-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:43 PM, terry12622000 wrote:
> I'm not so worried about regular members but yes those that run for > political office or hold office in the LP even as a county chair need > to follow the party line or get out, I thought the "party line" was defined by the party members? It constantly amazes me that libertarians, who profess a deep belief in intellectual freedom, allow absolutely NONE of it in organizations they control, or would like to control. > plain and simple, get out of the > party, go where you are welcomed, And...where would that be? > the LP still can work with you on > some issues maybe most issues but you clearly do not belong in the > LP. It is best to keep a check on politicans because they will have > power if they win, power that can easily be abused, if no other party > is willing to tell their politicans that they are the hired help of > the people not the boss the LP must be the party to do it. If you are > running for office and you can't deal with that then get out of the > LP, run with another party, run as an indepedent, don't let the LP > stop you. > You say you know how to get votes then stop talking about > it and blaming the LP, do it. I never said any such damn thing. j > --- In [email protected], Jim > Syler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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 > > > > > > > > - -- "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Protect your email! Download PGP at <http://www.pgpi.org/download/>. iD8DBQFEKWHfu57Eduk011URAiTWAKCBMwWtDZhxKhGPD3hf3p+F5d9DzQCfWZD2 WsxYYNrI0Qzy4BxX1RCfyQQ= =PWLT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 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/
