Starchild wrote:
SC) you are seeking to query people on their ideology not as a way of making sure candidates are strongly committed to what the party stands for, but rather in an attempt to undermine support for non-aggression by showing up inconsistencies. (SC
No, I'm attempting to strengthen our opposition to aggression by expanding the list of individual rights that we defend and the ways that we advocate defending them.
SC) From the conditions you set forth in order for the Radical Caucus to receive your $100, it sounds like meeting them would require that the caucus invest a lot more time and effort than the donation is worth. (SC
I'm merely asking to pay the Radical Caucus to do what it claims it already wants to do: "educate LP members about the Party’s core principles".
SC) To my knowledge, the caucus has not endorsed *anything*, and has no process for making endorsements (SC
It evidently had a process for composing its Mar 6 2007 questionnaire for LNC candidates. And the lpradicals.org web site presumably did not somehow write itself.
SC) we would no doubt waste a lot of time (perhaps that's part of the idea?) discussing and arguing over the elements of the "N1F Pledge." (By that do you mean the non-initiation of force pledge required to become a voting LP member? If so, I'm not even sure which "elements" you are talking about. (SC
Instead of asking me questions, try clicking the link I included: http://libertarianmajority.net/no-1st-force-pledge. Yes, the point here is to get the Radical Caucus on record about what the LP Pledge does/should mean or not mean. If you're saying the LP Radicals are not sure what the Pledge does/should mean, that's an interesting revelation.
And again, the survey on the 2004 Platform is here: LP Presidential candidates 2004 Platform survey.
SC) I am personally willing to take your survey if you send it to me, provided you are willing to accept answers other than "true" or "false" for questions where I do not feel such a simple answer is sufficient. (SC
For each element of the N1F Pledge, I'd like to know if you think the LP's membership pledge does/should imply that element. For each element that you don't think the Pledge does/should imply it as written, feel free to explain in a non-weasely way how close you think the Pledge does/should come to implying what I'm talking about in that element. Or, be as evasive as you want in order to "water down" the clear and shining principles of the No 1st Force Pledge. :-)
SC) The 2004 LP platform represents the combined efforts of many, many Libertarian delegates over many years (SC
Yes, and I'll be curious to see how many (if any) of the 18 quotes that I chose from the 2004 Platform -- each of which achieved 2/3 approval at some NatCon -- are nevertheless too radical for you to endorse. If you're really against "watering down" the traditional LP platform, then this is your chance to put some substance behind your rhetoric.
SC) the draft that you advocate consists mainly of material that you personally cherry-picked for inclusion, does it not? (SC
It started out that way 12 months ago, but it has changed a lot. There were perhaps a dozen suggested changes accepted before our subcommittee began to work on it, then the subcommittee made about 40 changes, and in Vegas the full PlatCom made about 40 more changes. And no version of it has been remotely similar to the EcoLibertarian Platform that I wish the LP would adopt.
P.S. Thanks for trying to quote my message in your posting to LPradicals, and yes, I was pretty confident that the Thought Polizei there would not let it go through. Perhaps you should suggest to Susan this motto:
"LP Radicals: We Think About Libertarian Principles So You Don't Have To"
