Which is instructive, since that characterization is the false
stereotype of libertarianism that those who oppose it put forth to
discredit us. Many, if not most, liberals believe this about us.
And much of our own rhetoric can easily be interpreted this way,
especially by those who have forgotten (or never learned) that there
are other ways to accomplish things than government. For instance,
most Americans are completely acclimated to the idea of universal
public education, and can't imagine that it could be handled any
other way. So when we say anything about separating school and
state, they jump to the idea that we oppose education. So it is
important (and will increasingly become more so as we grow in power
in NH) that whenever we speak to oppose a government policy, that we
also include a positive alternative solution to the issue or problem
that the policy is intended to deal with.
Also, it will become increasingly important to clarify our consistent
positions in favor of liberty as a "brand" or package, distinct in
itself. The Constitution Party and its ilk share much of our
rhetoric, and many of our economic policies, and it is very easy for
the uninformed to confuse us with them. However, they genuinely
*are* an "extreme right-wing philosophy", based on an intolerant
interpretation of Christianity, and advocating a U.S. government
based on how they interpret the Bible. So any productive efforts to
attract those who might come to us from the left will necessarily
have to include educational information to separate us from them.
A group of them borrowed our idea, and started a group
called "Christian Exodus" to try to establish a Christian state in
South Carolina. I like to refer to it as the TSP [Theocratic State
Project]. I've directed a few people in their direction who have
been attracted to the FSP by the economic policies of libertarianism
but who turned out to be opposed to personal/social liberty. I don't
know how they are doing, but I hope they succeed. I'd *love* to see
federalism really working; to see one state dominated by the
Constitution Party, and one by the Green Party, and one by the
Socialist Party, and so on. We could then all see what really works
best in a variety of ways, and those who prefer different solutions
could all have them, and we could quit squabbling about a lot of this
--- "GTriest" <garyonthenet@...> wrote:
> This writer's characterization of both the FSP & Libertarianism is
soo off-mark and aspersively slanted so as question his knowledge of
> "never contribute anything to American society"? As a libertarian
tenet? What idiocy!
> What Libertarianism promotes is a neutrality of obligation to
contribute to society, there is no bar to doing so!
> It just doesn't force people to 'contribute' to society. Forcing a
contribution is obviously theft.
> "libertarianism is extreme right-wing philosophy" - Abbreviated BS!
> Do extreme right-wingers demand the personal liberties that
> I don't think so, not by todays definition. And if they did, then I
guess we ARE all xtreem rightwingers - NOT!!
> Gary T