Really? I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how restricting membership to those who sign the pledge is force. I can't wait for this.
Of course you'll have to show that people have no other choice. The LP is a PRIVATE organization, and as such it can set requirements for membership. Nobody is forced to join the party. Nobody is forced to sign the pledge. Everyone has a choice as to whether or not they want to join knowing the pledge is a requirement for membership. If they don't agree with the pledge, they should certainly NOT join the party because their views don't match those of the philosophy of libertarianism. Nobody tried to force you to sign a pledge, although the pledge should have been there. If you knew there was a pledge requirement it would have kept you out of the LP and everyone would be better off. --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is most certainly force. > > I don't remember ever signing a pledge in 1985 when I joined. They > just wanted my $25.00 and wanted me as a delegate to the State LP > Convention to vote for their slate of candidates. > > If they had tried to force me to sign a pledge, I would have never > joined the LP. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > The LP has never forced anyone to do anything. Having a > requirement > > to sign a pledge in order to join the party is most certainly not > > force. One can refuse to sign and not join the party. If your > > personal beliefs are against the pledge, it's better for everyone > if > > you do not join. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "steven linnabary" > > <linnabary51@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <ericdondero@> > > > > > > > Yeah, sooo. What is your point. > > > > > > > > Are you saying that you want to force everyone in the > libertarian > > > > movement to sign some silly pledge and worship at the alter or > > > > gravestone of Murray Rothbard? > > > > > > > > > > That would be ironic, to say the least, to "force" somebody to > sign > > a pledge > > > against use of force!! > > > > > > And I knew Murray and considered him to be a friend of mine. > But we > > did not > > > agree on everything. Most notably his counterproductive romance > > with the > > > republican party. > > > > > > > If the "fiscally conservative/socially tolerant" moniker were > so > > > > meaningless, than why is it that the Libertarian Party itself > > > > invented the phrase in the 1980s? I remember LP bumper > stickers > > > > saying precisely that. My favorite one of all time: "Vote > > > > Libertarian; We're Pro-Choice on Everything." > > > > > > > > > > That slogan was great when it is applied to the LP and it's > > candidates, and > > > when voters understand that. It becomes meaningless when Kerry > can > > use it > > > against Bush. > > > > > > As an aside, I ran for Columbus School Board back in '99. I > wrote a > > great > > > libertarian speech that EVERYONE commented on and seemingly > agreed with. > > > Indeed, before the end of the campaign, EVERY opponent (there > were 16 > > > candidates) was stealing bits and pieces of it! But the best > came the > > > following year when the republican candidate for OH School Board > used my > > > entire speech, word for word, and got elected. I even voted for > him > > > (something about plagiarism being the greatest compliment). The > > problem was > > > that while my speech was very good from a libertarian > perspective, Mr. > > > Cochran turned out to be one of those Christian fundamentalists > that > > wanted > > > to (and did, for a time) force "intelligent design" curricula > into Ohio > > > schools. > > > > > > In short, a slogan must be palatable to the voting public > without being > > > suseptible to being hijacked. > > > > > > And further, I don't think the "We're Pro-Choice on Everything" > is > > very good > > > outside an LP convention hall. > > > > > > > Didn't say: "Vote Libertarian: We want to Abolish Government." > > > > > > > That slogan shouldn't be used outside a militia meeting. > > > > > > > I was attracted to the LP precisely because the Party was > basically > > > > Conservatives who were Pro-Choice, not becuase I wanted to > abolish > > > > government. > > > > > > > > > > > I have NEVER referred to myself as "conservative", though > friends and > > > detractors have! The LP is a lot more than just "pot smoking > > republicans". > > > > > > PEACE > > > Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer > > > Franklin County Libertarian Party > > > (614) 891-8841 > > > P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115 > > > > > > "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent > > revolution > > > inevitable" John F. Kennedy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "steven linnabary" > > > > <linnabary51@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <ericdondero@> > > > > > > > > > > But Steven, that is precisely the point. > > > > > > > > > > What are the principles? > > > > > > > > > > You say allegiance to some pledge hoisted upon the LP in the > 1970s > > > > by > > > > > Rothbard, Raimondo and the Radical Caucus. > > > > > > > > > > I say, a basic belief in "fiscaly conservatism and social > > > > tolerance." > > > > > > > > > > Nobody owns the term "libertarian." > > > > > > > > > > ### > > > > > > > > > > You are of course correct that nobody owns the label > > > > of "libertarian". And > > > > > everybody so it seems wants to be associated with libertarian > > > > ideals, such > > > > > as Bill Clinton's claim of being libertarian. There is even > a > > > > socialistic > > > > > democrat (I know that is redundant) in California that is > running > > > > as a > > > > > "libertarian democrat". Weird. > > > > > > > > > > Likewise, nobody "owns" the democrat or republican moniker. > > > > Afterall, there > > > > > is absolutely nothing democratic about the democrat party. > And the > > > > > republicans have to share names and ideals with such groups > as > > > > Irish > > > > > Republican Army and the Iraq Republican Guard. > > > > > > > > > > And the "fiscal conservative and social tolerance" belief is > > > > meaningless > > > > > when you consider that Kerry could be argued to be more > fiscally > > > > > conservative and socially tolerant than Bush. > > > > > > > > > > > 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/
