On Mar 27, 2006, at 6:15 PM, mark robert wrote:
> Elitism, dogmatism, oppression and terror are things Libertarians
> are fighting against. Curious how you twist that around to mean
> if they fight those things too well, they become them.
I'm confused by this sentence. Are you claiming that the purists are
not elitist, dogmatic, and as far as membership (or leadership) in the
LP is concerned, oppressive?
> While it might be true that Libertarianism will never become
> universal, that is no reason to compromise the philosophy. BTW,
> Libertarians do not exclude votes from "impure" Libertarians.
Don't they? Don't they, by loudly proclaiming that "you're not one of
us" if you don't agree with the purists 100% of the time on 100% of the
issues, effectively do just that?
> It is true that one has to separate reality from principle, but
> in a reverse fashion from your inclination. Allow the purist to
> be the movers. Don't criticize them for being too idealistic,
> especially when you agree with their principles. Don't blame them
> for the status quo or the ignorance of others. Instead, respect
> the movers for their goals. If you blame them for the fact that
> their goals are less than met, you reason circular. There will
> always be plenty who will compromise; you do not have to promote
> it for it to happen; the "the goal of compromise" is not only NOT
> a respectable goal, it is an oxymoron.
This idea doesn't bother me. Only rarely have I heard anyone of a
moderate libertarian bent suggest purging the "purists" from the party,
and that only because of frustration because of the constant push by
the purists to get everyone else out of the Party, or at least the
leadership.
Which is the point, and the problem. If we could all work together
toward liberty, using the "libertarian train" metaphor, that would be
great. But that's not how it works. The purists (admittedly, not all of
them, but I don't hear the ones that don't chastising the ones who do)
do everything within their power to move all others out of the Party,
by ridicule, by condemnation, by calling them "not libertarians," by
loudly trying to exclude them from leadership positions, from trying to
stymie every move in any direction if they are in leadership positions,
ad nauseam.
I would love to work together. I really would. There have been those
NAPsters (Ken Prazak comes to mind) that I respect immensely, for their
honesty, their dedication, and their contributions to liberty. But as
long as they don't believe that moderates like me belong in the Party
or its leadership, working together is impossible.
j
--
"I used to think romantic love was a neurosis shared by two, a supreme
foolishness. I no longer think that. There's nothing foolish in loving
anyone. Thinking you'll be loved in return is what's foolish."
--Rita Mae Brown
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
