A libertarian political party should be (a) transparent, (b) bottom-up and not excessively hierarchical, (c) structurally free of common causes for infighting and schisms (like the platform), and (d) member-oriented.
This is true of the Boston Tea Party. Sadly, this is not true of the Libertarian Party of 2008.
Parallels with the Free State Project
I’m researching the Free State Project and recently found out about Wyoming. I learned that Wyoming is, today, considerably freer than New Hampshire and that Wyoming has fewer citizens registered to vote and a smaller percentage of which who actually vote, compared to New Hampshire. Essentially, Wyoming is not only substantially further along the liberty continuum than New Hampshire but it’s also more easily influenceable than New Hampshire.
BTP is Farther along than the LP
This is similar to the situation we face today when selecting a libertarian party. When applying the criteria I named above, the Boston Tea Party is considerably further along the continuum than the Libertarian Party.
Why Fight in the LP for what the BTP Already has?
Why would one spend possibly years fighting within the LP, just to get where the Boston Tea Party already is today?
I’m not leaving the LP or giving up on it. But I’m very interested in seeing how far we can go together in the Boston Tea Party.