Sasan said: "The Party is a complete waste of time, money and resources which would be better allocated on more useful methods of affecting change, such as massive, coordinated civil disobedience. "
I was recently in southern France, visiting the city of Nice on a pleasant Saturday afternoon. We were beginning our drive out of the city when the communists began their political march through the streets. They paraded slowly through one of the main roads leading to the highway. Cars backed up by the hundreds. Their civil disobedience screwed up my day and made my blood boil. Rather than enlightening me to favor their cause, it made me want to use them for target practice. Civil disobedience can be aggression. It may get attention, but it's an excellent way to piss people off. We start looking like typical left wing crybabies by doing that. But on the LP, I mostly agree. Probably for somewhat different reasons, but it seems there is common belief the LP has been mostly ineffective and dysfunctional. Not quite a cancer IMO, but surely not the solution. Yeah, we need to change voter sentiment, but trying to covert people to anarchism will be even less effective than the LP's efforts. Even the limited government platform of the LP is frightening to most voters. They should be enlightened, but not by shock therapy. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I've long advocated that the LP team with other groups and endorse candidates and initiatives outside the party that favor liberty. Maybe there's some hope for Ron Paul's new campaign, which sounds like it aims to do some of that. Alone, the LP is almost useless. Civil disobedience, however, turns us into clones of the angry French mobs. There has to be a better way. From: Sasan Sadat-Sharifi Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Libertarian] The Libertarian Party is a cancer I hope you're not confusing the libertarian "movement" with the Libertarian "party". The two are completely different and completely incompatible. The Libertarian Party is a cancer on the libertarian movement. The Party is a complete waste of time, money and resources which would be better allocated on more useful methods of affecting change, such as massive, coordinated civil disobedience. This is still the only means of defeating tyranny without becoming tyrants in the process. The goal of a political party is to seize power by any means necessary. No wonder many of the party activists are constantly telling us that real Liberty is impractical, and that if we want to "win" we must sacrifice all of our common sense practices in order to please the voters. Instead of adapting yourself to the beliefs of voters, why not try to get them to see things your way? Convince them that voting is a worthless act and that there are better ways to promote Liberty besides submerging themselves in the bile of a corrupt political system. Government is NOT a tool for positive change. It only has the ability to murder and enslave. Rid yourselves of it. Reject it entirely. Be a HUMAN BEING again. ---Sasan ---Moderator ---Libertarian Yahoo! Group --- In [email protected], "Roderick T. Beaman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Boy, have you got that right! These dogmatists could mess up a wet > dream. I've been told to get the hell out of the movement over being > a right-to-lifer. And now that Bob Barr is the nominee of the party, > there are many here in FLA bolting. The guy is climing a steep > learning curve and at every pause is going to the libertarian > philospohy. Hey, he's got a lot of name recognition. Go with > him. > > > --- In [email protected], "Bob Giramma" <evil_spock@> > wrote: > > > > Right about RI. Similar for MA. It's a one-party state, with the > GOP sometimes fielding fewer candidates than the LP. These two > states should be fertile ground for the LP, but I don't see much > progress or success. > > > > During my time as a writer for Massachusetts Liberty, I detected a > lot of infighting and dysfunction within the party. There were > various factions fighting each other rather than the Dems. It was > the same old crap I see here in California, with arguments between > the pragmatists attempting incremental change and the doctrinal > absolutists making a stand on principle. > > > > > > From: Roderick T. Beaman > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:08 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Are Conservatives or Liberals more > bigoted? > > > > > > I was born in NYC but spent more of my life in Rhode Island. Talk > > about blue states, Bob Giramma is right. The Dems dominate so much > > that often the Repubs can't run a full slate of candidates. It's > > said that for a Repub to be elected to national or statewide > office, > > he first has to be defeated to get name recognition. Morons are > > elected in RI if they're Democrats. We had one governor, J. Joseph > > Garrahy who had the discernment of a sledgehammer. > > > > One year, the Dems won so big that the state House GOP delegation > was > > as low as 6 out of 50 or 100, I think. It was ridiculous. They > > could have held the delegation meeting in a phone booth. > > > > Corruption is the name of the game in that state. In Florida they > > complain of no work governmentjobs. In RI they have no show > > governments jobs. > > > > One labor lawyer got double credit for some time served as a union > > representative and reetired from the state at age 51 with 53 years > of > > credit. Go figure. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bob Giramma" <evil_spock@> > > wrote: > > > > > > I spent my first 22 years in Rhode Island, one of the bluest of > > states, and 15 years in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. My > > experience with leftists agrees with Roderick's. They protect and > > defend their preferred groups and ideas, but are quite willing to > > trash any others. I've seen great anger from leftists when > presented > > with alternative viewpoints. I have almost never witnessed this > from > > rightists. > > > > > > Now I live in San Diego County, which is much more evenly > balanced > > ideologically. I find neither leftists nor rightists can do what > the > > leftists could in RI and MA. No one has enough power and moral > > authority to control the entire conversation. > > > > > > But I've never lived in a heavily right wing area, so I can't say > > that they wouldn't be as bigoted, arrogant, and controlling as > > leftists. Anyone from Utah? > > > > > > > > > From: Roderick T. Beaman > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:30 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Are Conservatives or Liberals more > > bigoted? > > > > > > > > > Over my lifetime, I have found that the most intolerant people I > > have > > > ever met have been liberals. The most bigoted people I have ever > > met > > > have been liberals. The most arrogant and condescending people I > > > have ever met have been liberals. > > > > > > At NYU in the 1960s, the assumption was not just that you were a > > > liberal but just how liberal you were. John Kennedy had to be > your > > > preferred president. Barry Goldwater could just not be under > > > consideration if you were truly intelligent and if you were a > > > conservative you were morally repugnant. This is not an > > > exaggeration. > > > > > > William Buckley once said that liberal intolerance was evidenced > > not > > > so much by hostility to other opinions but rather astonishment > that > > > there even is another opinion. While that was certainly present, > I > > > also experienced a lot of outright hostility to Goldwater, > Buckley > > > and National Review. > > > > > > I started investigating conservative thought in 1964 with > > Goldwater's > > > candidacy and began subscribing to National Review right around > > that > > > time. I became curious to read what their memoriam was to John > > > Kennedy so I went to the stacks at the downtown campus to ferret > it > > > out. I told the guy at the desk that I wanted to read the issue > for > > > that reason. His comment was, `Hmm, what did they say? Thank God > > > he's dead?' That was the attitude that the Left ascribed to the > > > Right yet it is that very attitude that I have found far more > > > prevalent on the Left, that conservatives deserved death. > > > > > > I heard the worst racist jokes from liberals. I enjoy a good > ethnic > > > joke that satirizes a stereotype but the jokes that came out of > > their > > > mouths were simply appalling. And I unhesitatingly add that it's > > > good to see the black jokes that are coming out in movies like > > `Guess > > > Who'. > > > > > > The liberals all applauded the various civil rights bills that > were > > > spewed out of Washington. There was no room for the thought that > > > someone might be entitled to be a bigot in his own affairs or > that > > > the solution was a gross violation of privacy and property > rights. > > > They all came from comfortable, safe, white suburbs like > > Kensington, > > > Great Neck, Manhasset, Larchmont and Bronxville where they rarely > > saw > > > a black face and when they did, the local cops would direct them > > out > > > of the town. One liberal I knew proudly said that. It's always so > > > nice to ram integration down the throats of others. > > > > > > The final example is that of Jewish liberals. I hasten to point > out > > > that this is an observation about liberalism, not Judaism. > > > > > > I found, during those years, roughly the 60s through the 70s, > that > > > among Jews, the more liberal their politics, the more virulently > > anti- > > > German they were. I am German descent on both sides, my mother's > > > 100% and my father maybe 12%, we were never too sure. They all > had > > > an attitude that some blood guilt inhered to being German for > what > > > happened under National Socialism. That always made me feel bad. > > > Interestingly, the matter of blood guilt, for the death of Jesus, > > > was historically part of the reason for anti-Semitism, yet these > > > people, these tolerant liberals, saw no analogy. > > > > > > Since then, I have found that most politically conservative Jews > > > regard the horrors of Germany under National Socialism as part of > > the > > > horrors of socialism in general, such as Russia and China, that > > > characterized the past century, with no blood guilt on anyone's > > part. > > > > > > Liberals are the bigots. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "goat!" <goat@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Giramma wrote: > > > > > None of us has the authority or clout to change the > > contemporary > > > usage of words. Regardless of its origin, today in the > > US, "liberal" > > > implies the socialist side of the economic spectrum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except you and others are trying to use it as today, > > > > for the use of yesterday, to try to claim you are > > > > something you aren't, and try to fool us into thinking that what > > > > you are about isn't monopolist (just like "socialist" > > > and "communist" > > > > and monopoly capitalist), just as the Tories were, we fought a > > war > > > of > > > > independence against. In fact, just about all the terms we use > > > today, > > > > means the exact same things in the publics mind, such as the > > three > > > I > > > > used above, so as to obscures who the minority owners of the > > > majority of > > > > production is at the top, so that there can never be a real > > > discussing > > > > of what the problem is, that of a monopoly of the means of > > > production, > > > > just like all of history except when the founding fathers and > > other > > > > (liberals) of the time figured it out, and redistributed the > > means > > > of > > > > production (the ownership of the king's land) to more equatable > > and > > > > efficient owners by many (and not communally, but absolute for > > > > all intent and purposes) over the few. > > > > > > > > That sir, is the the meaning and intent of not only > republicanism > > > > and liberalism (and arguably democracy), but as well the real > > > definition > > > > or true intent of real socialism, that is to to break the > > privilege > > > of > > > > the elite from their unjust masses of land, for no man could > have > > > had > > > > acquired such without the use of government, force, or fraud, > and > > > put it > > > > into as many men's hands as possible to make as many men free > as > > > > possible, that the misery and scourge of all history, that of > man > > > being > > > > another's slave could be done away with as far as possible, > > > > and give all men the advantage befitting a free man to compete > on > > > > an even playing field, that he could use his own little piece > of > > > heaven > > > > to pull himself up as far as that huge advantage of really > owning > > > land > > > > and his merits could take him, and secure the blessings of > liberty > > > > for his posterity to each live a better life then the last. > > > > > > > > A republic was how the founders decided to do that through > > > > a free market, an honest money system and rule of law > > > > on those most likely to abuse the power and reduce us all to > > > slavery > > > > again, law on the government, not the people, except for the > law > > on > > > > the people of only being honest to one another and the ability > to > > > > get justice when such was not the case. Imperfect as it might > > have > > > been > > > > implemented, the blessings of it was remarkable to the whole > > world, > > > and > > > > the elite's control of the world wained as other people > > > > took their birth right to be free and imitated our > > > > example, and it made us the envy of the world and men tried > > > > to get here, because here a man could really own land and keep > > > > the product of his labor. > > > > > > > > Every step of the way our founders and forefathers fought these > > > monied > > > > powers, to keep them from reasserting the monopoly powers over > > > > the lives of men, till the monopolist of the minds, souls and > > body > > > of > > > > men, worked on the ignorance, prejudice and greed of our people > > > where > > > > liberalism was made real, and in 1913 they got their way with > the > > > > passing of the federal reserve act, that allowed the old foe to > > > reassert > > > > their offensive in earnest, to the point that we now have > people > > > calling > > > > themselves republicans (and even libertarians), defending the > > very > > > > people and their interest that have been their enemy since > before > > > the > > > > war for independence, that has allowed in a short time of an > > > hundred > > > > years for the monopolist to reassert their control and alleged > > > ownership > > > > of the whole world, and make us all slaves again through > > fraudulent > > > debt. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, just as Orwell warned us, the side you now defend > > > > on the use of words as they are perceived instead of explaining > > > what > > > > they really mean, has brought us to a point that their is no > means > > > > to even discus the issues without going around and around with > > > people's > > > > egregious preconceptions, carefully giving to them to reduce > them > > > to > > > > slavery, and the one people that have the courage to stand up to > > > > these monsters, you condemn as not being domesticated, while > the > > > real > > > > monsters have a good laugh and plan to evict us with > > > > death from what they consider their property by lien, > > > > and the actions you defend by "our" government is just > > > administration > > > > for the bankers / old money, delivered to them by the same > people > > > you > > > > defend, such as the Bush family, for promise now of not being > on > > > the > > > > wrong side of an eviction order. > > > > > > > > I have to admit that I even have a god laugh and then a cry, > > > > thinking how twisted it really is, and how twisted they have > made > > > most > > > > the minds of men over such a short time, that most men will call > > > > themselves by a name that means liberal, and then fight for the > > > powers > > > > against and to destroy liberalism, in effect, they fight and > > bleat > > > for > > > > their own slavery and death. lol > > > > > > > > But you claim that none of us has the clout to reclaim our > > heritage > > > is > > > > false, all we have to do is reach out and take it back, by > > > reasserting > > > > what it really is by understanding what it really is and not > what > > > they > > > > would have us think it is, as the alternative is death and > > slavery, > > > > because the restrainer has been lifted and they now have the > > > > accumulation of wealth and power to bring the ages long desire > of > > > the > > > > few the whole world under their sole ownership, and that > > enjoyment > > > > doesn't include us the masses. After understanding, then the > next > > > step > > > > is stop working for them and start fighting them, for without > > > enough of > > > > us working for them, they can do nothing we will not let them. > > > Simple > > > > put, we can stop letting them scam us, and start acting like > > > freemen, > > > > instead of master's good servant. > > > > > > > > Goat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
