If the pledge keeps us from growing quickly or even from growing at all, I'd rather keep it than grow with those who refuse to adhere to those principles.
--- In [email protected], "Eric S. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Geof Gibson wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" > > <ericdondero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > When Leonard Reed of FEE invented the New Political Spectrum with > > > Four Quadrants back in 1959, he envisioned a day when "libertarian" > > > would be as broadly defined as Liberal or Conservative. Dave Nolan, > > > the Advocates for Self-Government and numerous others have carried > > > on that tradition of libertarianism being as large a movement and as > > > broadly defined as the other two, through the World's Smallest > > > Political Quiz and the OPH. > > I hadn't enountered the Leonard Reed connection to the 4-quadrant > approach before. > > Can you tell me where I can find the original article/pamplet/whatever? > I'd like to read it. > > > > > If you wish to narrow the definition for libertarian beliefs, > > > fine with me, just use a Modifier. Call your perspective > > "Anarcho-libertarianism" or a "Hardcore libertarianism" or a "dogmatic > > libertarianism" or an "extreme libertarianism" > > > > > > > I think this gets to the meat of the topic. Is the LP a broad based > > political party with a Libertarian philosophy, or is it only > > appropriate for those who adhere scrupulously to the NAP? Who defines > > when a position strays from the NAP? > > Well, maybe not the meat, but something. Arguing definitions is > stupid. (I should know. I've done it, and it was always a waste of > time.) Crux of the biscuit? > > > If the LP is only for the most hard core, where do all the Libertarian > > leaning voters and candidates go who are not approved by the hard core > > set? Does this mean we need another 3rd party? > > The United States definitely needs a political party for people who want > to see government get smaller, whose candidates will get elected and do > it, or whose candidates will draw an identifiable bloc of voters which > the two dominant parties of the time will court by promising less > government (and frequently producing it). > > The LP is not currently that party, and I predict it will not be, as > long as the national LP retains the oath/pledge/credo/whatnot > requirement for membership (and for leadership positions) and has a > utopian platform and the current cultish Statement of Principles. > > Right now, the national LP is operating as an evangelical organization > seeking converts, not a political party seeking votes so that it can > reduce government. And it's not even succeeding as the former. -Eric > > -- > Eric S. Harris > > If this address ever fails, try visiting http://www.returnpath.net > 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/
