Posted on 11/13/2001 4:31:37 PM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt
Libertarians have taken over the city of Leadville, Colorado.
On November 6, local voters gave registered Libertarians a voting majority on the seven-member Leadville city council. Four council seats are now occupied by Libertarians.
LP Political Director Ron Crickenberger said this is an "historic event" for the Libertarian Party.
"I think it's fantastic that the LP has achieved its goal of taking over a town with Libertarians -- with the support of the voters, of course," he said."This really is the next political step for the party: Going from winning individual offices to winning enough seats to have a working majority."
The four-person Libertarian majority consists of:
* Carol Hill (Ward 1), who defeated an incumbent and another challenger in a three-way race, garnering 48.6% of the vote. Previously, she had unsuccessfully run for city council in 1995 and for Lake County Commissioner in 1996.
* Ken Cary (Ward 2), who registered as a Libertarian just days before the election. Ward won his election with 52% of the vote in a two-way race.
* Joe Swyers (Ward 2), a Libertarian who had already been serving on the council, elected in 1999.
* Lisa Dowdney (Ward 3), who was also elected in 1999 and registered as a Libertarian on November 8, shifting the balance of power to the Libertarian Party.
Leadville city council members are elected for four-year terms in non-partisan races.
"Congratulations to Joe, Carol, Lisa, and Ken!" said Colorado LP Information Director David Bryant. "Thanks to the four of you, Leadville is poised to become the most Libertarian city in America. Way to go!"
With a Libertarian majority, the city will be "very interesting," said Hill, "especially on financial issues. We should get some reasonable budgets and some sensible policies -- we should be able to cut back."
Specifically, Hill said she would like to cut back the activity of the local planning and zoning board --or abolish the board completely -- and stop spending money from city reserve funds.
Although she said she might meet some resistance from the mayor, she said she is able to hold her own in a debate on local issues.
"The key is to redefine the issue at hand so your political opponents don't have you constantly on the defensive," she said. "Don't try to debate on their terms."
The situation in Leadville is a good sign for future local Libertarian candidates, said Crickenberger.
"I expect situations such as this one to become more and more common in the near future," he said. "And the movement of our American communities in a Libertarian direction will inevitably translate to bigger victories down the road."
This is not the first time that Libertarians have had a working majority on a city council, said Crickenberger. That feat was accomplished in the late 1980s in Big Water, Utah.
Located just west of Denver, Leadville has the distinction of being America's highest incorporated city, at a perch of more than 10,000 feet. It has a population of about 2,800 residents.
Hill and Cary will be sworn into office on January 7, 2002.
Actually, I find libertarians, while generally bright, also terribly sophomoric. Especially the "anarcho-capitalist" sort.
Serious critical thinkers are concerned about how best to apply their politcal philosophy to reality. They have the ability to function in a political arena full of competing philosophies and interests. In my observation, this simply isn't true of the large numbers of libertarians or the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists.
The Constitution is a "living document", dontcha know....
Hey!... I'm a Junior... not a sophomore.
I couldn't care less about the purpose of somebody's party. I care about my purpose, which is to get the government back into its Constitutional cage. The Republicans won't do that unless compelled by threat of voter abandonment. The LP is currently the best of the available vehicles for applying that pressure, IMO.
Uhhhh... check me if I'm wrong... but I thought the whole point of conservatism, was to conserve.
Democrats will use force of governemnt to control most of your money.
Democrats will allow you to behave as you see fit, provided it doesn't hurt others.
Libertarians allow you to control most of your own money.
Libertarians allow you to behave as you see fit, provided it doesn't hurt others.
Neither the repubs or dems can argue substantively against this, and the result is name calling.
"First they ignore, then they laugh, then they fight, then they lose."
- Ghandi
Yes. If you could read the article, especially, "With a Libertarian majority, the city will be "very interesting," said Hill, "especially on financial issues. We should get some reasonable budgets and some sensible policies -- we should be able to cut back." Specifically, Hill said she would like to cut back the activity of the local planning and zoning board --or abolish the board completely -- and stop spending money from city reserve funds.
You could have noticed that there was no mention of drugs, and there was a call for smaller government, and a focus on finances (rather than legislating citizens into servitude). But that would require intellectual honesty and effort on your part. I guess I was hoping for too much. Will you return to this thread in a few weeks and admit you were wrong?
Perhaps a new Libertarian rallying cry: "Heute Leadville! Morgan ... die Welt!!!"
I've never seen anyone say that they are libertarian with republican or conservative leanings.
Well, there are enough illegal immigrants in Colorado, I suppose they won't mind chickens and other livestock wandering through the town square.
BTW, what about local streets and sidewalks?
Are they going to turn that over to the private sector and set-up toll booths on Main Street?
Perhaps this is because your analogy, even accepting it's overly broad assumptions, doesn't compare like with like. Republicans and Democrats have actual records of how their elected officials perform in office. You're comparing their actual records with the untested rhetoric of the Libertarians.
The argument most Republicans and Democrats have with Libertarians isn't that they hate liberty and Libertarians love it. It's that the way Libertarians wish to apply their ideas to government is unworkable, and will therefore lead to a less peaceful, prosperous, and secure nation.
If the Libertarians actually succeed in controlling a state legislature or two (or perhaps a few more cities like the one in the article above), a comparison like the one you attempt will have some substance to it. As it is, it's empty rhetoric.
Yeah, but that's only because Haight-Asbury doesn't qualify as a city. Leadville today, the world tomorrow.
---------------------------------
You are trying to reverse the usual progression to political sanity. - And, of course, most so called conservatives are 'Rinos'.
They really can't seem to understand that true constitutional conservatism is virtually identical to libertarian thought.
Modern libertarianism was started in the 50/60's as a protest, - back when the nixonian liberals started their takeover of the republican party. They won.
The Rinos only pay lip service to conservative republican principles.
Egads, Snuff - you've contradicted yourself? How do you know libertarian ideas are unworkable if they've never been tried?
Did I misunderstand your post- apologies if so!
What effect will that have? The last time I looked, city laws don't supercede state laws, and I don't think Colorado has any laws that allow open cities for drug use. Now for years, Colorado has given fines to people busted for an ounce or less of pot, and that won't change. Does the city council have any authority to tell the Leadville cops to not prosecute state laws? I doubt it.
Is it your intention to discuss basic epistemology? Should I counter with something like: How do you know they are workable if they have not been tried?
Or is epistemology not your concern, in which case I might respond: What is the greatest societal cost we should be willing to bear to test political theory upon ourselves? Beyond the Libertarian Party, should we also assume Green Party policies will have the effect the Green Party asserts they will until they're proven wrong?
Getting rid of the IRS won't work?
Restricting the feds to only those roles specified in the Constitution won't work? There once was a time when America didn't have a War on Drugs or numerous drug laws, or gun laws, or income tax laws. Do those laws solve problems or create new ones?
And, in case you're wondering, opening our borders won't work. In theory it might be nice, as in theory it shouldn't be necessary to lock our doors. But it is and we do.
Are you speaking rhetorically? Or are you intentionally addressing those questions to me? If so, I'm curious what leads you to the conclusion that I'm against repealing gun laws or the IRS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.