> > He asked about drugs & prostitutes, not tax cuts.
> You missed my point.
Actually, you missed mine.
> This makes no sense. Whether it's tax cuts, prostitution or anything
else, we'd need to > get ELECTED to implement them. And if we have the
numbers (the whole point of the FSP) > and get elected, ALL of it is
In the smallest state, Wyoming, 20,000 is 13% of the voters. 13%. If
the other 87% have decided that you're a whack-job, they aren't going to
elect you. So it's not doable UNLESS you can get the support of at least
another 37% of the voters.
> Irrelevant. We can end state and local govt drug prohibition
immediately upon getting
Great. I'll memo Ed Rosenthal.
> Btw, we'll be battling Fed mandates with regard to tax cuts, too.
Not concerning state taxes/property taxes/ etc.
> Those 5 friends aren't voting for ANY issue...they'd be voting for
First off, "stroke of the pen, law of the land" may not be viable in all
cases. Depending on the issue, it may require a vote.
Secondly, all 20,000 of us aren't going to be running for office. I'd be
surprised if as many as 500 do. So if you're running for office, you
have your 5 friends, but I'll need to convince MY 5 friends to vote for
you. And they're going to be concerned about issues. They may vote for
"me" because they like "me", but they won't necessarily vote for "you"
because they like "me", especially if they have already decided that
you're a dangerous anarchist who doesn't care about the ch-i-i-l-l-dren!
If you do get into office and unilaterally eliminate all non-coercive
laws without attempting to build support for your actions among the
populace, you'll be kicked out of office. They'll vote in a Republican
or Democrat who will reinstate everything you just eliminated, and all
your hard work will have been for nothing. Just ask Joe (Solitar) on the
> Others will more likely be grousing about peaceful prostitutes and
drug users rotting in > a jail cell - or someone else there because a
corrupt cop planted drugs on him - and
> paying taxes for it.
And I would be one of them. However, until you can get the support of
the populace on a particular platform, you CAN'T change it. And you're
not going to get the support of the populace by walking in and saying,
"We're here, we're in charge, deal with it." Every state that we're
considering would respond with, "Oh yeah? Bet me."
I'm simply saying that if you equally support Issue A, Issue B, and
Issue C, and you're pretty damn sure everyone else supports A, why not
get A passed first, then work on B&C?
> And exactly how do we "agitate" for anything without being elected?
Hmmm - let's see. Referendum process? Getting a bill introduced?
> Gee, that's gonna inspire libertarians to pack their bags.
Because all libertarians want is drugs 'n whores, and don't care about
anything else at all? Are we really that shallow?
> 1) Who cares?! We're likely YEARS from migrating. That should be our
> We're in recruiting mode, not give-a-shit-what-
> states-think mode.
Okay, I think I may have finally figured out where we're missing each
other. It was frustrating to me because our principles are very similar.
I feel that how we portray ourselves during the recruiting process will
impact how effective we are after the move. Consequently, I feel that we
should "market" ourselves for mainstream consumption, particularly in
mass media; not for recruitment purposes, but to ensure a welcome
reception where ever we go. I feel that libertarians will get our
message even if it isn't stated overtly.
You don't agree - you're concerned solely with recruiting the 20,000,
the more hard-core, the better. You feel that by watering down our
message to make ourselves more palatable, we run the risk of attracting
members who don't truly value a libertarian society. In addition, you
are concerned that hard-core types will be put off by our
political-correctness and refuse to join, further eroding our
Am I warm?
> 2) I'm shocked that you think a "we're here to give you smack"
reaction could possibly
> result from such an innocuous statement.
I've known too many anti-drug types. You know, the ones who think those
stupid "Nick and Norm" commercials actually make sense.