office electorial context is, as you've pointed out, 'winner take
all' rather than proportional and, as I'll remind, vote counting is
broken (dishonest even before electronics)
Sans established party (Demo/Repub) 'machinery' (used to be things
like poll watchers before e-voting) to off-set vote tally fraud,
statagies that compromise principled advocacy (evangilising?) for the
sake of ballot 'sucsess' are delusional, imo.
CONSISTENCY to a universal libertarianism (aka: liberty & justice for
ALL) builds upon what gives people hope. It expands the universe of
political discourse. That makes it possible for conventional
politics to 'colonize' positions once considered too 'radical' And
that helps libertarianism to become 'public policy'
Live&LetLive.1999.06.05
Part way into show, surprise remote guest, Royal Masset was, until
1999, Texas Republican Party Political Director for 15 years; tells
of working (sometimes behind the scenes) with libertarians during
those years to advance the cause of freedom
RealMedia download/playback
http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/LL990605.rm
I see LP 'success' in terms of 'inspiring' people to UNIVERSALIZE
libertarianism :)
-Terry Liberty Parker
AND Find More Free On-demand Playbacks On-line via
AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links
VoiceCall 1.512.462.1776
every Sunday 6:30pm (central) to ?
I host informal disscussion
to which all are welcome
who want to consider ideas & issues
of Liberty & Justice for ALL
in Hickory St Grill at 8th & Congress, Austin TX
Look for me, MyPicAt http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
