The party line via the platform should be defined by the members and
if the majority waters down the platform then it would be best for
those that don't agree to move on to start a new
party.
Freedom of association should not amaze you, if a percentage of
a group does not like what the group is doing and can not convince
the group to change that have the freedom to join another group or
start a new one. Now i'm talking about a consentual group, not the
state ( which is not consentual) Most groups have rules that are
necessary to the funcution, goals and standards of the group, granted
I think majority or less than majority major decesion making is a
poor way of making decesions for the group in most cases, I think
something like consensus or Sociocracy would be the best way for the
LP to make major decesions from the bottom/ up and I hope to start
promoting the idea of Sociocracy or something like it in the local
and state parties once I learn enough about the processes. Still in
the mean time it appears the majority at the state and national
convention will decide these issues, if the vote is to keep the
platform and pledge, then it would be better for those who do not
like either to leave the LP so that they can better acheive their
goals, if the platform and pledge is watered down then it would be
better for those who don't like the changes to leave to achieve their
goals. When both sides can have what they want by seperating why
should they stay together and be unhappy? Both sides are likely to
achive more seperated than together.
I also think that Sociocracy or something like it may be one
good alternative for major legislation in local areas where
intentional communities do not exit--- In
[email protected], Jim Syler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -----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 <Calion@> 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/
