Re: [FSP] Problem with political parties?
> >In Idaho, by contrast, the state is totally controlled by the Republicans.Politics is the art of the possible. Compromise in various manners
>Our best way forward if we choose Idaho would be to infiltrate the
> >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.
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 itFor example? (Tim Condon)
>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.
- In a message dated 8/1/02 10:54:02 PM GMT Daylight Time, tim@...
> For example? (Tim Condon)Accountibility...... Tim (Hanson)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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@...Sorry...don't understand. Tim (Condon)
> > For example? (Tim Condon)
>Accountibility...... Tim (Hanson)