in 2008.

Libertarians oppose Republicans on various issues of civil liberties, and government spending and national debt. For example, the Libertarian Party has sharply attacked the USA PATRIOT Act for its potential for infringement of civil rights. The party has also made the repeal of drug prohibition laws one of its priorities, a position that puts it at odds with the "mainstream" of both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Despite this, former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne noted that he drew approximately an equal number of Democrats and Republicans to his campaign. Michael Badnarik made a similar claim in 2004. Surveys by Libertarian Citizen, an activist education group, in 2002 showed Libertarians drew equally from the left, right, and independents—with more than 30% saying they would not have voted at all in the absence of a Libertarian candidate.

Media such as the St. Petersburg Times have speculated that even one Libertarian could influence public bodies to look at different ideas. They are often strong in local appointed office, and sometimes lead the boards to which they belong. In 2005, local Florida Democrats joined a coalition with Libertarians that, after a voter forum, is calling for a reduction in ballot access restrictions.

[edit] Size and influence

[edit] Defining measures

By several measures, the Libertarian Party is the largest third party in the United States—a nation which is overwhelmingly dominated by two major parties that typically capture more than 95% of the vote in partisan elections. This claim is disputed by some, especially other third parties such as the Green Party. There is no single objective, agreed-upon standard to compare the size of third parties, so what is presented here is a review of various measures cited in the media.

[edit] Presidential candidate performance

Libertarians point to the performance of their presidential candidates, who have often finished above most other permanently-organized third parties. For example, in 2008, Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr received more votes (523,686) than any other third party; although Ralph Nader, running as an Independent, received 725,696^[15].

In the 2004 election, Libertarian Michael Badnarik received more votes (397,265)^[16] than all non-major party candidates combined (again except for Nader, in the race as an independent but with the endorsement and ballot lines of the nearly defunct Reform Party), more than twice as many as the Constitution Party candidate (Michael Peroutka 143,630 votes) and three times as many as Green Party candidate (David Cobb 119,859 votes).

In 2000 and 1996, Libertarian Harry Browne was bested by both the Green Party and Reform Party nominees. The Libertarian candidate finished ahead of all other third party candidates in 1992, 1988, 1984, and 1980 (though he finished well behind independent candidates Ross Perot in 1992 and John Anderson in 1980). No other currently active third party has finished third in a presidential election more than once, or received an electoral college vote. This occurred for the Libertarian Party in 1972 when a GOP "faithless elector" pledged to Nixon cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket, effectively awarding the first-ever electoral college vote to go to a woman in a US Presidential election to Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate Tonie Nathan.^[17]

[edit] Earning ballot status

Ballot access can be considered as a measure of a political party's level of motivation, size, and financial and volunteer-base strength. Despite internal bickering over whether to pursue ballot access or not, in 2004, the Libertarians earned a space on more ballots than the Greens (48+DC vs 27+DC). Historically, Libertarians have also achieved 50-state ballot access for their presidential candidate three times, in 1980, 1992, and 1996 (in 2000 L. Neil Smith was on the Arizona ballot instead of the nominee, Harry Browne),^[18] a feat no other third party has achieved more than once.

[edit] Funding candidates

The ability to fund the party's candidate(s) can also be used as a measure of organizational size and strength. The following are the amounts spent on 2008 campaign activities for the presidential candidates, as reported by the FEC:

• John McCain (R) $604,951,924 ^[19]
• Barack Obama (D) $976,830,398 ^{[20] [21]}
• Ralph Nader (Independent) $4,510,191
• Bob Barr (L) $1,405,899
• Alan Keyes (Am. Ind.) $481,991 (mostly raised as a Republican candidate)
• Chuck Baldwin (Const.) $262,010
• Cynthia McKinney (Green) $240,360
• Gloria LaRiva (Soc. & Lib.) $24,441
• Brian Moore (Soc.) $9,516

While these reflect only the funds raised by candidate committees directly, it is indicative of the relative fundraising strengths of the respective political parties.

[edit] Party supporters

One measure of size is the number of donors a group attracts. In the Libertarian Party, some donors are not necessarily "members", because the Party since its founding in 1972 has defined a "member" as being someone who agrees with the Party's membership statement. The precise language of this statement is found in the Party Bylaws.^[22] There were 115,401 Americans who were on record as having signed the membership statement as of the most recent report.^[23]

There is another measure the Party uses internally as well. Since its founding, the Party has apportioned delegate seats to its national convention based on the number of members in each state who have paid minimum dues (with additional delegates given to state affiliates for good performance in winning more votes than normal for the Party's presidential candidate). This is the most-used number by Party activists. As of December 31, 2006, Libertarian Party reported that there were 15,505 donating members^{[citation needed]}. 1,108 of the donors gave the federal minimum ($200) or more for required individually itemized contributions [2].

Historically, dues were $15 throughout the eighties; in 1991, they were increased to $25. Between February 1, 2006 and the close of the 2006 Libertarian party convention on May 31, 2006, dues were set to $0.^[24] However, the change to $0 dues was controversial and was de facto reversed by the 2006 national convention in Portland, Oregon; at which the members re-established a basic $25 dues category (now called Sustaining membership), and further added a requirement that all National Committee officers must henceforth be at least Sustaining members (this was not required prior to the convention).

[edit] Number of candidates

In recent elections, Libertarians have run far more candidates for office, at all levels, than all other third parties combined. In the 2004 elections, 377 Libertarian candidates vied for state legislative seats, compared with 108 Constitution Party candidates, 94 Green Party candidates, and 11 Reform Party candidates. In the 2000 elections, the party ran about 1,430 candidates at the local, state, and federal level. More than 1,600 Libertarians ran for office in the 2002 mid-term election. Accordingly, their combined vote totals have far exceeded those of other parties: in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections, Libertarian candidates for state House of Representatives received more than a million votes – more than twice the votes received by all other minor parties combined.

[edit] Election victories

Libertarians have had mixed success in electing candidates at the state and local level. Following the 2002 elections, according to its site ^[25], 599 Libertarians held elected or appointed local offices and appointed state offices. Of these, libertarians were in leadership positions in slightly less than half the boards that they served^{[citation needed]}, and were elected in slightly over 1/3rd^{[citation needed]} (approximately 90% of US public offices are appointive, and 5% partisan elective). Most of these Libertarians held nonpartisan appointed positions or were elected in nonpartisan races. Though twelve Libertarians have previously been elected to state legislatures, none hold that office currently, unlike the Green Party (one in Arkansas), and the Progressive Party (five in Vermont). The most recent Libertarian candidate elected to a state legislatures was Steve Vaillancourt in 2000 who was personally not a party member but had libertarian leanings. Vaillancourt a Democratic member of the House had lost the Democratic primary for State Senate that year and accepted the Libertarian nomination for the House so as to keep his seat. Some Libertarian candidates for state office have performed relatively strongly in statewide races. In two Massachusetts Senate races (2000 and 2002), Libertarian candidates Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, who did not face serious Republican contenders (in 2002 the candidate failed to make the ballot), received a party record-setting 11.9% and 16.7% ^[26] respectively. In 2002, Ed Thompson, the brother of former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, received 11% of the vote (best ever Libertarian result for Governor) running for the same office, resulting in a seat on the state elections board for the Libertarian Party, the only such seat for a third party in the U.S.

After the party's 21 electoral victories in November 2008, there are now 207 elected Libertarians serving in office across the United States [3]. In comparison, the Green Party had 48 electoral victories in 2008 [4], and 193 Greens currently serve in public office ^[27].

[edit] Registration by party

Ballot access expert Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News, periodically compiles and analyzes voter registration statistics as reported by state voter agencies, and he reports that as of March 2008, the Libertarians ranked sixth in voter registration nationally.^[28] The Reform Party ranked third with 391,915; the Constitution Party ranked fourth, with 384,722 registrants; while the Greens counted 261,754 and the Libertarians 225,529.

However, Winger says, nearly all of the 328,261 California voters affiliated with the Constitution Party are actually registrants of California's American Independent Party – and they so registered in the belief that they were registering as independents (i.e., not associating with any political party). The American Independent Party is a remnant of the segregationist party George Wallace founded for his race in 1968; within the last decade, the AIP de facto merged with the Constitution Party but shifted to America's Independent Party in 2008.^[29]

The Libertarians ranked third in twelve states, the Greens ranked third in five states and DC, the Constitution Party ranked third in three states, and the Reform Party ranked third in one state (27 states allow voters to affiliate with a party; others prohibit voters from registering with third parties).

[edit] Other measures

Another possible measure of support for each party is the relative popularity of the organization's web site. According to Alexa Internet Traffic Reports, the Libertarian Party Website is currently the third highest ranked official political party website in the United States following the pages of the Democratic and Republican parties.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Ballot access

As of September 23, 2008, the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in 46 states for 2008; ^[30] it is not on the ballot in Connecticut, Maine, Oklahoma, or West Virginia. The Party has more ballot lines than any other third-party by comparison to the Green Party (on 24 ballots) and the Constitution Party (on 14 ballots).

[edit] Ballot access only for presidential candidate

[edit] Working on ballot access

There are a number of states currently in the process of gaining Libertarian ballot access (in court or by petition) either for the party as a whole or just for the party's 2008 presidential nominee.^[31]

1. Oklahoma - lawsuit against Oklahoma's ban on out-of-state circulators is currently pending in the 10th circuit.^[32]

[edit] Internal debates

[edit] Anarchist/minarchist debate

The debate that has survived the longest is referred to by libertarians as the anarchist/minarchist debate. In 1974, anarchists and minarchists within the Party agreed to "cease fire" about the specific question of whether governments should exist at all, and focus on promoting voluntary solutions to the problems caused by government instead. Another debate was created by Mike Hihn's claim the term Libertarianism has been used by anarchists longer than by minarchists.^[33] A related internal discussion concerns the philosophical divide over whether the Party should aim to be mainstream and pragmatic, or whether it should focus on being consistent and principled.

In the opinion of some, members who identify themselves as principled have dominated the party since the early 1980s. The departure of Ed Crane and David H. Koch (of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank) is held up as an example. Crane, who in the 1970s had been the party's first Executive Director, and some of his allies resigned from the Party in 1983 when their preferred candidates for national committee seats lost in the elections at the national convention.

The debate quieted for a time, then arose again in the mid-1990s, when a "Committee for a Libertarian Majority" (CLM) was formed and met in Atlanta, Georgia, and worked up several proposals to alter many aspects of the Libertarian Party's operations. Two of their proposals (substantially altering the platform and abolishing the membership pledge) attracted a lot of attention and opposition sprang up in the form of another committee called PLEDGE. In the long run, CLM's proposals attracted some support at the national convention but did not prevail.

Beginning in roughly 2004, the debate arose anew, with the formation of several reform ("pragmatist") groups, such as the Libertarian Reform Caucus, the Libertarian Party Reform Caucus (now defunct), and the Real World Libertarian Caucus (now defunct). These groups generally advocate(d) revising the party's platform, eliminating or altering the membership statement, and focusing on a politics-oriented approach aimed at presenting libertarianism to voters in what they deemed a less threatening manner. As in the past, groups promoting a more consonant interpretation of libertarian principles, such as the LPRadicals and the Rothbard Caucus, have emerged in response. These groups advocate a clear, consistent, and principled interpretation of libertarianism, and want the Party to focus on constant outreach with a consistent message marketed by candidates and the Party leadership.^{[citation needed]}

As of the 2008 convention, the debate has been settled for now with the wholesale adoption of pragmatist viewpoints in the new platform, and the nomination of ex-CIA official Bob Barr for president.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2009)

[edit] Abortion

In the early eighties, Libertarians for Life was formed to support a change in the Party's pro-choice stance. To some extent, those efforts succeeded as the platform was eventually altered to acknowledge that many Libertarians consider themselves to be pro-life. Conversely, in 1987, another group of Party members were concerned that Dr. Ron Paul (at the time seeking the Party's presidential nomination) might promote his belief that all abortion (from the time of conception) should be outlawed by the states, and thereby confuse voters about the Party's actual platform stance. This group formed Pro-Choice Libertarians and most members supported Paul's opponent, Russell Means. Once the nomination went to Paul, they continued their efforts to dissuade him from making an issue of abortion.^[34] They have continued efforts to keep the party pro-choice. In 2008, pro-life and anti-illegal immigration activist Mark Hopkins supported Bob Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party nominee.^{[citation needed]} Barr has been a keynote speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens.^[35] However, Mr. Barr later wrote to the Anti-Defamation League that "if I had been aware white supremacist views occupied any place in the Council of Conservative Citizen's philosophy, I would never have arranged to speak."^[36]

[edit] Intervention in Afghanistan

On September 13, 2001, just two days after the September 11 attacks and in response to what they saw as ambiguous statements about U.S. intervention in Afghanistan by the Libertarian National Committee, party members formed Libertarians for Peace to encourage the party to continue promoting a consistent non-interventionist position.

[edit] Platform revision

In 1999 a working group of leading LP activists proposed to reformat and retire the platform to serve as a guide for legislative projects (its main purpose to that point) and create a series of custom platforms on current issues for different purposes, including the needs of the growing number of Libertarians in office. The proposal was incorporated in a new party-wide strategic plan and a joint platform-program committee proposed a reformatted project platform that isolated talking points on issues, principles and solutions, and an array of projects for adaptation. this platform, along with a short Summary for talking points, was approved in 2004. Confusion arose when prior to the 2006 convention, there was a push to repeal or substantially rewrite the Platform, at the center of which were groups such as the Libertarian Reform Caucus.^[37] Their agenda was partially successful in that the current platform was much shortened (going from 61 to 15 planks – 11 new planks and 4 retained from the old platform) over the previous one.^[38]

Members differ as to the reasons why the changes were relatively more drastic than any platform actions at previous conventions. Some delegates voted for changes so the Party could appeal to a wider audience, while others simply thought the entire document needed an overhaul. It was also pointed out that the text of the existing platform was not provided to the delegates, making many reluctant to vote to retain the planks when the existing language wasn't provided for review.^{[39][unreliable source?]}

Not all party members approved of the changes, some believing them to be a setback to libertarianism^[40] and an abandonment of what they see as the most important purpose of the Libertarian Party.^[41]

At the 2008 national convention, the changes went even further; with the approval of an entirely revamped platform. Much of the new platform recycles language from platforms going back to 1972. While the planks were renamed, most address ideas found in earlier platforms and run no longer than three to four sentences. members of the program committee point to its being a version of a proposal approved in 2001.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Membership dues

In mid-2005, the Libertarian National Committee voted on a motion by then-LNC member George Squyres to eliminate all dues for membership in the national Libertarian Party, effective January 1, 2006.^[24] However, this change was extremely controversial. Opponents pointed out to LNC members that there was already a "free" membership category – under the party's bylaws, one needed only sign the membership statement. They argued that Squyres' proposal merely changed delegate apportionment and nothing else; and thus was basically "window dressing". Ultimately, the members at the 2006 national convention overturned the decision in Portland, Oregon. The members re-established a basic $25 dues category (now called Sustaining membership), and further added a requirement that all National Committee officers must henceforth be at least Sustaining members (this was not required prior to the convention).

[edit] Voluntaryists

Some Libertarians concluded that libertarianism itself could not be effectively promoted through political means, and left the LP to form a specifically non-political arm of the libertarian movement, the voluntaryists.^{[42][unreliable source?]}

Libertarians continue to surmise that a libertarian political party is perhaps a contradiction in terms, and continue to leave the LP. Many form non-party independent groups to assist libertarian candidates in their campaigns as independents for political office.^[43]

[edit] Media misidentification

Occasionally, media outlets have incorrectly labeled Lyndon LaRouche as a Libertarian in articles about the controversy he generates, which the Libertarian Party identifies as a concern.^[44] LaRouche's political views are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Libertarianism, and he has never sought the Libertarian nomination for President. He has either run for office as a Democrat or with his now-defunct U.S. Labor Party.

[edit] Internal caucuses

• LPRadicals Website
• Libertarian Reform Caucus Website
• Libertarian Defense Caucus Website
• Libertarians for Life Website
• Libertarians for Peace Website
• Pro-Choice Libertarians Website
• Libertarian Women's Caucus
• Libertarian Student Caucus
• Libertarian Youth Caucus
• Outright Libertarians Website

[edit] See also

• Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
• Libertarian Party state affiliates
• List of state Libertarian Parties in the U.S.
• List of political parties in the United States
• List of libertarian political parties internationally
• Libertarian National Congressional Committee
• Free State Project
• Voluntarism
• Category:Members of the Libertarian Party (United States)
• National Democratic Party (United States) – A U.S. political party from 1896–1900 that shared much of the modern Libertarian Party's basic ideology.^{[improper synthesis?]}

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• US Libertarian Party official site
• Libertarian National Congressional Committee official site
• Libertarian (party) at the Open Directory Project
• Elected Libertarian officials, a site that keeps an independent tally; also includes candidates who identify themselves as libertarian but outside of the U.S. LP.

[edit] Previous presidential candidates campaign sites

• Archive of 2004 LP presidential candidate web site
• Archive of 2000 LP presidential candidate web site
• Archive of 1996 LP presidential candidate web site
• Archive of 1996 LP vice presidential candidate web site

v • d • e Libertarian Party of the United States of America Chairpersons of LNC Crane • Bergland • Clark • Grant • VerHagen • Turney • Walter • Gingell • Dasbach • Bergland • Lark • Neale • Dixon • Redpath Presidential candidates Hospers/Nathan • MacBride/Bergland • Clark/David Koch • Bergland/Lewis • Paul/Marrou • Marrou/Lord • Browne/Jorgensen • Browne/Olivier • Badnarik/Campagna • Barr/Root State affiliates Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming National Conventions 1972 (Denver) • 1974 (Dallas) • 2000 (Anaheim) • 2002 (Indianapolis) • 2004 (Atlanta) • 2006 (Portland) • 2008 (Denver) Affiliated organizations Libertarian National Congressional Committee • College Libertarians • LPRadicals • Outright Libertarians See also History • Dallas Accord • Committee to Form a Libertarian Party • Electoral history • Libertarian pledge • Real World Libertarian Caucus • Libertarian Party Reform Caucus

v • d • e National political parties in the United States (list) Major parties Democratic · Republican Third parties Constitution · Green · Libertarian Smaller parties America First · America's Independent Party · American Independent · Boston Tea · Communist · Progressive Labor · Independence · Labor · Modern Whig · Marijuana · Objectivist · Populist · Prohibition · Reform · Socialism and Liberation · Socialist · Socialist Equality · Socialist Workers · Veterans · Workers World · Working Families Historical parties American (Know Nothing) · Anti-Masonic · Black Panther Party · Citizens · Conservative · Constitutional Union · Democratic-Republican · Farmer-Labor · Federalist · Free Soil · National Greenback · Liberal Republican  · Liberty · National Republican · National Union · New Alliance · Nullifier · Opposition · Populist (People's) · Progressive (1912 ~ 1924 ~ 1948) · Readjuster · Silver · Silver Republican · Socialist · Socialist Labor · States Rights (Dixiecrat) · Union · U.S. Labor · Whig Portal:Politics - List of political parties - Politics of the United States