Nothing said above answers any of the nine points I raised at
http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/09/why-multiple-freedom-parties-is-dumb.html
The LP putting reform pressure on the GOP or the DP can make sense,
because the LP's official principles are very distinct from those of the
nanny state parties, and there are natural flows from their voter
clusters to ours that we want to encourage. Nobody here has identified
a difference between the official LP and BTP principles, nor between the
goals/direction of the LP's million+ regular distinct voters and those
of the N thousand who have ever voted for a BTP ballot line.
Electoral organizing for a cluster of voters desiring the same
goal/direction is a natural monopoly, in which high fixed costs and low
marginal costs lead to economies of scale that make competition
inefficient. The purpose of general elections for us in the freedom
movement is to measure electoral demand for more freedom. It's silly to
try to use general elections to settle intramural disputes like whether
to restore the 2004 platform, or whether nominating Bob Barr was a good
idea. If the BTP thinks the LP is unsalvageable and needs to be
replaced, then have the courage to say so. But spare us this claptrap
that you're using general elections as a "market" to "efficiently"
settle intramural disputes. Look at all the socialist parties and
candidates that run for president. Is "competition" helping their
cause? The people here follow politics pretty keenly. Don't insult
their intelligence.
P.S. Keep in mind that what I'm saying here is an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_against_interest. If you take my
advice and fold up the BTP, that only increases the number of LP
radicals that I have to caucus against. But that's OK, because radicals
give the LP disproportionate numbers of quality activists and
candidates, who seem very willing to tone down their radicalism when
facing the public.
