Posted on 02/21/2005 1:40:51 PM PST by misterrob
And the purpose of winning?
Just sticking with legalized drugs, dopers frequently don't support that. Libertarians do because it illustrates so much of the philosophy.
Those who oppose legalized drugs don't understand the libertarian view or don't agree with it.
I see marijuana legalization as smaller than drug legalization, and both as smaller than the whole "consensual crime" area: drugs, gambling, sex, and free enterprise vs licensed labor.
I am worried though that they really shot themselves in the foot with the War in Iraq.
A libertarian could argue for the invasion, if he argued that the U.S. didn't initiate force against Iraq.
More mainstream means less libertarian. Those LP members who want normalcy might feel more comfortable in the RP or DP.
Yes!
You're right, and that's my whole point. Don't get hung up on the minutia, let's look at the big picture. No one is going to agree on all the small things, but we can agree that the government has gotten to be a huge hog with a gun, feeding at the trough of our labor and liberties. (did I just say that? that sounds wacky even for me.)
And since Iraq broke treaties and sanctions and fired on our planes etc etc, you can say we didn't initiate, we just continued the war from 91, when the peace treaty was never followed by Iraq.
Read his newsletter and you will probably wind up agreeing with him if you are a small government conservative. And, there are too many Freepers out there who can't stand the thought of one of their own pointing out what stinks in the republican party....the deficits, the lack of spending accountability, the interference in people's business and the lack of enforcement of our borders.
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA
** taking fingers out of ears **
Oh misterrob, you are a stitch! Bless your heart.
You see, that was the point of my first post. If I have to hit the page down button thirty times just to get to the middle of "his newsletter" the visions of Lyndon Larouche start.
Libertarians agree on legalizing all the consensual "crimes", because they agree on the principle of non-initiation of force. Disagreeing on legalizing heroin, for example, probably means disagreeing on the basic libertarian "enabling rule" of the libertarian vision. Not small stuff.
This question is quite deceptive. On reading the article up to this question, it would seem that the proper wording would have been:
The question, therefore, is whether or not the Libertarian Party will be prepared to take advantage of this window of opportunity and finally join with the Democrats in order to become a true, competitive ballot-box alternative to the Republicans, thereby ensuring a permanent return to Democratic party hegemony.
Mr Chuck Muth proposes that "...if you want to be a political party, then you need to WIN elections to significant offices. THAT?S the measure of an effective political party."
Oh? I guess Mr Muth does not follow public policy innovations very closely. The most successful party in the 20th century on changing government economic policy never won an election. The most successful party on changing social policy also never won an election. Those two parties, the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, didn't need to win elections. Mr Muth just does not get it.
He also does not quite comprehend the meaning of being a loser. He thinks winning elections is the only way to win. But having seen a good number of politicians abandon the pledges they made to supporters after winning and being socialized into the select winners circles, it becomes quite easy to comprehend that all those supporters were the big losers even with their winning candidates.
Putting the slightest amount of critical thought to any part of the rest of his advertisement, will show point for point, just how phony his political opportunism is. If he is successful, the Libertarian Party will become just like the Republican Party, splitting each others votes, and providing the democrats a sure win in every election.
I don't know if he is actually an opportunist, phony libertarian, or a decrepit libertarian. But one thing is for certain, the current Democratic Party cavalry operation going on in the rear of the conservative Republican movement, that is the current Libertarian Party operations, need more Chuck Muths operating if their to succeed.
When I can, I usually vote Libertarian. I want Libertarians running for every office. But I do not want any of them winning. Should they continue to be a spoiler party, I may stop voting for them and even start campaigning against them.
The Libertarian Party is still only questionably out of its infancy. Stunted since about 1983, the Party has lot more development before it further influences elections. The Party's extraordinary potential for defining the movement and carrying the message forward, is lost with every attempt by a candidate to win an election.
I don't want Libertarians ruling over a non libertarian society. I want a libertarian society and care not which party or parties bring it about. I say the Libertarian Party is the best starting point..
I think it's a case that the older I get the more they make sense to me....less government, lower taxes, no entitlements, respect for individual freedoms, no government interference in private or commercial market affairs and something called personal accountability. I could care less about dope.....hell, the government makes money hand over fist on taxes on cigarettes and liquor so saying marijuana is bad is a bit of a stretch. Smack, coke, crank, etc is a bit much but they do have a point and that is the drug war isn't working...not by a long shot. Get rid of the corner dealers and street crime goes down.
I don't like the idea of some liberal telling me how my family is supposed to operate just like I don't need to hear it from some born again hypocrite who thinks that now that they have found salvation that they are qualified to tell everyone else how to do it, regardless of how much drinking, whoring, stealing or abusive behavior they left behind.
To regress back to our initial disagreement, there are many advantages to the Libertarian Party running candidates for public office with no intention of winning. Among those advantages, is an increased ability to get the harder to understand ideas out into the public arena. It does not matter at this time what the overall general public thinks of the LP candidates, as they should not be the target of the campaign to start with. Long before the LP attempts to sway the general public, its movement needs to be materialized with a much larger representation in academia, and then business.
To do this thousands upon thousands of more position papers need to be written and internal warring factions need to be developed, just to reach academia. Any attempt to gain votes from the general public prior to that only makes the Party look even more out of touch with reality in the eyes of would be activists which the party will ultimately need if it is to be adequately represented in academia. Until the Party has gained such representation, attempts to reach out to the business community are counter productive. That can only effectively be carried out after the Party has grown enough to create an appearance of popularity. And that is a very long time off.
Thus I say the LP does not need to be winning elections at any time in the near future. And more importantly, it should not be attempting to do so or be seen as such. Election campaigns ran in this manner would not be spoiler campaigns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.