Libertarian Party of Virginia

So I wonder if I should sue the Libertarian Party of Virginia

I’m not a very litigious person, but I think it’s important to stand up for your rights sometimes. It was my understanding, when I joined the Libertarian Party, that this was a group that had bylaws it was obligated to follow. There’s not really a reasonable interpretation of the bylaws that would say it’s okay to kick someone out without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

I don’t even really feel like appearing before them and giving my side of the case, and more than they probably feel like listening to my side, but I guess it’s kind of obligatory to not just let your rights be taken away, or else you won’t have them.

If they had just done it the right way from the beginning, we could have avoided getting to this point. Anyway, I suppose I should first threaten to sue them.

Another possibility is that they could just return my $1,000 to me. It’s true that I’ve received a decade’s worth of LP News and Virginia Liberty issues and other benefits from the time I was in the Party, but on the other hand, given the time value of money and inflation, $1,000 today is not worth as much as $1,000 back when I sent in my check, so I think it evens out.

Yeah, if they want to refund my $1,000, I guess I’ll take it, and not sue them. I’ll go buy some weed or something. Not sure if that’s the best way to be good stewards of their donors’ money, though. Maybe it would be better if they would either vote at convention for some kind of bylaws amendment that allows them to expel me without a hearing, or if they would just give me the hearing.

In fact, I wouldn’t mind just submitting my defense in writing, but I suppose I have to actually appear in person to present it so they’re required to actually devote time to it. If they want to ignore it, they have to actually close their ears to it at that point.

One of the reasons for giving people a hearing is that, as a deliberative body, the party is at least supposed to take into account the views of the minority, especially when they’re doing something that prejudices the minority’s rights.

Why not just start a new party?

The ballot access laws discourage the splintering of parties into a bunch of smaller parties. It’s only possible for a small number of parties to meet the criterion of being “an organization of citizens of the Commonwealth which, at either of the two preceding statewide general elections, received at least 10 percent of the total vote cast for any statewide office filled in that election.”

And it costs a lot of money to gather signatures to get on the ballot, so this tends to encourage or even necessitate that people with divergent views stick with whatever existing party is closest to their views rather than creating a new party that is 100% in conformity with their values, beliefs, opinions, etc.

If people get kicked out of parties, they are at risk of becoming politically homeless. Someone who is not a member of the Libertarian Party has no way to vote on candidate nominations, which puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to exercise their political rights.

The standard Libertarian way of dealing with people whose opinions differ from the party line is to outvote them; to decline to make them representatives of the party, by voting for either another nominee or for none of the above, if there is not another suitable candidate. The Party creates a platform in accordance with the views of the majority of voting members (or 7/8ths of the members, in the case of the Statement of Principles), and then people choose a party based on such factors as which party has the platform that is closest to their views.

Florellegate Jim's Blog Nearcels Tom Grauer

So I have a new blog now

I took a hiatus after the last deplatforming, since Florellegate caused me some problems that I needed to process.

Eventually, I realized (thanks, cacaogirl, for being the catalyst) what went wrong and why. The major rift in the manosphere is not so much between haves, have-a-littles, and have-nots (Chads, betabuxxes, and incels). It’s between rape advocates and everyone else.

I created a Nearcels site to try to bridge the gap between truecels and non-truecels. But that’s both unnecessary and futile. Really, what’s needed is a rapecels site, or simply a rape advocates, or misogyny site. Tom Grauer used to talk about “sexual radicals” but as was pointed out in a comment to the old blog, before my deplatforming from, sexual radicalism was just one side of the coin (kinda like how misogyny is just one side of the coin whose other side is philogyny). “Sexual radical” sounds like a pretty Jewish term, although my bliki was originally based around “sexual dissidents” which also sounds potentially like some sort of agitators. It’s hard to come up with good terminology sometimes; it’s a problem that has plagued the manosphere for awhile now, especially since the red pill era.

Terms like misogyny and patriarchy are a little ambiguous, but probably the more hardcore people will use such terms, given that feminists define themselves as the opposite. I do usually call myself a patriarchist, but I’ll accept “misogynist” sometimes because women kinda want a misogynist; someone who is willing to hate them enough when they do wrong to hurt them. Jim has a whole theory about the psychology of this, that if you don’t hurt them to expiate their sin, they’ll hurt themselves anyway, so you might as well be the one to do it.