Whether or not it's force IS the point. It's not force to have membership requirements, and for those who willingly sign the pledge to be allowed to join. Merely being a member of the LP does not make someone a libertarian and neither does giving $25.
--- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Whether or not it's force is largely besides the point. > > The main point is that the Libertarian Party in a way is engaging in > fraud by luring new members to pay their $25.00; telling them that > the Party is "fiscally conservative/socially tolerant." > > Hell, the Party for years had bumper stickers for sale: "Vote > Libertarian: We're Pro-Choice on Everything." > > Your average Pro-Choice Republican would look at that and > say, "Cool, I'm switching to Libertarian, cause I can't stand the > Religious right in my Party." He shows up to a local LP meeting, > They take his $25.00. And "voila!" he's a Libertarian Party > member. > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > 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" > > <ericdondero@> 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/
