Larken Rose

More About: Philosophy: Libertarianism

Libertarian Party: Worthless

I'm sad to announce that the Libertarian Party is utterly worthless. Well, the fact that it was a political party vying for the throne made it not only worthless, but counter-productive, from the beginning. If you're waiting around for "government" to pass a "law" giving you permission to be free, then: a) you'll be waiting a long time, and b) you're not even free inside your own head yet. As long as you are begging any master to endorse your freedom, you will remain a slave.

But aside from that, my complaint today is that the Libertarian party has no real principles anymore. None. By its label, there is only one principle it should ever have had: the principle of non-aggression. That's what "libertarianism" is all about. It's a very simple, basic principle, and it is philosophically and morally sound. And it has been abandoned by the Libertarian Party. (No, this didn't just happen now, but it's getting more obvious.)

I just read an article, here on Freedom's Phoenix, where the Libertarian Party was, ironically, trying to warn people about how the Republican Party is not a friend of freedom. While that is quite true, the quotes from the Libertarian Party showed that it is no friend of freedom either. And a very simple phrase from the article is all the proof you need. It said that the Libertarian Party wants to "cut taxes," and push for "less government" and "more freedom." It's not that they oppose aggression in principle; it's that they want less aggression. How much less? Well, apparently it depends how much is "needed," and how much is "possible"--whatever that means.

There is a huge, fundamental difference between advocating less evil, and advocating no evil. Advocating a significant reduction in murder, rape, and armed robbery, is not the same as being opposed to such things entirely. Since "taxation" is a euphemism for extortion and robbery, done via violence and the threat of violence, the libertarian principle does not allow for any taxation at all. The anti-aggression principle is incompatible with any "taxation." Period.

Yet the Libertarian Party is out there talking about "lower taxes." While we're at it, how about if we have a platform of being for a 40% reduction in murder, a 50% reduction in rape, and--hey, let's get radical--a 70% reduction in car-jacking? After all, it would be extreme to advocate that we should have none of those things. So we'd better try to phase in that reduction in murder, and water down our opposition to rape, and be more moderate in our opposition to car-jacking. Because, after all, we need to win elections, and you can't do that if you have actual principles!

The Libertarian Party has ceased to be libertarian. They don't dare to bluntly describe what libertarianism entails, because that would scare too many potential voters, who have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of state-worship. Instead of speaking about succinct, specific principles, Libertarian candidates and spokes-folk muddle around in more publicly acceptable generalities. They want less of this and more of that. Less than what? More than what? Where is the ultimate goal? What is the underlying principle?

Having basically abandoned the principle of non-aggression, by talking about "cutting" (not eliminating) "taxes," even if the Party magically won every seat in the cult called "government," it would accomplish exactly nothing. The Party would transform into what the Republican Party was in 1994: lots of pretend pro-freedom principles, followed by lots of real-world control-freak oppression.

"Now, now, we have to be practical, and do things slowly, and win people over, and yada, yada, yada." Bullpoop. When you drop the principle, in order to win public approval, your cause becomes worthless. If you don't even dare to bluntly say what you believe, and what your ultimate goal is, why should anyone expect you to act on what you (supposedly) believe? When you go on a road trip, is your goal to get closer to your destination, or to actually get there?

"So, Bob, where are you going on vacation?"

"Well, Chuck, I'm planning on traveling in the general direction of the Bahamas. I don't intend to actually get there, mind you, and I'll be moving really slowly, so as not to offend anyone. But I definitely want to move some in the general direction of the Bahamas."

The Libertarian Party doesn't like to talk about its ultimate end goal: a purely voluntary society. Why not? Because that's not its end goal anymore. Its end goal is to be in power, to be the new master--a more wise, benevolent master, but a master nonetheless. "Well, once we get into power, then we'll slowly do away with state aggression." Bull poop. They would do nothing of the sort. They've stopped even giving lip service to that goal, and are now pathetically wimpering about "lower taxes," and a "reduced" this and a "reformed" that.

In short, the Libertarian Party does not believe that you own yourself. They believe, just as strongly as every other political party does, that you are the property of the state. They claim to want the state to allow you to keep more of what you earn, and to grant you its holy permission (via its "laws") to have more say over your day-to-day life. Big deal. There is a difference between being nice to your slaves, and not having slaves. The Libertarian Party is now the Nice Slavemaster Party. And for some of us, trading in our iron shackles for softer, lighter plastic shackles, in pretty colors, is just not good enough.

Want to see an actual principle? Here's one:

You own yourself. No one has the right to take what you earn without your consent, even if they call their demands "law" and refer to the robbery as "taxation." Extortion and robbery, even when "legal," even when they are alleged to be "necessary," are illegitimate, and it is perfectly moral to avoid or resist being robbed by any means necessary. You don't need any law or other authoritarian decree to tell you that you own yourself, or to allow you to keep what you earn, or to otherwise be in charge of your own life.

When the Libertarian Party dares to say something like that, they'll have my respect again. As long as they keep watering down the truth to try to win people over, they will be just another bunch of opportunistic, aspiring politicians, who will accomplish nothing more than devouring the efforts and resources of people who long for freedom, without ever getting them one inch closer to it.


22 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ralph swanson
Entered on:


The website of the Libertarian International Organization ( ) is running a series on encouraging work by world Libertarians who are on its advisory board. The board volunteers frequently lead in Libertarian action, it says.

Recent articles highlight David Nolan, US Libertarian Party lead founder; anti-poverty work by Milton Friedman; an astronaut who put his national space agency on an NGO basis without tax funds,  and internet pioneers. It has also recently started a Facebook where supporters share their own projects.

Called a mother Libertarian and Liberal group, it has Libertarians and supporters in every country. Volunteers focus on non-partisan voluntary and voluntary-direction action in a range of fields from Space Migration to Life Extension to a new initiative in creating Libertarian-interested  communities

Comment by Andrea Garcia
Entered on:

Here's an analogy for you, Does a baby just start out on Filet Mignon and prime rib? No, they start with formula. I am running and I use the term less taxes. Does that mean I advocate for some taxes? No. However to get most, blinded by the system people, to even listen to me I start here. Like a baby I feed them what they know formula. Then when they take a closer look and ask about my view on taxees it comes up and I say "How bout NO taxes?" I have to explain it to them how this can work, or I feed the baby mashed potato. I say Less Government. I like you, have the goal of a voluntary society, Now the people say What is less Government? I say 'Well NO Government" They think and think, I am now feeding the toddler some soft vegetables and ground meat. In other words, Not all people are ready for the whole thing. Is it better to just give up on them? I think not. My campaign has brought support from Democrats and Republicans. Both sides are attracted to a portion of the freedom message. However I would not even have them asking me questions about freedom and less Government if i brought out the whole thing at once, Or fed the baby a steak before formula,. The baby would vomit it and not keep any of it down.      Everybody in this movement has their own way they spread the message, be it in pieces or be it all at once. Let each decide for themselves and stop making such broad assumptions about ALL Libertarians. Just saying...


Comment by Jukit Babalu
Entered on:

Hey Larken, we see that the USA has been sabotaged way beyond belief, so why try to fix something that probably cant be fixed peaceably anyway? In other words why not hope that a state secedes and then start a new country there?  After all, thats basically similar to what the Fathers did, and its LEGAL to boot. Why not direct attention to that and then work to convince a state governor to initiate the process?

For more on this, see my blog =

Comment by Conor C.
Entered on:

 I spent some time thinking about the points you made on the libertarian and came up with this suggestion: I think it would be well received.

Comment by Mike Matalucci
Entered on:
Can we just concentrate on getting a complete audit of the Fed before we talk about eliminating taxes (or the Fed)? I'm not a "philosopher", but it seems to me that there is a logical (and practical) sequence of actions that need to be taken to obtain certain goals. We should be careful to not confuse those "actions" with the underlying philosophy. The official LP platform calls for a repeal of income tax laws and abolishment of the IRS. How we get there is open for debate, that's part of the reason why the LP was formed.




Comment by Larken Rose
Entered on:

Aaron, if I have the right to tell you how much of what you earn you will be allowed to keep, and how much I will take, do you own yourself, or do I own you? Someone supporting "lower taxes" is advocating a nicer master, not freedom. Whoever decides how much of YOUR earnings you will be "allowed" to keep is your master and OWNER, even if he LETS you keep 95% of it. And the Libertarian Party (though not most libertarian individuals) seems content to discuss how much "government" should LET us keep of what we produce. That means that they have accepted that we are the PROPERTY of the state. 

Comment by Peter Warren
Entered on:

 Borders do not exist now. People only pretend that they do. If you still believe that borders exist, attempt to find one or find evidence of one. The number of people believing that something is real doesn't make it so.

Comment by Dennis Wilson
Entered on:

Sad but true. What you say appears to ALSO apply to L Neil Smith, of all people!! He has made serious reversals from his Open Borders position.   

THIS is from the same person who wrote the uncompromising "Immigration and Integrity":

"…I fervently support the notion of borders that are open to individuals who wish to escape tyranny and improve their lives and those of their families. It's also why I support the equal right of a free association of individuals called Arizona to resist invaders—spawned, in essence, by drug prohibition—with murderous habits and intentions." (emphasis added)

Continued at



Comment by Nick Barnett
Entered on:

Sterling, what's wrong with anarchy? Anarchy is the radical concept that you own yourself.  "Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer [that is, exactly zero] are wise enough to rule others." - Edward Abbey

Comment by Bryan Morton
Entered on:

If you talk to some of the old timers who were around in the early 70s, when the Libertarian Party began, its focus was on education.  They wanted to get the libertarian perspective some exposure in debates.  The Libertarian Party slowly began shifting its focus to actually winning elections and getting big L libertarians in office.  As soon as they began seeking political power, the principles of the party of principle were doomed.

Comment by Sterling Smith
Entered on:

 Right Fxxing On Larken!!  Some of their "pipedreams" sound very good~ but also not applicable to the realities we are facing right now.  It's like herding cats! Yes, cats~ their too freakin' independent to follow and listen to any one person~so how in the world can they lead anybody anywhere??

In theory, in a perfect world~maybe.  But that sure as hell isn't our reality.  Then there is the issue of anarchy! Yes, anarchy.  Libertarians are so head strong and independent, if they were absoloutely in charge, there would be total anarchy.  They disagree and fight with anyone and everyone and burn bridges~then wonder why the can't get anything done or find any allies or cooperation. 

The issue of "open borders" was enough for me.  We live next door to an absolutely corrupted NARCO State full of anarchy and thieves.  Then they preach about pipe dreams and gumbaya crap~  Let's get real here folks!  You need allies and friends and fellow moderates and consevatives.  There must be something in common to bind people together.  Stop the arrogance and arguments on the priciples of a utopia, and accept the reality of where we live and what is most important on hand.  Stop throwing stones and alienating yourselves from the rest of the world or the party will absolutely cease to exist.



Comment by Grace McDonald
Entered on:

Larkin, I guess I missed the fact that you are (or were) a Liberatarian.  I actually have never even gone in and studied the L philosophy.

I'm not married to any party, but have always chosen the lesser of two evils: Republican.--beginning at about 38 years of age.  So, I'm sorry, but I just don't have enough knowledge to argue with you.  You'll have to seek your enemies elsewhere.  LOL









Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

My political ideology is based on liberty and freedom, the very essence of Libertarianism in this country. In that sense, I earned the right to feel proud when I am referred to as a Libertarian of reason rather than of emotion.

I am not a Libertarian of emotion that swears and use filthy language in criticizing anyone oppose to the Libertarian view of the world. In short, I am not one of those very angry dye-in-the-wool "Libertarians" whose burning passion for liberty and freedom beclouds their vision of the future.

Actually what they are doing is locked themselves in a useless crusade for "liberty and freedom" that leans towards the Left, and merges with the latter’s age-old agenda to topple down the existing democratic government and replace it with an egalitarian power of the center. These so-called "Libertarians" call themselves "revolutionaries", exactly how Marxist marchers of the street call themselves against the bourgeoisie or the exploitative middle class. From there, I stopped to be that "Libertarian".

Compared to that of the radical forces that erode our trust on democratic processes or compared to the agenda of the violent Left, our goal is different and that is to achieve the supremacy of the individual over the "power" of government, while their goal is to create and maintain the supremacy of what they called "the center of people power" on top of any conceivable inalienable rights of the individual.. But the modalities in achieving both goals are the same – truly the same -- discrediting the government and bringing down the people that run it, notwithstanding our exercise of suffrage which creates the government or political administration we put in power through the use of the ballot.

For Libertarian extremists to call taxation a "robbery" as alleged to be a matter of true Libertarian principle was not in the original mind of our forebears who espoused the genuine dogma of Libertarianism. To recreate a new America without a central bank [the public crucifixion of the hated Federal Reserve as an "institution of crooks"], a nation with the largest economy in the world without taxation as publicly ventilated by those paper revolutionaries "as a matter of Libertarian principles" is simply unthinkable ! If this is the present agenda of the very angry "Libertarian" dispensation, for a Libertarian candidate to win the U.S. presidency is like swimming the English Channel naked in winter. The poor guy will never make it.

Not even a Chinaman’s chance. The American people will never buy those angry statements of Libertarian "principles". But diehard "Libertarians" have the freedom to wait for a Libertarian candidate that runs under these "hate principles" [now considered "weird"] to win a seat in the Oval Office. Unfortunately, that waiting will be very long -- perhaps till hell freezes over.

Comment by Aaron OBrien
Entered on:

What a crank that guy is. He says Libertarians "believe, just as strongly as every other political party does, that you are the property of the state." This is complete BS. I have met hundreds of LP members and not one ever believed citizens are 'property of the state.' What a kook. I notice he offers no solution other than to shout that taxation is robbery from the rooftops (presumably with his one or two anarchist buddies).

Comment by John Mounteer
Entered on:

I agree that the Libertarian Party has not been very effective, but it seems to me that Justin is confusing the goal and the strategy and tactics to get there. I'll take 50% fewer murders any day. I think that lower taxes are better than higher. It is important to remember the goals and proselytize for the cause, and political action can be part of this.  

Comment by Don Duncan
Entered on:

I joined the Libertarian Party in 1973 and spent a lot of time & money promoting libertarianism until 1980. I gave up in disgust because I saw no progress for two reasons. 1. Using politics to promote freedom is futile. Politics relies on force and the threat of force. 2. The Libertarian Party assumes that people would support freedom if it were just explained correctly to them. Most people are not libertarian and cannot be converted by talk. Conversion will only occur slowly by their observing freedom in action. When one has been indoctrinated from berth to believe in statism a strong emotional commitment prevents rational reexamination. 

Comment by Larken Rose
Entered on:

Mr. Vallejo, 

Allow me to sort of amend my comments, in response to your post. Yes, there are some "smaller" libertarian organizations sticking to principles, yet trying to infiltrate the system. (I have reason to believe that that's a bad idea anyway, but that's another topic.) But as a political ORGANIZATION, the Libertarian Party has to have some sort of "official" stance. And that stance, as illustrated by the NATIONAL Party, is basically compromising, muddling, and trying to be liked by betraying principles (barf). It would be interesting--as well as problematic on a practical level--if a state or local libertarian party decided to openly proclaim the national party to be the fakers and sell-outs they are. Hmmmm ... come to think of it, that may be the best thing they could possibly do, both to get some attention, and to bring the underlying PRINCIPLES of libertarianism to more people's attention. It would be fun to watch the "statist lite" squad trying to respond.


Comment by Larry Stuler
Entered on:

  There is a large number of Americans who now believe that the federal gov’t is ignoring the Constitution and enacting unconstitutional laws.  Nothing could be further from the truth - the federal gov’t is quite aware of its limited jurisdictions.  In fact, the following dissertation will actually evidence this to be true - the federal gov’t has meticulously gone to great lengths to stay within its limited jurisdictions.  What the gov’t has done is to create legal “terms” that have meanings only within its jurisdictions.  

   The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and its main tenet is that "all men are created equal".  Under such a tenet no person or group of people, including some group called government, may ever initiate force or fraud against any other person or group of people.  This is the basis of individual sovereignty.  The Constitution was adopted to form a gov't that would uphold this tenet.

  The Constitution acknowledges this where in Article I, section 8 it grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  The federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce since the law is based upon the tenet that "all men are created equal".  The individual American is sovereign, not the federal gov’t.  See the following Supreme Court decisions that uphold the sovereignty of the individual - United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed. (2 Dall.) 415.  All of these Supreme Court decisions were rendered before the bankruptcy of the federal gov’t in the 1930’s. 

  The FED bankrupted the gov't in the 1930's.  This is easily evidenced by the correlation between the United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):  title 11 USC, "Bankruptcy", is implemented by title 11 CFR, "Federal Elections".  Our vote is simply to elect a bankruptcy "administration". 

  However, bankrupting the federal gov't wasn't enough to make Americans pay the interest on the FED's counterfeit money loans to the gov't.  Sovereignty lies with the individual American, not the federal gov't. as evidenced above by the Supreme Court.

  To get around all of the chains that the Constitution imposes on the federal gov't, Social Security was created to destroy American sovereignty.  The "Form SS-5" that an applicant uses to apply for a S.S.# is actually a federal employment form.  After all, only a federal employee is liable for federal employment taxes.  You know the name of the federal employee - the "taxpayer".  "Taxpayer" is a legal term defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine - a federal employee.  26 CFR 2.1-1(b) states that this is the definition of the term as used throughout the Code and the regulations for all calculation of taxes.

  The gov’t has been given jurisdiction over its possessions by Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution.  By checking the box " U.S. citizen" on the "Form SS-5" the applicant has given the gov't prima facie evidence that he has U.S. possession citizenship.  " U.S. citizen" is also a legal term exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession ( Puerto Rico is cited in the example) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship.  This regulation then references back to 26 USC sec. 2501(b) where it states that this is the definition of the term "citizen" "wherever used in the title".  The U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries (see 26 USC sec. 865(i)(3), 872(b)(7), and 2014(g) for example).  This makes a “ U.S. citizen” a foreigner in relation to America.  This is the 14th Amendment citizen.

  The combination of the legal terms "taxpayer" and " U.S. citizen" is known as the legal term " U.S. resident" at 26 USC sec. 865(g).  A " U.S. resident" is a "U.S citizen" living in America - a foreigner.

  So by applying for a S.S.# an American has given away all sovereignty and become a slave to the federal gov't.  

  All of this evidences that the owners of the gov't are quite aware of its limited jurisdiction, but they have absolutely no regard for freedom.

  The federal gov't is legislating today on two main premises - under foreign commerce and that everyone is a federal employee.

  The CFR was created during the bankruptcy proceedings in the mid-1930’s to evidence the correlation of which of the new federal regulatory agencies would be in charge of implementing the regulations under the statutes of the USC. 

  Obviously, federal gov’t regulatory agencies can have no jurisdiction over a sovereign American since “all men are created equal” and the federal gov’t has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.  But a “ U.S. resident” has no constitutional protections.  

  Since one becomes a “taxpayer” by applying for a S.S.#, that person is now subject to the income tax.

  The income tax was ruled to be constitutional in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions - see Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).  These Supreme Court decisions all stated that the gov’t always had the power to tax income and, further, that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal gov’t by the 16th Amendment.  In other words, the income being taxed must be within the limited jurisdiction of the federal gov’t to begin with since no new power was granted to the federal gov’t.  Cites from each of these cases can be found at on my Blog.


  Internal revenue is within the customs.  Customs gains revenue for the gov't from importing duties from foreign countries.  Internal revenue gains revenue for the gov't from importing duties from the U.S. possessions - thus a source of "internal revenue".  Customs is foreign commerce.  Internal revenue is a legal term.


  The 3 commerce jurisdictions are cited separately in title 28 USC, "Judiciary and Judicial Procedure", chapter 85, "District Courts; Jurisdiction".  Section 1336, "Surface Board Transportation Orders", which was renamed from "Interstate Commerce Commission's Orders" in late 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1362, "Indian Tribes", is obviously the trade with the Indians commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1340, "Internal revenue; customs duties", is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.  Income tax is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto.  Inheritance tax is the third plank of the Communist Manifesto.  These communistic taxes are only available to the federal gov’t under foreign commerce along with the presumption that the individual is a federal employee.

  Now the federal gov’t and its owners have an unlimited reservoir of revenue from the “taxpayers” that can be used to expand the gov’t’s apparent powers.

  I have evidenced the entire Social Security Scam on my Blog at  

Comment by Ed Vallejo
Entered on:

Mr. Rose,

Being a Member of We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and a friend of Bob Schulz for many years, I am more than aware of what you have gone through and what you have done to further the cause of freedom in America via the ‘Tax Honesty Movement’, and I have the utmost respect for you, sir.

I write to commend you on your observations; they are quite accurate in content, yet they lack clarity as to whom you actually refer.

I believe that had you entered your statement under the heading “Politics: Libertarian Campaigns” instead of “Philosophy: Libertarianism”, and written “National Libertarian Party” in every place you wrote “Libertarian Party”, not only would you be receiving a standing ovation from me, but you might not have offended every ‘little l’ libertarian working at the state and county level at home in every state of the Union.

I say this not only as a libertarian that has been busting his butt during primary election season at the local level, but also as a two-time Delegate of the 2008 and 2010 Libertarian National Conventions.

I was the Delegate wearing the ‘V for Vendetta’ mask on the Convention floor – both times.  I know EXACTLY what you are saying, and have been echoing the sentiment for years that the biggest problem on the planet is people sacrificing Principle for Power in one form or another.  The National Party is a prime example of this which I can elaborate on at length if necessary, due to my personal observations to date.

There are many, many ‘little l libertarians’ out there, fighting for what they believe is right – namely the right to live a self-ownership, non-initiation of force, taxation is THEFT, dammit! Leave-me-alone-if-I wanna-be-left-alone kinda lifestyle.   To be secure in one’s person, house, papers, effects, AND THOUGHT against ALL intrusions – be it from another individual, or a collective named ‘government’.  To group them with the follies of the National Party would be a dishonor to them, and to the philosophy of libertarianism they carry in their hearts.


Ed Vallejo


Comment by Jet Lacey
Entered on:

Great article! 

I agree with every word.  I'd also like to add that it seems that many Libertarians are nothing more than lazy, underachieving, anti-war Republicans. 

I am, and always shall be a "small l" libertarian.  True libertarian principle is rock-solid, and it is the only political ideology that is also a lifestyle (that is, unless you're a Democrat on welfare - lol).  Why?  Because true libertarianism is apolitical.  Politics equals compromise and true libertarian ethic has no place for it. 

If you play the game of politics to "win" you are part of the problem and NOT a part of the solution - the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. 

Furthermore, while libertarian dogma is rock solid, it is truly unfortunate that many Libertarians are nothing more than LINOs.  They absolutely do not practice those ideals they claim to hold so dear; so much so that I have begun to seriously wonder if libertarianism isn't explicitly antithetical to the human condition. 

Is it that,or do we have a culture that is so profoundly corrupt that it is nearly impossible to operate on a day-to-day basis in a straightforward and forthright manner?

Hmmmm....I don't know.  But what I do know is that I want nothing to do with the Libertarian or any other "party" for that matter.


Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Please don't tell Larken Santa Claus isn't real too. He might not be able to handle two  disappointments in a week. 

Just kidding.  I know he knew better.  He just wanted to put it out in the open.

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

 You are correct, Larken!  Like many organizations born of a noble cause, the Libertarian Party has become just another bunch of political hacks jockeying for a piece of the pie, seeking to command the rotting hulk of a corrupt ship of state when they should be trying to scuttle it. They have abandoned their principles.

 I will still be a small "l" libertarian in spirit, but I cannot support the official party misrepresenting that term. I believe Thomas Jefferson was libertarian. I believe Jesus Christ was a libertarian. Too bad about the party failing to uphold the standard of liberty.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: