Jim Syler wrote: [snippage]
> The point of the train metaphor is that you have this "libertarian > train" that is leading toward liberty. It starts here, at the horrible > situation we are in now, and has several stops on the way, that might > be called "lower taxes," "fewer business regulations," "greater > personal freedoms," "abolishment of the income tax," "re-establishment > of Constitutional government," and finally "anarcho-capitalism." The > idea is that everybody can get on the LP train, then get off when they > have reached their desired level of freedom. This assumes that anarchy is a reasonable destination. Not everyone who wants to see dramatic decreases in government -- people who SHOULD BE voting for a "third party" which intends to reduce government and increase freedom -- agrees that is the case. Some think it unattainable. Some think it attainable but undesirable. Some aren't sure one way or another, and prefer to focus on things they know are true: government is too big and too intrusive, and needs to be reduced and decentralized, dramatically, now. No sensible person is going to buy a train ticket for a trip between two cities in North America if the ticket agent says that the train's final stop is in Australia. The ticket agent -- from the benighted perspective of a disbeliever in amphibious railroads -- is clearly a loon, and his tickets are worthless. That potential passenger might even be skeptical of a final destination in Peru, being unaware of any railroad bridge over the Panama Canal. And the potential passenger might be put off by someone who prattles on about the final stop in Hoboken and how Hoboken is the best destination, when they're trying to get from Denver to Kansas City. > The problem is that when you walk up to the LP conductor, he says, > "Welcome aboard! Here's your ticket to anarcho-capitalism." (The > ticket, for the metaphorically impaired, being the Oath.) The boarder > says "no, there must be some mistake, I only wanted to go to > Constitutional government." The conductor says, "That's fine, sir, > we'll be going right past there on our way to anarcho-capitalism." > "So," the potential passenger says, "I'll be able to get off there > then?" "Well, no, sir, we won't making any stops until we get to > anarcho-capitalism. If you get on here, you're on for the long haul." > "Thanks anyway," says the potential passenger, and looks around for > another train. The problem is, there aren't any other trains heading > for liberty. That may change. The Constitution Party has some problems (let's be kind), but it may become a successful political party which reduces government and increases freedom. At least, its track record isn't the decades of failure that the LP has to show for its efforts. (Yet.) Perhaps some other party that exists now will be that party. (I would bet serious money that it won't be the Democrats and it won't be the Republicans.) Perhaps it will be a new party formed by a coalition of LP affiliate parties who are tired of failure with no end in sight. The LP clearly is not a successful political party which reduces government and increases freedom, and shows no signs of becoming one. Those who expect this to change without addressing the various aspects of the dogmatism problem, such as the oath requirement, are fooling themselves. -Eric -- Eric S. Harris If this address ever fails, try visiting http://www.returnpath.net [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/
