> I stand corrected. I guess I should have qualified the statement
> with "In TODAY'S religious context, "believing in Christ" USUALLY
> includes ...".
>
> Earlier you called the Christian analogy a false one. Do you have
> a "true" one for us; one that would be more analogous? Maybe you
> are holding out on submitting a perfect analogy, where even the
> details (including all the histories) of both comparatives are
> analogous.
What referent do you want an analogy for -- "libertarianism" per se,
or the Libertarian Party?
"Libertarianism" actually _is_ quite a bit like "Christianity" -- it
describes a group of ideas. Some of those ideas have a lot in common
with each other, and some of those ideas compete with each other in
some respect. While the Holy Roman Catholic Church might claim to be
the only "real" Christianity, and while the Non-Aggression Principle
Club might claim to be the only "real" libertarianism, a neutral
observer is probably going to find both of these claims propagandistic
and ahistorical.
I'm a Non-Aggression Principle libertarian myself. I just happen to be
one who would rather work with all of those who share an agenda that
has a lot in common with mine to achieve the items on that agenda than
quibble endlessly about who's "really" what we all are.
The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, is not (or at least
shouldn't be) like a church. It is (or at least claims to be) a
political party and that's the analogy that's proper: The Libertarian
Party is like -- a political party.
A political party's mission is not to evangelize and gain
philosophical adherents (and Ireland's disputations aside, check out
the bylaws of, say, the Southern Baptist Convention and you'll find
that that is, in fact, the biggest element of a church's mission).
A political party's mission is to elect officials to public offices
from which they can implement the party's agenda. This means forming a
"party" -- a coalition -- of as many people and voter blocs as
possible who agree on all or most of that agenda, regardless of WHY
they agree with all or most of that agenda -- and getting that
coalition to the polls on election day.
That doesn't mean that members or leaders of the party can't have
principles, or that their agenda shouldn't reflect those principles.
But politics is a process of ENGAGEMENT that poses the RISK of the
party being taken over by those with different principles. The only
way to win the game is to TAKE that risk -- to invite those who share
the agenda to the party.
Claiming to be a political party while trying desperately to keep
voters OUT of your party is like claiming to be a craps player,
walking up to the table, picking up the dice ... and then refusing to
throw them. You can't win your pass line bet if you don't roll the
goddamn dice -- and if you refuse to, sooner or later someone who IS
willing to roll them will take them from you, do what you were afraid
to do ... and walk away with the money you could have won if you'd had
the guts to go all the way instead of chickening out.
Tom Knapp
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
