Glenn, whatever happens on Election day, the Libertarianz most certainly have not accepted defeat at this stage.

If we fail to receive the required number of votes it will not be for lack of trying...indeed, I have spent much of today dealing with a couple of campaign matters, in between trading Australian shares and the ASX200 share index.

I said to you on Friday night...well...actually it was early Saturday morning...that your help with the campaign would be greatly appreciated, notwithstanding any tactical vote you decide to cast.

"5% is a bit unrealistic, so you want to punish them for not denying reality?"

Denying a party my vote because they've admitted defeat five month's before an election is not punishment, Lance: it's rational self-interest.

The EFA has to go, but that's not the only bloody thing: I don't think New Zealand has seen a more corrupt government than this Labour-led regime. Can you name another party that illegally stole taxpayers' money to buy an election, bullied the judiciary into dropping yet another prima facie case, then fast-tracked a law to make their daylight robbery legal? They're the ones I want to punish for fucksake!

I have an opportunity to put the boot in Clark's crotch and shove a broomstick up Cullen's backside, and I'm going to take it. Unlike most of you here, the thought of a fourth term with those cunts makes me homicidal!! Frankly, I'd rather give John Key three years to prove you right than give that Bolshevik bitch and her greasy garden gnome three more to prove what we already KNOW!!!!

Protest away... I'm going to make my votes count... in parliament.

I haven't said I'd vote National in any of my posts. I said I'd vote for a party that will kill the EFA.

Well, that's a relief. Considering National won't actually kill the EFA. A "makeover" perhaps, but no killing.

That could be any number of parties"

No it couldn't, I know that's just a turn of phrase, but it really couldn't be "any number". There are a very limited number of parties that advocate "killing" the EFA, and Nats ain't one of them.

but I can tell you now I won't be considering a party that thinks getting "5% is a bit unrealistic.

Well thank Galt that Libz and their supporters will carry on regardless. No party worth supporting right now has any chance of garnering that much popular support. Take a look around at the country you live in. 5% is a bit unrealistic, so you want to punish them for not denying reality?

On closer inspection you'll note I haven't said I'd vote National in any of my posts. I said I'd vote for a party that will kill the EFA. That could be any number of parties, but I can tell you now I won't be considering a party that thinks getting "5% is a bit unrealistic."

though I do want a bloody tax break and an end to the bloody EFA... it's what the people want.

And they deserve it.

I thought the EFA was your excuse for voting for those dregs. Now it's a decent tax cut?

That lot are so smarmy, so self-righteously UNprincipled they deserve bullets rather than ballots. Murray McCully is about the lowest amoeba in Parliament.

If you think so little of your freedom that you'd vote for that lot for the sake of a bigger tax cut than Cullen's, then you deserve Cullen.

you want a decent tax cut ~ in this election?

It's simple, if you are constructive about strategy and how to spread the libertarian message, the party will be open.

If you would rather vote for 1990 National Party policies then vote ACT, if you want to vote for Labour lite, feel free. If you want to send a message that you believe in individual liberty then you'll vote Libertarianz.

Few things would shock the body politic positively than if Libertarianz gained 1-2% of the vote this time (5% is a bit unrealistic). This would put Libz ahead of Christian conservatives and the one man shows of Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne. If Libz achieved this, then membership, donations and more professionalism could be afforded.

You either want that, or go try ACT's last stand. If ACT can't win enough support to demand a Cabinet seat, with National so centre in its policies this time, with a majority wanting rid of Labour, then it may as well give up.

Paul, this is a rather unfair view of the Libertarianz.

Last weekend the annual Conference was held in Auckland (did not see you there) and it was a very positive springboard for the General Election.

I managed to get around to chat with most people (apart from three or four of the braindamaged "Usual Suspects") and was delighted with the enthusiasm everybody displayed.

The Libertarianz have candidates in half the electorates so far, with the other half likely to be selected in the next few weeks, which provides a good starting point...namely, to give electors someone to actually vote for.

Something I continue to point out is that in previous General Elections the Libz neither ran a nationwide campaign, nor were able to overcome the dishonesty of ACT (in particular) creating the impression of being 'libertarian'.

In other words it is not there are a mere 1000 libertarian electors in New Zealand, but rather all the libertarian people were conned into voting for someone else.

This time it is different.

Despite even myself being in a state of dispair (however temporarily) at the return of Roger Douglas, it has failed miserably to boost ACT, and they have kindly adopted a left wing socialist set of policies leaving the field clear for the Libertarianz.

I suggest you get involved in the campaign, Paul, you would be great value in West Auckland.

After a 5 month campaign introducing ourselves to the NZ electors, pointing out we are the only party not advocating left wing socialism, and clearly explaining our views on a handful of key issues I am confident of success.

I don't think you can categorize logic and Sun Tzu as "new age". Perhaps you are referring to something else? 

Browbeating may appear to offer you victory in an argument, but it won't persuade.  When people are angry, they are not very susceptible to new ideas.  Especially yours, if you are the one they are angry at. 

If you don't have time to spare for such "jerk-offs", who do you have time for?

Dinther just finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time.  I'm sure he is incredibly susceptible to new Objectivist ideas at this point.  Perhaps he would take back some of the things he said that irked you so much in his first post, if he can be convinced of his error.  Pride won't allow such repentance if you paint him into a corner. 

insert "you" if you so desire. 

"We do not have to compromise our principles to change our strategy."

Sorry, who's this "we," white man?

Your New Age bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Dinther has been asked with unimpeachable politeness by the Libz president to muck in. He'd rather grandstand. If it were up to me I wouldn't bother at all with someone who's already announced he won't be rooting for us because of the use of terms like "Nanny State" and "New Freeland." That's what's stupid. That's who's stupid. We do indeed have a beautiful constitution. The only thing this muppet can say about it is that he doesn't like its title, to such an extent that he won't support those who wrote it and have been actively promoting it while he was nowhere in sight. He who says it's no big deal when cops swarm all over the guy who flicked his toddler's ear to get his attention in an emergency. Do you think it's just coincidence that he who objects to the title "Nanny State" also thinks there's no particular problem with Nanny State?

Spare me such jerk-offs.

The instant we become beholden to weasel words and trade in that currency is the instant we become part of the problem. The world is perishing from an orgy of weasel-words, an absence of straight talk, the fear of calling something what it is, colorfully and unambiguously.

I have no problem with radicals and extremists so long as they are radically or extremely right (correct). 

On the issues, the Libz platform is wonderful.  The constitution is extremely well written, and would create the closest thing to the perfect government. 

I think dinther's problem is not with the vision so much as the fact that it is still a utopic vision (by this I mean it will never exist with a flawed strategy).  While it would be wonderful for him to volunteer and support the cause, he shouldn't be ignored if he doesn't.  It's some sort of weird "appeal to commitment" fallacy.  You are not committed to our cause therefore your ideas are irrelevant.  A disturbing extension of this fallacy is the stupid use of insults.  You don't agree with me therefore "ad hominem" you.  The defence of ad hominem attacks on this site is disturbing, especially the use of them against people who are sincere in their opinions and their intentions to help.  Disturbing because it is silly, alienating, and counter productive.  If you need to use an ad hominem attack to make your point, you need to check your premises.  No matter how correct your position, you are never, ever going to convince anyone of its validity through a personal attack. 

Additionally, we are in a war against ignorance.  If we are going to defeat this enemy that is currently wiping the floor with us, we have to have a plan that will work.  If dinther's only contribution to this entire movement is one good idea that leads to a winning strategy, then we should encourage his participation. 

We do not have to compromise our principles to change our strategy.  Read the last line twice. 

Criticism is only constructive and valuable if the individual doing the criticizing also adds their commitment to DOING SOMETHING.

Over a decade ago I criticized the local Libertarian Party (here in Orange County, California) for not doing nearly enough to establish its presence and get people thinking let alone voting Libertarian. But I took it on myself to "lead" the activist charge with the added intention of showing my fellow liberty-lovers how activism and outreach can be done. Some people criticized certain efforts and offered nothing in the way of commitment to improve upon them. Those were the individuals I completely ignored. Other Libertarians criticized certain efforts but offered suggestions and *gave their effort* to implement those suggestions in light of their criticism. Those are the people I took very seriously because their commitment to the actual *cause* of individual liberty was made clear by their effort.

I think what your fellow Kiwi Libz are saying is this - criticism is welcome provided you are not only offering positive alternatives but personally committing to DOING something with those positive alternatives. In other words, if you think an improvement can be made, pick one example, and then MAKE THE IMPROVEMENT YOURSELF. Otherwise, criticism just sounds like you're providing 'customer feedback' on a retail product - which individual liberty and the battle for its defense certainly is NOT.

Yes, as I said, it is not the Libz fault. Everyone else is to blame. I get it. You are making some powerful points Robert but I am not sneering at the Libz. I am telling the libz they are ineffective and I have made suggestions on how to improve on that.

I never expected such loaded emotional response to this so I must have hit a sensitive spot.

"As for certain ex- and current Libz being irascible. Linz & Peter
have a perfect right to be. For the past decade they've used every
argument they can think of to get their message across. It's cost them
time, effort and a hell of a lot of money that they will never get back."

I do not question their motives but after pushing the cart for so long without ever fixing the wheels anyone would get jaded. It is time to sort out the undercarriage before the whole thing collapses. But I suppose you will blame me for that too.

Me and my ilk? Glad to hear you admit I am not the only one making these points. You need to go back and read this whole exchange again Robert. No, I don't like your porridge and I am offering some sugar to fix it.

We are indeed at critical political crossroads and you are right, there is no real choice in political parties. What I want is for the Libz to become that political messiah by creating an image that people can associate with.

You need money and effort? There is plenty but you won't be able to tap into it when you refuse to appeal to those that have it. Do you really think I would write these elaborate replies if I didn't care?

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

That, in a nutshell is the problem.

Peter, Linz and others have spent a hell of a lot of time and treasure getting as far as they have. They could have gotten further but for the army of people, exactly like yourself, who think that this is something they do for fun.

They do it because it is necessary. They do it because if they didn't nobody else would. You've already demonstrated by your choice of cynical title that you won't.

You say you are politically active but unimpressed by Libz. Fine. Support National or ACT then. And when they fuck you over you can support Labour to get them off your back and on and on until you die in one of NZ's glorious public hospitals.

I'm curious as to the sort of psychological flaw that caused you to criticize something you believe is a futile child-like exercise and then complain when someone tells you to stop stirring the pot.

Our weakness isn't Linz or the name of our constitution. Our weakness is cash flow and a lack of active activists. Libz has never made a secret that they are a small party privately funded (except when the law prohibits spending their own money on elections) and staffed by volunteers.

To expect such people to be as professional as the parties with MPs is incredibly specious. You see ~their~ offices are funded out of your ~pocket~...

You are paying for their 'professionalism' whilst snearing at Libz's lack of it because Libz asks for your money rather than ordering the IRD to take it from you with a gun.

As for certain ex- and current Libz being irascible. Linz & Peter have a perfect right to be. For the past decade they've used every argument they can think of to get their message across. It's cost them time, effort and a hell of a lot of money that they will never get back.

And then you and your ilk come along and complain that the porridge isn't the way your mummy fixed it and you won't touch it until it is...

Like I said, this is why NZ is fucked. Too many people waiting for the political Messiah to come along and sweep Helen Key and its brood away.

Wishing, my dear Paul, won't make that so. Only sweat and toil will. And there isn't any way of sugar coating that pill.

Libertarianz is not a toy but appears treated like a toy in the hands of those that run it. Just like kids they don't want to share their toy because it's all theirs and who am I to come in without first shouldering the wheel (Read become one of the lads)

I would never call the Libertarian principles a toy. Yes I have trivialised their efforts because I called them what they are: Trivial and ineffective. I am not saying that their goal is trivial.

I am not one of yours, I am not one on them. I am one of mine. Not to be boxed in, not to be told to toe anyone's line.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

calling the work that the Libz do a "toy" is a terrible insult.

You have just utterly trivialised their efforts, yet you expect them to take on board your criticisms? WTF is wrong with you?

Yes I want the Libertarian party to be more competitive. It is the very reason I started to talk to you guys in the first place. I was standing there looking at how I could make a difference and realised your approach has been proven to be totally ineffective.

But reality is, that an outsider criticized your toy and thus needed to be kicked out of the way. It is not the first time I see this happen.  I wind myself up about it because you are right! I know things must change and the Libz in it's current format isn't going to make that difference.

I became a paid up member and got ignored, I verbally raised the issue and got a polite hum and ha, I emailed and got ignored, I posted and get abused. Not a good communicative track record.

So you are saying I am not allowed to influence the Libz until I have suffered enough shouldering your square wheel? I absolutely disagree. As much as the Libertarian principles appeal to me, you guys would make a mess of it with your current attitude. I want you to realise the wheels are not round and only then I may get involved in help shaping the wheels and make them turn.

For the record: None of the libz comments have been insulting. That honor, as usual, falls at the feet of Lindsay.

But the fact is, I am an active politically aware individual who believes in Libertarian principles. I help financing Samizdat, write the odd article and talk about Libertarianism and Objectivism whenever appropriate. I even care enough to open myself to abuse by critisizing the Libz. If you can not even get me involved in your party, you have very little chance to ever attact enough people to get out of the extreme fringe you are in now. But go ahead and blame all those people who walked away and didn't believe in the Libz. They are all wrong, you are not to blame.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

So you want the party to be more competitive but can't be bothered doing anything more than posting on SOLO-Passion?

There in lies the whole problem with the NZ political system. No one gets upset until Nanny knocks on their particular door, and even then all they can manage is a derisive out-burst of "why aren't my neighbours coming to save me?"

That's all I hear when I listen to you and others whine about Libz.

"Oh you do a wonderful job, but why don't you do more?"

The answer is, as with any political party, Libz need money and active activists. Quite literally 'Libz need your help before Libz can help you.'

But Kiwis like yourself are deaf to such requests. Always have been, that's why National and ACT court the lefties -- they are the only ones who are motivated. That's true all over the world, for proof read your newspaper and see how many are volunteering for Barrack and Hillary.

It is time Paul, for you to get interested in politics before you are no longer permitted to be.

And once that truism sinks in you must make a choice: Labour Statists, Labour Lite Statists, Green Statists, Maori Racist Statists, Christian Zealot Statists, Dancing with the Stars Statists or Libertarianz.

And when you do lend your shoulder to the wheel, you will find that instead of toeing the party line, you will be allowed to redraw parts of it -- if you make a good enough case that is.

Until then, whether Libz are nice or nasty to you is optional. You aren't the normal punter. You've signed up for SOLO-Passion, that signals that you know where we are coming from and why. And in that context, your reluctance to do nothing other than whine is irritating to say the least.

There, I learned something.

Always thought it was "tow" like a tug boat. Thanks for the language lesson.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

"Toe."

You don't tow a party line anywhere -- you toe a party line by standing up to the mark.

Interesting, no?

Yeah, tow the party line or get out. 

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Pitty to hear that Lindsay,

On a pure philosophical basis you are right. There is no giving in at all. A is A.

But we are talking about a political party here. A lobby group which I assume wishes to have some influence on the way New Zealand is run. As such they can not afford to always be ranting and raving angry students. They need to appeal to a reasonable sized voter base that have not been bought by student loans.

The core value of a political party is support. No support, no leverage, no influence and then you have club, not a political party. A club is what the Libertarianz are today. 

Every time you open your mouth in disagreement there is name calling and personal attacks Lindsay. I have made no personal attack on anyone so there is no need for that.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Seems there are two kinds of libertarian around here. Those who pick up the ball and run with it and those who stand on the sidelines booing their own team.

If you're not part of the solution, you ARE the problem.

Craig said: "9. We would appreciate any help we can get so our activists can concentrate on doing one job in this election and doing it well."

To which Paul responded: "9. That is unlikely to happen...."

Says it all, really.

In my experience, those loudest in criticising are generally nowhere to be seen when it comes to actually doing anything.

Whereas, those who do things generally just get on and get them done.

Frankly, Paul, I'm fully convinced that if the party name and the Constitution's moniker and the letterhead on all the thank you letters were all changed to suit you ... you'd still find some reason not to talk about us at your cocktail parties, and every reason not to do anything about supporting the principles you claim to value.

There is a certain type of talkback caller I call a driner: whines in a drone, drones in a whine. Usually Dutch. Would moan if his backside were on fire, which it never would be.

Anyone who goes to Act because of "New Freeland" or the (entirely proper) use of the term "nazis" as in "nico-nazis," "alco-nazis" and so on should just go to Act and be done with it. Given their known intention of non-waging a limp-dick campaign, Act are the proper repository for driners.

Galt help us if Libz ever value respectability over rage.

But I'm forgetting—there's nothing to be enraged about. The driner just told us that the anti-smacking bill, under which cops swarmed all over a guy for flicking his toddler on the ear, and are now charging him, is a mere trifle.

The anti-smoking bill forced cigar bars to close and forbids old soldiers who fought for our liberty to smoke in their clubrooms. Another mere trifle. Don't call those responsible "nico-nazis"—you might get laughed at at cocktail parties.

Dinther, you driner, you make me sick.

Linz

Peter, as impressed as I am with your efforts, you still don't get it. It is not about changes to suit me. It is not personal. I am on the Libz side already. I am talking about changes to suit those who won't have a bar of the Libertarianz brand as it is today.

It is easy to talk about established and fringe parties at various social occasions but mention Libertarianz and you always get laughs. "Dope smoking student anarchists" whatever. It is not true. You know it and I know it but THEY don't and that is what matters.

Without the right tools there is no way I get off the fence. "The party is what is is"? That seems indeed the case. Do you mean it is your toy and I am to keep my hands off it? To me a party is about their principles but it is also a lobby group that tries to influence peoples opinion. It is about how you sell your brand and principles to the public. The party, the people in it, the perception of it.

Just because I align with Libertarian principles does not mean that I get right behind the Libz by default. A does not automatically make B and not being B does not exclude me from A either. You sound like Helen Clark, "Tow the party line or piss off"

You are out of line to accuse me of pretending but you're probably angry at me for criticizing your toy.

Responses to your points:

1. Here you go nitpicking again. The meaning and your intention is not important. It is the all important perception we are talking about here.
2. That would be fantastic. A step in the right direction.
3. Agreed.
4. Cool, I think I'd prefer white-space next time. (She is bloody ugly though)
5. As I mentioned earlier. in a campaign the name Libertarianz give you a start well behind the starting line. The perception of the party is not good at all. It would be interesting to do some market research in this. Damn hard name to spell to. The name "Act" doesn't have that problem although it sucks in the Google search engine.
6. Fantastic.
7. You have. I am sorry to twist your arm in this public forum but I was determined to make my point.
8. I know, just stop looking like one.
9. That is unlikely to happen. When I discuss Libertarianz I do that among those who are not familiar with the libertarianz policies. The name is known but the resistance I encounter against the Libertarianz brand is just too great.

Craig, I thank you for your response.

And long live the LIBERTARIANZ!!! Whatever administrative/PR faults you may have you are a FAR FAR BETTER LIBERTARIAN POLITICAL PARTY THAN ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE EARTH!!!

Don't get me started on the ever-more-miserable Libertarian Party of the United Police States who other than a brief glimpse of hope in 2004 has been otherwise useless for the last two decades and sealed it's coffin on ever having any valid purpose whatsoever when it threw out its philosophical platform altogether.

You're answering these 'criticisms' exactly the way you should, albeit a bit 'belated' and I agree entirely with your responses. I do have a suggestion for a (and I think it is important to have one) more kiwi-centric symbol of liberty: a kiwi bird in a statue of liberty pose with torch in one hand and constitution of New Zealand (yes, I liked 'Freeland' but it may cause unnecessary confusion) under her arm with the spiky hat, and perhaps a more defiant glare. Again, all spot-on responses and don't change your name for any reason! Best as I can see you're the only *truly* Libertarian party in the English speaking, if not the entire, world.

Get 'em in 2008 Libz!!! I'm confident you'll at least make a dent and/or be a good thorn in the side!

Frankly, Paul, I'm fully convinced that if the party name and the Constitution's moniker and the letterhead on all the thank you letters were all changed to suit you ... you'd still find some reason not to talk about us at your cocktail parties, and every reason not to do anything about supporting the principles you claim to value.

The party is what it is. It's a serious party, fully committed to fighting for the principles you claim to uphold.

To be blunt, if the principles and the policies of the party are the ones you claim to follow, then you should get in behind them and do whatever YOU can to make sure the organisation is as professional as it could be.

And if they aren't enough to grab you, then you should stop pretending to be something you aren't.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Hi Paul

Thank you for your interest in Libertarianz, I would like to respond to the points you have raised.

1. Libertarianz is not anti New Zealand. The party logo uses the head of the Statue of Liberty because it is the Statue of Liberty - not the Statue of America. It is a symbol of liberty and I challenge you to come up with an appropriate and well known (or any) liberty imagery that is distinctly New Zealand. That said, we are not an anti-American party - despite the fact that it is currently fashionable to be so in NZ.

2. Your points about the constitution causing confusion are well made, and I have no objection to removing the clause that changes New Zealand's name to New Freeland. That is not a pertinent or necessary part of the constitution and, as you point out, it detracts from the overall message.

3. Regarding language. Nanny State is now a commonly used term. Government politicians have said that they shy away from some of their more draconian legislation because "the nanny state argument is huge". It would be abandoning a well used and well understood term if we stopped using "Nanny State". "Helen Clark and her cronies" is pretty lame and I can't see the problem with it. The use of the term Nazis has not been used by the party for some time. There is no mention of nazis in the Liberty Newsletter you recieved - you are creating a strawman argument here. The reference to Adolf Anderton is in a letter to the editor of a newspaper and was republished by me in the Liberty newsletter verbatim of an example of a letter to the editor. I take your point and will edit letters that can be seen as representing the party more guardedly in the future.

The use of language can be a fine line between getting attention to your provocative message and getting no attention for your "don't frighten the horses" message. This is a balance we continue to work at.

4. Regarding the imagery - I would happily accept more appropriate ideas for imagery. Admittedly the Helen Clark image was unfair. In my defence I had a gap to fill and a print deadline to meet.

5. We are not going to change the party name. We are libertarians. Our philosophy is libertarian. We are from New Zealand (something you wanted us to clearly identify earlier) so Libertarianz seems a perfectly reasonable party name. We have built some brand recognition with that name. People can look up the word libertarian and see exactly what we stand for. There are links all over the internet to the name Libertarianz, we are not going to abandon Libertarianz because there has been too much good groundwork laid down.

6. The lack of correspondence from the party for 12 months was unacceptable and I apologise. To give the background, we became aware that some members on our database were missing out on the newsletter and notices. We have now overhauled our database and in many cases gone back to the original joining form and reentered the information. I am now confident that this problem has been fixed and you will recieve regular newsletters for as long as you wish to remain a member. If there are any other members who are still missing out on the newsletter, I would urge you to contact the Party Secretary from the Libertarianz website and let him know your contact details.

7. The poor response to you email is poor communication. I guess it comes down to emailing 8 people with the same letter and all of those recipients assuming that someone else will reply. Your email does require a considered response and I hope that I have made it here.

8. I don't consider Libz to be a party of student activists. We, of course, welcome student activists and target them to an extent because they tend to be more receptive to new ideas than the 40 plus demographic. However, Libertarianz has much to offer all New Zealanders. In particular we are now the only opposition around that there is no difference between National and Labour, and ACT appear to be willing to sell all their principles to keep Epsom. We intend to fight a serious election this year and are definately aiming for seats in parliament.

9. We would appreciate any help we can get so our activists can concentrate on doing one job in this election and doing it well.

Anyway, thanks for the points you've raised and I hope to see you involved in some way in our campaign in the near future.

Regards

Craig Milmine
Liberty Editor
Election video maker (just wait)
Libertarianz President
Daytime job also

Some comments echoed here
http://www.solopassion.com/node/4002?page=3

A "re-branding" still wouldn't raise the threshold effectiveness. Only a few truly objectivist/libertarian well known candidates would draw votes, if that's what we're talking. I mean, they would need to be household names almost.

Otherwise they are still the only candidates telling it like it is. In the meantime kill Clark's commies at the ballot box. Can't wait to see her f*cked.

I've had some of the same thoughts. 

My point is that the Libertarianz brand is associated with "Losers" "Student activists" and so on. A party that gets less votes than members. What this means is that "Libertarianz" as a party brand is less than helpful as it seems to cause no end of laughs when the subject comes up at the various parties I attend.

I am not party starting material, nor a politician but I do wish to actively support a worth while political party. The libertarian principles and the proposed constitution appeal to me but it is a waste of time to put any effort in a party that has such a bad image. It would be so much better to start from scratch and find a way to appeal to a larger and more mature group of voters. I think this can be achieved by simply giving the same message in a new coat of paint.

1. New Party name
2. Quit the name calling
3. Embrace NZ imagery not American
4. Cut down on the gimmicks
5. Get the PR sorted out

There are skilled and capable people on the side line itching to help out but I suppose the Libertarianz don't want to be helped or don't realise the state their club is in or maybe they just like it the way it is.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

I agree the "Constitution of New Freeland" is a bit wet, if you are wanting to have such a document taken seriously. Which is a shame, as it is otherwise presented in a professional and 'legit' style.

"Nanny state" is actually part of the popular political parlance nowadays, it has it's own wikipedia entry and is used regularly by such luminaries as Noam Chomski.

I have often wondered if the SoL is a bit of a turn off for some. Superb symbol, but I'm inclined to agree that such an Ameri-centric image as part of the logo for a New Zealand political party seems... odd.

The name Libertarianz works just fine though, it's what it says it is! A New Zealand libertarian party.

I think you have some valid concerns, and I'm quite disappointed to learn that their administration and PR is so poor. I actually have a funny feeling I subscribed to their newsletter at one point, about a year or so ago, never received a single issue...