From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:41:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.094524.7106@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
}In article <1993Jan25.072824.28903@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <1993Jan23.130330.13274@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
}>}>The anti-pledge types seem to me to want to go after non-libertarians
}>}>to become members, that's all.  
}>}
}>}I don't know where you're getting this impression from. I can't
}>}believe that you have gotten it from myself, Mark Sulkowski, Al
}>}Date, or any of the people arguing for the LNC proposals on
}>}LPUS.
}>
}>I sure have gotten this impression from Al, but I don't read LPUS.  He
}>wants to redefine libertarianism vaguely as "tolerance," rather than
}>opposition to the initiation of force and fraud we call coercion, then
}>get rid of the pledge.
}
}He doesn't want to define libertarianism as "tolerance".

Yes he does, or he did for a while.  He was spouting the slogan "Libertarians
are the tolerant people," and citing the pro-immigrant-aid demonstrations in
Germany as the sort of people he'd like to recruit.  Recently, he's been
arguing for the principle of individual responsibility, similarly vague.
Our opponents could just as easily argue that they want to hold individuals
responsible for breaking such vice laws as ones against prostitution or
against not hiring african-americans.

}I haven't ever seen anyone claim that everyone who claims to be
}tolerant is automatically a libertarian. Hell, not everyone who
}claimes to oppose the initiation of force is a libertarian. You
}say that they aren't being consistent? Well, someone who claims
}to be tolerant and isn't a libertarian is also being
}inconsistent!

So what?  Why should they care about being consistent?

}>The opposition to coercion is a conclusion, not an axiom.  It can be arrived
}>at in at least two ways: Lockean natural rights theory, and utilitarianism.
}
}However, some utilitarians would rather do their utility
}calculations on a case-by-case basis rather than at some point
}deciding that utility is maximized by the NCP and therefore all
}cases forseen and unforseen can be resolved in a way that
}maximizes utility by following the NCP.

I know.  This is called "act utilitarianism," and is untenable.  Just about
anyone who's taken a basic class on utilitarianism in college can tell you
that.

}>The reason the LP is perceived to be weird is because of what typhoid Murray's
}>Radical Caucus did to it after they drove out the Kochtopus.
}
}I'd be interested to know what changes you'd make to counteract
}this.

Frankly, I've been too busy fighting off run-to-win-ers so that we could
actually still have a platform to consider remodeling it.

}Well, *I* certainly would be less willing to give to an
}organization that did not allow me to be a full member, or to a
}church that did not allow me to participate in the ceremonies,
}or in similar situations.

"White can help us, but they can't join us." - Malcolm X.  Similarly,
non-libertarians can help us, but they can't join.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire