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

Re: [FSP] Problem with political parties?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Aug 1 2:36 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 10 , Aug 1 2:55 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        > >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 3 of 10 , Aug 1 2:59 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 10 , Aug 1 3:42 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            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.