I believe one thing that has to be recognized is everyone has a different interpretation of what it means to be a good Libertarian. To me it means working to maximize individual Liberty and minimize the role of the state. Of course, in order to do this first we have to shift public policy to stop minimizing individual Liberty and increasing the role of the state. I think the LP should be primarily using the political and electoral processes to achieve this goal, although there is an educational and public information component to our activity as well. From this perspective running candidates for elected office is one of our primary means of working toward our goal.

To others, being a good Libertarian means being an anarchist, or an anarcho-capitalist, or an objectivist, or geolibertarian, neolibertarian, classical liberal, market liberal etc, etc. Also, others believe the primary emphasis of the LP should be on education and trying to influence the political process primarily by means other than running candidates. If you look at the LP candidates for President through different filters, you can get very different pictures of who may be a good or bad candidate.

There are differences between libertarianism, social conservatism, and liberalism. Libertarianism strictly addresses the relationship of the individual to the state while social conservatism and liberalism also address morality. I think it is possible to be a social conservative and be a Libertarian just as it is possible to be classical liberal and a Libertarian.

While Mike Gravel and his supporters were new to the LP, I don't think they were out of place. Certainly the Senator's positions on civil liberties were in line with many of those in the LP, although his view of the role of the federal government may not have aligned with most of those in the LP. The problem I saw after talking to the Senator was that he had a set of ideas he was promoting and was not willing to consider or adopt other viewpoints. Perhaps some of that came from his age, but his stand made it difficult for me to support him.

Congressman Barr at least showed not only a willingness to consider other positions, but apologized for the results of previous positions and actions he took. He met with Outright Libertarians over the Defense of Marriage Act, he stated a new position on the USA PATRIOT Act, and showed a willingness to bring different factions together. There is no doubt his previous actions were found to be appalling not only by most Libertarians, but by many others as well. His statements at the convention appeared to me to be sincere, and time will tell if he has truly repented.

To me that is the key to being a good candidate, whether they can bring people together. While Mary Ruwart may be a fine writer, to portray yourself as being the best Libertarian because of the number of positions you hold that most citizens would disagree with does not add to the candidate qualifications, in my opinion. Had she been the nominee, what little press from MSM she would have gotten would have been almost entirely dedicated to why the LP supports child pornography.

In the end, I found that to be the problem with the candidates who touted themselves as being more "Libertarian" than others. If you can't bring those in the LP together, what chance do you have with the general electorate? The worst of the candidates I saw at the convention were those who not only claimed to be the most Libertarian, but that others were un-Libertarian. OK, maybe that was one candidate.

Perhaps one day when the income tax has been eliminated, all of the US military is stationed within our borders, and individual rights prevail over the authority of the government, the LP can splinter over whether there needs to be a government or not. Until then, we need everybody who wants to promote Liberty we can get to keep our nation from becoming the type of authoritarian state with which we were once at war.

While activism and direct action have a place and can highlight some of the different views of those in the LP, when it comes to selecting a Presidential candidate I think we will do better to be reasonable rather than radical. The candidate we have selected certainly has experience in federal elected office, and the Barr/Root ticket seems well-matched to work together. This could be the best Presidential ticket ever fielded by the LP.

Mik Robertson

I just don't want this to backfire. Again, as I said, I am going to listen to what he has to say over the coming months. I will give the guy a chance.

To be fair, I wasn't at the convention and C-SPAN wasn't playing the video recording of the event, so I have no idea what he said other than what I've been told through articles and word of mouth. None of them mentioned any alterations in his views. That being said, we could have done much worse and he is by far a better candidate than anything coming from the two-party dictatorship.

It was a little over-the-top, but...okay.

The vast majority of those are early Barr and the reason our party declared him the worst of the worst and targeted him for defeat.  Since then he has gravitated to our party and adopted many of our views.

Can you tell me if you find anything offensive on http://www.bobbarr2008.com?

Let me say this.  Who better to espouse our views than someone who was on the other side on many issues and came to realize they were wrong and we were right?  At this point, he has stated he is committed to our platform.

Your skepticism is justified.  I suggest we monitor the campaign and see where it goes.  If he loses us, he risk losing ballot access and more.

I hope that helps.

David Jahn

p.s. At the risk of sounding non-libertarian, I would also support securing our borders at this time.  Our nation has been under attack.  Until we can establish a libertarian society, abolish social programs and birthright citizenship, at the very least, we are entitled to know why people are coming in and that they aren't carrying infectious or terminal diseases, but that is just me and it is a topic for another thread.

Gentle people,

This is my first day of considering the Libertarian Party. I am doing so primarily because of Bob Barr's candidacy and the abysmal choices I find any where else. If education rather than running candidates has been your goal, then I must say that y'all have been a failure. Till today I thought that Libertarians were conservatives who did drugs while messing with Prostitutes. I say this not with the intent to insult but to state that that is what many people think.

If you want to educate people, as with anything else you need to get people to pay attention to you. I think Bob Barr will get people to pay attention. When they look at you will they see a bunch of weird malcontents, or people who can lead the nation into the future.

You keep posting threads like this and people will look at Bob Barr, look at the Libertarian party and keep on walking. When I read the platform for LPP I was a bit stunned, I thought I was for small government, but you folks ARE FOR SMALL GOVERNMENT! The questions I have is how this all is going to work if you do get elected. Karl Marx reads real interesting  but his ideas are Utopian and impractical. There are many points in your platform that I question if they are Utopian and impractical, I'd like to learn more.

I know some of you folks are in favor of rampant drug use, well big government is the biggest addictive drug there is. Instead of cold turkey, consider Bob Barr as methadone, or nicotine gum on your way to quiting. You need to get people to see they have a problem with there government addiction before you will convince them to quit.

I heard Bob Barr on Sean Hanity, it did not shy away from expounding non-Republican, Libertarian principals. Too me atleast He seems much more coherent than Ron Paul. Ron Paul seemed too vague in a lot of the interviews I saw/heard/read.

I really would like to learn more in detail how you expect to acomplish your goals. Right now our Government is a train heading for a cliff at 600 miles per hour, how do you not only stop it but turn it around on the tracks?

If you keep treating the word Republican like a filthy word, you will have a hard time persuading them that you have the plan for smaller government, thats right.

Respectfully,
Samantha Rieth

Hello Samantha.  Thank you for your input.  So much to cover, such little time.  A little about me that might help with what you are looking for.  I am 37, former Republican after I thought i was a liberal save the world in high-school.  Libertarian for now 16 years after listening and reading a lot from Dr. Walter Williams and all kinds of history/political books.  I have two kids, 3 and 4, a wife i love, don't do drugs, go to church almost every Sunday, work in management for a top tier hotel company.  I concluded long ago that the two parties are heading us to socialism.  Dems at 500 MPH, REp at 230 MPH, both going the wrong way.

Bob Barr to me is a progession vote.  Too long, we have had great candidates (Harry Browne*, Michael Badnarik) that have gotten us no media / attention.

This year we took a chance.  At the convention I met and interviewed BB.  I feel he is a changed man, "saw the light."  He is friends with Neal Boortz who I am a big fan, they are friends.

If we (I) am wrong, we gambled.   I see 2012 and beyond as great things for the LP because people are really upset with the choices they have and are looking for another choice.   We are constitutionalist, we are principled.  I think Barry is a changed man. 

I don't know if you know the challenges 3rd parties / independents have just to get on the ballot.  Ask me how much we have to raise in PA just to get Barr on the ballot.  Try $30,000 +.....just to get on the ballot.  We need over 30,000 signatures here in PA, D&R's 2,000.

So I am glad you found us and I hope you can meet-up at a local LPPA meeting.

Barry

No, we're in favor of rampant freedom use.

I don't think any of us want people to use drugs. We just recognize that every individual has the right to do with their lives what they please provided that they give way for others to do the same. Drug use has one physical victim; the user.