David Rhodes wrote:
Mike - I have to step in and call you on this one. If
I had read this before we went out petitioning earlier
I would of brought it up then.
First of all, I don't see anywhere in these emails
from our national heads or on the lp.org website that
Libertarian core values are somehow being violated. I
agree that there are obvious omissions and slant in
certain areas, but I don't see how principles and core
values are somehow conflicted and corrupted. Do you
have examples of this?
I don't think core values are being violated (in the sense of crimes). I'm not terribly upset about a potentially innocent slant of the marketing either. But I don't like the notion of our party selling out. Just for clarity, my objection was just to this (which I hope was simply mis-spoken):
Geoffrey Neale said:
> Many people give far more than $25 per year, and they are the ones
> we listen to most diligently - it's called the free market.
If he really means that, then what is to stop Republicans from buying our party? Of course a true Libertarian would say "nothing, as it should be." But a true Libertarian would also seperate and start a new party that had the old values.
Secondly, any ideology based organization ,no matter
how hard they try to the contrary, is going to end up
with a standard deviation/bell curve of its member's
convictions. I don't see how the LP - party of
principle or not - is going to somehow revoke this law
I learn from generalizations like this, statistical statements, etc. But I don't let it rule the minutia of the day. For that, I have to use my clear and present conscious. So while you may be right, this viewpoint is irrelevant to me.
We have both new members in the party in
for only a week and some that have been around for 30
years, so I doubt all us have managed to unlearn their
20+ years of public education and conventional wisdom
to the same degree. By the way, wasn't harmonization
of the populace (and fear of catholicism) the
instigation behind having a standard public education
in the first place?
So why is it suddenly that 1 or 2 'errant' emails from
lp.org and everyone is up in arms?
I may have overreacted, but I still feel my stance is valid.
Has the LPSF turned
into some authority as to what being Libertarian is?
"Authority." I am an authority over where I put my money. So yes.
To me this sounds like the power behind the Taliban
(albeit no AK's) or any other fundamentalist sect for
Except that we all respect each other.
I do think we could agree based on current trends that
the LPSF does not represent the 'top of the bell
curve' of all U.S. Libertarians so I suspect
suggestions by us for forced(or managed) diversity for
the party's sake will fall on deaf ears.
Probably so. But you must operate from your own center. When you step outside to see the whole situation, and your motivations for yourself fail, you get dragged along to where you didn't want to go.
Other people are fighting for a more conservative website. We have to keep our end of the rope taught. I fully admit that maybe our best approach at doing that is to be nice to National.
Is it even
libertarian to expect such measures?
Expectation has nothing to do with Libertarianism AFAIK. But I do have a seperate philosophy on expectation, if you care to hear it.
And what about the value of tolerance of ideas in all
this? For example, last night at the DAF I witnessed a
whole hoard of my LP peers have a go at the invited
guest because he was unclear on his stance over
imminent domain. What was the purpose of that!?
I agree with you here. I think our comrades were trying to get something in exchange for helping the man. That makes some sense. But we ask for too much too fast.
He was obviously backed into a corner but recovered
nicely by stating he would need to study the issue
before taking a stand. And that wasn't the first time
I've seen that. It happened with Fazio as well and at
a couple of chats where we had visitors. hmmm..
And thirdly, I seem to remember an email you sent out
after the W. Block event denouncing absolutism and
Randianism in the party. This situation seems to be in
conflict with that IMHO, but we can discuss this
I want to understand the connection you are getting at here. I don't quite follow. I think you are saying that my viewpoint about National is some form of absolutism, is direspectful of other people's viewpoints. I don't think that stating my viewpoint disrespects anyone elses, nor does it presuppose my righteousness. I could be wrong. But I don't believe that I am. If I believed I was wrong, I wouldn't have spoken.
Also, I hope you don't view this as a personal attack
or that this is just about you specifically, because
it's definitely not. I'm just become a little
frustrated with this whole affair, but I'm not upset.
Not at all! I relish being challenged. Seriously. What I love more than anything else in life is gaining wisdom and resolve. And being challenged is the most wonderful way for me to get what I want.