Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 03:58:40 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Abortion was Re: Matching Funds To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., "C. D. Tavares" <Tavares@a...> wrote: > > The candidates who aren't taking the matching funds are entirely
free > > to publicly condemn the actions of those who do take it.
Similarly, > > the candidates who oppose abortion are entirely free to publicly
> > condemn the actions of those who have abortions. Candidates can
> > distance themselves from any other candidate whom they disapprove
of >
> So your recommendation is that the "Party of Principle" take its
fights > over principle from the private, internal arena into the public
arena. >
> Pardon me if I find that a suboptimal electoral strategy
enhancement.I disagree. Presumably such "fights" would occur primarily (pun intended) during the primary election. While this is indeed public, it is also expected during primary season that members of the same party attack each other, and to the extent that it attracts attention it would actually be far more instructional to our rank-and-file members than just about anything else we've done to date.
Let's assume (dream!) that a slugfest erupted between a pro- acceptance and anti-acceptance Libertarian during a primary and this captures the media attention for some reason. Everyone who hears about it from EITHER candidate will hear that both candidates oppose the existance of the matching funds program. I would venture a speculation that far more people would hear of our opposition to the matching funds program than would hear of it if we simply had two Libertarians in the primary who both refused the matching funds.
> > In the area of accepting matching funds, you seem to be
subscribing > > to the idea of "collective guilt" that we despise so much in other
> > areas. Some candidates taking matching funds is no more your
> > responsibility than some candidates taking Social Security or
some of > > your neighbors taking welfare. If you choose not to do so, anyone
> > with brains enough to listen to and understand the rest of your
> > message isn't going to blame you for what the other folks have
done. >
> And what of the Party, which both candidates claim to represent...
how will > people with brains decide exactly what principles it stands for?
By READING the non-initiation of force principle, THINKING about it, and DECIDING what implications, if any, it holds for the acceptance of matching funds. Please don't take offense because this next statement is NOT directed at you or anyone else on this list. It has been my observation that people with brains think and decide independantly. People without brains want to fit in with a peer group which does all their thinking and deciding for them. Dicta like "Taking matching funds is an unpardonable sin (even though taking Social Security gets a pass)", not because anyone can logically prove it based on principle but because it's the Party Line, appeal to folks who want others to do their thinking for them.
> We already have two "big tent" parties where cognitively dissonant
groups > can find a home, holding their noses while stroking each other to
achieve > their goals of personal career enhancement and social engineering.
Who > here sees a crying need for three?
I already addressed this. I'm not suggesting a "big tent" party of compromise. NO ONE MAY INITIATE OR ADVOCATE FORCE OR FRAUD. This puts the focus where it should be -- our core principle. In favor of any drugs being illegal? In favor of any kind of forcible taxation? In favor of even a little bit of gun control? Then you're advocating initiation of force and you're not a libertarian. Maybe you're libertarian-leaning...but not libertarian. You're welcome to hang around the party and learn, socialize, assist, donate, or whatever else but you may not speak publicly for the party on its principles in an election. What I'm saying is that I'm in favor of all of our candidates being required to sign the pledge.
Consider this: Under the ALP constitution and bylaws, a candidate DOES NOT have to be a member-of-record to get party endorsement, and only members-of-record must sign the pledge. So a candidate who, say, advocates that we only legalize marijuana and still throw people in jail for using "hard drugs" can get the endorsement of the party. A candidate who says we should ditch the Brady bill but throw people in jail for making or selling automatic weapons can get the endorsement of the party. A candidate who turns in his neighbor for tax evasion can even get the endorsement of the party! Meanwhile, a candidate who accepts matching funds but never initiates or advocates force can't get the endorsement of the party.
Now ask yourself, how much emphasis does this in fact place on the principle itself versus the interpretation of the principle in one specific case? How good at preventing our candidates from compromising our core values is it apt to really be? I submit that it's not good at all, and instead reflects a (however justified) backlash aimed specifically at a particular group of people.
Instead, why not require all of our candidates to sign the non- initiation of force pledge in order to be endorsed by the party, and drop the specific language about matching funds. Then let THEM explain to the public how it is or is not initiation of force to accept matching funds. As I said, either wa the debate will be instructional about our core principle.
--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/