Chris,
There is much to discuss in your reply.
However, my Chat question does not concern the relative
illegitimacy of govt functions, but rather the question: "Is it an
equitable policy to exclude a large LP contingent, namely the
anarchist wing, when communicating as an LP representative
to the media or public?".
Best, Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There is much to discuss in your reply.
However, my Chat question does not concern the relative
illegitimacy of govt functions, but rather the question: "Is it an
equitable policy to exclude a large LP contingent, namely the
anarchist wing, when communicating as an LP representative
to the media or public?".
That's a good point; sorry for missing it.
I think it is fair to say that the difference between libertarians and
anarchists is precisely whether or not there is *any* legitimate function
of government. A libertarian believes there are some minimal functions
that are legitimate; an anarchist believes there are none.
An anarchist can certainly be a member of the LP (as we've discussed
before) on the grounds that from where we are, anarchists and libertarians
are going in the same direction. That does not, however, make the
anarchist a libertarian. (By some lights, it may make him *better* than a
libertarian, but that's not the same.)
So given that the LP has libertarian and anarchist members, is it equitable
for the LP to advocate libertarian positions even when they conflict with
anarchist ones? I think it is. This is, after all, the Libertarian Party;
elimination of the government is not in the party platform, even if some
members would like to diminish the government into nonexistence. The LP,
as an organization, is definitely working towards *a* government, a
republic with elected representatives and executives with extremely limited
power. I think it is reasonable for official LP statements to be in line
with that position.
~Chris
- --
Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce / Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
Chris,
Although I'm not an anarchist, I have to agree with Michael E. on this. I think it's better if we try to word our communications so that they don't appear to exclude the possibility of anarchy. While the LP platform does not specifically call for anarchy, neither does it exclude it as an option. No minimum level of government is advocated by our governing document. This to me seems like the right balance.
A "libertarian" is one who believes in non-aggression. At least that is the definition reflected in the language of the pledge that Libertarians have to sign in order to be voting members of the party.
Certainly anarchists believe in non-aggression at least as strongly as those who believe in small government (though I would disagree with them that it is possible to eliminate aggression and still protect individual rights simply by eliminating government, as this ignores the continuing need for a mechanism to compel people, including those who will ultimately be held innocent, to face legal charges brought against them).
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>