From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Do Pragmatic Libertarians Belong in LP or RLC? (was Re: Party line)
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:36:39 GMT
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <C1FKAC.BwA@encore.com>, rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
|> In article <1k1i0aINNae4@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> |> In article <YAMAUCHI.93Jan25134701@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> |> |> This raises an interesting question -- do pragmatic libertarians
|> |> |> belong in Libertarian Party or the Republican Liberty Caucus?  I
|> |> |> define a pragmatic libertarian to be anyone who falls in the
|> |> |> libertarian quadrant (supporting civil liberties and free enterprise)
|> |> |> but who is not a non-coercion absolutist.
|> 
|> Regarding LP vs. RLC, it is not an either/or question most of the time.
|> Not many RLCers were challenged by LPers.  And some successful RLCers
|> were endorsed by LPers (unofficially, I guess).  I would vote for
|> whichever candidate I thought the most competent.
|> 

I would too.  However, I think it would have a much greater impact
if the person elected was from a party with clearly articulated goals
of increased personal freedom and responsibility.  Currently, when
people see 'Republican', they tend to think of the most visible group
which is currently the religious conservatives.  Even if a 'Republican'
gets elected, they still have to make it clear that they are a 
'moderate' Republican.  Labels are useful in quickly sorting through
information.  If Libertarians won a few seats in Congress or the Senate,
the news media would no longer be able to ignore the fact that there
is a real alternative to the two major parties.  People like company.
If there are some Libertarians elected, more will be elected because
people won't feel so out of place voting for one.  This will only
happen, however, it the Libertarian party pulls back from its absolutionist
positions and attempts to include more people who fall in the 
libertarian quadrant.

|> |> I suppose this depends on whether the LP represents the libertarian
|> |> quadrant, or simply a libertarian point (100/100 on the Nolan chart).
|> |> At the present time, the LP seems to represent the views of those who
|> |> are at or near the 100/100 point.  They don't seem to care about those
|> |> who fall in the rest of the quadrant.  I personally would like to
|> |> see the LP 'moderate' its views so that it encompasses more of those
|> |> in the libertarian quadrant.
|> 
|> Do you think all Republicans support the ban of all abortions even in
|> cases of rape and incest?  It was in their platform.  

And it hurt their credibility with more 'moderate' Republicans.  Many
voted for Clinton because they didn't want to associated with the
radical 'conservatives' in the party.

|> Don't get caught
|> up in the purist vs.  moderate mentality.  I say we're at about 50%
|> self-government right now.  If you want to go to 90%, join the only
|> group who's first and only priority is to reduce government in all
|> areas: libertarians.  At 90%, if you think there is too much
|> self-government, join the republicrats to balance things out.  I don't
|> think we'll be at a point for you to worry about too much
|> self-government for a couple decades.

I don't worry about it.  I'm a 100/90.  However, I don't think we
will make any progress if we don't attempt to embrace people who
legitimately fall in the libertarian quadrant but may not be a
'perfect' libertarian.  If we don't appeal to these people, they
will continue to vote for the Dempublicans and we will continue
to see erosion in personal liberty.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian