Starchild wrote:
SC) I don't think "anti-partyarchism" is likely to win many converts among the ranks of a Libertarian Party that is friendly to anarchy and not run by people who can be credibly portrayed as partyarchs. (SC
My point was that many anit-party radicals use what sound to me like the same arguments of LP radicals to argue for boycotting the political process entirely, in order to maintain what Susan calls "integrity" and what you call "principle". Why is it that LP minarchists have to defend minarchism from being on a slippery slope to nanny-statism, but LP radicals don't have to defend themselves from being on a slippery slope to Konkin-style boycotting of politics? For all your talk of "selling out", I've never once heard you explain why mere participation in a political party isn't "selling out".
And if your excuse is just that there aren't any anti-party types in the LP to argue with, I could say the same of nanny-staters in the LP. You're either interested in explaining your "sellout" criteria, or not.
