Please Accept a Copy of the Home Game

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/angela-keaton-resigning-from-lnc

Marc Montoni, Thomas Sipos said "Big Tent people who whine about being victims of potential purges are in fact engaging in projection”.  However, none of the people you name actually call for a one-sided "purge" of radicals/anarchists by moderates in the LP.  

Jon Roland politely echoes the call of many (most?) anarchists (e.g. Rockwell, Konkin, etc.) that their fellow anarchists should boycott party politics.  I disagree with Jon, but that doesn't mean he's calling for the "purge" that Sipos fantasizes about.

Your Carl Milsted quote is from Dec 2007, several months after he'd given up on the LP and resigned from the Reform Caucus leadership. Milsted doesn't call for radicals to be purged; he instead just says that one side should purge the other, and he doesn't care which.  His comment is on a blog posting that quotes an extremely vicious and cruel attack on Carl by L. Neil Smith.  You cannot cite anything remotely this mean-spirited being published by a reform leader against the ideology/strategy of a radical leader.  Feel free to try.

I've never heard of Rick Sincere, Steve Hilton, or Bruce West. None of them are even members of the Reform Caucus, let alone prominent LP reformers.  None of them call for a purge in your quotes.  Two of them even say that the LP's anarchists have made it intolerable for them to be active in the LP.  The third merely says that "purists" leaving the LP for the BTP are indeed welcome to leave, but also said the pre-Denver LP offered "representation of only the most extreme of our purist members.  A large portion of moderate libertarians has been ignored or under represented by the party. By making the party more inclusive, the Libertarian party is now capable of represent larger numbers of moderates and attracting their votes."

Your two other quotes are anonymous.  If reformers were "on a daily basis demanding that consistent libertarians (purists, etc) leave the party", you'd think you could quote even one such demander by name.  But you don't.  However, I still have your unrepudiated quote calling for disaffiliation of any state LP that endorses a moderate candidate like Munger or Barr.  And I have a quote of Susan Hogarth apparently saying that you're not a libertarian if you embrace the existence of a minimal state because you desire to minimize force initiation by protecting life, liberty, and property.  And I have radical who say that the LP membership Pledge does not allow LP members to advocate keeping any part of the State intact.  Do you agree with this interpretation of the Pledge?

If you want to compare lists of insults, mine is longer:

deformer
brick
retard caucus
pig
scum
corrupt vermin
nerf
Republican lite
wishy-washy
watered down
mini-me
unprincipled
statist
socialist
fascist
not libertarian
emotional cripple

But thanks for trying.  It's refreshing to see people held accountable for their words.  We need more of that in the LP.

Susan, I've never claimed that incivility in the LP has been one-sided.  I simply disagree with your notion that it hurts LP civility to tell the uncivil that their incivility reflects poorly on their faction.  I note that you did not address Hospers's assertion that there is “a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves anarchists” that manifests as “a childish insistence on the obviousness of all points of anarchist doctrine, and of the evil and malevolence of anyone who makes an honest point against it.”  I've never once questioned your sincerity as an advocate of freedom, but in this very thread you accuse me of "advocacy of mass murder".  If all radicals would limit themselves to the level of alleged incivility of the Hospers essay, I'd consider that a big improvement.

[Civility Self-Certification: Readers should discount the remarks above to the extent that they 1) ascribe less than the best possible motives consistent with all the available evidence, 2) say things one wouldn't say in front of each involved person's mother, 3) use straw men and fallacies of the excluded middle, or 4) fail to quote what they disagree with.]