Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Libertarian Party national convention
I am still digesting the results of the LP's national convention (held last weekend), where a very low turnout of delegates removed about 2/3 of the platform planks, replacing them with ... nothing. This is being widely viewed as a success by the 'reform' faction within the LP, which had the explicit position that whatever Libertarians couldn't agree on should be removed from the platform. It also serves as a slate-clearing excercise for them to rewrite large chunks of the platform. They did fail, though, to have the membership pledge (I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals) repealed.
I believe some radicals will noisily leave the Party at this point (as many did over the Party's weak/hawkish stand on Bush's wars, which was happening just as I really became active in the Party). I believe others will stick around and work to re-radicalize the Party. I believe I will be in the latter category. Unfortunately, spending time with internal Party struggles saps time/energy for external outreach and activism.
Tom Knapp has the best words for my personal feeling at this point: The question is not whether or not the LP needs the “purists.” It does. The question is whether or not the “purists” need the LP.
The challenging task for me this moment is to act as the LPNC's Outreach Director and write up a review of the convention which is informative and positive; leading people to think carefully about the changes and challenges in the Party while encouraging them to become more active at the state and local level. ¶ 9:40 AM
I believe some radicals will noisily leave the Party at this point (as many did over the Party's weak/hawkish stand on Bush's wars, which was happening just as I really became active in the Party). I believe others will stick around and work to re-radicalize the Party. I believe I will be in the latter category. Unfortunately, spending time with internal Party struggles saps time/energy for external outreach and activism.
Tom Knapp has the best words for my personal feeling at this point: The question is not whether or not the LP needs the “purists.” It does. The question is whether or not the “purists” need the LP.
The challenging task for me this moment is to act as the LPNC's Outreach Director and write up a review of the convention which is informative and positive; leading people to think carefully about the changes and challenges in the Party while encouraging them to become more active at the state and local level. ¶ 9:40 AM
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Hello Susan,
Rest assured, nothing will change. Please see my blog for perspectives from Arizona delegation head Barry Hess and, I am told, one of the Reformistas gurus, Carl Milstead, left the Libertarian Party soon after the convention. I also plan to be around to re-radicalize the party too and look forward to helping it get done! :)
Rest assured, nothing will change. Please see my blog for perspectives from Arizona delegation head Barry Hess and, I am told, one of the Reformistas gurus, Carl Milstead, left the Libertarian Party soon after the convention. I also plan to be around to re-radicalize the party too and look forward to helping it get done! :)
Mike: I beleive Carl's storming out came on the first day when his plan to romove the Statement of Principles was rejected (the bright spot of the weekend, from my perspective). It's my understanding that after the platform-gutting, he decided to stick around and continue trying to de-radicalize the party.
Fred: I haven't thought it out carefully yet, but I do lean toward supporting some kind of dues system for people who want to be involved in Party governance. I think the best model for political parties is the 'inner party/outer party' structure where the inner party members (that is, those who contribute in some way, whether money or activism) set the Party goals, platform, etc.,and the outer party members are the bulk of those who 'identify' as Libertarian but who are not really active within the Party.
I was referring to that statement "members" are supposed to sign about the initiation of force, or whatever it says. If you don't sign it you're considered an Associate Member and can't vote on party matters.
I wasn't asking about paying dues.
I wasn't asking about paying dues.
Oh, whoops! I had my mind on money, I guess :)
I like the pledge, actually. I think it's extremely well-worded and clear as a bell. I think anyone who thinks the initiation of force is 'sometimes appropriate' is not someone who should be making policy within the 'Party of Principle', as it is *exactly* that principle upon which libertarianism rests.
Again, we have the 'inner party' and 'outer party' structure - many people are fellow-travelers with the LP, but find that last step too radical/intimidating/whatever. I admire people who balk at the pledge; I probably agreed to it well before I fully understood and accepted the ramifications. But having signed it really did focus my thinking a lot and helped make me unflinchingly libertarian.
I like the pledge, actually. I think it's extremely well-worded and clear as a bell. I think anyone who thinks the initiation of force is 'sometimes appropriate' is not someone who should be making policy within the 'Party of Principle', as it is *exactly* that principle upon which libertarianism rests.
Again, we have the 'inner party' and 'outer party' structure - many people are fellow-travelers with the LP, but find that last step too radical/intimidating/whatever. I admire people who balk at the pledge; I probably agreed to it well before I fully understood and accepted the ramifications. But having signed it really did focus my thinking a lot and helped make me unflinchingly libertarian.
I disagree that it's "clear as a bell".
I had one girl who balked at it because she said she worked at the county jail and had to use force there so she said she couldn't join up. I finally convince her to ignore the "pledge" as that wasn't what it meant.
I also got into a short but heated argument with a fairly well know LPer just after the Oklahoma City bombing. I maintained that bombing a federal building wasn't a violation of that pledge since the government, by its very nature, initiates force all the time. So, by using force against a federal building, you're not INITIATING force- you're responding to it.
That's just two examples of confusion of the issue. I also don't like the embarassment I often feel when having to explain the "pledge" to potential newcomers to the LP.
I had one girl who balked at it because she said she worked at the county jail and had to use force there so she said she couldn't join up. I finally convince her to ignore the "pledge" as that wasn't what it meant.
I also got into a short but heated argument with a fairly well know LPer just after the Oklahoma City bombing. I maintained that bombing a federal building wasn't a violation of that pledge since the government, by its very nature, initiates force all the time. So, by using force against a federal building, you're not INITIATING force- you're responding to it.
That's just two examples of confusion of the issue. I also don't like the embarassment I often feel when having to explain the "pledge" to potential newcomers to the LP.
Well, sure; I have the same sorts of stories. At our last state convention I set up a board with the pledge on it, and allowed people to sign as they came in (most were enthusiastic; NC is a pretty radical LP for the most part). One longtime supporter balked and pointed out the gun strapped to his waist - making the common misconception that non*aggression* means non*violent* or non-defensive. I asked him if he defended himself with the gun or robbed people with it, and ... Light Bulb! - he grabbed the pen and signed with relish. THAT is the sort of thing I think the pledge is good for.
So by 'clear as a bell', I don't mean that it doesn't need to be considered or explained, but that it is unambiguous once understood. You may have to look deeper into a situation to see where the real aggression starts, but that's a good excercise for most of us. the pledge makes you THINK about what it means to be a libertarian. It makes freedom not only into a birthright (which it is) but a responsibility which comes with being human and being required to respect the freedom of other humans.
I LOVE talking to newcomers about the pledge; it gives a really easy handle to explain the essence of libertarianism. I make it clear that not everyone in the LP is totally comfortable with it, and that doesn't make them any less welcome, but really - that principle is what seperates the LP from political parties with no philospohical center.
About your examples: agree with you about OKC, with reservations about the building inhabitants. I don't think they warranted a death sentence. Your jail-worker friend was participating in aggression, i think. I don't want to get into a long discussion of crime/punishment theory just now, but at the very least as a government worker she is the willing recipient of stolen money (taxes). NOW, I say that having been a government employee myself for a few years, years when I certianly did consider myself Libertarian. I think people need to take time getting to know/understand the party and the principle behind it. We have lots of people who come to meetings and events and aren't what I would consider fully 'there' yet. But they are allies and friends and fellow-travelers. All people crave to be free; they just take a bit longer to realise that they *can't* be free until they refuse to participate in agressing against others (and that's not easy in this complex world; I haven't acheived it yet).
Post a Comment
So by 'clear as a bell', I don't mean that it doesn't need to be considered or explained, but that it is unambiguous once understood. You may have to look deeper into a situation to see where the real aggression starts, but that's a good excercise for most of us. the pledge makes you THINK about what it means to be a libertarian. It makes freedom not only into a birthright (which it is) but a responsibility which comes with being human and being required to respect the freedom of other humans.
I LOVE talking to newcomers about the pledge; it gives a really easy handle to explain the essence of libertarianism. I make it clear that not everyone in the LP is totally comfortable with it, and that doesn't make them any less welcome, but really - that principle is what seperates the LP from political parties with no philospohical center.
About your examples: agree with you about OKC, with reservations about the building inhabitants. I don't think they warranted a death sentence. Your jail-worker friend was participating in aggression, i think. I don't want to get into a long discussion of crime/punishment theory just now, but at the very least as a government worker she is the willing recipient of stolen money (taxes). NOW, I say that having been a government employee myself for a few years, years when I certianly did consider myself Libertarian. I think people need to take time getting to know/understand the party and the principle behind it. We have lots of people who come to meetings and events and aren't what I would consider fully 'there' yet. But they are allies and friends and fellow-travelers. All people crave to be free; they just take a bit longer to realise that they *can't* be free until they refuse to participate in agressing against others (and that's not easy in this complex world; I haven't acheived it yet).
Links to this post:
<< Home
