Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:48:12 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Matching Funds To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Lately, I've given some more thought to the issue of Libertarian candidates taking matching funds. Very little, if any, of the Arizona "split" is directly attributable to this issue, but I have observed that quite a bit of the rancor and ill-will on both sides which perpetuates the split appears rooted in whether or not one supports the idea of Libertarian candidates taking matching funds.
There is a certain, very vocal contingent that claim that the party is doomed if we allow our candidates to take matching funds. There is an equally vocal contingent that claim the party is doomed if we prohibit our candidates from taking matching funds. I currently place myself in a third camp, because I have yet to be convinced that the issue will in fact decide the party's fate one way or the other. That's not to say that I have no opinion on the matter; I am against Libertarian candidates taking matching funds. I just haven't been convinced that candidates who take matching funds will "spoil the party" forever, and I'm willing to work with people in the party despite the fact that they disagree with me on that issue.
Certainly, the issue is an important one. As far as I know, everyone agrees that the matching fund program itself is wrong and should be abolished. This isn't about any Libertarian actualy SUPPORTING or ADVOCATING the matching funds program...just participating in it. What is slightly less clear is whether or not everyone involved accepts the non-aggression principle as the reason we oppose the matching funds program. I've not heard anyone say they DON'T accept the non-aggression principle, and given that the non-aggression pledge is required for membership in the national LP I think it is safe to assume most if not all of us agree on the non-aggression principle.
So the question of Libertarian candidates taking matching funds becomes one of defining the scope of the non-aggression principle: Clearly, the matching funds themselves were taken by force. Does choosing to benefit from an initiation of force one nevertheless publicly opposes also constitute a violation the non-aggression principle? In other words, is accepting matching funds theft? Some say yes and some say no. The disagreement ISN'T over whether or not theft is wrong...just whether or not accepting matching funds is morally equivalent to theft.
But why does this one issue tend to define the factions more than any other issue? There are plenty of equally disputable areas with strong implications for the non-aggression principle. Take abortion. Clearly, we all accept that murder is an initiation of force and is wrong. But is a fetus a human (and hence killing it is murder) or is it just a part of the mother's body until it is born? Is abortion murder? Some say yes and some say no. Again, the dsagreement ISN'T over whether or not murder is wrong, just whether or not abortion is morally equivalent to murder.
What I'd like to understand and I don't is why people who disagree about what constitutes murder will work together in this party (at least in Arizona), but people who disagree about what constitutes theft will not. How can someone who thinks abortion is murder support a candidate who says and acts as if it is not, yet feel the need "on principle" to denounce a candidate for taking matching funds? Conversely, how can someone who thinks abortion is a biological right support a candidate who treats it as murder, yet proclaim the party is doomed if that candidate can't take matching funds?
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
--Jason Auvenshine
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/