Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [FSP] Problem with political parties?

Expand Messages
  • thnsn8@aol.com
    In a message dated 7/31/02 2:28:27 PM GMT Daylight Time, tim@free-market.net ... The fact that all the political parties have chosen to adopt such practices
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 31, 2002
      In a message dated 7/31/02 2:28:27 PM GMT Daylight Time, tim@...
      writes:


      > "Duplicitous methods,"
      > "brainwash" and "deceit and spin" are perjoratives that can just as well be
      >
      > used against *any* political group.

      The fact that all the political parties have chosen to adopt such practices
      don't make it right though.... and you don't need a crystal ball to foresee
      that the 'free state' will be shortlived if we all were to support the
      existing parties once we arrive there.... Jason's last response is
      beginning to make sense now and I for one am beginning to have reservations
      about the long termviability of the project... If we are gonna allow the
      exisiting parties to get away with scurrilous activities within the free
      state it won't be long before we lose control.... What do the rest of you
      think?


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • thnsn8@aol.com
      I know not many people seem to be taking an interest in this thread (which in itself intrigues me further) but I ve been giving it a little further off-line
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 31, 2002
        I know not many people seem to be taking an interest in this thread (which in
        itself intrigues me further) but I've been giving it a little further
        off-line thought and have come to the conclusion that anyone who thinks that
        when we arrive at our chosen location that we are gonna be able to achive our
        mission statement by doing deals with the existing parties can only be
        fooling themselves... reason is that even if the majority of our movement
        were in favour of such a move..... to do a deal you have to trade and in
        doing so compromise your beliefs and in doing that you can only acheive a
        conditional outcome......

        So........... okay guys we'll let you smoke the odd joint and do a little
        home schooling just keep sending the tax dollars and keep those hand guns out
        of sight won't ya??............ the only way for us to be successful is to
        win over the support of the statists with something that your 'average Joe'
        who is hacked off with all the rhetoric and broken promises will find fresh
        and inspiring.

        Tim Hanson


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jason P Sorens
        I didn t mean to imply that we should strengthen the *existing* parties. We should either eventually form our own party/parties or completely take over an
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 31, 2002
          I didn't mean to imply that we should strengthen the *existing* parties.
          We should either eventually form our own party/parties or completely take
          over an existing party. I agree with you, Tim, that cutting little deals
          and compromises here and there won't cut it in the long run.

          ________________________________________________________________________

          Jason P Sorens---jason.sorens@...---http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35

          http://www.freestateproject.org - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
        • Ernest Moosa
          Yes stick to the No Compromise position. Compromise is the reason that you cannot tell a democrat from a republican any more. Compromise means that your
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 31, 2002
            Yes stick to the No Compromise position.

            Compromise is the reason that you cannot tell a
            democrat from a republican any more.

            Compromise means that your consitutients cannot tell
            what the elected official will do.

            Compromise means you can put the blame on another.

            Not compromising means that you are person of
            Principle.

            EJ


            --- Jason P Sorens <jason.sorens@...> wrote:
            >
            > I didn't mean to imply that we should strengthen the
            > *existing* parties.
            > We should either eventually form our own
            > party/parties or completely take
            > over an existing party. I agree with you, Tim, that
            > cutting little deals
            > and compromises here and there won't cut it in the
            > long run.
            >
            >
            ________________________________________________________________________
            >
            > Jason P
            >
            Sorens---jason.sorens@...---http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35
            >
            > http://www.freestateproject.org - Do you want
            > liberty in your lifetime?
            >
            >


            =====
            Where has your money been? HTTP://www.wheresgeorge.com
            "The individual is the single most important minority. If your rights are removed by the majority, you have been enslaved." EJ

            "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

            www.ejmoosa.com

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
            http://health.yahoo.com
          • thnsn8@aol.com
            In a message dated 7/31/02 11:42:33 PM GMT Daylight Time, ... Jason.. I m not tryin to be picky or anything but can I ask if I am right in thinking that as
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
              In a message dated 7/31/02 11:42:33 PM GMT Daylight Time,
              jason.sorens@... writes:


              > I didn't mean to imply that we should strengthen the *existing* parties.
              > We should either eventually form our own party/parties or completely take
              > over an existing party. I agree with you, Tim, that cutting little deals
              > and compromises here and there won't cut it in the long run.
              >

              Jason.. I'm not tryin' to be picky or anything but can I ask if I am right
              in thinking that as it stands at the moment we are planning to bring 20,000
              folks together in five years time and we don't have a strategy for how we are
              gonna effect the mission statement??? Even if the 'endgame' is too far
              ahead at the moment we should surely have a gameplan or is the plan that we
              spend the next five years after we arrive cutting deals between
              ourselves...... the success or failure of which will determine as to whether
              we go forward as one party or compete with ourselves with lots of smaller
              rival groups?? I really think that this is one issue that needs to be at
              the top of our priority list as the strategy (which I suspect has yet to be
              determined) will almost certainly influence our choice of location.

              I can't believe that this issue has not been raised before.... only reason
              I didn't bring it up sooner is becos I thought it would already have been
              discussed before I joined..... maybe everyone else has been thinkin' the
              same. Thanx for your last mail ejmoo.... I think you just increased the
              membership of the 'No exceptions and no compromise' faction by 100%

              Tim Hanson.... PS the more I think about this one the more I
              realise that the no exceptions and no compromise route is the only way we can
              go.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jason P Sorens
              ... I think it will mostly be the reverse: the selection of the state will influence our selection of strategy. Once we know the state, we can open an office
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
                On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 thnsn8@... wrote:

                > I really think that this is one issue that needs to be at
                > the top of our priority list as the strategy (which I suspect has yet to be
                > determined) will almost certainly influence our choice of location.

                I think it will mostly be the reverse: the selection of the state will
                influence our selection of strategy. Once we know the state, we can open
                an office there and think about the best way forward. For example, in my
                Vermont report I noted the strong 3rd-party and independentist tradition,
                which might support a new, catch-all, autonomist party. In Idaho, by
                contrast, the state is totally controlled by the Republicans. Our best
                way forward if we choose Idaho would be to infiltrate the Republicans and
                change their policies. Of course, in the long run the national Republican
                party might "cut us off" because of the policies we're pursuing, in which
                case we can then form our own party. But U.S. history shows that 3rd
                parties are most successful when they are formed out of the ashes of major
                parties, so that's why in most states we would probably not be forming a
                3rd party right away. In addition, we'll want a non-party pressure group,
                something like "The Association for Federalism" that will pressure
                candidates to conform to our positions. It would be similar to the
                "nonpartisan leagues" of the Midwest that pressed farmers' issues
                successfully.

                ________________________________________________________________________

                Jason P Sorens---jason.sorens@...---http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35

                http://www.freestateproject.org - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
              • thnsn8@aol.com
                In a message dated 8/1/02 3:37:46 PM GMT Daylight Time, jason.sorens@yale.edu ... This sounds reasonable to me but it s this bit.............. ... Our best ...
                Message 7 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
                  In a message dated 8/1/02 3:37:46 PM GMT Daylight Time, jason.sorens@...
                  writes:


                  > I think it will mostly be the reverse: the selection of the state will
                  > influence our selection of strategy. Once we know the state, we can open
                  > an office there and think about the best way forward.

                  This sounds reasonable to me but it's this bit..............

                  >In Idaho, by contrast, the state is totally controlled by the Republicans.
                  Our best
                  >way forward if we choose Idaho would be to infiltrate the Republicans and
                  >change their policies. Of course, in the long run the national Republican
                  <party might "cut us off" because of the policies we're pursuing, in which
                  >case we can then form our own party.

                  ...........I'm not too sure about.

                  Any attempt to splice it with any party other than the existing LP would
                  involve compromise somewhere down the line. Over here every coalition that
                  has been formed between the PP's has ended up 'crashing' once the political
                  opposition and the media start working on exposing the inherent differences
                  they have.

                  I think that the problem I have with the whole party thing is that it would
                  be rediculous to have in a 'supposed' free state a situation where as a party
                  political activist you are free to adopt scurrilous methods but as an
                  individual you are not.

                  I would be interested to hear the views of others on this thread....... Tim


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Tim Condon
                  ... Politics is the art of the possible. Compromise in various manners and areas is inevitable. You *have* to compromise to get what you want. The aim is to
                  Message 8 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
                    > >In Idaho, by contrast, the state is totally controlled by the Republicans.
                    >Our best way forward if we choose Idaho would be to infiltrate the
                    >Republicans and
                    > >change their policies. Of course, in the long run the national Republican
                    ><party might "cut us off" because of the policies we're pursuing, in which
                    > >case we can then form our own party.
                    >
                    >..I'm not too sure about. Any attempt to splice it with any party other
                    >than the existing LP would involve compromise somewhere down the
                    >line. Over here every coalition that has been formed between the PP's has
                    >ended up 'crashing' once the political opposition and the media start
                    >working on exposing the inherent differences they have.

                    Politics is the art of the possible. Compromise in various manners
                    and areas is inevitable. You *have* to compromise to get what you want. The
                    aim is to head in the direction of freedom. Those who would rather have no
                    loaf than a half a loaf of bread misunderstand the dynamics of political
                    action. You do what you have to do until you're in a position not to have
                    to compromise. But in a democratic republic you can't just order everyone
                    else to agree with you and toe the line. The Bolsheviks could, and did.
                    They shot people and exterminated opposition. We don't want to do that and
                    we couldn't do such a thing anyway without violating our fundamental creed.
                    We win by showing people that implementing policies that increase freedom
                    will benefit everyone both in the short and long term. Eventually they come
                    around because our cause is just and our positions are true.

                    >I think that the problem I have with the whole party thing is that it
                    >would be rediculous to have in a 'supposed' free state a situation where
                    >as a party political activist you are free to adopt scurrilous methods but
                    >as an individual you are not.

                    For example? (Tim Condon)
                  • thnsn8@aol.com
                    In a message dated 8/1/02 10:54:02 PM GMT Daylight Time, tim@free-market.net ... Accountibility...... Tim (Hanson) [Non-text portions of this message have
                    Message 9 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
                      In a message dated 8/1/02 10:54:02 PM GMT Daylight Time, tim@...
                      writes:


                      > For example? (Tim Condon)
                      >

                      Accountibility...... Tim (Hanson)


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Tim Condon
                      ... Sorry...don t understand. Tim (Condon)
                      Message 10 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
                        At 05:59 PM 8/1/02 -0400, you wrote:
                        >In a message dated 8/1/02 10:54:02 PM GMT Daylight Time, tim@...
                        >writes:
                        >
                        > > For example? (Tim Condon)
                        >
                        >Accountibility...... Tim (Hanson)

                        Sorry...don't understand. Tim (Condon)
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.