Politics

Tech, Vigilance, and the Title of Liberty: What Captain Moroni Teaches Us About Mass Surveillance

If you read the Book of Mormon through a civic or strategic lens, one figure stands out above the rest when it comes to the intersection of defense, intelligence, and individual liberty: Captain Moroni.

Moroni was an operational genius. He overhauled military defensive structures, pioneered early-warning scout networks, and anticipated threats before they reached city walls. But more than a military leader, Moroni was a fierce guardian of individual agency and civil rights. He famously tore his coat to raise the Title of Liberty, rallying citizens to defend their religion, freedom, peace, and families against internal overreach and external threats.

Which begs a modern question for those of us who care deeply about both public safety and privacy: What would Captain Moroni make of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) like Flock safety cameras?

At first glance, a technologist might argue Moroni would love ALPRs… after all, he built watchtowers and relied on scouts. But a deeper look at his principles reveals a clear, vital distinction between defensive threat monitoring and domestic dragnet surveillance.

1. Tactical Intelligence vs. Mass Surveillance

Moroni was a pioneer in tactical intelligence. He posted scouts along borders, monitored troop movements, and used geographical high ground to protect non-combatants (Alma 43:23–24).

  • The Defensive Mandate: Moroni wouldn’t oppose a local community knowing if a stolen vehicle or a fleeing violent offender crossed a specific threshold. He valued actionable, targeted early warning systems.

  • The Dragnet Problem: There is a fundamental difference between placing a scout on a border wall to watch for an invading army and placing a scout outside every citizen’s home to record when they leave for work, church, or the doctor.

A system that continuously logs, stores, and profiles the legal movements of every law-abiding driver into a centralized, searchable database moves past “scouting” into passive domestic tracking. Moroni’s primary mandate was preserving the agency and rights of the “freemen” a system that assumes guilt until proven innocent through perpetual tracking would trigger his deep suspicion.

2. Raising the Title of Liberty for Transparency

When internal political factions attempted to quietly centralize power and strip away local governance, Moroni didn’t sit back. He made the issue public, clear, and unassailable. He demanded that leaders take explicit oaths to protect the foundational rights of the people.

If Moroni were evaluating modern ALPR networks, he would push for immediate, unyielding transparency:

  • No Secret Deployments: Publicly questioning private-public camera partnerships installed without explicit community consultation or public debate.

  • Binding Guardrails: Insisting that local officials and law enforcement take clear, accountable stands on data ownership, retention periods, and third-party access.

  • Community Vigilance: Encouraging citizens to actively map, audit, and understand the surveillance footprint around them. In Moroni’s view, the people have a duty to keep the watchers accountable.

3. Strict Rules of Engagement and Power Limits

Moroni was famously cautious with power. In his scathing letter to Pahoran, he made his core motivation clear:

“I do not seek for power, but to pull it down. I do not seek for the honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country.”

Alma 60:36

He fought strictly to preserve life and liberty, laying down his command the moment peace was secured. Applied to modern camera networks, Moroni would demand strict technological and legal boundary lines:

  • Zero Dragnet Retention: Erasing location logs of law-abiding citizens immediately, rather than archiving 30 days (or more) of movement patterns “just in case.”

  • Warrant-Backed Access: Requiring specific, localized probable cause rather than open-ended network searches across regional databases.

  • Decentralized Control: Resisting corporate monopolies over public movement data, ensuring control remains local and directly answerable to the neighborhood.

The Takeaway

Captain Moroni wouldn’t advocate for abandoning defense or ignoring technology. Instead, he would recognize ALPR networks as a classic double-edged sword.

While watchtowers have their place on the perimeter, unchecked mass tracking of free citizens presents a direct threat to the very liberty defense is supposed to protect. The lesson Moroni leaves us with is simple: use technology to protect freedom, but never let technology-or the promise of safety-convince you to trade away your agency.

Tech, Vigilance, and the Title of Liberty: What Captain Moroni Teaches Us About Mass Surveillance Read Post »

CONVENTION VOTES DOWN LNC STRUCTURE CHANGE; APPROVES ELECTRONIC VOTING AND TOUGHER FLOOR RULES

By Paul Darr the 2026 Bylaws and Rules Committee Chair

GRAND RAPIDS – Libertarian Party delegates wrapped up a contentious bylaws debate at the national convention, rejecting sweeping structural changes of party leadership while passing a slate of high-tech and procedural reforms aimed at streamlining future assemblies.

The changes came during the presentation of the 2026 Bylaws Committee Report, a document representing nearly 11 months of biweekly deliberations. Despite the long preparation, delegates proved highly selective, defeating eight major proposals, adopting four, and leaving the remainder unaddressed as time expired.

A Defeat for Structural Change and Voting Reform
The convention delivered a decisive blow to an aggressive push to restructure the Libertarian National Committee (LNC). Proposal 8, which sought to shrink the size of the national board by abolishing the current regional representative system and adding more at-large seats, failed on the floor. Opponents successfully argued against dismantling the geographic representation that state affiliates currently enjoy.

A parallel effort to change how party leadership is chosen also stumbled. Delegates rejected Proposal 1, which would have introduced Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for national officer elections, and Proposal 4, which aimed to institute a semi-proportional “cumulative voting” system for multi-winner races.

Other high-profile casualties included a proposal to require national officers to be life members (Proposal 6), a standardized consolidation of committee debate rules (Proposal 7), a new codified ethics agreement (Proposal 9), and a unified process for LNC removal trials (Proposal 2). Delegates also rejected a controversial measure to restrict convention voting privileges strictly to National Party sustaining members (Proposal 11).

High-Tech and Efficiency Measures Clear the Floor
While sweeping structural changes were cast aside, delegates overwhelmingly embraced modernization and floor discipline, passing four key measures:

Electronic Balloting Authorized (Proposal 3): In a historic shift away from slow, paper-and-tally sheet procedures, the party legally authorized electronic voting methods for future conventions. To address intense election integrity debates, the new rule mandates that delegates must be physically present to use the system. Additionally, the electronic system must generate a physical backup ballot for every vote cast, and any successfully ordered recount must be conducted entirely by hand using those physical backups.

Crackdown on Fringe Motions (Proposal 5): Future convention floors will see far less procedural gridlock under a newly adopted rule targeting time-wasting maneuvers. Previously, any two delegates could introduce a motion and force a debate. The new rule raises the threshold to a “standing second,” requiring at least 20 delegates to manually second any floor motion before it can be considered by the assembly.

Longer Runways for Committees (Proposal 10): Acknowledging years of structural bottlenecking, delegates voted to double the operational timelines for two vital bodies. The Platform Committee will now be appointed 12 months ahead of the convention rather than five, aligning its schedule with the Bylaws Committee. The Credentials Committee window was expanded from three months to six months. This gives volunteers a massive operational runway to vet delegate lists and organize platform proposals well before the convention begins.

The “NOTA” Vacancy Rule (Proposal 12): The party solidified its unique relationship with “None of the Above” (NOTA) by codifying exact rules for presidential selections. If a majority of delegates vote for NOTA in a presidential or vice-presidential round, no candidate will receive the nomination, the slot will be declared vacant, and nominations will completely reopen. Crucially, the new rule dictates that any losing candidates from the previous rounds are permanently barred from being nominated during the reopened cycle.

Unfinished Business
Due to tight convention scheduling, Proposals 13 through 22 were never reached or presented to the floor. As a result, the party’s existing framework remains intact for those sections. National sustaining dues will remain at the historical $25 baseline, the regional LNC frameworks will persist without interruption, and the traditional signature token system used for nominating presidential candidates will remain in force for the foreseeable future.

CONVENTION VOTES DOWN LNC STRUCTURE CHANGE; APPROVES ELECTRONIC VOTING AND TOUGHER FLOOR RULES Read Post »

What Must Come Next: A Framework for the Libertarian Party’s Future

The Libertarian Party has never lacked ideas, passion, or principled advocates. What it has often lacked is sustained institutional focus, the kind of disciplined, coordinated, long-term effort required to transform a philosophical movement into a durable political organization. After years of service within the Party, engagement with activists across the country, and reflection on both successes and setbacks, I have become convinced that the path forward is neither mysterious nor unattainable. It is simply demanding.

The moment before us is not one of existential crisis, but of organizational maturation. Voters dissatisfied with the two major parties continue to search for alternatives. Liberty-oriented ideas permeate public discourse more than at any point in recent memory. Yet opportunity without capacity yields little impact. The question before the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) is therefore straightforward: how do we build a political institution capable of meeting this moment?

What follows is a framework for what I believe must happen next.


Cultural Reform as Strategic Necessity

Every organization possesses a culture, whether intentionally cultivated or emergent from behavior over time. For the Libertarian Party, culture has often been characterized by intense independence, passionate debate, and a strong resistance to centralized authority. These qualities are understandable given our philosophical roots. However, when unmanaged, they can also produce reputational harm, internal fragmentation, and barriers to collaboration.

Cultural reform is not about suppressing disagreement or diluting principle. Rather, it is about recognizing that political organizations operate in a competitive environment where perception, professionalism, and cohesion influence outcomes. Public displays of internal conflict rarely persuade new supporters; they instead signal instability. Volunteers and donors are less likely to invest in organizations perceived as perpetually divided.

Future leadership must therefore cultivate norms that allow vigorous internal debate while maintaining external message discipline. This includes encouraging constructive disagreement, reinforcing shared goals, and ensuring that conflict resolution occurs in spaces that preserve institutional credibility. A Party capable of managing its differences without undermining itself gains a significant strategic advantage.

Culture, in this sense, becomes infrastructure.


Understanding the Libertarian Ecosystem

A recurring strategic error within the Party has been treating “Libertarians” as a singular category. In reality, the movement is an ecosystem composed of distinct yet overlapping groups: voters, members, activists, and donors. Each group engages with liberty through different motivations, constraints, and levels of commitment.

Libertarian voters may consistently support our candidates but never formally join. Members may maintain financial support without engaging in activism. Activists often contribute substantial time while lacking financial resources. Donors may support liberty causes broadly while remaining organizationally detached from the Party.

Recognizing these distinctions changes how we measure success and design outreach. Instead of asking why voters are not members, we should ask how to create pathways that make membership a natural next step. Instead of viewing donors solely as revenue sources, we should view them as long-term partners in building capacity. Instead of expecting activists to self-organize indefinitely, we should equip them with tools that increase effectiveness and reduce burnout.

Growth emerges not from collapsing these categories, but from connecting them.


Individual Agency as Organizational Infrastructure

One of the Libertarian Party’s greatest assets is the initiative of its members. Across the country, individuals host events, recruit candidates, build affiliate organizations, design outreach materials, and introduce neighbors to liberty, often without formal direction or recognition. This decentralized activity reflects our philosophical commitment to voluntary action, but it also represents untapped organizational potential.

The success of the Party ultimately depends on individuals acting. National leadership cannot substitute for local initiative. However, leadership can either amplify or hinder that initiative depending on whether it provides supportive infrastructure.

The role of the LNC should therefore be understood as enabling distributed leadership. This means investing in training, documentation, communication channels, data systems, and best-practice sharing that allow members to act effectively without reinventing processes. When individuals can plug into a supportive framework, their efforts compound rather than dissipate.

In this model, leadership does not command activity, it multiplies it.


Radical Empathy and Humanized Messaging

Liberty is not merely a set of policy positions; it is a moral framework centered on human dignity, autonomy, and peaceful cooperation. Yet our messaging has often emphasized intellectual argumentation at the expense of emotional resonance. While principled consistency remains essential, persuasion requires connecting those principles to lived experience.

Radical empathy, the deliberate effort to understand and communicate the human impact of policy, offers a pathway to more effective advocacy. When we tell stories about individuals affected by overregulation, criminalization, economic barriers, or institutional failure, liberty becomes tangible rather than theoretical.

This approach does not dilute our philosophy; it demonstrates its relevance. It invites people into a conversation grounded not only in ideas but in shared concern for human flourishing. Candidates, activists, and communicators who integrate empathy into their work strengthen the Party’s ability to build broad coalitions without compromising principle.


Long-Term Strategic Ambition and the Parity Project

Political institutions are not built overnight. The major parties benefit from decades, in some cases centuries of accumulated infrastructure, donor networks, candidate pipelines, and media relationships. Expecting episodic breakthroughs to substitute for sustained development misunderstands the nature of political growth.

The concept behind the Parity Project is simple but ambitious: commit to building the Libertarian Party’s capacity to compete structurally with the major parties over the next decade. This does not imply identical scale but comparable functionality, the ability to recruit candidates consistently, support campaigns effectively, grow membership predictably, and maintain organizational continuity.

Achieving parity requires strategic persistence. It demands leadership transitions that preserve progress rather than reset priorities. It requires committees aligned around shared long-term objectives. Most importantly, it necessitates members who view their contributions as part of a cumulative institutional project.

Parity is not a single milestone. It is a trajectory.


Governance: Transparency, Effectiveness, and Accountability

Institutional growth depends on trust. Members must believe that decisions are made transparently, resources are used effectively, and leaders remain accountable to the organization’s mission. These governance principles are not abstract ideals; they are operational necessities that influence engagement, fundraising, and volunteer retention.

Transparency fosters understanding and reduces speculation. Effectiveness ensures that effort translates into measurable progress rather than performative activity. Accountability reinforces the reciprocal relationship between leadership and membership.

For the LNC, embodying these principles means prioritizing clear communication, outcome-oriented planning, and consistent evaluation of initiatives. An organization that demonstrates competence internally strengthens its credibility externally.


Urgency Paired With Patience

The Libertarian Party exists within a political environment characterized by volatility, dissatisfaction, and realignment. Opportunities for growth appear regularly, yet seizing them requires readiness. Organizational capacity cannot be improvised in moments of opportunity; it must be cultivated beforehand.

This creates a dual imperative: act with urgency while thinking in decades. Urgency motivates effort, recruitment, and innovation. Patience sustains long-term projects and prevents discouragement when progress is incremental. Together, they produce steady advancement rather than episodic bursts of activity followed by stagnation.

The Party’s future will be shaped not by singular events but by sustained collective effort.


Building an Institution Worth Inheriting

The Libertarian Party’s mission extends beyond any individual campaign, committee, or convention cycle. We are participants in an intergenerational project: building a political institution capable of advancing liberty long after our current roles conclude. This perspective changes how we evaluate decisions, measure success, and approach leadership.

Institution-building requires cultural maturity, strategic clarity, and a willingness to invest in systems that outlast personalities. It requires recognizing that every volunteer recruited, every process documented, every candidate supported, and every donor cultivated contributes to a foundation others will inherit.

The question before us is not whether the Libertarian Party can succeed, but whether we are willing to undertake the disciplined work success requires.

I believe we are.

And now is the time.

What Must Come Next: A Framework for the Libertarian Party’s Future Read Post »

What is the Parity Project?

The Libertarian Party’s Parity Project is a strategic initiative launched by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) aimed at growing the party’s size, visibility, and electoral competitiveness to “match” or reach parity with the two major U.S. parties within a ten-year time frame.

Core Objective

The Parity Project seeks to elevate the Libertarian Party from limited visibility into a national political force comparable to the Democratic and Republican parties in terms of:

Number of libertarian voters and self-identified supporters

Donors and financial resources

Visibility in media and public awareness

Electoral success at various levels of government

Strategic Approach

The project’s strategy emphasizes what we describe as “discovery before persuasion”:

Instead of primarily trying to convert non-libertarians, the initiative focuses first on finding and activating people who already self-identify as libertarian, libertarian-leaning, or libertarian-curious.

The plan starts with an existing database of roughly one million contacts, which the party intends to expand by appending updated contact information and engaging individuals with targeted questions about their political alignment.

Respondents who express interest would be added to the party’s outreach lists and engaged through regular updates, reports, and fundraising appeals.

Tactics and Tools

Key elements of execution include:

Database expansion and data enhancement using commercial sources and ad targeting.

Email campaigns and social media advertising to identify and engage libertarian-aligned individuals.

Leadership and Resources

The project is led by strategist Perry Willis, with advice from Jim Babka, and uses data and advertising services provided by a firm called Iron Light.

Initial fundraising goals are modest, with plans to secure tens of thousands of dollars to start enhancements and outreach efforts.

Broader Rationale

The underlying premise of the Parity Project is that a significant segment of the U.S. population already holds libertarian-aligned views or identifies as libertarian; by systematically discovering and organizing these individuals, we believe we can build the momentum, resources, and visibility necessary to operate as a truly competitive third party.

What is the Parity Project? Read Post »