What referent do I want? Both: Libertarianism AND the LP.
Libertarianism is analogous to Christian religion (the
philosophy), and the LP is analogous to the Christian church or
denomination (the group advocating the philosophy).
In explaining your rejection of the analogy, you do a pretty good
job of improving it. By attempting to explain the basic
difference between the agendas of a church and a political party,
you fall short. Both agendas are "to gain philosophical
adherents" ("members"/"voters"). You also fail in your attempt to
separate the advocacy of a philosophy and the advocacy of
membership and voting. The two are intimately intertwined; the
former is both the origin and mechanics of the latter.
BTW, an analogy can not be itself; a political party is not an
analogy for a political party. Since you obviously miss-defined
"analogy", it's no wonder you were rejecting such a good one.
That translates as: you have no better analogy to submit than the
one you have been trying to refute.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas L. Knapp
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
Quoth Mark:
> 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.
