From: f67709317@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Date: 6 Apr 92 06:57:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: skyblu.1992Apr5.235704.1
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67709317

In article <PMETZGER.92Apr3121333@snark.shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>    First -- from what I see of the Lib platform, it is *not* the best.
>    It seems to be warmed over Goldwater/Buchanan Republicanism whose
>    flaws are masked by the fluff words "Jeffersonian democracy."
> We are pro choice. We are against the war on drugs. We are in favor of
> an end to prosecution of victimless crimes, including the completely
> innocent things adults may choose or choose not to do in the privacy
> of their own homes, with or without money involved. Try to find a
> Republican who's in favor of repealing anti-sodomy laws and other
> similar statutory discrimination against the homosexual community, eh?

Well, as it stands, the moderate Republicans in Congress are for all these
things.  (Bob Packwood, for example.)  The centrists in the GOP are
probably in favor of the exact same things you cite; it's just that the
party platform-makers are scared of offending the fundie/yokel vote that
unfortunately is quite numerous (as Helms showed).

> We are in favor of eliminating hypocritical and unneeded controls on
> immigration. If someone wants to come to the US and work, let them.
> Find a Republican candidate who will say that. Buchanan won't. By the
> way, Buchanan is a protectionist. We are in favor of free trade.

Goldwater was too.  In fact, one could read him as an early Libertarian--
before the conservative GOP became dominated by the religious wackos, he
was a laissez-faire, free-trade kind of guy, the type the LP would have
welcomed with open arms if he wasn't such an old fogey. :-)  You may be
right WRT Buchanan.
 
> Our brand of Jeffersonian democracy means that the government doesn't
> stop any activity that causes no violence or threat of violence to
> people or their property. We are not conservatives. Conservatives want
> to run peoples lives. We have no interest in running peoples lives. We
> want people to be free to do what they enjoy so long as what they
> enjoy isn't theft or murder or some real crime like that.
> 
> No, we aren't warmed over Republicans. Sorry to disappoint you.
> 
> We don't fit the conventional political labels. We are unique. We are
> neither liberals nor conservatives.

You're (since you refer to the LP in the first person, I feel comfortable
using the second person) close to being nihilist radicals.  Turning back 
the clock on a social safety net, no regulations on corporations' activities,
no funding for expensive but necessary projects (e.g., infrastructure, basic
research in universities, elementary school education, space), no fetters
on racial or sexual discrimination -- this would entail a huge change in 
our nation, and would, IMHO, irreparably harm it.

>    Second -- even if I did think the Lib platform was the best, they have
>    no chance of putting the platform into action.
> 
> There you go, betting on the horse race again. 
> 
> "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what
> you've always got."
> 
> The purpose of an election is to support the guy who's best, not the
> guy who's most "electable". If you believe in a candidate, you have to
> put your vote where your heart is. If no one votes for a person even
> if they DO support him, then we will NEVER get anywhere.

The purpose of an election is to elect, period.  When I go to McDonald's, I 
choose either Chicken McNuggets or a Big Mac.  My purpose is not to whine,
"Oh, but a nice heart-healthy diet would be so much better!" as the Libs
do.  I don't try to find the best possible food in the world, at that time. 
I'm hungry, so I choose either the McNuggets or the Big Mac.  Most Americans,
you may be surprised to know, make political decisions that way.

The American political process is the equivalent of a one-restaurant
town, in which McDonald's is the restaurant.  The majority of the populace
cannot affect what McDonald's puts on its menu, so they are forced to take
what McDonald's offers them.  It will be fattening, and not too tasty, 
whether I pick the burger or the chicken nuggets.  Yet it is my only choice,
and because the political process is biased towards the McDonald's of the
world, it will be my only effective choice for years to come.

That is, we're not looking for the best candidate in 1992.  We're looking
for the one who's the best AVAILABLE (read: electable) candidate.  The
Libs still will be fighting this electability question for a looonggg time,
I'm afraid.  If they understand the question, that is.
 
> However, luckily, lots of people agree with us and have been voting
> for us.
> 
> We've been doubling our vote totals every four years for a while; we
> expect the trend to continue. We'll probably break one million votes
> for the first time in this election, and probably by a quite
> comfortable margin. Yes, its going to take time, but remember, this is
> not a horse race.

This sounds pie-in-the-skyish.  How do you respond to Sean Ryan's comments
on the LP?
-- 
Greg Franklin                             "Death is everywhere,
f67709317@ccit.arizona.edu          there are fries on the windscreen."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections