From: thom@crayfish.ucsd.edu (Thom Cleland)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bisexual libertariansn ear
Date: 8 Nov 1992 05:53:09 GMT
Organization: Tenuous at best
NNTP-Posting-Host: crayfish.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Nov8.031354.16790@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:

>>>Interesting that Steve Conley pointed out that a lot of bisexuals are
>>>libertarians. I am one myself--I've got the card and everything! Could
>>>this be a trend?
>>
>>Don't know about the trend.  What I have noticed  (not a scientific sampling)
>>is that some of the 'new libertarians' choose their affiliation more or less
>>solely to protest taxation, and have little time to spare to defend the
>>"freedom of the unpopular".  I know professed libertarians who support the
>>gag rule, increased police powers, federal review of the arts  (as opposed
>>to simply cutting all arts funding), and delight in mocking liberation
>>movements to a degree which would bestir the black heart of Pat Buchanan
>>(one such 'libertarian' even sent money to his presidential campaign)..
>
>First, keep in mind the Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat.  Political parties
>do not have control over what their individual members do or support.  I
>am sorry that some "libertarians" support things like that, but it's just
>a vocal minority and they have no influence in actual Party action.

*Was* a Democrat.  I'm not up on LaRouchie history, but he quit and founded
the "New Democratic Party", which got busted somehow; now he's founded
a party with some other name.  But your basic point is valid, and I don't
think I ever indicated the contrary.  What I really don't know, though
your last sentence is valid testimony to me, is what type of Libertarian
pulls the Party strings.  By electing Andre Marrou, what do we get?
What elements of statism are the first to go?  

>Your criticism is understandable.  What's really happening is that a
>lot of paleoconservatives are trying to ride on Libertarian coattails.  I
>think they figure they'll get more of an audience that way.  We try to rid
>ourselves of them but it's not easy.  The people who control the platform
>and actually work in campaigns are, for the most part, very good people
>(hey, I'm one of 'em so I ought ta know!).

Sounds great, but I'm not convinced that any political party is going to
turn away a large bloc of sympathetic voters.  And once they reach 
majority status, whump.  Liquid paleoconservative death, with a nice
refreshing label, just like happened to the Republicans with the Religious 
Right.  I cannot forget that Libertarianism arose from the Young Americans
for Freedom.  Reason magazine ran a major story last year dissing the 
ACLU for several reasons, only a couple of which I found at all valid. 
What that episode taught me is that self-styled 'defenders of liberty'
come in at least two flavors, those concerned with the rights of individuals
and those concerned with increasing their own economic power.  My trouble
here is not that I doubt you--I don't at all and I suspect I would
support you in many issues--but that I don't know if the Libertarian Party
per se is an entity to which I should direct my support.  Is their brand
of freedom to be won for the love of liberty or as a license to run amok with
whatever power one can muster?  Is the first issue on the agenda to 
obliterate the "seizure without conviction" statutes of federal drug-war
law or to gut federal environmental standards?  

This is kind of academic, actually.  The test of the Libertarian party
in the present is going to be what a few Libertarians are able to do.
Libertarians trying to eviscerate public schools do not impress me.
Libertarians running on "freedom of the unpopular" platforms do.  
I think that there are social functions in the real world best served
by standardization, meaning government action, and I also think that the
government has no business doing many of the things that it does.  
>
>There are a lot of young Libertarians (as opposed to 'new' Libertarians, who
>are typically converted Republicans) such as myself who are working very
>hard against the drug war, against sodomy laws, and other stupid statist
>bullshit.  And to us, rights are rights, and there's no such thing as
>"more important rights" that we have to fight harder for.  In Columbus,
>Ohio, we ran a whole state legislature campaign based on the "freedom of
>the unpopular", while an openly gay Republican in an adjoining district
>was attacked by his Democratic opponent purely on the basis of his 
>sexuality.
>
I certainly won't defend anyone, Democrat or otherwise, displaying
that sort of knuckle-dragging attitude.  And I join you in the issues
you just described.  

You know, I've done a lot of thinking in recent days about the utility
and fundamental logic behind libertarianism which I'd love to expound
upon but am thinking that we're getting off our beloved topic of
bisexuality.  I'd appreciate your further thoughts on the topic, and
your criticisms of my ideas; if you're interested, please email me.
Alternatively, if there is a favored libertarian newsgroup; I'll join up
and toss ideas out there.  

>Steve
>sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Thom!
tcleland@ucsd.edu

-- 
Thom Cleland     \ /^^/  >Neural systems/network physiology< >Amigaphile<  
(619) 453-7516    \OO/  >Aoinagi Shito-ryu == bend, and the wind passes <
tcleland@ucsd.edu  ++  >B3 f cdv g++ k+(+) m s+ r+ p growl+ purr++ zzz- <
"Wild magic is graven in every rock, every tree, in every blade of grass" 
Newsgroups: soc.bi