Starchild wrote:
SC) I want to alienate people as little as possible -- but not at the cost of watering down our principles and becoming libertarian-lite. (SC
Spare us the name-calling, and just answer the question I asked you: is it or is it not immoral for the state to legislate a rebuttable ability-to-consent presumption that includes age as a factor?
Ruwart says it's immoral. Do you agree with her, or not?
SC) Water down your opposition to radicalism and try listening to us. Do with us as you urge us to do with voters. (SC
WE DID.
Compare the proposed 2008 Platform with the old Reform Caucus short A/short B drafts. They're night and day. Why can't you radicals take "yes" for an answer?
The bottom line here remains: you want to claim for your narrow ZAPsolutist school of libertarianism the right to veto from the Platform any statement with which you disagree. Well, guess what. I offer detailed arguments that MY school of libertarianism is MORE PRINCIPLED than yours, and yet there are at least a dozen statements in your vaunted 2004 Platform with which my school (or other principle schools of libertarianism) disagree. Can you quote a single sentence in the 2004 Platform with which you disagree on principle?
Please try to get over this psychological need you have for the LP's fundamental documents to implicitly endorse your school of libertarianism as more principled than the rest. Instead of a Dallas Accord that gives a Platform veto only to the anarchists and ZAPsolutists, we need a Denver Accord that says the Platform should include all and only the principles that unite the LP's major schools of libertarianism. I don't need the Platform to tell me my kind of libertarianism is best; I already know it is. Why can't you say the same thing?
Let's make the Platform a level playing field, end the Purity Wars, and go kick some nanny state ass. Are you in, or not?
