From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:45:24 GMT

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". Rather he
thinks that tolerance, among other things, is useful as a basis
for libertarianism. I agree with Al and Ludwig on this one, but
let's not argue about it. I haven't seen Al or anyone else
arguing that the LP should go after those who do not support
free enterprise and personal freedom to become members.

>I know many tolerant people who aren't libertarians by the conventional
>definition.  My family tolerates my libertarianism, but doesn't share it.

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!

>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.

>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.

>}>Yet, many who give money to the LP haven't
>}>signed the membership pledge - and I have seen evidence for this.
>}
>}Don't you think they would be likely to give even more if they
>}weren't considered second class by the LP?
>
>Nope.  Why would you think this?

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.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Inside my head"