Utter bollocks.

However, the idea that even if being 'altruistic', we are in fact acting selfishly is not so ridiculous. The 'selfish gene' is a theory that holds water as far as I can see. HUman's, like every animal, act in their own best interests, even when we appear to be contravening that.

Doesn't, however, answer the political question relating to collective responsibility versus individual responsibility.

Sure it does. We only willingly take on responsibilities that benefit ourselves. We don't have a responsibility to "society". We have a responsibility to ourselves and our loved ones. We have no legitimate responsibilities that we haven't willingly accepted for ourselves. We have no obligation, responsibility, or duty to "society" unless we've willingly and knowingly accepted it.

I think standing for election pretty much counts as accepting that wider duty and responsibility.

However, what I was looking at in this thread was where responsibility to 'party' and the responsibility to electorate meet. In a party system, what is the point of being in, subscribing to and then standing for a political party if you are then going to act as an individual, rather than a component part of the party under whose banner you've been elected? I realise that this is unlikely to be a position you'll find youself in Radar, given your libertarian approach to politics.

Most people here vote for the party first and the individual second. In order to be accepted onto the Party ticket, you have to first accept that you are a part of that Party. In my own case, I believe our group were contravening the party's political agenda. But, there are many instances of good and honourable politicians voting against their own personal views in order to maintain that collective responsibility and there are many instances of good and honourable politicians breaking that collective responsibility. It's one of the little conundrums that comes with a collectivist approach to politics (left and right wing).

Running for office was a choice for two reasons. First, I was asked to by the members of my political party, and second I was tired of people whining about not having a better choice. They told me they voted for Maxine Waters only because they had nobody better to vote for. I said that was a lie, and people in my district would vote for her because of her political party, her gender, or her race even though she's one of the 13 most corrupt members of congress.

I ran and gave my district someone better to vote for. They didn't vote for me, but at least they had the chance to and I had the chance to get libertarian ideals out there. It was also fun (and tiring) to go through the political process....collecting signatures, designing, buying, and handing out campaign materials, putting up signs, etc.

In America, people are under the impression that if you aren't a democrat, you're a Republican or vice-versa.

I say no person of honor or character votes against his own conscience on any issue, even if it's the direction his party wants to take. I certainly wouldn't do it. I utterly reject the notion that any candidate has a "collective responsibility" to vote along with his political party when it violates his own beliefs. For that matter, I reject the notion that "collective responsibility" even exists for anything.

I The Libertarian Party is infested with disaffected Republicans. They are stupid enough to claim there is a libertarian way to support the unprovoked, unwarranted, and unconstitutional war in Iraq despite it violating the 2 core beliefs of libertarianism. Clearly they have tossed their values (and souls) out the window.

I would never vote for any of these people even though we're in the same political party. I'd never vote along party lines if they expected me to vote in line with something that violated libertarian principles.

I am not my political party. In fact I am no longer in a political party. I am an individual.

Maybe in your america, but certainly not in mine.
We got that - most just disagree with you and you really haven't given a compelling argument as of yet.

Way to go again... Mr. Contradiction.

That's gotta be the worst party ever...worse than a teetotaler wedding reception.

:lol2:

I went to one of those once.

I still managed to get smashed, fall over on the dancefloor and then be reprimanded by one of my uncles for getting my younger cousin drunk too.

He might have no 'obligation' to do so, but he might feel that he should anyway. That's the point...that you don't seem to understand. Even if he's doing it to make him feel good about himself deep down, he's still helping you in the process because helping people is what motivates him to feel good about himself.

I say that's a nicer person to know, and probably a better person to know than the person who is motivated purely by helping themselves.

I say the person who is motivated to help himself and the person who is motivated to help others for the good feeling it gives him inside are the same person.

The guy in the house has an icky feeling because his neighbors are going to be slaughtered. He helps himself get rid of this feeling by inviting his neighbors into his neighborhood fortress. Presto! The icky feeling is gone, and his neighbors thank him profusely making him feel like a hero. He's avoided something he doesn't like, and gained something he does like.

Dana, I mentioned earlier in this thread about being an independant candidate. I think being affiliated with a party is a good way to start out in politics. It gives you profile in the community and gets your name out there.

If you oppose the decisions of the party while you're in it on the basis of what your constituents are telling you, then they will respect you for it. You'll make headlines in the local papers (higher profile), and you'll have a platform to jump from if and when you decide to run as an independant because you feel your party no longer serves the needs of the people.

Sure you have a certain responsibility to your party, but at the end of the day, you're there to serve the needs of your constituents and if you feel the party is not meeting them, then you're on a sinking ship anyway.

You'd have to weigh up the pros and cons because ultimately you are an individual but you're part of a group and without that group, I'm guessing there's a good chance you wouldn't be where you are now. Do you owe them any debt of loyalty? Have they backed you up when you've been against the wall? Or are they simply toeing the line against the collective better judgement? Was your argument good enough to sway the majority in the party? If not, why not? Maybe your argument didn't have as much merit as you felt it did? Find out the reasons why it wasn't a good argument. Maybe there's underlying reasons.

In politics more than any other game, people will say one thing and mean another. This you know. Find out why it happened in this particular instance.

As opposed to Radar who doesn't give a shit if his nice neighbour and family are slaughtered.

Hmmm...such a tough choice.

I will inconvenience myself to ensure that I put as little as possible into landfill. I call this my educated social conscience. I don't expect thanks and I will not see the benefits, but I suppose your daughter might be glad people like me had icky feelings in 50 years time.

Isn't part of the human make-up the survival of the species? Don't other animals band together for the good of the collective? Yes, it's because it enhances their chance of survival, but I suggest the survival of the species as a whole is also hardwired in social (pack or herd) animals.

Radar - you're fully entitled to your point of view. You're fully entitled to the dog-eat-dog, it's a jungle out there mentality. But when the zombies attack I'll be down the Winchester with my mates. Safety in numbers you know?

Ali, if I understand this correctly, Dana won't benefit by standing as an independent. It's not Labour party line which is the problem - it's power sharing with an opposite political ideology in order to retain some influence. Something that independents are forced to do by their very nature as a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Dana - I've said it to you before. You're intelligent enough to weight the consequences and the only person you have to sleep with is yourself. I'm sure you'll do what sits best with you.

The Libertarian Party does not back candidates. They don't contribute to the campaigns of candidates. They don't even give you the mailing list of the members of the party. The Libertarian Party idea of supporting a candidate is shaking their hand and saying "Good Luck"

They did absolutely nothing for me. I, on the other hand, donated thousands upon thousands of dollars over the years in flyers, buttons, yard signs, building outreach booths, and my personal time. I've registered thousands of people to vote (nearly all Libertarian), I've written letters to the editor, I've run meetings, As chairman of the largest county party in America I took a virtually dead county party and worked to make it one of the most powerful counties in California within the party, I served on the executive committee for the party, I attended protests, I won activism awards, I ran for 3 political offices, and I fought tooth and nail to try to keep Republicans from taking over the party...though I failed.

What was my thanks from the party for giving so much of my self? I was asked to leave the Libertarian Party by people who aren't libertarians and who had chased many other long-time, hard working, activist out of the party.

I guess it would depend on the neighbor. Do they have a good looking teenage daughter? LOL

To be honest, I pretty much keep to my self in my current neighborhood. It's a good way to stay safe. Perhaps when I buy a home in a better area, I can get to know my neighbors and maybe...just maybe... care enough about them to invite them into my super underground batcave-like fortress when the shit hits the fan.