Re: Parties
> Rush rapped: > > Glad to hear that all it takes to "get your vote" is a reckless executive > > pardon of criminals that is designed to utilize executive > > power to bypass the checks and balances system and negate the efforts of the > > legislative and judicial branches of government > > > Spoken like a true fascist. What the fuck do you think executive pardon > is but just another "checks and balances"? The fact is that it's the criminal > scum in power at the moment who are fucking the constitution with their dirty > little "war on some drugs". Basic 1st Amemdment freedom of religion went > right down the drain with the very first drug law. It's religious persecution > pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less. Harry Browne should go further, > if elected he should not only pardon every person ever convicted of a drug or > gun offense, but he should order the immediate arrest of anyone who ever voted > for a drug or gun law, and who ever enforced these despicable illegal laws. Exactly correct. Under libertarian principles they are fully guilty of initiating "force and/or fraud". And there are no "statutes of limitation" on our response to these people regardless of current law. Now would be an excellent time for anyone to go to their county voter's registration office, and order a copy of the voter's registration database for current and future use. Jim Bell
Libertarians and political parties
Speaking of such, here are some actual facts. I wrote about Rasmussen in a recent Wired article. Here's what their polls say: http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1468.html Earlier this year, Rasmussen Research conducted a survey measuring the electorate along a scale favored by many libertarians. This survey found 16% of American voters are functionally libertarian. However, only 2% of voters claim the title of libertarian to describe their own views. -Declan
RE: Parties
Rush, You certainly are an earnest fellow, but that doesn't get you very far. It seems to me that folks like you, who are college sophomores with the unfortunate experience of one or two undergraduate political science classes, don't have much to contribute to cypherpunkly discussions. Your points, such as they are, might be better made on alt.politics.banal-ideas. You: * Don't seem to understand the nature of modern political parties * Don't seem to understand the nature of checks and balances * Don't seem to understand how Washington works, and the interplay between the legislative branch, executive branch, lobbyists, and advocacy groups * Have not read the basic literature that would enable us to take you seriously My participation in this sad discussion is now over, except that I will volunteer a reading list for you at some later point. -Declan At 10:10 10/30/2000 -0600, Carskadden, Rush wrote: >Comments below: > >-Original Message- >From: Declan McCullagh [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 5:17 PM >To: Carskadden, Rush >Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: Re: Parties > > > >Rush is clearly someone with too much time on his hands and too little > >(demonstrated) ability to think things through. I apologize for being > >uncharacteristically blunt, but the essay below is terribly > >naive. You might as well try to draft C.J Parker for president. > >I appreciate your candid approach. I am admittedly pretty young and >uninformed compared to you, which is why I sought opinions anyway. It can >only lead to more information and access to varied points of view. > > >First, political parties are not single-issue parties, at least not > >right now. Education and taxes and health care will likely continue to > >be more important in most people's lives than technology policy for > >the foreseeable future. > >Agreed. > > >Second, privacy is an amorphous issue. It's used by leftists to > >regulate the private sector and outlaw transactions between consenting > >adults. Liberals use it to talk about abortion. Conservatives link it > >to everything from the FBI files under Clinton to Carnivore. What do > >*you* mean? And why do you think everyone else is going to agree? > >By no means do I think that everyone will agree with me on my own personal >views. I started out by pointing out in the house voting record that the >actual rift between Democrats and Republicans in voting records (based on >scores that I believe you put together) in technology issues was not too >large. I then further hypothesized, based on this observation, that >partisan politics were not creating a strong stance regarding privacy and >technological freedom either way on either side. So, the conclusion I drew >was that if I were to have a strong view on technology (EITHER a 100 OR a >0 on your scale), then that strong view would not be fit to serve as a >factor that may align me in any reliable way with either party. A second, >personal, conclusion was that I was not content with the relatively >mediocre (according to your scores) standing on technology by both >parties. I do not feel I am being represented on this issue, though I do >feel I am represented strongly on other issues, such as education, taxes, >and health care. What I was looking for on this list was not agreement. I >was looking for some points of view on a question that this line of >reasoning left me with. If I want stronger representation in Washington on >technology issues (EITHER WAY), is it easier to try to influence an >existing party to take up my stance, or would it be easier to align myself >with a "third" party that already has a strong stance on the topic (EITHER >WAY) and try to maneuver it into a position where it could provide the >needed strong representation. I would have liked to be able to say to >myself, for instance, "Gee, certain vocal members of the cypherpunks list >seem to think that it would be easier to just try to gain partisan support >than to get a "third" party the strength it needs to represent me, and >here's why...", but I can't because my naive nature is so overpowering >that people would rather try to inform me of the Libertarian party, in >which I have been active for years, than answer my question. > > >Third, there already is (as others have suggested) a party that's > >concerned about personal freedom: the LP. If you mirror their > >positions -- or even a substantial subset -- you will be similarly > >marginalized. If not, don't look for support -- I humbly suggest -- > >on the cpunx list.
Parties
Rush rapped: > Glad to hear that all it takes to "get your vote" is a reckless executive > pardon of criminals that is designed to utilize executive > power to bypass the checks and balances system and negate the efforts of the > legislative and judicial branches of government Spoken like a true fascist. What the fuck do you think executive pardon is but just another "checks and balances"? The fact is that it's the criminal scum in power at the moment who are fucking the constitution with their dirty little "war on some drugs". Basic 1st Amemdment freedom of religion went right down the drain with the very first drug law. It's religious persecution pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less. Harry Browne should go further, if elected he should not only pardon every person ever convicted of a drug or gun offense, but he should order the immediate arrest of anyone who ever voted for a drug or gun law, and who ever enforced these despicable illegal laws. Take your stupid babbling about your phoney politics elsewhere -- it has no relativity to cypherpunks.
RE: Parties
At 09:04 10/30/2000 -0600, Carskadden, Rush wrote: >where he actually says this himself). Under no circumstances do I consider >it wise to fly in the face of checks and balances when your cause is >"right" but you do not have the majority power. There is a reason that >Congress makes laws, just as there is a reason that the Presidents can >veto, as there is a reason that the Judicial system interprets the law. >It's designed to create a balance that protects us from a loose cannon >government going off and acting recklessly. Ah, but they already have. Your beloved "checks and balances" don't work. -Declan
Re: Parties
Rush is clearly someone with too much time on his hands and too little (demonstrated) ability to think things through. I apologize for being uncharacteristically blunt, but the essay below is terribly naive. You might as well try to draft C.J Parker for president. First, political parties are not single-issue parties, at least not right now. Education and taxes and health care will likely continue to be more important in most people's lives than technology policy for the foreseeable future. Second, privacy is an amorphous issue. It's used by leftists to regulate the private sector and outlaw transactions between consenting adults. Liberals use it to talk about abortion. Conservatives link it to everything from the FBI files under Clinton to Carnivore. What do *you* mean? And why do you think everyone else is going to agree? Third, there already is (as others have suggested) a party that's concerned about personal freedom: the LP. If you mirror their positions -- or even a substantial subset -- you will be similarly marginalized. If not, don't look for support -- I humbly suggest -- on the cpunx list. Fourth, nowadays it seems that political parties can be formed (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader) or popularized only by a strong and well-known personality. It will help if they're a billionaire. May I suggest a recruiting trip to the Redmond suburbs? Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, technology issues are an outgrowth of a canadidates' general stand on regulation. If they don't like taxes, you can bet they'll be against Internet taxes. If they're a national security hawk, they'll probably like encryption and supercomputer export regs. Etc. Sixth, you don't seem to need a political party but a thinktank or similar creature. Why not try that instead? I was thinking of starting a nonproit group devoted to a subset of cypherpunkly topics; perhaps I still will. -Declan On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: > Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the > possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom, > and the difficulties in gaining creedence for this third party, as opposed > to the difficulties associated with influencing existing major parties > (either of them) to take a stronger stance on these issues. Assuming that > you could reconcile your differences with either Democrats or Republicans in > order to gain a strong Washington D.C. presence on a few key issues, would > that approach be easier than creating a viable "third" party? What > percentage of the voters do you think are holding on to a very few key > issues from their party of choice, and would be willing to vote for another > party that could give them equally strong representation on those issues? > > ok, > Rush Carskadden > > > -Original Message- > From: Scott Schram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 4:14 PM > To: Carskadden, Rush > Subject: RE: Bachus > > > Hi Rush, > > I mentioned the "third party", inspired by my frustration with the two > leading parties, and their apparent lack of understanding about technology, > and privacy issues. > > Some thoughts about the current parties: > > Al Gore's populist rhetoric about drug companies which completely overlooks > the fact that we're on the eve of incredible discoveries and it costs lots > of money to research and bring new drugs to market. Despite what Gore has > indicated, big pharma spends about 4 times as much on research as they do on > advertising. > > George W. Bush's hints at dropping the Microsoft suit (and the tobacco suit > for that matter.) The recent Republican (I think) proposals to link Social > Security information to IRS information. > > Our government is (probably justifiably) paranoid about attacks from > external and internal terrorists. It is easier for terrorists to cause > problems than it is for the government to prevent them. Each time an > incident happens, people call for more preventative measures, thus we have: > Secret searches (and bugging) of homes, no-knock entries, the Carnivore IP > monitoring system, etc. Did you see the recent HBO special about extremist > groups and their use of the internet to encourage action by "lone wolf" > sociopaths? Nobody wants to appear soft on this kind of crime. > > Libertarians have some cool ideas (at least they sound cool), but I can't > imagine withdrawing all of our military force from the world and limit > ourselves to defending our borders. Our enemies would have a field day. > Further, while I'm pro-business, I'm all for them playing "in bounds" and > only a strong referee can keep
Re: Parties
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 03:23:31PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: > Eric, > Glad to hear that all it takes to "get your vote" is a reckless > executive pardon of criminals that is designed to utilize executive power to > bypass the checks and balances system and negate the efforts of the > legislative and judicial branches of government (known in some circles as > "saying 'fuck the constitution'"). So to clarify (because I am completely This is amusing. If people were locked up for being gay, or black, or somesuch, if there were such a law prohibiting those conditions on the books, and a less statist president took office, you would presumably oppose the pardoning of all such "criminals." Oh, you wouldn't? Then you're not concerned about "checks and balances," but you just don't like full drug legalization. -Declan
Re: Parties
-- At 11:30 PM 10/27/2000 +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > in most modern countries the electorial process is practically > guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out > dissent. It is an inherent problem with any democratic system, that it must be designed to produce and enforce a single definite decision on a multitude of matters where "the people" do not have any one clear opinion. This leads to the well known voting paradoxes. Thus democracy is inherently biased towards statism, towards imposing a single solution from above on everyone, regardless of their diverse desires. One solution to this is severe limits on the power of the majority. The government should require a ten to one majority for any use force. To collect taxes, incur debts, or expend money for any purpose, or to make war, should require ten yes votes for any no vote. The problem is that those whose job it is to enforce such limits on government, personally benefit from escaping those limits, thus all attempts to limit government ultimately fail. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG j+h/l7f0pDDoNI1phEWOzQWEulQg7v81oOiTA5n 4PoHTxaUuw6KBxhk0rYlIfCoHe+OyO2n2pjyTMuMx
Re: Parties
-- At 06:01 PM 10/27/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote: > Needless to say, any single person's vote is hardly worth spending 4 > minutes evaluating the issues. Do you believe that the average person spends four minutes evaluating the issues? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG QpV14VbJS7QzF4iIp0eJYWlfR9b38R66Mi+sjvqZ 42siuFKjU9z0rocY9PX1z13HOnwuoXA/wWynL0WwQ
Re: Parties
That was the nice thing about Ross Perot. If he'd gotten elected, he'd have caused serious chaos in Washington (even though he was basically just another Republicrat), and the worst case is the Second Amendment said we could shoot him if he got too crazy. Unfortunately, he wouldn't let go of the Reform Party, preferring to give the party to the Transcendental Meditation cult if it wasn't going to be run by the Ross Perot personality cult, and now Buchanan has a certain risk of coming out behind the Libertarians :-) (Probably won't happen, since the LP hasn't done enough successful publicity to get mentioned in the media's "oh, yeah, there's also Nader and Buchanan" afterthoughts, but it'd be nice.) At 07:36 PM 10/27/00 -0500, Mac Norton wrote: >So, everybody's third choice gets elected, or they take turns >holding the office, or what? Weighted voting can work for >corporate directors or other committees, but for a chief >executive? Even the electoral college sounds better. >MacN > >On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, BENHAM TIMOTHY JAMES wrote: >> >> That's simply a result of the dim-bulb "first past the post" voting system >> that the US (and apparently you) endure. In countries with electorates that >> are expected to be able to count past 1 (eg Australia) they have >> preferential voting and you can express your preferences from 1 to N >> (the number of candidates). >> >> This allows you to express your preference for libertarian drug-taking >> pornographers and still have an equal impact on the outcome. >> >> Tim >> >> > > > > Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Re: Parties
> > So, everybody's third choice gets elected, or they take turns > holding the office, or what? Weighted voting can work for > corporate directors or other committees, but for a chief > executive? Even the electoral college sounds better. In single transferable vote systems the winner is almost always one of the two candidates with the most first preferences; the minor party candidates get progressively eliminated and the corresponding votes distributed to the next in preference order (instead of being thrown away). In US terms such a system might have got Bush senior over the line against Clinton because he would (I presume) have been preferred by most voters who voted for that fellow with big ears. In the coming election it might help Gore overcome Bush because Gore would be strongly preferred by most voters who are planning to waste their votes on Nadir. A system based on weights would, as you suggest, have an excessive (political) centrist tendency. Tim
Re: Parties
At 11:16 AM -0700 10/27/00, Eric Murray wrote: >On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: >> Eric, >> Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral >> votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our >> work is done. Let's go get a drink. >> Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of >> establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and >> maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved >> this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish >> this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the >> Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm >> with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action >> in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. > >Well, that gets my vote! > >Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive >in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? >That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest >that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). >Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" >than they are in voting their concious. I assume you mean "conscience," though many voters are indeed close to unconscious. Anyway, where did you ever get the idea that voting is about "conscience"? A vote is a chance to minimize damage, financial or in terms of freedoms, as far as I'm concerned. Voting has never been about "voting for the best man." It's been about evaluating the alternatives, estimating the rewards, payoffs, costs, and then voting. Needless to say, any single person's vote is hardly worth spending 4 minutes evaluating the issues. (Beware the logical fallacy of "If _everyone_ thought that way..." What one person actually does in the voting booth will affect no other person. This is separable from what people may say on television that they plan to do, or say here, etc.) --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Parties
So, everybody's third choice gets elected, or they take turns holding the office, or what? Weighted voting can work for corporate directors or other committees, but for a chief executive? Even the electoral college sounds better. MacN On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, BENHAM TIMOTHY JAMES wrote: > > That's simply a result of the dim-bulb "first past the post" voting system > that the US (and apparently you) endure. In countries with electorates that > are expected to be able to count past 1 (eg Australia) they have > preferential voting and you can express your preferences from 1 to N > (the number of candidates). > > This allows you to express your preference for libertarian drug-taking > pornographers and still have an equal impact on the outcome. > > Tim > >
Re: Parties
Sampo writes: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote: > > >Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive > >in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? > >That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest > >that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). > >Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" > >than they are in voting their concious. > > That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial > process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in > essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies > casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do > with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no That's simply a result of the dim-bulb "first past the post" voting system that the US (and apparently you) endure. In countries with electorates that are expected to be able to count past 1 (eg Australia) they have preferential voting and you can express your preferences from 1 to N (the number of candidates). This allows you to express your preference for libertarian drug-taking pornographers and still have an equal impact on the outcome. Tim
Re: Parties
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:30:26PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote: > > >Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive > >in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? > >That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest > >that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). > >Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" > >than they are in voting their conscious. > > That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial > process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in > essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies > casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do > with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no > point in voting for someone who cannot win. Of course if everyone feels that way, then we'll elect only the candidates which have been pre-chosen for us. Which is pretty much what happens in the US, at least on a national level. I refuse to play along, especially in contests where I don't like the candidates from the two major parties. I prefer it to not voting at all. If voters don't vote, then the major parties see them as merely apathetic. They don't care how many people don't vote as long at they win. If voters do vote, but for a third party, then the major parties see them as voters who care, but not for them. Meaning that there's an issue or issues which they presumably voted for that the major parties can co-opt in order to try to get their vote the next time. So, while I agree with you that the system is rigged so that third parties never get appreciable power, I disagree that voting for one is a waste of one's vote. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.comPGP keyid:E03F65E5
RE: Parties
Title: RE: Parties Eric, Glad to hear that all it takes to "get your vote" is a reckless executive pardon of criminals that is designed to utilize executive power to bypass the checks and balances system and negate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches of government (known in some circles as "saying 'fuck the constitution'"). So to clarify (because I am completely baffled), you are saying it doesn't matter what the outcome of any legislative effort is at all? You seem to be saying that you are in favor of voting on your own "concious" (conscience?) regardless of outcome. So when they take every freedom you have, when your social security number is bought and sold amongst governments and big businesses, when every facet of your life is documented and displayed publicly, with any attempt at obfuscation deemed illegal, you will say that it is ok, because you voted with your conscience, and it didn't matter if your cause won. Of course it matters. At least to me it does. You may not agree, but I would like to see my privacy and personal freedoms protected by the government (in addition to my own strong efforts at defending them myself). That is not the case right now, and the Libertarian party has done fuck all to change it. So my question to you, posed for the third time, is whether you think it is easier to give a third party (you seem to think that it should be the Libertarian party, and I tend to agree with you) viability in Washington with our efforts (or rather MY efforts, as you are quite content to lose the fight), or whether it would be easier to convince an existing power to take up our cause. I am not currently trying to start a third party. I think I was very clear in my initial email about the third party talk being theoretical. I am in no position to be in the business of redefining political partisanship, and if I was, I would not have achieved that position by asking opinions of people who assert that crypto anarchy will make governments obsolete in the near future. In short, thank you again for your Andy Rooney moment, but you seem to have abandoned the question completely. ok, Rush Carskadden -Original Message- From: Eric Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 1:16 PM To: Carskadden, Rush Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Parties On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: > Eric, > Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral > votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our > work is done. Let's go get a drink. > Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of > establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and > maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved > this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish > this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the > Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm > with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action > in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. Well, that gets my vote! Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. A "Libertarian Lite" party wouldn't get the principled voters away from the Libertarian party and wouldn't get any more mainstream voters than any other third party gets. But if you really want to do it, go ahead. The cipherpunks list isn't a very good place to discuss it though, as most posters seem to think that the Libertarian party isn't radical enough, and besides, crypto anarchy will soon make governments obsolete. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5
Re: Parties
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote: >Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive >in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? >That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest >that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). >Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" >than they are in voting their concious. That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no point in voting for someone who cannot win. It's a nasty side effect of the present implementation of democracy based on a mix of representative democracy, political parties, the relative voting system (dunno if you guys have this) and what have you. Sampo Syreeni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Parties
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: > Eric, > Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral > votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our > work is done. Let's go get a drink. > Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of > establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and > maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved > this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish > this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the > Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm > with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action > in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. Well, that gets my vote! Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. A "Libertarian Lite" party wouldn't get the principled voters away from the Libertarian party and wouldn't get any more mainstream voters than any other third party gets. But if you really want to do it, go ahead. The cipherpunks list isn't a very good place to discuss it though, as most posters seem to think that the Libertarian party isn't radical enough, and besides, crypto anarchy will soon make governments obsolete. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.comPGP keyid:E03F65E5
RE: Parties
Title: RE: Parties Eric, Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our work is done. Let's go get a drink. Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. I am familiar with the Libertarian party, to the extent that I was a member for the past several years, and have attended several state and national Libertarian party conventions, and spoken with Congress-people as a representative of Libertarian interests. The fact of the matter is, in a discussion of strong representation of issues within a viable Washington D.C. power movement, you can only be bringing up the Libertarian party as either an example of failure in the third party strategy or a recommendation for a third party to endorse. As for the possible assertion that the Libertarian party is an example of a failure to succeed at activism outside of the two-party arena, I think that any failure (perceived or real) may in fact be due to the outrageous demands of the LP (as an activist, I have been embarrassed by them many times), and the complete stubborn demand for overnight change without compromise. These facets of the party may be sexy to guys like you and I, but don't engender the public, or establish a foothold in Washington. As to the possible recommendation of the Libertarian party as a viable alternative to the two party system, I just don't see how that answers my question. Sure, the Libertarian party seems to be fairly interested in privacy and personal freedom. That still doesn't tell me whether you think it would be easier to get the Libertarian party enough power to actually protect our interests, or convince existing partisan powers to take up the cause. In short, thanks for the info, but you've answered nothing. ok, Rush Carskadden -Original Message- From: Eric Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 12:11 PM To: Carskadden, Rush Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: Parties On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: > Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the > possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom, There already is one. It's called the Libertarian party. www.lp.org. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5
Re: Parties
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: > Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the > possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom, There already is one. It's called the Libertarian party. www.lp.org. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.comPGP keyid:E03F65E5
Parties
Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom, and the difficulties in gaining creedence for this third party, as opposed to the difficulties associated with influencing existing major parties (either of them) to take a stronger stance on these issues. Assuming that you could reconcile your differences with either Democrats or Republicans in order to gain a strong Washington D.C. presence on a few key issues, would that approach be easier than creating a viable "third" party? What percentage of the voters do you think are holding on to a very few key issues from their party of choice, and would be willing to vote for another party that could give them equally strong representation on those issues? ok, Rush Carskadden -Original Message-From: Scott Schram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 4:14 PMTo: Carskadden, RushSubject: RE: BachusHi Rush,I mentioned the "third party", inspired by my frustration with the two leading parties, and their apparent lack of understanding about technology, and privacy issues.Some thoughts about the current parties: Al Gore's populist rhetoric about drug companies which completely overlooks the fact that we're on the eve of incredible discoveries and it costs lots of money to research and bring new drugs to market. Despite what Gore has indicated, big pharma spends about 4 times as much on research as they do on advertising.George W. Bush's hints at dropping the Microsoft suit (and the tobacco suit for that matter.) The recent Republican (I think) proposals to link Social Security information to IRS information.Our government is (probably justifiably) paranoid about attacks from external and internal terrorists. It is easier for terrorists to cause problems than it is for the government to prevent them. Each time an incident happens, people call for more preventative measures, thus we have: Secret searches (and bugging) of homes, no-knock entries, the Carnivore IP monitoring system, etc. Did you see the recent HBO special about extremist groups and their use of the internet to encourage action by "lone wolf" sociopaths? Nobody wants to appear soft on this kind of crime.Libertarians have some cool ideas (at least they sound cool), but I can't imagine withdrawing all of our military force from the world and limit ourselves to defending our borders. Our enemies would have a field day. Further, while I'm pro-business, I'm all for them playing "in bounds" and only a strong referee can keep some of them from dumping PCBs at the local playground.The Reform Party is basically an old-time circus freak show, and I mean no disrespect to circus freaks.A number of issues are no longer "Right" or "Left".So, back to your question:The third party route would probably be very difficult. It's not clear whether it would actually dilute efforts to influence the major parties. I offer this hypothesis: The way the system works now, with third parties being excluded from debates, often excluded from matching funds, the electoral college that makes for artificial "landslide" elections for the major candidates... all of these things tend to squash the life out of any third party.I believe that people interested in the new issues are growing, and we might find allies in unexpected places. For example, my southern baptist friends were not very happy with the long census form.I have used the following techniques with some success:Letter writing to congress still works. I have written to other representatives in the state if they happened to be the only one on a committee, or even representatives for other states. www.smokefree.org is an excellent example of publicizing issues and encouraging people to write letters.I don't think phone calls work quite as well, but I recall influencing an issue in this way. It was a niche issue, and I got some attention with a careful explanation. (The issue was: For a while, songwriters and authors were not able to deduct business expenses unless they were able to relate directly to the song or work that was produced with that expense.)One of my favorite things to do is write a short, punchy (often satirical) letter to the editor. Their paper starts out blank every day, and I have yet to get one rejected doing it this way. If it's a technology issue, you might be the only one writing in on that topic, and thus more likely to get in print.Give money, either to candidates or groups like EFF or whatever.There's some random thoughts for you Rush, and you can repost any of them if you see fit. Thanks for your questions! What do you think? What are the most important issues in your mind?Scotthttp://schram.netAt 09:41 AM 10/25/00,
