Will the Libertarian Party Sue Caucuses with "Libertarian Party" in their name?

The Libertarian Party is going to attempt to sue caucuses that have the words "libertarian party" in the name next year if it is not voted down by the delegates at the convention.

This would affect the 2 biggest caucuses in the party that also happen to be more philosophically based: the Radical Caucus and the Mises Caucus.

It is my belief that there are interests in the party who have a desire to lock up the identity of the party away from a principled position so that when they likely gain debate access next time around, they will have full control of the party moving forward. They want to make this the Bill Weld party. This is a strong arm tactic that im not even sure the Rs or Ds have done.

This affects all of us whether you like it or not, that party will color the view on what libertarianism is moving forward. Why is the LP, who got 3% during their biggest opportunity, doing this? Why is the chairman, Nicholas Sarwark, going on The Jason Stapleton Program and telling him his audience isn't who the LP wants? Why is he baselessly painting the thought leaders such as Tom Woods and Jeff Deist as racists? Why are they adopting the losing tactics of the left (such as Identity Politics, Virtue Signaling, etc)? Don't you think that rousing the Libertarian base to join the party to manage the growth of the party should be a priority? Why are they acting like straight up politicians? It's almost as if they are paid to torpedo the party.

Whether you are into the Radical Caucus or the Mises Caucus, if you are one of those people who didn't get in the LP because Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were a joke to you, we NEED your help, we need you to become delegates to stop this and to vote out this hostile beltway takeover that wants to neuter the message and embarrass and misrepresent us to the world. Get some pride in your beliefs and join the fight!

It's a Caucus to change the Libertarian Party. The LPRC has been around for decades without this bylaw being raised. These is no reason why this is being brought up other than to try and do two things:

- See if the caucuses will capitulate to the whims of the party orthodoxy, and how easy they will do so.

- Try and control the branding of the Libertarian Party.

In either case, it is the ideas of the caucuses themselves which will drive attention to them or away from them. The LPMC has become the biggest Caucus in a short time due to its ideas, and it will continue to grow as word spreads. The socialist caucus is 20 ironic people and it will stay small and insignificant for a few months before it's just a fb group because socialists don't stay libertarians for very long. 

The market place for ideas will sort out this stuff easier than decrees on who is allowed and unallowed. 

Having the moniker LP in the LPMC makes it easier during party voting to align people in common cause. 

The LP is fighting over control of a powerless org and they are losing ground to simply Libertarian ideas. This is the first chess move in a series of chess moves. They put a knight out in a dangerous position to draw out a response. They were hoping for retreat. If we (as a Caucus) give it to them, all we have done is help kill momentum we have gained. If they (the LP) actually sue, we have a platform you couldn't buy from which to climb much higher than could ever be imagined as a Caucus.

​It shows weakness on their part of they pursue it, BUT it shows lack of resolve on ours if we give in.