These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Segregationism for voters who want increased liberty

Starchild wrote:
SC) Barr/Root would've been the wrong choice for the LP even had they gotten the 19% that Ross Perot got in 1992. (SC
Wow.  If you're not interested in the idea of a 19% result for a ticket running unapologetically on the 2008 LP Platform, then I don't know what else to say but just -- wow.
SC) My vote for Ron Paul was less for his policy positions than for the movement his campaign generated. (SC
Ah, now I get it.  Fashion.  Barr is not cool, and even Dr. Paul is not cool, but Ron Paul's mass movement -- now that's cool.  At least until it reaches 19% popularity.  Then it won't be cool any more. :-)

Ironically, Ron Paul as a policy advocate is palpably more libertarian than his campaign, which again was still more libertarian than "the movement his campaign generated".  (Read postings on C4L to see what a grab-bag of supporters Paul attracts.)  Oh well, at least you didn't say your vote was because of Ron Paul Girl...  ;-)
SC) I would not have supported Paul for the LP nomination (except perhaps if the choice was between him and a worse candidate), because his positions are not libertarian enough. (SC
Again: wow.  Ironically, most of your fellow radicals believe that a hypothetical candidate with all and only your own beliefs would be instantly disqualified as unlibertarian because you believe (as do I) that the defense of human liberty shouldn't end completely at lines drawn on maps by statists.

Your vision leads to a freedom movement whose political voice is balkanized into scores of ineffectual little purity clubs. I prefer a vision in which we unite all the voters who seek both more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the choices available to them (or their representatives) that will most move public policy in that direction.  Is your only objection to that vision really just that the terms "liberty"/"libertarian" not be tainted by association with those you consider ritually, um, ideologically unclean?  Why not let Lew Rockwell's pharisees worry about who's unclean and who's not, and let the LP roll up its sleeves and get all available freedom-increasers pulling on the same rope?
SC) it is vital that the Libertarian Party remain associated with libertarian ideas and not confuse people about what freedom is. (SC
What would you say is the worst "confusion about what freedom is" that could infect a competent reader of the current LP Platform?  What was Bob Barr's worst deviation, if any, from the current LP Platform?
BC) Barr/Root got more media attention than LP presidential tickets usually get, but despite this advantage, did essentially no better than usual in terms of votes, and possibly worse in terms of attracting new registered Libertarians or LP members. In which universe is that the sign of a "strong" ticket? (BC
"No better"?  Even though unexpectedly low, Barr's percentage was 25% higher than Badnarik's, and his absolute total was one of our best ever.  "Possibly worse"?  I'll bet you that the LP membership curve has responded better during the Barr campaign than during the Badnarik campaign.

It's bizarre for Mr. don't-care-about-19% let's-run-radical-education-campaigns wants to measure ticket strength only in votes, and not also (or only) in ideological media reach.