… or at least he tries to defend the besieged LP against my Open Letter to All Libertarians.
Good effort, as far as it goes, but Sundwall omits a few things…
1. if anything, the Bob Barr nomination proves what we knew all along: that the LP is the Party of No-Principles. The LP stands for nothing except limited government, “limited” as defined by anyone who hears the word. As a tool designed to push a specifically libertarian political agenda, as a valid third party that distinguishes itself from the mainstream (which is what Sundwall preaches), it is a failure. it must either become mainstream or continue to fail.
2. The LP was started as an activist outreach, not as a preposterous attempt at a political force based on unpopular ideas. In fact, many of the early LP activists were Anarchists. But as we all know, or should know by now, political means can only engender more political means. Ron Paul himself left the LP and never came back, showing how little faith he has in the LP as an activist outreach.
3. The very existence and flourishing of a political movement like the Free State Project proves that the LP is a political failure. If the LP was successful, there would be no perceived need for such things.
As much as I think Sundwall is well-meaning, I must tell all libertarians that instead of expanding your money, efforts and enthusiasm on an “absurd existence,” you’d be better off doing something that actually does good to yourself and your society.
![[Valid RSS]](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a339/Franc28/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
1. Again, I’ve addressed this. The wholesale assertion that the Barr campaign represents the whole effort is just plain wrong. Almost half the delegates supported Ruwart. As a colleague with so many of these folks, I simply cannot accept the premise that ‘No-Principles’ is valid. Double check the Statement of Principles and attack it on those premises. Don’t let one candidacy determine such blanket pronouncements. Use any definition of ‘valid’ as you like, and the LP can reasonably distinguish itself on many levels. For the record, I rarely ‘preach’.
2. Your normative sequence, “political means can only engender more political means”, requires more assertion and definition. Ascribing any motivation to Dr. Paul’s decision to leave seems like a stretch. Technically, Dr. Paul is still a life member of the Libertarian Party. He’s stated in the past that ballot access and media coverage were the prime motivations not to attempt another third party bid. In my own estimation activist outreach is still possible. A local candidacy can still engender decent media coverage if done right.
3. The existence of the Free State Project implies or proves nothing with regard to the LP. I’ve worked closely with many of those folks and consider them valuable allies in a greater movement as a whole. In fact Tom Caruso, the director and inspiration behind ‘ A Candid World’ also produced an excellent commercial for me in 2006, during my attempt to run for Congress. (it’s on YouTube under ‘A Shot in the Dark’) They are friends and allies, not diametrically opposed ideals or concerns. Certainly their tactics and activism often transcends traditional political venues.
As far as other endeavors are concerned and their lack of absurdity for more germane tastes, I would encourage you to come down to Schenectady sometime (are you in Montreal ?) and tape a segment about your book “But Who Will Build the Roads” on my show, Capital Outsider (google it).
By: esun67 on June 5 2008
at 22:18
I believe our respective points have been made, now we’ll let the audience judge.
By: Francois Tremblay on June 6 2008
at 16:16
Sundwall wins, handily.
By: Brian Holtz on August 22 2008
at 12:51
“Sundwall wins, handily.”
If you ignore all the evidence of the past century, sure.
By: Francois Tremblay on August 22 2008
at 16:07