For those who may not have seen it, Zak Carter sent out an email yesterday about OpenDebates2016.com (copied below). Besides the background he mentions in the letter, Zak was a strongly engaged activist for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, allegedly even sacrificing his position with the U.S. government's military for the cause (see http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Media/097363-2011-10-04-zak-carter-rock-the-revolution-tour-adam-kokesh.htm). I don't think he'd be down with this effort if it were somehow seriously problematic from a libertarian perspective.
Assuming it is generally on the up and up -- and the disclosure statement I've highlighted in the letter impresses me as a favorable sign -- I'm having trouble imagining why we wouldn't want to endorse this. Bill, I presume you are not generally against open debates and merely have some issue(s) with this particular effort. But under what likely scenario would having the Libertarian Party listed at OpenDebates2016.com as being in favor of this effort to break the cartel's debate monopoly *not* be a good idea?
I mean, the best strategy for achieving open debates is endlessly debatable, and I have no particular opinion at this point that the strategy outlined at OpenDebates2016.com is necessarily the best one the movement can come up with, but endorsing it wouldn't prevent us from subsequently deciding to endorse a different open debates effort in addition to or hypothetically even instead of this one, should another promising-looking plan come along. In the meantime we'd be furthering the general cause of having open debates in which the LP and other alternative parties can participate, and that seems to me like a very important political objective. We would also be getting positive exposure for the LP among people who support opening the debates.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee