Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:15:22 -0700
From: AZGovernor@Earthlink.net ("AZ Governor's Race 2k2")
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] a one-trick pony?
To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
My commentary follows:
----- Original Message -----
From: C. D. Tavares <Tavares@alum.mit.edu>
> At 9:38 AM +0000 8/12/01, fractor@swlink.net wrote:
>
> > If you first accept my premise that I have a moral right to the funds
> > that were stolen from me via taxes, then by what possible argument
> > can you claim that I don't have the right to reclaim them?
>
> As long as you don't confuse "me" the candidate with "me" the sum of every
> taxpayer.
I beg to differ, CD, because 'me' the candidate, and 'me' the taxpayer are
one and the same. Let me explain. I am a Christian, a lousy one I'll
grant you, but a Christian just the same. Because I 'fall down' every day
(I keep trying) is not to say I have any LESS justifiably labeled myself a
'Christian' than a 'perfect' Christian (I only know of ONE--EVER). One of
the tenants of being 'Christian' is preaching, and exhibiting 'The
Word'--but I am not a 'Preacher'. My point is the same whether I am talking
about my beliefs as a member of the 'rank and file' Christian community or a
member of the 'rank and file' of the Libertarian Freedom movement. All of
us who claim to believe in Freedom, are BOTH members, AND candidates. You
can substitute 'Libertarian' for 'Christian', and 'Candidate' for 'Preacher'
above and the assertions remain as true. There can be no 'higher standard'
for a 'candidate' than there is for a 'member'.
When did 'we' in the Freedom movement become a 'one-trick pony'? When did
your "Libertarianism become contingent on one so-called issue?
I became a Libertarian seven or eight years ago, so I guess I'm a 'newbie',
but I can say I am no 'newbie' to the Freedom movement. I thought I was
proclaiming my agreement with others of like mind to do something for, and
stand 'for' FREEDOM. I honestly don't know if I would have 'joined' the
Libertarian political party if I had known the keepers of 'pure' Libertarian
ideology had only one narrowly-focused thought: don't take matching funds.
I'm NOT arguing 'for' taking them, lest someone again misconstrue my words,
and I have absolutely NO disagreement with running as far as fast as I can
from Federal funding schemes. Politicians voting themselves tax money is
without contest 'wrong', but Citizens voting to direct some of their tax
dollars to give voice to a broader political voice? I just don't buy it as
having ANYTHING to do with being 'Libertarian', no more than using
publicly-funded roads, or schools, or medical care or college loans. The
ONLY honest argument I've heard against taking public moneys is that using
them ultimately increases them. But isn't that 'true' of all of the other
public-funded services? More people using a public road, doesn't that
ultimately lead to the demand for more (public)roads? I think it does. So
where is the line we 'should' draw?
ome people 'claim' to be 'hard-core, uncompromising' Libertarians. I'd
like to know how and where a 'hard-core, uncompromising' Libertarian draws
the line. It's an 'all or nuthin' type deal', isn't it? It's NOT, you say?
BECAUSE big bad government 'has a monopoly', or 'they'll come with guns'.
But wait a minute, what happened to the 'all or nuthin' thing? What
happened to the 'uncompromising' thing? It seems to me that for someone to
'claim' to be a non-compromiser, they should be one, consistently. That's a
black or white thing. Someone who 'claims' to be a non-compromiser, and
then does--no matter what whiny reason he may give--is still LYING. And
that is black and white.
From all that I've seen, the issue of matching funds comes down to jealousy,
or fear of missing out, or the fear that someone we don't 'like' might
somehow be enriched by such funds. Now the question of whether some people
(in the party) have become 'unjustly' enriched, due to unethical acts, is
not something I question. But, really, isn't that all it boils down to?
I'm just trying to be objective here, not point fingers. The whole thing
just doesn't sit square on the scales.
Now that I've heard the arguments, and that is what I wanted to hear, I have
to say, I still don't 'get it'. I've honestly tried. I know I will face
opponents who will try to shoot holes in my philosophy and ideology, so as a
practiced debater, I KNOW I had better know my own weaknesses BETTER than
the opposition. I am glad I decided to keep the issue on the table, maybe,
just maybe we'll all have time to consider our own weaknesses. I hope we
will all give some thought to the questions at hand.
I believe in working toward Freedom. That's it. I thought the Libertarian
party was based on that basic principle of morality. What does that mean?
It means I believe the government bureaucracy is too big, and must be
brought to heel--shrunk in size and cost. It means that government
regulation of the individual has way over-stepped the limits of its'
charter, and we must repeal them. It means that government has used force
against every Citizen, and must be dis-armed, save for defensive capability.
I signed the pledge, intending only what it meant, no need to read between
the lines--I will not advocate the initiation of the use of force in any
circumstance, and I meant it. Then I looked for the 'weaknesses' in my
proclamation, and I found that I WOULD violate the very pledge to which I
subscribe--I could quickly think of an instance in which I would be very
'un-Libertarian'. Being of German descent, I realized that if 'they' or
anyone else ever tried to round up all the Jews and put them onto trains, I
would initiate force. I would take whatever steps I had to, to stop it. I
would probably kill someone who hadn't initiated force against 'me' in order
to protect someone else. It's none of your business, they didn't hurt YOU,
so stay out of it, said the 'purist', I don't care said I. I will. "It
can't happen" said the 'purist'--it DID happen, said I.
Then it hit me. The major problem we had as 'force' for Freedom. We are
hypocritically demanding 'perfect' adherence to ideological perfection, but
I am only a man--not God. Like being a perfect Christian, I cannot ever
hope to be a perfect Libertarian. And I do not believe any of us has been,
is or can be. Why? Because we're human beings. And if we are unable to
accept other people as just human beings who won't always agree with us we
are truly self-delusioned. And if I should EVER become so sick of mind as
to demand 'perfection' of any one else, please, put me out of my misery.
While I will always work toward attaining Libertarian perfection, I know
that it will never be had. If someone, anyone one, even a seedy little
creep should do something, to stop the encroachment on all of our Rights, I
will be grateful. Will I DEMAND that he save us from every little
encroachment before I can say, 'Well done', no, because I now know I am not
the 'ideal' and I do not believe anyone else is, or ever has been. And I
will not be so caught up in the cult of 'purist perfectionism' that I forget
what I came for, a little thing called Freedom.
I guess I won't criticize you for what you did wrong 'as a Libertarian', I
will bite my tongue, but I WILL praise you for what you've done right.
Because I know that Freedom is not something anyone can have 'alone', and I
can't have mine till you've got yours. Because a little more Freedom for
you, means a little more Freedom for me.
As always, I remain at your service--
Barry Hess
Community email addresses:
Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com
Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/