Libertarian Party Releases Statement Regarding Austin Petersen Exclusion

There is an article floating around claiming that “Austin Petersen was not invited to the Libertarian Party of Colorado convention.” We reached out to both Austin and the Libertarian Party of Colorado for an official statement. Austin gave us an official statement, which we will publish later tonight. The Libertarian Party of Colorado informed us that an official statement was coming soon, and you can read their official statement below:

Questions have recently arisen about the decision of the Board of Directors of the Libertarian Party of Colorado to refrain from an extending an invitation to Austin Petersen to attend its Presidential debate at its State Convention. This decision was made by the Board in consideration of the following:

1. The Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail (Bylaws of the National Libertarian Party 4.1);

2. The Libertarian Party of Colorado has been voluntarily bound by its affiliation with the National Party that it shall not take any action inconsistent with the Statement of Principles (Bylaws of the National Libertarian Party 6.1);

3. The Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Colorado defines our purpose as to “implement and give voice to libertarian principles, such as those in the Statement of Principles of the national Libertarian Party” (LPCO Constitution II.1) and binds the Party to take no positions inconsistent with the Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party (LPCO Constitution III.1);

4. The commitment of the Libertarian Party of Colorado to the Statement of Principles is demonstrated in its requirement that its Board of Directors, state candidates, delegates, and affiliates sign/ratify the Statement of Principles (LPCO Constitution V.2, VIII.4, IX.2; LPCO Bylaws VII.1) and specifically states that supporting candidates which take positions inconsistent with the national Party Statement of Principles is grounds for disaffiliation of county parties (LPCO Constitution IX.3);

5. Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination Austin Wade Petersen has openly repudiated the non-aggression principle as stated specifically within the Statement of Principles and declared this principle to be “non-libertarian” and intellectually bankrupt using various defamatory insults and thus has clearly illustrated that he is philosophically opposed to essential first-principles of the Libertarian Party which the Colorado governing documents hold in primacy as the minimal bar by which everything is measured.

No formal resolution was made other than a decision that it was inappropriate for the State Party to invite a candidate who has openly repudiated and ridiculed the Party’s foundational and absolutely essential Statement of Principles that are held as the highest standard in our voluntary governing documents. Additionally, it was decided that the Board members, acting in their official capacities, would not contact or respond to the Petersen campaign on this issue. There were no objections to either vote.

The Statement of Principles is not optional for the Libertarian Party as defined within both the National and Colorado documents of voluntary association. It is the duty of Party officers to uphold these Principles and as the birthplace of the Libertarian Party, the Board of the Libertarian Party of Colorado made a decision in good faith with the intention of protecting and honoring these Principles.

For more Liberty News, be sure to follow LibertyBuzz on Twitter or like our Facebook page!

Source: LPCO

  • Derrick J. Freeman

    Thank goodness. The non aggression principle is what separates libertarians from establishment statists. Open rejection of this principle should be enough to disqualify any candidate from the Libertarian Party.

    • Arnt Rune Flekstad

      Just curious. How can something that is wide open for interpretation be concidered a basic principle?

    • Fractured Atlas

      Though I don’t know too much of the NAP, it sounds like a misguided fantasy and perhaps disables the Libertarian Party from being relevant and prevents any chance of of the LP actually being able to win anything.

      You can’t win anything without having some tenacity and will to win. This is a competition after all.

      • Sir_K33tanz

        It’s the Libertarian bible. What it doesn’t include is what’s allowed. It’s revised statism.

      • Scott Bush

        It’s the philosophical hobby-horse of intellectual weaklings.

    • cheddar

      Isn’t participating in the electoral process a violation of the NAP?

      • noncents

        How is advocating someone who abides by the NAP, a violation of the NAP?

      • noncents

        How is advocating someone who abides by the NAP, a violation of the NAP?

      • Tim Wade

        Thank you! So Gary supports the NAP when he collected payment for being Gov? Money collected by force? Does Gary support the NAP by suggesting government to force companies to label GMO’s?

    • Geoff Ebling

      The NAP is the “Gun Free Zone” of political philosophies.

      • Shane Richmond

        That’s misleading. Because the NAP allows for you to defend yourself, and the gun free zones do not. The NAP is against INITIATING aggression, not using superior force to destroy an aggressor.

        • Patrick Kniesler

          Apparently, the NAP does not allow one to defend himself intellectually.

        • Justin Alexander

          I don’t think he means it that literally.

          • Shane Richmond

            Which is why I didn’t denounce him, simply said his statement was misleading and explained why it was 🙂

    • Tim Wade

      Does Gary support the NAP by suggesting government to force companies to label GMO’s?

  • David Summerly

    Shady, doesn’t seem very libertarian. I don’t agree with Austin or his tactics 100% but he’s one of the top 2 choices for most including myself. Seems in reality Gary’s pot business may be the real reason. Corruption cometh? We must be ready for big party status.

    • noncents

      Why would a libertarian reject the owner of a “pot business”?

      • David Summerly

        I would hope none would. Hence Gary is more than accepted. Yet in CO where his pot business is from, the only candidate he needs to fear was black listed.

    • noncents

      Why would a libertarian reject the owner of a “pot business”?

  • Octotron

    LP trying to push all five of us out of the ranks now? This stuff is a farce.

  • Frederic Doss

    So…why not just ask him the hard questions about the NAP at the debate versus denying him a voice? Or are you just wanting a debate among people who all believe the exact same things…which isn’t really a debate?

    • Mark

      It would be a Republican “debate” then. Keep it professional, guys.

      • Tim Wade

        Does Gary support the NAP by suggesting government to force companies to label GMO’s? He should be excluded

        • Jared

          Or how about when Gary said yo bomb Kony? This is wrong.

    • Mark

      It would be a Republican “debate” then. Keep it professional, guys.

    • noncents

      Peterson rejects the core philosophy. There’s only enough time for debating how to implement policy, not arguing the virtue of the NAP with the willfully ignorant.

      • Tim Wade

        So Gary supports the NAP when he collected payment for being Gov? Money collected by force? Does Gary support the NAP by suggesting government to force companies to label GMO’s?

  • Octotron

    Colorado LP is simply trying to silence an insurgency within the cozy ranks of our wussy party. It is stuff like this that reminds me that the LP isn’t actually interested in winning any elections… this is just a big old jack off festival for political puritans and those holier-than-thou.

    • John P. Slevin

      Austin Peterson isn’t going to be elected, so, to use your terminology, he’s running a jack-off campaign.

  • Zac Woodrell

    I guess we are going to fight internally like the other parties now instead of working out a resolution?

    Disappointing

  • Geoff Ebling

    Weak! They are so intellectually bankrupt that they cannot hear an idea that challenges them in any way. Weak sauce! Weak from the altitude! AP4LP.COM
    The NAP is the “Gun Free Zone” of political philosophies

    • Josh

      No. The NAP is what separates defensive aggression and initiatory aggression into two distinctly separate moral categories.

  • He’s a fucking republican.

    • J OB

      So is Johnson. That changed nothing.

  • Luke P

    Censorship isn’t very libertarian either. What a bunch of hypocrites!

    • noncents

      For the same reason Vermin Supreme wasn’t invited. Nor is Judge Judy or Kim Kardashian. Why would you invite someone who is ignorant of the core philosophy?

      • Luke P

        So as not to be closed minded to new ideas. To be authoritarian and to shut down new ideas makes us no better than the democrats and republicans. Gary Johnson has a lawsuit to get Libertarians on the mainstage presidential debates. How is excluding Austin Petersen from the Colorado convention any different from the libertarian candidate being excluded from being on the debate stage for the national election. I’m fine with compromising on the NAP if it means our ideas are actually brought to the forefront. Comparing Vermin Supreme and Judge Judy with AP is a bit of an exaggeration. AP can at least communicate his ideas to the general public. While I don’t agree with AP on all issues he is a good communicator and the youth seem to relate to him better than Gary Johnson.

        • Josh

          Dismissing the NAP isn’t a new idea.

          At all.

      • David Summerly

        Austin is anything but ignorant of libertarianism. Are you even familiar with him?

        • noncents

          Yes, very. He openly disavows the Non-Aggression-Principle, even going so far as attempting to argue against it.

          • David Summerly

            You seem very obsessed looking at all your other replies. Is it Austin or Gary you’re infatuated with?

      • Tim Wade

        So Gary supports the NAP when he collected payment for being Gov? Money collected by force? Does Gary support the NAP by suggesting government to force companies to label GMO’s?

        • noncents

          Minor abrogations relative to arguing against the root from which it’s derived. I have yet to find a perfect libertarian, but the philosophy does provide a foundation from which to work from.

          One thing is certain, I will never find a perfect Republican nor Democrat.

    • noncents

      For the same reason Vermin Supreme wasn’t invited. Nor is Judge Judy or Kim Kardashian. Why would you invite someone who is ignorant of the core philosophy?

  • William

    Reminds me of the 2012 GOP national convention, the rational behind those who supported changing the rules to keep Ron Paul out. They said he wasn’t a true conservative…

  • Robert Kenneth Kirchoff

    So if you don’t think the NAP is bulletproof, you’re not a Libertarian? Guess I’m not a Libertarian. I’ll have to settle with being a libertarian.

    And people wonder why this party is a joke.

  • Scott Bush

    So the Colorado LP just wants a deontological circle-jerk? Sounds like a good strategy guise.

  • AJ McCarrick

    This headline is very misleading… this is from the Colorado State affiliate… NOT the national party.

  • Tim Wade

    You libertarians are idiots!!!!! NO politician believes the NAP!!!! NONE!!!! Gary took stolen money as governor!!! The Pledge of the libertarian party isn’t about the NAP anyway its a pussy statement saying that the party will not commit violent acts verses the federal government so that the feds wouldn’t be scared of them! That is the history. It isn’t about anarchy or the TRUE NAP. It’s a pussy statement for the feds….that’s it! Get real people. No political party is totally for the NAP. If you think that they are then you don’t understand the NAP. Austin is just telling the truth! Is Gary gonna use the NAP when he forces food companies to label GMO’s? Give me a fracken break!!!!

    • noncents

      Your outbursts don’t compensate for your ignorance.

      The NAP doesn’t mean you are not willing to defend yourself with force. In fact most people I know who abide by it, are quite willing and capable of defending themselves with overwhelming force.

      • Tim Wade

        Did I stutter? I didn’t mention self defense. Of course that is compatible with the NAP. My point is how can any elected politician take stolen money and be for the NAP? Explain that? How can one, Gary Johnson, do that all the while promoting government force on GMO’s and be for the NAP?

      • Tim Wade

        I am an anarchist and know the NAP well

  • Tim Wade

    You libertarians are idiots!!!!! NO politician believes the NAP!!!! NONE!!!! Gary took stolen money as governor!!! The Pledge of the libertarian party isn’t about the NAP anyway its a pussy statement saying that the party will not commit violent acts verses the federal government so that the feds wouldn’t be scared of them! That is the history. It isn’t about anarchy or the TRUE NAP. It’s a pussy statement for the feds….that’s it! Get real people. No political party is totally for the NAP. If you think that they are then you don’t understand the NAP. Austin is just telling the truth! Is Gary gonna use the NAP when he forces food companies to label GMO’s? Give me a fracken break!!!!

  • Tom W.

    The People’s Front of Judea vs. Judean People’s Front. Splitters!

  • Pingback: Austin Petersen Addresses Exclusion From Libertarian Party of Colorado Convention - LibertyBuzz()