A candidate's positions are surely important, but there's an implied self-selecting process there. Communists, religious fundamentalists, and other anti-liberty ideologues tend to avoid joining the LP. We don't need to worry about that. However, libertarians need to avoid the impulse to define a single absolutist definition on who is the real libertarian. It's a spectrum of beliefs -- not the entire Nolan chart space, but a loosely-bounded corner region of it. A libertarian need not be the dot in the far corner. Libertarianism is a movement, not a religion. I accept anyone whose ideas will move us in the direction of greater personal liberty. To me, that is a libertarian in the political party context.
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ma ni Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 8:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Libertarian] THE LP RULE POLICE? I disagree with your priorities. If electing libertarian candidates is not based on their positions, what happens to the word "libertarian"? I would have said it differently: "When electing good libertarian candidates, consider their positions first, but don't forget their skills, experience and temperament." --------------------------- the only way to get anything done long term within the LP is to elect good people. And not to elect them based on positions, but on three and only three factors. Skills Experience Temperment. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
