From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:53:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.231217.5005@cs.ucla.edu>,
frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>You ignored the key part of your own initial statement (what
>used to be above the 1's).  Certainly, implementing something
>by force that is not commonly believed in won't work.  What I
>object to is the notion that Libertarianism is an all-or-nothing
>philosophy requiring full participation.  My use of "revolution"
>was not to imply armed insurection or the use of force, but
>to contrast it with "evolution"; libertarians seem to espouse
>sudden and complete societal change, rather than a gradual
>and never-ending societal change.  Yes, a simplification, but
>if the shoe fits...

In _The_True_Believer_ Eric Hoffer (? - its been a while) makes what
I consider a very important point -- that extremists are essential
to making any progress at all.  Just as science and technology
require people willing to "push the envelope", politics and social
change require that people with a strong commitment to radical
positions are necessary to make any progress in that direction at
all.  If nothing else, they legitimate those who are less radical
than the extremists but would themselves probably be classified as
extremists were it not for the existence of those farther out on the
fringes.

Even if the Libertarian Party were never to elect anyone I think it
is essential that it perform this function by consistently
presenting a view of the possible if still uncomfortable.  For
myself I find no conflict is saying I know where I want to get to
and doing everything I can to get there while still recognizing that
accomplishing that goal will be a gradual process of shifting the
center of common wisdom until I sit in it rather than outside it.

>I'm sure there is teeth-gnashing going on.  No, I haven't
>ignored the posts about how sudden change wouldn't happen
>cuz Lib's aren't going to get a sudden majority in Congress.
>That isn't the issue - the issue is that if you want to
>get *any* seats in Congress, you are going to have to come
>up with your own evolutionary path.

I disagree.  Why do you think it makes more sense to vote for
someone going in the wrong direction than for someone going in the
right direction when you know that they will not be able to get any
farther than you currently feel comfortable with?  This has always
been my position when campaigning.

>>The lack of hope and general despondency of life in our inner cities
>>has now reached such levels that life really is cheap.  This is a
>>very dangerous turn of events.  We must restore to these people a
>>belief that life does have something to offer them, and I firmly
>>believe that only the program offered by the Libertarian Party has
>>the potential to do that.
>
>Then unwind a bit and get people into office who will make
>a difference, rather than running philosophers who consider
>their philosophy a moral one and any devience from it on
>their part hypocrisy.  Pick an issue (the war on drugs would
>be a good place to start).  Run a candidate for a semi-major
>office.  Let his platform be demopublican *except* for our
>key issue - on that issue, deviate from the norm, and deviate
>in a way that everybody can believe in.  Or make it two
>issues - combine anti-WoD with tax reform (oops - you
>Lib's don't think taxes can be reformed - oh, well).  In any
>case, get this person into office, make the change and if
>it works you can say "See!?  We weren't nuts after all.  Now,
>here's what we should do next..."

I think if you look at what LP candidates are actually saying in the
context of running for office that is exactly what they are doing.
Philosophical discussions on usenet should not be considered
campaigning.  People running for office take stands on particular
current issues and tell you they're going to work for changes in
these areas.  Do you really want them to lie to you if they happened
to be asked how they think about other things that might be more
radical?

Personally I happen to be more of a philosophical anarchist than
a limited government type but I'm not about to suggest that people
should vote for me so I can go out and and turn America into an
anarchy.  My belief that anarchy is viable gives me a vision and a
direction that is diametrically opposes to the statists who
currently control this country and gives me much in common with
people with more modest aims.  Reaching their goals is just a part
of the way to mine but its still a common path for a long way down
the trail, and I have every confidence that as we walk together I
can convince them to look a little farther down the road.

Just because I might want to hike a bit further than you think you
want to right now, does it make sense for you to turn around and run
the other way rather than for us to walk a ways together and worry
about the divergence of our paths further down the line?

>Greg Frazier    frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU     !{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc