By Carl Milsted

Each year the government gets bigger. Democrats demand new entitlement programs and Republicans grant them “lite” versions, which then grow. Democrats raise taxes and Republicans raise deficits. Republicans snoop into our personal lives to hunt for terrorists while Democrats snoop into our personal lives to hunt for more tax money.

It’s enough to make a freedom lover want to run off and hide. But where? Everywhere you look governments are big and/or growing. It would be nice to have a sanctuary for freedom lovers, but unfortunately the country that is supposed to fill that role is the United States, and it ain’t so free here any more.
One solution is to get a large group of freedom lovers together and make a sanctuary of freedom. Back in the 1970s there were several efforts to create libertarian islands, all of which failed. Today, the big idea is to move 20,000 freedom lovers to New Hampshire. Great idea, but:

1. If we figure on $10,000/move, this is a $200 million project!

2. More and more government functions are being taken over by Washington.
Having a free state may not mean much.

3. New Hampshire is cold! Brrrrrr!

But if 20,000 freedom lovers want to do it, it’s still a good idea. I, however, am loath to move. Also, I am not yet ready to write off the nation as a whole. While it is true that the country is drifting towards tyranny, it is also true that there are many people across the land who would like to turn the tide. These people are underrepresented by the current political system. They need an effective political party with which to push their agenda.

Alas, the Libertarian Party is not that party. It is too radical. It is designed like a European party, a fringe party that could gain seats in a parliament by getting 5+% of the at-large vote. In the U.S. we have district elections; a party needs to be more mainstream to be effective since you need a majority, or at least a plurality, in some communities to win elections.

Many libertarians understand this. Some have tried running as moderate Libertarians only to be burned by their opponents quoting radical parts of the LP platform near Election Day. Others have tried going to the LP national convention to fix the platform only to be outvoted and outmaneuvered by absolutist die-hards.

If enough practical libertarians were to go to the LP national convention at the same time with a coherent agenda, we could fix the LP and use it to turn this country around. But without a large number, such effort is pointless; much like effort to take over a state is pointless unless enough people commit to moving at the same time. Taking over a party has much in common with taking over a state.

For this reason the Libertarian Reform Caucus has borrowed many ideas from the Free State Project. The Free State Project (FSP) does not ask for a commitment to move until 20,000 members have signed on. Similarly the Libertarian Reform Caucus (LRC) doesn’t require its members to join the LP or commit to attending the national convention; however, we do ask members what they are willing to do: some are already in the party, others say they will join soon, others say they will join if the caucus looks big enough to have a chance at success, yet others say they will not join the party until after the caucus is successful. Unlike the FSP, we have no official threshold where we think we can be successful; instead, we post membership stats and let individual members make their own decisions.

Also, the FSP did not start out calling for a move to New Hampshire. Instead, they set up a web site where members could debate the merits of various small states, and then get consensus on one using an advanced voting method. Similarly, the LRC does not have specific reforms to the LP platform in mind. Instead, we have a broad Statement of Purpose, and a web site (www.ReformTheLP.org) where members can propose platform alternatives and vote on them using an advanced voting system. We will then take our consensus opinion to the LP national convention.

Personally, I think it will take more than moderation to make the LP effective. I think the platform needs to be more sensitive to environmental concerns and the plight of the poor. I will make the pitch for many of the ideas that are on holisticpolitics.org, but I will likely be unsuccessful if all we recruit are existing LP members and libertarian Republicans. I think we need Free Liberals to make this work. I hope many of you reading this will join.

Dr. Carl S. Milsted, Jr. is a senior editor of the Free Liberal. He is the author of HolisticPolitics.org. He is also the organizer of the Libertarian Reform Caucus. By day, Milsted is a physicist who writes software for national defense applications. He hopes to eventually move on to the more interesting and lucrative field of Mad Science.