At 03:10 -0800 12/4/00, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>Personally, I agree with L. Neil Smith. The Libertarian party will not
>be a force to be reckoned with until every single person who comes in
>contact with it knows that it stands squarely for individual rights and
>especially for the strong and whole-hearted enforcement of the Bill of
>Rights.
While I agree that you've expressed the underlying philosophy of
Libertarianism: If we are relying upon a plurality of American
voters to get on board for the sake of one simple (albeit logical and
paramount) idea, we're doomed.
Developing a plurality in American politics requires forming
coalitions of people interested in different party planks.
Libertarians need the cooperation of the pot heads, the gun
enthusiasts, the gays, the entrepreneurs, the pro-choicers, etc.
They're not going to all buy into the underlying principle (at least
not at first), but they'll at least give us their consideration if we
advertise the party planks that they like.
One of the things that I personally *love* about the LP is how the
positions on the favorite issues of all of those groups can be
logically and easily obtained from the guiding principle that you
mentioned above.
The Democrats and the Republicans, however, are forced to cobble
together coalitions that lack the strength of a unifying principle.
Instead, they're forced to live with their little intellectual
dishonesties: Republicans talk about "rugged individualism", but the
moment you take a mind-altering substance besides alcohol, you're a
criminal. Democrats talk about freedom of expression, but if the KKK
wants to adopt a stretch of highway, that's the "wrong" kind of
expression.
> > But the Republicans are the only ones even *willing to entertain* a
>> reduction of taxes and a corresponding decrease in the size of the
> > Federal Government. As the Government's size decreases, they'll have
>[...]
>
>Sure they will "entertain" a reduction in how much of your money the
>will steal in order to take away more of your rights than they have any
>intention of acknowledging, much less protecting. The Republicans will
>never, ever, reduce their drain on the economy enough to undermine their
>own favorite tyrannies against the American people they claim to serve.
I agree to an extent. However, after we've achieved what we can by
working from within one of the dominant parties, I'd much rather
fight a Republican-dominated government that has a tax (and power)
base of 1x than a Democrat-dominated government that has a tax (and
power) base of 2x or 3x. Plus, the subsequent battle with the
Republicans will be about repealing "tyrannical" laws. The
subsequent battle with the Democrats will be about taking away
entitlements. In general, the former is easier to accomplish.
Creating a new and valid political party in this country that will be
capable of competing with the Republicrats will be extraordinarily
difficult - especially when you consider that Libertarians don't have
those purely emotional core groups like the Democrats have minority
groups and the Republicans have religious groups. I'm helping where
I can, and I support the Libertarians where I can, but realistically,
I think that I'm more likely to see some of the issues I'm looking
for addressed by the Republicans.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT