1. I don't have to waste my time arguing because it is laughable, and doesn't resemble reality in the slighest.
2. The LP is absolutely NOT a net negative toward the cause of liberty and in fact is the ONLY organization that is a net positive for it. Liberty has never been furthered through the major parties, including through Ron Paul.
3. The NAP is not vague or ambiguous in the slightest and it addresses every issue you mentioned.
4. The LP is not a failure. There have been many people who failed at being good libertarians like Undertoad, but the party has not failed. In fact it's done very well considering the fact that we don't compromise our principles and don't take dirty money. If anything the Libertarian Party is the single most successful third party since the Republican Party was a third party before Lincoln was elected.
5. The results of an election don't delegitimize the beliefs of those running. Popularity does not mean something is right. Once it was very popular to believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around it.
6. Libertarians on the whole are far better educated, articulate, and better able to make a "crisp", witty, intelligent, and cogent argument than those in any other party.
Not one part of anything you had to say had anything legitimate to back it up. It was nothing but a display or your own ignorance and bitterness.
The Libertarian Party is a success. With more money it would be a greater success. But the LP should not now, nor ever give up the pledge, or adherence to the NAP (which is better and more complete than any other political philosophy).
There wasn't a single part of your post that even remotely resembled anything close to the truth or reality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Now if Paul is smart he will not argue with any of the above. It makes perfect sense in every way and is an accurate description.
But it doesn't make sense at all as a strategy.
The LP in fact acts as a net negative to the "liberty cause". It is a poor advocate for its own "philosophy". Why is that?
A) It is a poor substitute for a philosophy, even a political philosophy. Real philosophies address much more than the non-aggression principle addresses. For example, the NAP doesn't directly address the question of abortion, national boundaries, etc. Real, hard political issues and the NAP provides no guidance at all. Maybe a framework but no guidance, ya follow?
B) As a principle, it is so VAGUE that it has been interpreted to mean wildly different things. Some feel it permits an activist foreign policy, some don't. Some feel it requires 100% anarcho-capitalism, some don't. Some feel it must be implemented entirely overnight - no matter what the result - some feel it can be gradually rolled in. Some feel it permits modern environmentalism, some don't. Is this any way to run a political party?
C) The utter failure of the LP as a political engine is seen as a failure of the movement. Although polls show a good quarter to third of people are generally libertarian in nature, the party's 0.5-1% results delegitimize the entire movement. With all due respect to our present company, there are more transsexuals in the US than there are LP members. Of course, the transsexuals have an even harsher core entrance requirement.
D) Some people are just not good public advocates and should not be encouraged to head out into the public square to make their points. In the case of the LP, this is roughly half the candidates. They are not "crisp advocates for the liberty cause". They are "loony whack jobs attracted to a contrarian movement". People hear them and freeze in fear. This delegitimizes the entire liberty movement.
I could go on.
Now many thinkers, such as the Objectivists, see that the LP is promoting a competing philosophy and not a political party and refuse to become involved with it. What's that you say? The Objectivists are not Libertarians? But WTF? They can't possibly be more closely aligned, right?
The LP is a net negative to the liberty movement. Now that you've read it here, think about that, while you look at what happens over the next few years. Watch what you see. It's not only the Objectivists. Does CATO work with the LP? Never! Why does political success happen only to people such as Ron Paul, Gale Norton, etc. after they LEAVE the LP? Because the LP is a net negative.
|