Former Libertarian Party of Michigan Vice-Chair Kim McCurry (maiden name being Moore) recently criticized my post defending Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra. She took issue with the fact that I wrote a Facebook post on May 16 of this year, which was tied to her FB post which was about the following:
Bill Denton continues:
Notice Kim’s statement in which she comes off demanding to her readers and admits she’s a “conservative libertarian” who wants “social issues out of the LP”:
In the same week, I wrote my Facebook post in the following manner:
I ended up changing the first part of my post to assuage McCurry, but now I realize it was a waste of my time because she backstabbed me on there by having a discussion targetting me behind my back as well as every principled purist in the Libertarian Party.
I think you get the point anyway.
I also had a brief response to Kim as well. This is what the exchange on Facebook went:
It’s sad when you have the former state vice chair of a political party shit on you for the reasons outlined in the screenshots. But then that’s politics for you, especially Libertarian politics.
The painfully, ugly reality is this: Kim McCurry was doing her very best to minimize the attacks made against Arvin Vohra over his anti-military comments. She kept telling me that I was in the wrong, that Arvin’s comments had nothing to do with various members who were leaving the Libertarian Party when that was *TRULY* the case. She kept justifying their reasons for their departure by stating that my comments and Arvin’s statements had nothing to do with their leaving and that their decision to say “sayonara” to the Party was due to issues that allegedly had nothing to do with Arvin at all – an argument that I don’t buy and never have bought at all. Moreover, it’s an argument that I WILL NEVER BUY!!!
The problem is this: when you have conservatarians in the Party, they will water down its principles. When conservatarians try to inject social conservatism into the Party’s own political tent, they almost immediately turn the Party into a near carbon copy of their original political organization – in this case, the Republican Party.
Libertarians who want to win elections need to win them and preserve their principles – a lesson that even Ron Paul‘s very own Penny Langford Freedom told Adam Kokesh on his radio show Adam vs. the Man. Libertarian political campaigns are not, should not, and must never be organized and launched to educate the masses about liberty and its spectacular benefits. If people wanted to be educated about liberty and libertarianism, they would read a book on it or take courses in it at, say, the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Libertarian campaigns function for one purpose – and one purpose – only: to win and to enact policies from a strong Libertarian standpoint. They’re not set up to entertain the masses and tell people what the candidates and their supporters want to hear.
That doesn’t mean we reject the nonaggression principle. On the contrary, the NAP should be followed to the letter. To do that you can join the Libertarian and sign the pledge (which is the heart and soul of that principle) and pay your $25. That’s what it was designed for. But when it comes to winning elections you must tailor your message to placate the masses and, if you win and if elected, enact legislation and other policies that would bring about that Libertarian spirit.
That’s what Arvin had in mind. That’s what I had in mind. It’s too bad, however, that Kim McCurry and her legions of followers don’t have that in mind.