PDA

View Full Version : how about




JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 12:25 PM
How about just a social liberal / fiscal conservative party? No NAP?

How would this come across in your opinion?

a_european
12-04-2007, 12:40 PM
Libertarian Party?

johngr
12-04-2007, 12:54 PM
Libertarian Party?

If they would remove from their platform the NAP, (non-agression principle), that would meet Joseph's criterion.


How about just a social liberal / fiscal conservative party? No NAP?

How would this come across in your opinion?

Why don't you like the NAP?

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 12:59 PM
If they would remove from their platform the NAP, (non-agression principle), that would meet Joseph's criterion.


Why don't you like the NAP?

Did I say I don't like the NAP?

Strictly a social liberal / fiscal conservative party. [big tent]

just making discussion.

PaleoForPaul
12-04-2007, 01:28 PM
How about just a social liberal / fiscal conservative party? No NAP?


Socially liberal nowadays means support for affermative action and abortion.

No thanks.

TheIndependent
12-04-2007, 01:34 PM
Why don't you like the NAP?

The NAP is inherently exclusionary, and if you want to split hairs, even ironically coercive toward those that want to join the party. The NAP should be in your heart, not on a piece of paper.

Just one of the many reasons why I left the LP back in Jan 2005. If another party comes around to fill the void the LP had its chance to fill (and squandered with petty clique-fights), I'd take a look at it in two seconds flat.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 01:35 PM
If you're not supporting NAP/ZAP you're not supporting Freedom... you're just another socialist party, it's only a matter of degree.

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 01:35 PM
Socially liberal nowadays means support for affermative action and abortion.

No thanks.

affirmative action programs are economic ;)

abortion is a social issue

TheIndependent
12-04-2007, 01:36 PM
Socially liberal nowadays means support for affermative action and abortion.

No thanks.

No, it does not. Almost every single small-L libertarian I know is against affirmative action and realizes abortion isn't a function of the Federal Government (and they leave it at that).

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 01:37 PM
The NAP is inherently exclusionary, and if you want to split hairs, even ironically coercive toward those that want to join the party. The NAP should be in your heart, not on a piece of paper.


That's the biggest pile of doggie-doodoo I've seen here lately. The NAP should be required for anyone who runs for political office.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 01:37 PM
The NAP has no place in a political party's platform, since the party's entire reason to exist (i.e, to gain control of the government power apparatus) is contradictory to it.

TheIndependent
12-04-2007, 01:39 PM
If you're not supporting NAP/ZAP you're not supporting Freedom... you're just another socialist party, it's only a matter of degree.

I could say I support anything, but if I don't feel it in my heart, what difference does it really make? Anyone could sign up for the LP and lie their way through the NAP checkbox. It's anachronistic and exclusionary, period.

And the either/or binary analogy in this case sounds more like the "You're with us or against us" type of Bushian rhetoric. Let's try to stay away from that, eh? Here's a prime example why: I know plenty of Greens who also support the NAP, but anyone could tell from a mile and a half away that it's a thinly-veiled socialist party. Ironic. So that analogy fails on several levels.

TheIndependent
12-04-2007, 01:41 PM
That's the biggest pile of doggie-doodoo I've seen here lately. The NAP should be required for anyone who runs for political office.

You didn't exactly back up your 'biggest pile of doo-doo' comment with any substantive evidence that proves me wrong. I was a member of the LP for a good while (and was on Badnarik's campaign team in 2004), and the amount of angry hand-wringing and time wasted over that single checkbox distracted the party from actually getting its sh*t together for years.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 01:44 PM
TThe NAP should be required for anyone who runs for political office.

Why is that? So though can be a hypocrite from the start?

TheIndependent
12-04-2007, 01:47 PM
The NAP has no place in a political party's platform, since the party's entire reason to exist (i.e, to gain control of the government power apparatus) is contradictory to it.

I only partly agree with you on this. While I see the core of your argument very clearly, the NAP itself I believe is intended to be focused on the pop-at-large rather than toward the government. After all, one of the central, core events we all hold dear was the American Revolution. While the NAP itself is incompatible with such an action, it isn't incompatible once such a party takes power.

I see it more as a pledge to hold power responsibly and Constitutionally for the benefit of the people of the United States and toward other nations. The crux of my argument is that such a pledge can be trumpeted by anyone who wants to (or used to gain membership with the LP), but it means nothing about what they really feel about it in their heart.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 01:48 PM
Why is that? So though can be a hypocrite from the start?

If they're not being elected so that they can dismantle the state and return us to Liberty, they're thieves at heart, so they should have no problem with lying through their teeth.

If they're being elected to serve "the people" and not "the machine" they should be happy to sign with a clear conscience.

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 01:50 PM
the question is.. why is the LP not going anywhere? lack of voter drives? mismanagement of funds? corruption? laziness? fat asses? what's going on?

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 01:50 PM
I only partly agree with you on this. While I see the core of your argument very clearly, the NAP itself I believe is intended to be focused on the pop-at-large rather than toward the government. After all, one of the central, core events we all hold dear was the American Revolution. While the NAP itself is incompatible with such an action, it isn't incompatible once such a party takes power.

I see it more as a pledge to hold power responsibly and Constitutionally for the benefit of the people of the United States and toward other nations. The crux of my argument is that such a pledge can be trumpeted by anyone who wants to (or used to gain membership with the LP), but it means nothing about what they really feel about it in their heart.

What rights can an individual grant to a government, that they do not hold themselves? Anyone elected under a NAP/ZAP oath should be working to dismantle the chains of government as efficiently as possible. Government can't disappear overnight, but if every officeholder adhered to NAP/ZAP, it would shrink with astonishing speed.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 01:51 PM
If they're not being elected so that they can dismantle the state and return us to Liberty, they're thieves at heart, so they should have no problem with lying through their teeth.

If they're being elected to serve "the people" and not "the machine" they should be happy to sign with a clear conscience.

Being elected and receiving pay from funds obtained through aggression makes it impossible to state allegiance to the NAP without being a hypocrite.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 01:52 PM
the question is.. why is the LP not going anywhere? lack of voter drives? mismanagement of funds? corruption? laziness? fat asses? what's going on?

Refusal to hold fast to their principles, becoming nothing but another me-too socialist organization, claiming they violate natural rights LESS than the others, and are therefore somehow morally superior.

They were much more effective when their admitted intent was to dismantle the government to the best of their ability.

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 01:53 PM
Refusal to hold fast to their principles, becoming nothing but another me-too socialist organization, claiming they violate natural rights LESS than the others, and are therefore somehow morally superior.

They were much more effective when their admitted intent was to dismantle the government to the best of their ability.

A purely ideological party cannot win. sorry

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 01:54 PM
Being elected and receiving pay from funds obtained through aggression makes it impossible to state allegiance to the NAP without being a hypocrite.

Not if you see your job as an elected official to find ways to dismantle the machine with as much haste and as little damage to society as possible. We can't get out of the mess we're in overnight.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 01:54 PM
A purely ideological party cannot win. sorry

But a party that wins without principle has failed anyway.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 01:55 PM
What rights can an individual grant to a government, that they do not hold themselves? Anyone elected under a NAP/ZAP oath should be working to dismantle the chains of government as efficiently as possible. Government can't disappear overnight, but if every officeholder adhered to NAP/ZAP, it would shrink with astonishing speed.

I agree that the state won't go away over night, but I have to disagree with the statement that it can't. The "state" is not a real entity. It exists only in public opinion. What we call the "state" is just a group of individuals that the majority of the population perceive has having some sort of rightful authority over them. If the majority of the population changed their opinion (this can happen instantly) the state would indeed vanish overnight. I am 99.99999999% this will never happen, but it could.

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 01:56 PM
But a party that wins without principle has failed anyway.

What is more important? A purely ideological minor party? or a major third party?

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 01:57 PM
I agree that the state won't go away over night, but I have to disagree with the statement that it can't. The "state" is not a real entity. It exists only in public opinion. What we call the "state" is just a group of individuals that the majority of the population perceive has having some sort of rightful authority over them. If the majority of the population changed their opinion (this can happen instantly) the state would indeed vanish overnight. I am 99.99999999% this will never happen, but it could.

Absolutely, and the job of any politician elected under the Libertarian banner should be to work with every effort toward that end. That's why there's no conflict between NAP/ZAP and a PRINCIPLED politician.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 02:00 PM
What is more important? A purely ideological minor party? or a major third party?

If you believe that, you might as well be a Green or a Constitutionalist. Theft is theft, don't dress it up as politics and claim it's ok if you only do a little of it.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 02:03 PM
What is more important? A purely ideological minor party? or a major third party?

The current voting system in the US (plurality, winner-takes-all) will NOT maintain more or less than exactly 2 major parties. Winner-takes-all ensures an "us vs them" mentality. The only time a 3rd party can become major is when it replaces one of the established 2 parties. There will always be 2 major parties as long as the election system remains as it is.

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 02:07 PM
If you believe that, you might as well be a Green or a Constitutionalist. Theft is theft, don't dress it up as politics and claim it's ok if you only do a little of it.

you agree with taxes, yes? I only favor voluntary contributions (no tax). If you want to get down to specifics, even a little bit of statism is oppression.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 02:12 PM
you agree with taxes, yes? I only favor voluntary contributions (no tax). If you want to get down to specifics, even a little bit of statism is oppression.

Right so why are you advocating another party that specifically endorses what you have labeled as oppressive?

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 02:14 PM
Right so why are you advocating another party that specifically endorses what you have labeled as oppressive?

I did not advocate anything, read my post.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 02:16 PM
I did not advocate anything, read my post.

You said "how about a socially liberal/ fisacal conservative party, without the NAP". Why have a political party without the NAP if you believe anything besides the NAP is wrong? I'm just confused on what the point of the thread is...:confused:

johngr
12-04-2007, 02:22 PM
I could say I support anything, but if I don't feel it in my heart, what difference does it really make? Anyone could sign up for the LP and lie their way through the NAP checkbox. It's anachronistic and exclusionary, period.

And the either/or binary analogy in this case sounds more like the "You're with us or against us" type of Bushian rhetoric. Let's try to stay away from that, eh? Here's a prime example why: I know plenty of Greens who also support the NAP, but anyone could tell from a mile and a half away that it's a thinly-veiled socialist party. Ironic. So that analogy fails on several levels.

If your plenty of Greens support the NAP, what actions do they advocate do when someone doesn't pay taxes?

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 02:23 PM
You said "how about a socially liberal/ fisacal conservative party, without the NAP". Why have a political party without the NAP if you believe anything besides the NAP is wrong? I'm just confused on what the point of the thread is...:confused:

just wondering what people think of this.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 02:25 PM
just wondering what people think of this.

Ok, well if people want to play politics I would opine that the best way is to take over an already established party. Turn it into what you want it to be. This is due to the way the system is setup. It would be much easier to "take over" a party then start a new one.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 02:26 PM
you agree with taxes, yes? I only favor voluntary contributions (no tax). If you want to get down to specifics, even a little bit of statism is oppression.

Nope, I don't agree with taxes. What little government we truly need should be financed by user fees and voluntary contributions. If not enough people support it to pay for it, the government has no business doing it.

As for user fees, most things that fall under that category should be open to free-market competition as well.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 02:30 PM
Ok, well if people want to play politics I would opine that the best way is to take over an already established party. Turn it into what you want it to be. This is due to the way the system is setup. It would be much easier to "take over" a party then start a new one.

Yes, I'd like to take over the Republican Party, add ZAP, and make the party work hard at disassembling every government program and educating people that government is theft.

The lesson we should learn from the current Republican party is that it used to be known as the party for LESS government; it has compromised it's ideals for so long there's no difference between it and the other socialist party. That's what happens when one compromises one's ideals. The amazing fact is that the Libertarian party never realized this, and has become a watered-down version of the Republicans, by giving up their ideals.

user
12-04-2007, 02:30 PM
We have a two-party system because of the way our elections work. Why does the LP deserve the blame for this?

a_european
12-04-2007, 02:33 PM
Yes, I'd like to take over the Republican Party, add ZAP, and make the party work hard at disassembling every government program and educating people that government is theft.

The lesson we should learn from the current Republican party is that it used to be known as the party for LESS government; it has compromised it's ideals for so long there's no difference between it and the other socialist party. That's what happens when one compromises one's ideals. The amazing fact is that the Libertarian party never realized this, and has become a watered-down version of the Republicans, by giving up their ideals.

Exactly. Ron Paul is the only one staying his course. I hope other politicans learn from that.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 02:33 PM
We have a two-party system because of the way our elections work. Why does the LP deserve the blame for this?

I don't think anyone was blaming the LP, just pointing out the reality of the situation. The only thing I blame the LP for is desserting their principles and becoming another hack party, and claiming some sort of moral superiority because they're not as big of thieves as the other two parties.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 02:36 PM
Exactly. Ron Paul is the only one staying his course. I hope other politicans learn from that.

Bingo. I believe Dr. Paul could honestly take the ZAP pledge with a clear conscience, although he is not a total anarchist. He is working hard to eliminate as much government theft as he can. If all politicians took the ZAP pledge, they would have it weighing on their conscience with every move they made, and the discussion would be about reducing theft, not increasing it to pay off this or that special interest group.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 02:44 PM
Education and reverse propaganda (is it still propaganda if it's truth?) I think are the way to go. Infiltrate the republican party from the bottom up. Only problem is that if the take over was successful, it seems almost inevitable that it would be quickly corrupted as people see how easy it would be to use state power for personal privilege versus common liberty. That's just human nature.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 02:48 PM
Education and reverse propaganda (is it still propaganda if it's truth?) I think are the way to go. Infiltrate the republican party from the bottom up. Only problem is that if the take over was successful, it seems almost inevitable that it would be quickly corrupted as people see how easy it would be to use state power for personal privilege versus common liberty. That's just human nature.

THAT's why ZAP should be part of every political party!!!

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 02:50 PM
THAT's why ZAP should be part of every political party!!!

But if everyone followed the NAP/ZAP then there wouldn't BE political parties!! :)

a_european
12-04-2007, 02:54 PM
But if everyone followed the NAP/ZAP then there wouldn't BE political parties!! :)

Yes, and?

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 02:54 PM
Yes, and?

and what?

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 02:57 PM
But if everyone followed the NAP/ZAP then there wouldn't BE political parties!! :)

Well, there would be until government was reduced to whatever turned out to the the minimal practical level. By that time, not many will be interested in running for office, as holding office won't represent much power.

Finally, we'll see a return to the founding fathers' ideal of non-career, public servants; men of intelligence who decide to run for a term or two to pay back something to the country that has rewarded them so well with freedom.

a_european
12-04-2007, 02:57 PM
and what?

Whats the problem with no Parties? :D

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 02:59 PM
Well, there would be until government was reduced to whatever turned out to the the minimal practical level. By that time, not many will be interested in running for office, as holding office won't represent much power.

Finally, we'll see a return to the founding fathers' ideal of non-career, public servants; men of intelligence who decide to run for a term or two to pay back something to the country that has rewarded them so well with freedom.

No, if everyone followed the NAP there would be no government, since government by it's nature must violate the NAP.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 03:00 PM
Whats the problem with no Parties? :D

Oh ok! No problem at all! ;)

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 03:35 PM
No, if everyone followed the NAP there would be no government, since government by it's nature must violate the NAP.

I agree, but not everyone will. I expect we'd end up with some tiny remnant, smaller than originally proposed in the Constitution, but still providing for common defense, would be my guess.

...and remember, ZAP is not violated if the government is supported by donations or by user fees, as long as the free market is allowed to compete for the user fees.

murrayrothbard
12-04-2007, 03:46 PM
I agree, but not everyone will. I expect we'd end up with some tiny remnant, smaller than originally proposed in the Constitution, but still providing for common defense, would be my guess.

...and remember, ZAP is not violated if the government is supported by donations or by user fees, as long as the free market is allowed to compete for the user fees.

Right. Of course not everyone will follow the NAP. But as long as those that break it are regarded as criminals all is well. Would you see the government withering away to the point where it simply became a cultural phenomenon with no actual power?

JosephTheLibertarian
12-04-2007, 04:49 PM
Yes, I'd like to take over the Republican Party, add ZAP, and make the party work hard at disassembling every government program and educating people that government is theft.

The lesson we should learn from the current Republican party is that it used to be known as the party for LESS government; it has compromised it's ideals for so long there's no difference between it and the other socialist party. That's what happens when one compromises one's ideals. The amazing fact is that the Libertarian party never realized this, and has become a watered-down version of the Republicans, by giving up their ideals.

you know, the members of the LP make the platform ;)