--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoth Steve Linnaberry: > > > To expand the analogy, the LP "church" > > Why expand a false analogy?
Because the analogy isn't false, and is 100% apt. > > The purpose of a church is to convert individuals to a specific belief. False. The purpose of a church is for those of the same belief system to share fellowship and to make plans for expansion....and usually to collect lots of money in the process. > The purpose of a political party in the electoral system as it exists > is to elect its candidates to office so that they can implement the > party's policy goals. The purpose of the Libertarian Political Party is to get those who believe in the NAP to work together to effect political change. It's not to "convert" people, and it's not to become the Republitarian or Demotarian party. > > Within any political party, there are caucuses and ideological core > groups which work to hold the party's policy goals to a preferred > standard via control of the platform, leadership and candidate > selection, etc., and to propagandize or educate the rank and file to > their way of thinking, and that's a good thing. But in terms of > "membership," the FIRST goal is to gain party identification and voter > support from ALL Americans who substantially agree with the party's > policy goals, regardless of WHY they agree with those policy goals. The LP is unlike any other political party because we adhere to a strict set of principles, the core of which is the Non-Aggression Principle. Only those who adhere to it should be in the party. Nobody else has a legitimate place in the party. > > In a European-style parliamentary system, a "pure ideological party" > could have some influence. A purist libertarian ideological party > might be able to control 5-10% of the seats in parliament, which would > mean it could swing the result on most bills one way or the other > (which means that the plurality party sponsors of those bills would be > willing to cater to some of the libertarian party's policy goals to > get their bills passed), and that it would be able to hold out for > some of its goals as compensation for helping a party with a larger > plurality form the executive. > > The US does not have a European-style parliamentary system. That > doesn't make compromise necessary, but it does make inclusion > necessary -- if there's any desire to actually implement the policy > goals. If there's not, then what you have is not a political party, > it's a social club. > > Tom Knapp > Libertarianism is a philosophy before a political party and those who adhere to the philosophy should be in the party, and those who don't should not. This doesn't mean we can't work with those of other parties where we agree and against them where we disagree. But the indisputable fact is the core belief of libertarianism is the NAP and those who join the party take a pledge to support it. If they violate their pledge, the party CAN and should revoke membership. If this isn't in the bylaws right now, it can be added, so claims that we can't do it are bogus. To me, saying you're a libertarian who supports the war in Iraq is no different than saying you're a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus of Nazareth, and prefer to worship Satan. 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/
