From: Mike Dugger <cartero@nguworld.com>
At 11:16 PM 2/7/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>As a thought experiment consider:
>
>Candidate A opposes all forms of government coercion, explains so at every
opportunity, and pledges to do everything in his/her power to eliminate the
matching funds program if elected. However, he/she takes the matching funds.
>
>Candidate B supports most of the Libertarian platform, but makes a few
exceptions (ie supports drug prohibition). Like candidate A, he/she
opposes matching funds. However, unlike candidate A he/she does not take
the matching funds.
>
>I submit that candidate B presents at least as serious and dangerous a
departure from the Libertarian message as candidate A. In my view it would
not be fair to kick candidate A out but allow candidate B to remain.
However, if we seek to eliminate both A and B from the party, we must
conduct the dubious process of "purity certification" at the party level.
I don't suggest that. There are just too many opportunities for
inquisitions and witch hunts.
The VERY serious hole in your example above is best illstrated as follows:
Candidate A supports and accepts matching funds. He/she also supports drug prohibition, the death penalty for women who have abortions and, just for the hell of it, abolishing the Second Amendment. However, he/she is very good at publishing pamphlets which advocate reducing the size and scope of government, return to our Constitution etc.
Candidate B supports the Libertarian platform to a tee and prefers to lead by example by refusing to get on the welfare line and accept matching funds.
Which candidate will have the most resources available to reach potential primary voters and drum up support?
Can anyone on this list think of an example of one side of a campaign using stolen money to flood potential voters mailboxes with misrepresentations of the actions and positions of the opposition?
I can, and therefore I now know of a pragmatic reason for opposing matching funds to go along with the fact that they amount to theft and political welfare.
- Mikey
>I suggest instead that the decision of whether A, B, both, or neither is
worthy of support belongs with individual party members: where they are
willing to send their money, volunteer their time, and for whom they cast
their primary votes.
>
>--Jason Auvenshine
>
>
>
>MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime!
>http://www.mailcity.com