First, Ido not advocate anarchism. I advocate libertarianism. Second, the plege ensures that those who join are consistent with libertarianism, not anarchism. It says that those who join adhere to the NAP which is the core belief of libertarianism.
I'd rather be small and principled than big and not (like the Republicans and Democrats). I will never sacrifice our principles in the name of growth, and that's exactly what getting rid of the pledge would do. It would open the door for people who refuse to join with the pledge; mostly because they don't believe in non-interventionism, or the non-aggression principle and therefore don't belong in the LP. When you mention that you were talking to someone who has had to "deal with me" for some time, I'm sure it was someone like Bruce Cohen, or Eric Dondero. The goal of the LP is to clean up Washington, but we can't clean up the house of representatives until our own house is clean. Those who don't believe in the non-aggression principle don't belong in the party and do nothing to further the cause of liberty. I most certainly don't make libertarian advocacy look bad, but those who claim to be promoting libertarianism and suggest we vote for Republicans do make us look bad. Those who support a wholly unwarranted, unprovoked, unconstitutional, unreasonable, and unlibertarian war in Iraq make the party look bad. You've asked me to answer a yes or no question. The ony yes or now question you asked was the following: "Am I reading it correctly? Specifically, is this an accurate paraphrase?" The yes or no answer you're looking for is NO; you are not reading it correctly and it is not an accurate paraphrase. --- In [email protected], "Eric S. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul wrote: > > > 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. > > That is a phenomenally stupid statement, if I'm reading it correctly. > > Am I reading it correctly? Specifically, is this an accurate paraphrase? > > You want to keep the LP an "anarchists only" political party, and you do not care about the fact that it is not reducing government and is not increasing freedom. The important thing is to exclude people from LP membership who are not anarchists. The effect of the LP on the world outside its meetings and publications and Yahoo Groups and such -- especially the behavior of governments -- is irrelevant. Or if not irrelevant, much less important than keeping the LP membership "pure". > > If I hadn't been assured Wednesday night by someone who has dealt with you for some time that you in fact are "for real", and you really do believe the things you post here, I would be inclined to believe you're just posing as a libertarian. Why would someone do that? To make libertarians look bad and/or waste the time of actual libertarians by suckering them into arguing with a person who makes phenomenally stupid statements. > > Of course, it's also a waste of time if you actually are sincere. > > Now to wait, to see if you answer the yes/no question above with Yes or No, or something else succinct and informative, like Mostly or Almost. > > My money is on "no reply at all", because you declined to answer a couple of other simple questions I'd asked you. "Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance" and all that. So I'm hedging with a bet on "essay answer". -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/
