Rather interesting. In 1980 I attended 2 meetings of the Libertarian Party but never joined. Ayn Rand repudiated that Party. Peter Schwartz once wrote an article in which he said that Party reject[ed] "the very idea of a fundamental idea".
I do accept the Objectivist tenet that individual rights is the foundation of a free society.
I well remember one time (about 30 years ago)
when some people in the Richmond City govern-
ment were trying to ghettoize us vendors and try
to restrict us to vending on Brown's Island. They didn't get that passed. And there was the time they tried to knock us down to 1 (at least I think it was 1) per blockface ; the different streetvending
businesses were together in having a petitiion, which we presented to the public, on the carts. However, I thought it might be just as well to do the same thing off-duty. First I went around in my own neighborhood. Then I went elsewhere. Eventually I went into the Northside area and knocked on doors. And I believe I turned in a record number of signatures for one individual, and our company turned in more signatures than any other. My boss-man even said that he hadn't at first thought that the off-duty tactic would work.--And, in the end, we won that battle. The measure went down to defeat. It was during that time that I composed the words to "The Street Vendors' Fight Song". (Same tune as "Battle Hymn of the Republic"). I'd like to make a "vendor's video" of it some day.

I have commented here before about how I am confused by the party. I'm not confused about Libertarianism, I don't think. But, that last presidential candidate?...Come on! Some here even defended him but he came across as a loon with a real convoluted message. I honestly started to think that the Libertarian Party was just being hijacked over and over and that's what we were seeing. Still think that might be the case.

The message should be simple, repeated often. The message is so powerful. I, personally, know of very few people who would argue against fundamental Libertarianism.

Perhaps the movement keeps being usurped by people who are preoccupied with legalizing recreational weed(?) as their main concern. I just can't figure the failures out...

Perhaps you should read "The Will To Bondage" by Estienne de la Boeite. Written nearly 500 years ago he had the astute observation that most people prefer bondage and will revert to it or even demand a stronger tyrant if they feel threatened by liberty. Estienne was looking back 1500 years to the Roman attempt at a Republic form of government and its failure. His ultimate conclusion was that in order to live free man may have to live unobserved (by the tyrants and the slavish majority of people) and that tyranny would probably be the norm for the human race until it dies out.

I read the entire article. Liked it. Here are a few random comments and questions:

1. On item # 10, I got lost in the pronouns. Not always sure which group “they” and “them” refers to.

2. The anti-fluoride campaign relied heavily on volunteers, but a clearly professional operation of that size must have had significant funding. Who funded it, and why?

3. You said the anti-fluoride campaign split the Democratic Party. Were the people you worked with “progressives” of the Bernie Sanders persuasion? Were the fault lines similar to those playing out within the Democratic Party on the national stage?

4. You said “choice” was last on their list “Reasons to Vote NO on putting fluoride in drinking water”. What were the reasons that ranked higher? Perhaps libertarians could also use these reasons when engaging the voters on specific issues.

I sympathize.
Way back in the 50's, I can tell you how Nathaniel Branden did it up until his break-up with Rand. It started with Branden touring Rand groups all over the place. FREE. Where he couldn't show, he sent a tape. Today he could send a video. This was the 50's after all. Then he sent out taped lectures that were played to an audience that cost them $10. The local sponsor paid for refreshments and the room. AV today would knock the presentation out of the park.Those at the lecture(s) would be asked to join the group (Ayn Rand refused to allow her name to be used). The Branden network became quite formidable within a year.Then came the silly explosive break-up and it all crumbled away. But that's the way Old Nathan did it and if I must say, quite successfully and patting myself on the back for participating.Most of all those guys and gals (The Collective) are gone now, Except for the former head of the Fed. He must be as old as a Redwood Tree.

Both gradualist and strict-principle approaches have their place. Each will produce gains the other won't, but the gains from a strict-principle approach are harder to measure because they happen in people's minds.

I used to believe the LP was the best organization to demonstrate strict principle. When I figured out otherwise, I left the LP. (The LP's problem is that it won't even try to purge itself of kooks.)

These days most of the good strict-principle material I see is on blogs, or from groups like the Mises Institute. As for gradualist groups, I like the Club for Growth, the Institute for Justice, and Pacific Legal Foundation (the latter two being lawsuit mills rather than campaigns for office).

But all of these are so frustratingly slow to get results that I would still be very tempted by new-country projects.

The problem is: where does incrementalism end and compromise begin? And how do you convince fellow libertarians that the answer still makes libertarian striving a practical matter?

This is an interesting view into the insides of a political org. It makes sense the party needs to be highly organized and have a systematic way of recruiting and motivating volunteers, as the article describes.

As an outsider, it seems to me that a libertarian party needs to be a big tent with the only unifying principle being less gov't cost/intrusiveness. It should also, at least in my outsider opinion, purge any hardcore extremists or bizarre behavior. If there's one person who gets naked at the convention or says he wants to move the government to 18th century levels overnight, which we know will never happen, that is the story people will hear. I think it needs to present itself like a mainstream party that accepts the “reality” (for now) of gov't spending being over a third of the economy but promise always to turn toward less government at every fork in the road.

Another huge danger is the two-party duopoly sucking libertarians into one side with wedge issues. Consider how Gary Johnson tried to walk the tightrope saying he wouldn't support new restrictions on vendors discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but he also refused to back any measure to decrease gov't control if it was primarily to legalize discrimination. This issue of forcing bakers to bake a cake is so lame and unimportant next to shrinking gov't, but the parties are good at making it the subject. If it even smells like how I (as a Democrat) see the Republican message, i.e. “We'll convince the poor to spend gov't money on you rich and connected people by giving the poor other people to pick on to make themselves feel like they're not at the bottom of the pecking order,” it would alienate me immediately. It has to be, IMHO, “we just want to spend less and intrude less, with no wedge issues.”

An example from this article is the “George Soros express train to the dark ages.” I read his book and liked it. I support what he claims to be trying to do. Instead of making it about him, libertarians can be supportive of the things he says about expanding personal freedom without digging into whether Soros the person truly represents those values.

The thing it says about the word “choice” not resonating with people is tough because I don't see the way to have libertarianism without increased choice. I know it's a marketing issue, but I find it hard to imagine real libertarianism appealing to people who are afraid of personal choice. I really hope that's wrong. I hope people want to live free making their own choices if only it's presented well.

I loved the article's view from the inside of a political org. I've never even been to one or really talked to a serious volunteer/activist about.