joel@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) (03/08/88)
The Reagan administration has got to be the most broad-based attack on the Jeffersonian ideal to date. The size of the Federal government has increased from ~21-~23.5% of GNP even while social spending has been cut and the economy is booming. The latter is not due to any "supply-side" increase of savings or investment, but to a strictly Keynesian consumption stimulus built on the deficit. A major collapse of the system has been skillfully avoided by Paul Volcker, who Reagan was stupid enough not to reappoint. Carter sacrificed his Presidency to let Volcker put the brakes on the economy and bring back stable money. Reagan has taken 3 painful years of austerity and thrown it all away on a spending spree for the rich. Attacks on civil liberties continue, although with generally limited "success". Whenever possible, the administration has eroded freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, the right to privacy and any other guaranteed or implied rights it could get its hands on. When Reagan said "Get government off of the backs of the people" he meant only the rich and the monopolies. If you don't doubt his sincerity by now take a good look at his right hand man, Ed Meese. The best "libertarian" presidents we've had since WWII are Eisenhower and Carter. And obviously that's not saying very much. Individualists - I can see why most of you won't vote Democratic. But please think twice before you vote Republican. At least while the candidates are arguing over who's closer to Reagan. If ten million people vote third party we can put an end to this tweedledee-tweedledum nonsense. Vote for the third party of your choice. Joel S. Kollin
tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) (03/08/88)
In article <2111@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> joel@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) writes:
+If ten million people vote third party we can put an end to this
+tweedledee-tweedledum nonsense. Vote for the third party of your
+choice.
OK I'll bite. Who are some reasonable third party people? The last one I
can remember is John Anderson. Anybody that good today?
Davechekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) (03/09/88)
> The last one I can remember is John Anderson.
I don't even remember _him_.
Adamlaba-4an@web2d.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) (03/09/88)
>Path: agate!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!mit-amt!joel >From: joel@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) >Message-ID: <2111@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> >The size of the Federal government has increased from ~21-~23.5% of >GNP even while social spending has been cut and the economy is >booming. The latter is not due to any "supply-side" increase of >savings or investment, but to a strictly Keynesian consumption >stimulus built on the deficit. A major collapse of the system has >been skillfully avoided by Paul Volcker, who Reagan was stupid enough ... This is dandy. If alt.individualism is a forum for expressing views about the Reagan admin, I think the (U)nsubscribe key is about to hatchet another news group. (alt.politics? soc.politics?) -- My opinions are my own, damn it!
tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) (03/09/88)
In article <3571@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) writes:
-> The last one I can remember is John Anderson.
-
-I don't even remember _him_.
1980lve@eddie.MIT.EDU (Lucien Van Elsen) (03/09/88)
Don't forget Ron Paul! (Who?) The Libertarian Presidental candidate this year. A refreshing change from the current flock of Democrats and Republicans - how many of them would actually come out in favor of abolishing the income tax, the gold standard, and personal freedoms?
joel@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) (03/09/88)
>OK I'll bite. Who are some reasonable third party people? The last one I >can remember is John Anderson. Anybody that good today? >Dave Any ol' 3rd party is fine. Libertarian or any environmental party would be my choice, but since they won't win anything major it doesn't matter this time around. The main thing is to vote for something, so people won't mistake your distaste for apathy. The reason why I flamed Reagan was because I was sick of self-proclaimed "libertarians" telling me why I should vote Republican. Sorry if I pissed anyone off. As it stands I doubt I'll vote Democratic either, although I might if Bush wins the Republican nomination. If anyone wants to know why I hate Bush, go back and look at some of the things he said in '80 and '84. 'Nuff of that for this group... BTW, what I meant to say before was that Federal spending as a % of GNP has increased from 21% in 1980 to 23.5% in 1987(?). This is in spite of a "boom" economy (less welfare, etc.) Someone pointed out that I was previously unclear on this point, so I thought I'd repeat it. joel
kyl@homxb.UUCP ( ? ) (03/09/88)
In article <8428@eddie.MIT.EDU>, lve@eddie.MIT.EDU (Lucien Van Elsen) writes: > Don't forget Ron Paul! (Who?) The Libertarian Presidental candidate > this year. A refreshing change from the current flock of Democrats > and Republicans - how many of them would actually come out in favor of > abolishing the income tax, the gold standard, and personal freedoms? How about KENT ? What, you haven't heard of Kent, the Birthright Party Candidate? He is the best choice, and you can read all about his views in talk.bizarre! KENT FOR PRESIDENT SUPPORT THE BITHRIGHT PARTY
eric@cfi.COM (eric) (03/09/88)
> abolishing the income tax, the gold standard, and personal freedoms?
He's in favor of abolishing personal freedoms? Oy!
Personally, I favor the Grateful Dead ticket standard - the amount in
circulation is guaranteed to decrease as the boys age. :-)
--
...rutgers!!husc6!necntc!ima!cfisun!ericdjo@pbhyc.UUCP (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (03/10/88)
In article <8428@eddie.MIT.EDU> lve@eddie.MIT.EDU (Lucien Van Elsen) writes: >Don't forget Ron Paul! (Who?) The Libertarian Presidental candidate >this year. A refreshing change from the current flock of Democrats >and Republicans - how many of them would actually come out in favor of >abolishing the income tax, the gold standard, and personal freedoms? You're saying he's in favor of abolishing the gold standard and personal freedoms? I thought the former had already been abolished. And as for the latter -- well, that makes him just like all the other candidates... Roach
aiko@xanth.cs.odu.edu (John K Hayes) (03/12/88)
In article <7479@sol.ARPA> tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) writes: >In article <2111@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> joel@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) writes: >+If ten million people vote third party we can put an end to this >+tweedledee-tweedledum nonsense. Vote for the third party of your >+choice. > >OK I'll bite. Who are some reasonable third party people? The last one I >can remember is John Anderson. Anybody that good today? > >Dave Too soon to tell. Wait until after the nominees are clear; then you will see third party candidates popping up. Probably we'll see Pat Robertson running with the New Order Fundamentalist Fascist Party (NOFF). Most likely we'll not be seing Jesse in a third party (if he's smart); he'll have a real good chance 4 years from now. Who knows, maybe he'll be on the vice prez slot this time. -- ---{john hayes} Old Dominion Univ; Norfolk, Virginia USA UUCP: aiko@xanth.UUCP or {decuac,harvard,sun,hoptad,...}!xanth!aiko ARPA: aiko@xanth.cs.odu.edu CSNET: aiko@odu.CSNET Home: (804) 622-8348 Work: (804) 460-2241 ext 111 {8am-4:30 EST Mon - Fri}
rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (03/14/88)
Lucien Van Elsen writes: +Don't forget Ron Paul! (Who?) The Libertarian Presidental candidate +this year. A refreshing change from the current flock of Democrats +and Republicans - how many of them would actually come out in favor of +abolishing the income tax, the gold standard, and personal freedoms? Uh, in case that's not entirely clear, Ron wants to: 1) Abolish the IRS and the income tax as quickly as possible, 2) Implement sound money, the gold standard, and put an end to government/central bank manipulation of the currency = inflation, 3) Maximize personal freedom of expression, lifestyle, etc., by getting the government "the hell out of the way". Ron served four terms as a Congressman from Texas, served on the U.S. Gold Commission, has the best-ever vote rating from the National Taxpayer's Union, and has many other things going for him. The Libertarian Party expects to be on the ballot in all 50 states again this year (as we were in 1980 with Ed Clark) and we expect to get significant media attention. Ron has already appeared on CNN several times, on Buckley's _Firing Line_, and on _Crossfire_. Both Ron and his running mate, Andre Marrou (who was elected to the Alaska Legislature as a Libertarian), have gotten excellent local media coverage of their campaigns wherever they go. Ron was recently in California, and was introduced by Jim Eason on KGO radio with the following words (among others): "Unlike these other, *minor* candidates such as Haig and Simon, who *won't* be on your ballot in November, this man *will* be on your ballot, and you *will* have the chance to vote for him if you so choose." If you want more information, just drop me a note. Thanks! -- Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab /-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\ | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President | \-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (03/14/88)
In article <8428@eddie.MIT.EDU>, lve@eddie.MIT.EDU (Lucien Van Elsen) writes: > Don't forget Ron Paul! (Who?) The Libertarian Presidental candidate > this year. A refreshing change from the current flock of Democrats > and Republicans - how many of them would actually come out in favor of > abolishing the income tax, the gold standard, and personal freedoms? I can only hope that Ron Paul does not favor abolishing personal freedoms, though this is something that must be scrutinized in someone who is just barely libertarian and frequently threatens to slide back into the conservative morass. For those who don't know, libertarians put a great emphasis on personal freedoms. It should not come as a vague after thought behind restoring the gold standard, an issue whose libertarian pedigree is questionable. Libertarians would legalize the use, production of and trade in all drugs; would repeal all "victimless" crime laws, including those against sodomy and prostitution; would keep abortion legal, though not government subsidized; and otherwise get the government off the backs of the people. (This phrase has received unfortunate and hypocritical treatment in the hands of the Reagan administration. Politicians have a vested interest in preventing real education, otherwise, they might be understood.) Russell
vohra@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Pavan Vohra) (03/14/88)
In article <10725@ut-sally.UUCP> turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) writes: >In article <8428@eddie.MIT.EDU>, lve@eddie.MIT.EDU (Lucien Van Elsen) writes: >> ... >pedigree is questionable. Libertarians would legalize the use, >... >"victimless" crime laws, including those against sodomy and >prostitution; would keep abortion legal, though not government ------------------------- >subsidized; and otherwise get the government off the backs of >... >Russell I think that this is not necessarily so. I do not wish to address the issue of abortion here, but only to address whether a libertarian would legalize abortion or not. Please take the following with that in mind. This is going to start with "if ..." and will continue through "But if ...", to a conclusion, so please keep in mind that there is more than one part to this posting. (Please also keep in mind that the real poster is not the person named on the account, so that he is not responsible for any indiscretion that I might inadvertently commit.) If a libertarian (I cannot speak for Libertarians, i.e. the political party, for I do not know enough about them; they are little covered in the press) finds that an abortion (or one type of abortion, or all abortions) is hurting another person (the other person here is that which is aborted), then that libertarian would be against the use of abortion, on principle. This is because, unless I am mistaken, all libertarians are against things that hurt other people, on principle. (This is simplifying it somewhat for some libertarians, but I will not discuss the metaethics of what is considered an object of ethical behavior here, just as I do not discuss the abortion issue here. For the moment please take "person" to be that which is a legitimate object of ethical behavior, and bear with me on that simplification.) With me so far? By "against" I mean (very roughly) "takes an attitude toward it that it is wrong and intolerable, according to the libertarian principle of not hurting other people ..." Quite a few libertarians are in favor of laws to protect people from other people hurting them. (Please excuse that bit of grammar; I am being somewhat specific about who is taking what action.) Most libertarians are at least not opposed to such laws, and see them as part of the very few genuine obligations/tasks/mandates/purposes of a government. Some take such laws to be not only genuine, but essential. OK, so we have gotten to the bottom line: As a result, some libertarians, those who see abortions as hurting other people, will be in favor of laws that protect against abortions. That's all that I set out to say in this posting, but we still have a "But if ... not ..." to go, and a conclusion, too. But if the libertarian does not see the abortion (or a class of abortions) as hurting another person, then he will not be against it. Now, I do not know thousands and thousands of libertarians and their metaethical views, but I expect that upon lengthy-enough discussion, a considerable number of them would base whether abortion is hurting another person or not on factors dealing with the developmental stage of the child about to be aborted. Probably (and this too is a guess), many would say that a two-cell child is abortable with no ethical consequences, and an about-to-be-born child is unabortable, in that the ethical consequences are intolerable. (Please bear with me on the use of the word "child" here, if it bothered you; I am trying to use terms that are descriptive and non-loaded and non-evocative and otherwise appropriate, all at the same time.) So where does this leave us? Probably most libertarians are against some abortions and not against others, depending on developmental issues. We did not cover the attendant Sorites problem concerning the implementation of policy. (i.e. the old 'drawing a line is difficult' problem.) We did not explain the metaethics. We did not cover the topic of abortion per se. Those issues can mostly be handled in other newsgroups better than here, probably. But I hope that I did convince you that it is not necessarily the case that a libertarian would have all abortions be legal. Now, if you were referring to some Libertarian Party Platform, or something like that, then I cannot say. I need to find out more about the Libertarian Party, if I am going to vote in the next election. I realize that I am taking the huge risk of starting flame wars here, because abortion is an extremely loaded, emotional issue. I rely on the integrity and judgement of this audience not to start or continue such wars here, but to take them to "whatever.abortion" if they desire to post about that subject. This posting is perhaps a test to see that this newsgroup can survive as itself. Please feel free to reply, but please also remember that I do not wish to discuss abortion, and also that this is not the newsgroup for that discussion anyway. Thanks for your patience in reading this long article. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not Mr. Vohra, and he does not have anything to do with this posting. The posting is my fault, since I am borrowing his account, by his kindness, and I would appreciate that any replies have "KC" in the "Subject" line of the mail. For example: Subject: Hey KC! Great article abt. libertarians. or Subject: To KC. You jerk, I was talking about ... -- --- Pavan Vohra {..hplabs|ames|ihnp4|decwrl}!amdahl!vohra Amdahl Corporation Sunnyvale, CA 94086-3470 ---
wallner@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (John Wallner) (03/15/88)
In article <24559@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> vohra@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (put "KC" in subject line) writes: >In article <10725@ut-sally.UUCP> turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) writes: > >If a libertarian (I cannot speak for Libertarians, i.e. the political >party, for I do not know enough about them; they are little covered in >the press) finds that an abortion (or one type of abortion, or all >abortions) is hurting another person (the other person here is that >which is aborted), then that libertarian would be against the use of >abortion, on principle. This is because, unless I am mistaken, all >libertarians are against things that hurt other people, on principle. The Libertarian Party Platform clearly recognizes the right of any woman to an abortion. However, the platform also calls for an end to government subsidies for abortions (and just about everything else, in fact.) >As a result, some libertarians, those who see abortions as hurting >other people, will be in favor of laws that protect against abortions. I believe there is a group called "Libertarians for the rights of the unborn", or something like that. However, every Libertarian I ever met agrees with the LP platform on the issue. > >But I hope that I did convince you that it is not necessarily the case >that a libertarian would have all abortions be legal. Of course you are correct. The LP contains many people, and they do not all think alike. In fact, the LP presidential candidate, Ron Paul, has stated that he is personally against abortions, but that he would follow the letter of the LP platform in this matter. It is difficult for me to imagine person running for office on the LP ticket who does not favor legal abortions, but I will admit it is possible. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the best candidate out there at this time. -- John D. Wallner | Bitnet: jwallner@ucsd | Witty comment goes here. Internet: jwallner@ucsd.edu | UUCP: ihnp4!ucsd!wallner |
cfh6r@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Carl F. Huber) (03/16/88)
In article <2111@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> joel@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) writes: >The Reagan administration has got to be the most broad-based attack on >the Jeffersonian ideal to date. . . . >Attacks on civil liberties continue, although with generally limited >"success". Whenever possible, the administration has eroded freedom >of speech, the separation of church and state, the right to privacy ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Look again, there is no such right guaranteed by the constitution, either directly or implied. >and any other guaranteed or implied rights it could get its hands on. . . . > >Joel S. Kollin
thrift@mips.csc.ti.com (Phil Thrift) (03/16/88)
>>Attacks on civil liberties continue, although with generally limited >>"success". Whenever possible, the administration has eroded freedom >>of speech, the separation of church and state, the right to privacy > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Look again, there is no such right guaranteed by the constitution, >either directly or implied. > --------? >>and any other guaranteed or implied rights it could get its hands on. >. >. >. >> >>Joel S. Kollin Article IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." Article IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Article III: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the Owner ..." ... In any case, it is arguable that privacy rights are not "implied". Phil Thrift
rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (03/17/88)
"KC" writes: (Excellent non-emotional summary of positions of libertarians on abortion.) >Now, if you were referring to some Libertarian Party Platform, or >something like that, then I cannot say. I need to find out more about >the Libertarian Party, if I am going to vote in the next election. Speaking only as myself, and not in any official capacity with the Party, I can say that the California Platform waffles on the issue, precisely because the question ("When does abortion become an aggression against a human being?") is such a difficult one. Mostly, we consider it wrong, but more importantly we consider that government money shouldn't be used for it even if it's "right". Many Libertarians are Pro-Choice, just as many are Pro-Life. As I say, it's a tough issue. Ron Paul, our Presidential candidate, is a doctor, an obstetrician. He is personally opposed, but acknowledges that the National Platform is not opposed to abortions. If I had a copy of the Platform, I'd quote it at you. Unfortunately, it seems to be buried. Hence my "unofficial" posting. -- Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab /-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\ | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President | \-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/
rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (03/17/88)
DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE
by Steven J. Alexander
Many people hear about the Libertarian Party and say "I don't want to
waste my vote." That's quite understandable and commendable; voting is
the second most important thing in a free country like ours.
But what does it mean when we say "don't waste your vote?" How should
we vote so it won't be wasted?
We waste money when we spend it for something we did not really want.
We waste time when we use it for an activity that doesn't do us any good.
We waste our breath when we talk to somebody without convincing him. How do
we waste our vote?
Some people say "I won't waste my vote on Jones because he has no
chance to win." Does this make sense? Is voting a matter of predicting the
winners?
In 1984, Mondale ran for president and got 37 million votes. Everyone
knew that Reagan would be reelected. Did those millions of Americans who
voted for Mondale all waste their votes? What should they have done?
In 1976, Reagan and Ford were competing for the presidential
nomination. The Republican Party chose Ford because they "knew" Reagan had
no chance to win.
Ford lost. Four years later, Reagan won. Do we really know who has no
chance to win?
In 1948, everyone "knew" that Harry Truman had no chance to win. He
was way behind in the polls. Yet Truman won. Did the people who voted
for Truman waste their votes? Did the people who voted against Truman
waste their votes?
But why should we vote for somebody just because he (or she) is going
to win? Do we get a prize if we can guess the winner ahead of time?
People who voted for Reagan got a prize: four more years of Reagan.
People who voted for Mondale got ... four more years of Reagan. People who
voted for David Bergland, the Libertarian candidate for president, got four
more years of Reagan.
No matter how we voted, we got the same thing. Even nonvoters got the
same thing. Voting is not like horse racing; guessing right doesn't change
the payoff.
Some people say "I won't waste my vote on Jones because my vote
couldn't help him win; he's too far behind." Does this make sense? Does a
vote for one candidate have more value than a vote for another candidate?
In most congressional districts, the incumbent almost always wins. In
some cases, nobody even challenges the incumbent. We waste our votes if we
vote for the incumbent; he has no chance to lose! Our vote has no effect on
the outcome of that election.
Let's imagine a more even election campaign of Smith versus Smythe
versus Jones. In a poll, the month before the vote, Smith gets 45%, Smythe
gets 40%, and Jones (the Libertarian) gets 15%.
Jones has no chance to win, right? A vote for Jones is wasted because
it can't save his campaign. Instead, we should vote for Smith or Smythe
because that could tip the balance. Right?
Wrong. How often does a candidate win by one vote? How often does one
vote tip the balance? The only case I know was Tom Tryon in Calaveras
County. He became county supervisor by one vote. Tom Tryon is a
Libertarian.
If the election goes 45-40-15 like the poll, Smith will win no matter
how we vote. He will win by thousands or millions of votes. A vote for
Jones is no more wasted than a vote for Smythe; both of them lost, or a
vote for Smith, who can win with or without us.
This is depressing. Why should we vote at all? We don't get a special
prize for picking the winner, nor can we individually determine the outcome
of an election.
Let's try a different approach. Why do we vote? What does it mean? Why
do we have elections? Most people know the difference between elections and
horse races. They don't vote just to pick the winners. They study the
issues and vote to help decide the future of our country. They say "I don't
want to waste my vote, I want it to have the most effect for the good of
society."
Elections serve two purposes. First they decide which candidates will
hold office. Second they inform those officeholders as to the wishes of
the people. Also, let's remember that we have elections every year, and we
all get to vote over and over again. A voting strategy should focus on the
long term trends. Sometimes, during a campaign, we think that the world
ends on election day. Actually, the election merely sets the foundation for
the future, including the election after it.
Let's imagine the election campaign of Smith versus Smythe versus
Jones. Smith and Smythe are close in the polls with Jones trailing behind.
Smith and Smythe each have a chance to win. Jones has "no chance to win."
(We think.)
Who should get our vote?
Let's add some details to the example. Suppose we agree with most of
Jones's positions and a few of Smythe's positions. On the other hand, we
believe Smith is wrong on all counts. Are these facts relevant to our
choice?
Smythe has the best chance to beat Smith, so we could vote for Smythe
to avoid letting Smith win. This is the "lesser of two evils" strategy. It
minimizes our chances of a very bad outcome, but it also minimizes our
chances of a very good outcome. No guts, no glory. We waste money when we
spend it for something we didn't really want. Do we waste our vote that
way?
Jones has the beliefs and principles closest to our own, so we could
vote for Jones to best reflect our opinion. This is the "vote your
conscience" or the "send a message" strategy. It means we are voting for
somebody who is unlikely to win, but we hope to build a foundation for
long term improvement in society. Which strategy should we use? Which
strategy will have the most effect for the good of society? (We could vote
for Smith and hope he changes his views, but that's a risky approach.)
The important part of elections is not just who wins, but also what he
(or she) does in office. If our choice wins, will that have the most effect
for the good of society?
If we choose Smythe, the lesser of two evils, and he wins, what will
he do? Will he emphasize the issues we agree on, or will he emphasize the
positions we don't like? Will he try to attract voters from Smith's camp by
adopting some of Smith's positions? We waste time when we use it for an
activity that doesn't do us any good. If our candidate wins, and we live to
regret it, have we wasted our vote?
No politician thinks of himself as the lesser of two evils.
Politicians tend to think of themselves as statesmen and historic figures.
They assume that their victories mean mandates and their opponents'
victories are aberrations. Yet our elections are heavily focused on
choosing officeholders and not on discovering the wishes of the people. If
voting our conscience is not fashionable, can we expect integrity from our
officeholders? If our voting strategies don't look beyond the election, can
we expect our officeholders to care about anything besides the next
election?
Let's remember that elections come every year. Do we want to vote for
the lesser of two evils every year, year after year, for our whole lives?
If Smythe wins elections every time, he has no reason to change. We waste
our breath when we talk to somebody without convincing him. Smythe can get
our vote without heeding our wishes. He just has to strive to always be the
second worst candidate.
This is not what democracy was meant to be. Is that a wasted vote?
If we choose Jones, and vote our conscience, several things happen.
First, he probably loses anyway. Smith or Smythe are elected. But the
election does more than choose a winner. It sends a message to the winner
as to the wishes of the people. He is bound to notice those people who
stood up and were counted for Jones. They didn't expect Jones to win, but
they held strong beliefs and were true to them.
A voter who is steadfast and true to his or her beliefs will
eventually win. A shortsighted voter who compromises for crumbs of the
victor's banquet will have only stale crumbs to show for a lifetime of
trying.
No Libertarian yet has been elected to national office or California
state office. Yet, in the years since the party was formed, gold ownership
became legal, military draft ended, proposition 13 passed and the tax
revolt began, Reagan cut taxes, airlines were deregulated, banks were
deregulated, railroads were deregulated, and trucking was deregulated.
We didn't do any of it. It was done by the Smiths and Smythes of the
major parties. They know what it means when someone votes Libertarian. It
means that ten more people wanted to, but thought it would waste their
votes.
Voting Libertarian does us more good than the tally tells. It
convinces the major parties to pay heed to our principles. It is not a
wasted vote. The waste is to live a life in a free society, where we can
speak and vote freely, and to have never spoken our minds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab
/-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
| Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President |
\-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/moshe@ihnet.ATT.COM (Moshe Yudkowsky) (03/17/88)
In article <10732@ut-sally.UUCP> berleant@ut-sally.UUCP (Dan Berleant) writes: >[The Libertarian pres. candidate wants to...] >>3) Maximize personal freedom of expression, lifestyle, etc., by >> getting the government "the hell out of the way". > >Would someone be so kind as to point out how the government is >interfering with my freedom of expression and lifestyle? > >Dan B. Try buying or using a recreational drug. Here in the State of Illinois, it is illegal to even think about cocaine, but it _is_ taxed (I swear, I'm not making this up!). Maybe you don't like drugs -- I don't -- but try committing sodomy in whatever state that was, or try something else the gov't doesn't like. They've got a long list... Try manicuring someone's nails without a license. Try taking an experimental medication. Yes, there are lots of problems. A name? Must you judge me on a notion so nominal? Disclaimer: Surely you jest... -- Moshe Yudkowsky moshe@ihnet.att.com ihnp4!ihnet!moshe AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312) 979-5192 8-367-5192
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/20/88)
Having only two parties (or only two ``legitimate'' parties) is possibly worse than having only one party. Is it really true that American voting machines allow one to vote for ``Democrats only'' or ``Republicans only'' at the turn of a handle? How disheartening. If you can turn politics into the battle of the ``good guys'' versus the ``bad guys'' or the ``dark empire'' versus the ``young rebels'' you oversimplify most of the challenge out of government. But, of course, you get elected more often that way... -- God: I am sending this body back to the shop. I know that it is no longer under warranty. I just want it fixed. Laura Creighton uunet!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@toad.com
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (03/21/88)
In article <4757@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> wallner@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (John Wallner) writes: >In fact, the LP presidential candidate, Ron Paul, >has stated that he is personally against abortions, but that he would >follow the letter of the LP platform in this matter. *** Sarcasm On *** This is great! The Libertarian Party presidential candidate is allowing the Libertarian Party to dictate his opinions. If the Libertarian Party by some miracle manages to take over the government, will they still try to dictate people's opinions? There must be enough libertarians reading this newsgroup to answer this question: Does libertarianism preach that one should act as an individual, or is this only a good idea when you agree with the Libertarian Party? *** Sarcasm Off *** Seriously, can anyone out their give some coherent explanation of what Libertarianism is that makes it "morally correct" for the Libertarian Party to dictate the opinions of their presidential candidate? Maybe something is wrong with their principles if they have to violate them to run a candidate for president? -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (03/21/88)
In article <1179@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes: > >[Ron Paul agrees to follow the LP platform on abortion, even though he > is against it personally] > >Seriously, can anyone out their give some coherent explanation of what >Libertarianism is that makes it "morally correct" for the Libertarian >Party to dictate the opinions of their presidential candidate? Nobody is dictating anyone else's opinion. I'm sure Ron Paul hasn't changed his mind about abortion (how could anyone *make* him change his mind?), but it seems reasonable that he would choose to follow the LP on this issue to gain the support of more Libertarians. >Maybe something is wrong with their principles if they have to violate >them to run a candidate for president? The defining characteristic of libertarianism is the non-coercion principle; one should not initiate the use of force or fraud. Since I assume no one put a gun to Ron Paul's head, or lied to him to get him to run, I can't see how his decision to run on a platform he partially disagrees with could be construed as a violation of the Libertarian Party's principles. -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (03/22/88)
In article <23359@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >Nobody is dictating anyone else's opinion. I'm sure Ron Paul hasn't >changed his mind about abortion (how could anyone *make* him change his >mind?), but it seems reasonable that he would choose to follow the >LP on this issue to gain the support of more Libertarians. Okay, it seems that I was assigning a different meaning to things than you were. What is the difference between "Ron Paul following the LP" and "Ron Paul pretending he agrees with the LP", in terms of what actually happens? -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/23/88)
In article <1179@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes: >*** Sarcasm On *** >This is great! The Libertarian Party presidential candidate is >allowing the Libertarian Party to dictate his opinions. If the >Libertarian Party by some miracle manages to take over the government, >will they still try to dictate people's opinions? You are making a whole lot of assumptions here. Can we stop and unbundle some of them? This is not a defence of Ron Paul (about whom I have some serious misgivings) nor the Libertarian Party. The first thing to consider is not that the Libertarian Party has dictated Ron Paul's opinions, but rather have dictated *which* opinions they desire him to try to make into law. Now, whether you think that Ron Paul has made an agreeable compromise or is a hypocrite for agreeing to support the Libertarian Party Platform says a lot about how you feel about party politics in general. I suspect, like me, that you are fundamentally opposed to the entire idea of a political party. If so, you have a serious problem. >There must be enough libertarians reading this newsgroup to answer >this question: Does libertarianism preach that one should act as an >individual, or is this only a good idea when you agree with the >Libertarian Party? Okay. Two distictions have to be made here. First of all, there are small-l Libertarians, and big-L Libertarians. The big L is the political party. All the big-L Libertarians I know also call themselves little-l libertarians, except for those who call themselves anarchists or Objectivists. A whole lot of small-l libertarians do not call themselves Libertarians, and are *not* registered Libertarians. Some of them are registered Democrats and Republicans. It is akin to the difference between calling oneself a liberal versus voting for the Liberal Party in Canadian elections. (Though in Canada it is truly weird, where nearly all of the people I know in Canada who also call themselves liberal, vote for the NDP (New Democrat Party)) Sorry to harp on terminology, but it is very important if we are not to go talking at cross-purposes and utterly missing each other. Okay. Now that we have the terminology straight... It makes about as much sense to talk about ``libertarianism preaching'' as ``Marxism preaches'' or ``liberalism instructs us''. libertarianism, the philosophy, does not get up and do any preaching. Individual libertarians do. Now, if you hang out with any Marxists, you will soon discover that a common conversation pattern goes ``Marx said X. Lenin said Y. Trotsky said Z. Stalin said U. Which is the true Marxism.'' After an evening of this you discover that while this is a fun game to play, it does absolutely nothing to determine what the one true Marxism is. Wisely, nearly all of the Marxists have come to terms with the idea that there are lots of types of Marxism. The Libertarians, unfortunately, are still working it out. At one time most of the libertarians in existance were students of Ayn Rand. This is no longer the case -- the bulk of Rand's students call themselves Objectivists and think that the Libertarians and most of the libertarians are lacking in moral principles. By now, unless you are bored to tears, you will get the point that while I will tell you what the bulk of libertarians I know believe in, and sometimes what I believe in, even if it contradicts what the bulk of libertarians I know believe in, I cannot speak for all libertarians. No doubt the ones who disagree with me will speak for themselves. :-) Okay. Now. All libertarians I know think that one must act as an individual. Indeed, they insist that it is impossible to not act as an individual. It is an inescapable fact of existence. However, while this has great epistemological significance, it says absolutely nothing about whether one should ever agree to do something which one thinks is morally wrong. libertarianism is silent (or at least divided into an infinity of factions) on the issue. The Libertarian Party, in contrast, is formed of individuals who think that you should act to further the Libertarian Party platform. Now, all registered Libertarians think that, as individuals, you should do what is morally correct, and what is correct is not defined as ``what the Libertarian Party says''. Rather, they are Libertarians because they think that what the Libertarian Party stands for is mostly correct. Aha! You wonder. How do they swallow the parts where they think that the party is wrong? Well, you see, they fall into two groups. There is the pragmatic group that says that if anything other than the Libertarian Party is elected, I will get, say, a government formed by a party where I agree with, perhaps at most 20% of what they propose to do. If the Libertarian party is elected, I will get more than 60% of what I agree with. The 40% will still rankle, but it would be such a big improvement on the status quo that it is worth endorsing the entire Party platform. The other group blindly ignores the platform, still calls themselves Libertarian, and goes about telling other people that the Libertarian Party believes X when in fact the platform says Q. There are a lot of these folks around. Personally, I would like to stike them dumb and unable to type for a year or so, but, seeing as that is implausible (but, boy, what a way to deal with fraud!) we are just going to have to endure it, and constantly point out the difference between libertarianism and Libertarianism. >Tim Freeman > >Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu >Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf -- The universe is erxpanding, but I still can't find a parking space. Laura Creighton uunet!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@toad.com