Chris Russo wrote:
>
> At 03:10 -0800 12/4/00, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >Personally, I agree with L. Neil Smith. The Libertarian party will not
> >be a force to be reckoned with until every single person who comes in
> >contact with it knows that it stands squarely for individual rights and
> >especially for the strong and whole-hearted enforcement of the Bill of
> >Rights.
>
> While I agree that you've expressed the underlying philosophy of
> Libertarianism: If we are relying upon a plurality of American
> voters to get on board for the sake of one simple (albeit logical and
> paramount) idea, we're doomed.
Not if that idea is the fundamental core that the rest derives from.
Without stating upfront and most importantly what the core is the rest
is just a bunch of platform planks like the people are fed up with
hearing.
As Rand used to put it, one doesn't bargain about degrees of poison.
Saying Libertarians want smaller government is phrasing your message in
terms of degrees of poison. It will not move anyone. Saying you are
for a laundry list of things implied by basic principles but not stating
the basic principles opens the list to derision and cooptation until
only the thinks that look like lunancy to the majority without the basic
principles being understood are left.
>
> Developing a plurality in American politics requires forming
> coalitions of people interested in different party planks.
> Libertarians need the cooperation of the pot heads, the gun
> enthusiasts, the gays, the entrepreneurs, the pro-choicers, etc.
> They're not going to all buy into the underlying principle (at least
> not at first), but they'll at least give us their consideration if we
> advertise the party planks that they like.
>
Sure. But unite them on what is truly fundamental. Show them that what
they want flows directly from fundamental principles and can only safely
be build on them. And reach past these few to the average Joe in the
street and tell him what these principles will do to make his life
better and by how much.
> One of the things that I personally *love* about the LP is how the
> positions on the favorite issues of all of those groups can be
> logically and easily obtained from the guiding principle that you
> mentioned above.
>
Yeah? So why the hell isn't the party campaigning upfront and foremost
on that instead of the half-assed mealy mouthing of recent campaigns
that brings in a tiny fraction of a percent of the vote?
> >
> >Sure they will "entertain" a reduction in how much of your money the
> >will steal in order to take away more of your rights than they have any
> >intention of acknowledging, much less protecting. The Republicans will
> >never, ever, reduce their drain on the economy enough to undermine their
> >own favorite tyrannies against the American people they claim to serve.
>
> I agree to an extent. However, after we've achieved what we can by
> working from within one of the dominant parties, I'd much rather
> fight a Republican-dominated government that has a tax (and power)
> base of 1x than a Democrat-dominated government that has a tax (and
> power) base of 2x or 3x. Plus, the subsequent battle with the
> Republicans will be about repealing "tyrannical" laws. The
> subsequent battle with the Democrats will be about taking away
> entitlements. In general, the former is easier to accomplish.
>
You can acheive nothing from working within one of the dominant
parties. The dominant parties reflect the dominant sickness in this
country's political system. You can't cure it by becoming infected with
it and becoming involved in spreading the sickness. Don't dilute
medicine with the poison killing the patient.
There is no reason to believe that the Republicans will ever reduce
government size by your implied 50% or better relative to Democrats.
Historically there is no basis for such a pipe dream. On principle
(they haven't any) there is no basis.
> Creating a new and valid political party in this country that will be
> capable of competing with the Republicrats will be extraordinarily
> difficult - especially when you consider that Libertarians don't have
> those purely emotional core groups like the Democrats have minority
> groups and the Republicans have religious groups. I'm helping where
> I can, and I support the Libertarians where I can, but realistically,
> I think that I'm more likely to see some of the issues I'm looking
> for addressed by the Republicans.
Will the job get any easier if we continuously play footsie with those
who seek and are actively engaged in the destruction of freedom?
Looking at individual issues one by one without standing strong on
underlying principle is what got us into this mess in the first place.
If we ever want something better then we have to do something different.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT