RP Listener Forum - Radio Paradise - eclectic commercial free Internet radio
[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

DAMN - AliGator - Mar 2, 2015 - 11:00pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - Alchemist - Mar 2, 2015 - 10:31pm
 
What's going on with the Psychopoodle now? - onlylynne - Mar 2, 2015 - 10:21pm
 
Regarding dogs - oldviolin - Mar 2, 2015 - 9:56pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Alexandra - Mar 2, 2015 - 8:23pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - haresfur - Mar 2, 2015 - 7:11pm
 
Procrastinators Anonymous - Coaxial - Mar 2, 2015 - 6:50pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Coaxial - Mar 2, 2015 - 6:48pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Mar 2, 2015 - 6:45pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - kurtster - Mar 2, 2015 - 5:27pm
 
Guns - kurtster - Mar 2, 2015 - 5:06pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Mar 2, 2015 - 4:35pm
 
NASA & other news from space - RichardPrins - Mar 2, 2015 - 4:07pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Antigone - Mar 2, 2015 - 3:59pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Coaxial - Mar 2, 2015 - 3:31pm
 
Best Song Comments. - haresfur - Mar 2, 2015 - 3:18pm
 
Beer - oldviolin - Mar 2, 2015 - 2:51pm
 
what makes you frown - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 2, 2015 - 2:39pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - ScottN - Mar 2, 2015 - 2:11pm
 
Graphic designers, ho's! - Proclivities - Mar 2, 2015 - 1:25pm
 
Canada - RichardPrins - Mar 2, 2015 - 1:11pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - RichardPrins - Mar 2, 2015 - 1:05pm
 
What's on SFW's PSD? - Proclivities - Mar 2, 2015 - 12:58pm
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 2, 2015 - 11:41am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - RichardPrins - Mar 2, 2015 - 10:57am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Mar 2, 2015 - 10:43am
 
What do you want to drive? - Proclivities - Mar 2, 2015 - 10:37am
 
Oklahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Mar 2, 2015 - 9:59am
 
Books read recently - ColdMiser - Mar 2, 2015 - 9:34am
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - Proclivities - Mar 2, 2015 - 9:19am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - meower - Mar 2, 2015 - 8:12am
 
Triskele and The Grateful Dead - MsJudi - Mar 2, 2015 - 8:12am
 
Art Show - Proclivities - Mar 2, 2015 - 8:03am
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - olivertwist - Mar 2, 2015 - 7:10am
 
Let's Rip - CD's - DaveInVA - Mar 2, 2015 - 7:09am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 2, 2015 - 7:05am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 2, 2015 - 6:51am
 
Not all BUGS are mean't to be squashed - Proclivities - Mar 2, 2015 - 6:45am
 
The Global War on Terror - kurtster - Mar 2, 2015 - 6:41am
 
The Image Post - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 1, 2015 - 11:22pm
 
Private messages in a public forum - Steely_D - Mar 1, 2015 - 10:44pm
 
Image That Goes With a Song Lyric - Alexandra - Mar 1, 2015 - 6:27pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - Antigone - Mar 1, 2015 - 5:29pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - lily34 - Mar 1, 2015 - 4:19pm
 
Name My Band - haresfur - Mar 1, 2015 - 2:11pm
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - olivertwist - Mar 1, 2015 - 1:46pm
 
Epic Facebook Statuses - Coaxial - Mar 1, 2015 - 9:15am
 
How's the weather? - bokey - Mar 1, 2015 - 9:08am
 
Things that piss me off - Red_Dragon - Mar 1, 2015 - 6:32am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Mar 1, 2015 - 6:04am
 
Facebook Tips - bokey - Mar 1, 2015 - 12:54am
 
Veterans - haresfur - Feb 28, 2015 - 10:47pm
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - oldviolin - Feb 28, 2015 - 10:38pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Feb 28, 2015 - 10:10pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Feb 28, 2015 - 9:57pm
 
Maps • Google • GeoGuessr - thedoctork - Feb 28, 2015 - 7:35pm
 
British Parliamentary Elections 2015 - haresfur - Feb 28, 2015 - 6:54pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - westslope - Feb 28, 2015 - 4:53pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - bokey - Feb 28, 2015 - 4:32pm
 
Coffee - Steely_D - Feb 28, 2015 - 3:39pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 28, 2015 - 2:34pm
 
Tech & Science - Red_Dragon - Feb 28, 2015 - 12:45pm
 
OUR CATS!! - JrzyTmata - Feb 28, 2015 - 11:58am
 
Top 885 Albums on WXPN - Sean-E-Sean - Feb 28, 2015 - 11:55am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Prodigal_SOB - Feb 28, 2015 - 11:17am
 
Roku 2 vs. Roku 3 - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 28, 2015 - 11:14am
 
Parenthood!!! - MsJudi - Feb 28, 2015 - 9:51am
 
soul / R & B ? - marko86 - Feb 28, 2015 - 8:33am
 
Earworm - Sean-E-Sean - Feb 28, 2015 - 7:57am
 
Help!!!!!!!! - Coaxial - Feb 28, 2015 - 7:39am
 
Way Cool Video - sirdroseph - Feb 28, 2015 - 5:55am
 
Let's make some Music - lunar1963 - Feb 28, 2015 - 5:11am
 
Celebrity Deaths - sirdroseph - Feb 28, 2015 - 2:44am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - kurtster - Feb 27, 2015 - 8:14pm
 
You might be getting old if...... - Red_Dragon - Feb 27, 2015 - 6:28pm
 
(a public service of RP)
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 135, 136, 137  Next
Post to this Topic
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Feb 21, 2015 - 4:04am

 miamizsun wrote:
before a few hundred years ago governments/states/fiefdoms tended not to like liberty

they were ruled by tribal leaders, kings, pharaohs, etc.

and they were based on conquest and military power

there were some agitating liberal bastards that had notions of thinking for themselves, personal freedoms/liberty, using science to find out how the world worked and other strange ideas

these agitating liberal bastards also began to advocate for society based on merit not status, markets not mercantilism, constitutional governments not monarchy and religious freedom, etc.

and eventually they won them all to some great extent (80-90 percent)

we call them human rights, we also call these ALBs "Classical Liberals" or libertarians

are there any governments that follow mises, rothbard, etc. to the letter?

no, but there aren't any that follow marx or marcuse exactly either

but are there governments and societies based on the "broad principles" of the those early liberals?

fortunately yes and there more and more going in that direction

libertarians or those liberty minded may seem radical to those who are complacent or satisfied with the world around them

me? i'm one of those ALBs working on that last 10-20%

 


I am with you and your LSD cadence prose!{#Mrgreen}{#Cheers}
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 2:17pm

 aflanigan wrote:
OK, Mr. Snarky, I'll try to not be delicate and use qualifying statements like "I got the impression" and "it seems" and "I thought" and just flat out say "you're being inconsistent".

It's not a question of pandering, but of asking the question, if our movement mostly attracts financially secure white males, maybe our beliefs and princicples aren't all that universally appealing? Or perhaps are presented in a manner which includes implicit messages that exclude various other groups?  

before a few hundred years ago governments/states/fiefdoms tended not to like liberty

they were ruled by tribal leaders, kings, pharaohs, etc.

and they were based on conquest and military power

there were some agitating liberal bastards that had notions of thinking for themselves, personal freedoms/liberty, using science to find out how the world worked and other strange ideas

these agitating liberal bastards also began to advocate for society based on merit not status, markets not mercantilism, constitutional governments not monarchy and religious freedom, etc.

and eventually they won them all to some great extent (80-90 percent)

we call them human rights, we also call these ALBs "Classical Liberals" or libertarians

are there any governments that follow mises, rothbard, etc. to the letter?

no, but there aren't any that follow marx or marcuse exactly either

but are there governments and societies based on the "broad principles" of the those early liberals?

fortunately yes and there more and more going in that direction

libertarians or those liberty minded may seem radical to those who are complacent or satisfied with the world around them

me? i'm one of those ALBs working on that last 10-20%


aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 2:15pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
We argue endlessly 
We do?? I always thought we stopped every Friday at 5 when the whistle blows.

 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:57pm

 aflanigan wrote:
OK, Mr. Snarky, I'll try to not be delicate and use qualifying statements like "I got the impression" and "it seems" and "I thought" and just flat out say "you're being inconsistent".

It's not a question of pandering, but of asking the question, if our movement mostly attracts financially secure white males, maybe our beliefs and princicples aren't all that universally appealing? Or perhaps are presented in a manner which includes implicit messages that exclude various other groups?

I appreciate your concern for our ability to market our ideas, really I do. I'm touched.

We argue endlessly about the most effective way to present our ideas, but the ideas themselves aren't on the table. If they aren't accepted then we haven't necessarily failed. The ideas are more important than power; perhaps they can inspire some wiser future.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:43pm

 islander wrote:
But no party really 'hates America'. They may dislike the methods others use to craft their vision of it, but I don't buy that anyone 'wants to destroy the country'.  Even the most diehard in the libertarian camp want some government (some one has to mind the borders while we nap). 

As you point out, they are all pandering to a target audience. The two established parties have such a lock on the system that even people who are widely recognized as outsiders feel like it is more effective to try and co-opt a party from inside than to try and strike out on their own. 

I think a large part of this problem is a fear of the other. So most people feel comfortable with a party they are unhappy with because they are afraid of the other party getting control. But what confuses me is that we have repeatedly shown that we can have changes of control and still effectively be a very powerful (and diverse) nation. We have our issues, but so does everyone else. Obama did not bring about the end times, Bush 2 didn't destroy all our credibility, Clinton didn't cause us to devolve into a nation of hedonists, Bush 1 didn't let the CIA loose inside the borders... It's not the end if the other side wins. It won't be the end if a 3rd party makes it either - just ask the Whigs... 

Back to the topic:  The libertarians are going to evolve. So are the dems and republicans. The real question is how do they pick up enough market share (steal enough attention from the target audience inside the other parties) to gain relevance. Yes - they do need to gain relevance eventually (probably soon). 1% showings are not going to sustain a movement.

Influence doesn't necessarily mean winning elections. It can mean causing someone else to lose one.

A few percentage points can be all the difference it takes. The unprincipled power-hungry demagogs nearest to your position will want to co-opt that few per cent and may throw your movement a few platform bones to get it. This, for instance, is the 1896 Socialist Labor Party Platform. There are 21 planks ("demands") in it, they got about half of them enacted into law. But they never won any national elections. They held a few positions as mayors and such, but their influence as spoilers was enough to get the Progressive movement (first in the Republican party, led by Teddy Roosevelt, then among the Democrats) to adopt their positions.

In the 2012 Montana senate election a Libertarian took 6.5% of the vote, and neither incumbent party candidate won a majority. That 6.5% was more than the margin of victory. That stung the losing side (Republican) badly enough that they first tried to lash out against third parties, and when that failed they have since taken a more-conciliatory tone. They may have to lose a few more close elections before the lesson sinks in, but they are in the business of winning elections. If they won't take an opportunity their competitors will.

Look at how Obama co-opted the Green movement. He was able to prevent a significant leftish third party challenge in both his elections; ask Al Gore if that matters.

What are your goals? Do you want your ideas to win, or your candidates? I'll take the ideas any time.
RichardPrins

RichardPrins Avatar



Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:34pm

 islander wrote:
If I were a betting man I'd say it was safe to say we'll be able to re-use a presidential name plaque next go 'round.
 
Likely. Either way. Many people like re-runs (Dynasty?) and the familiar. {#Wink}
Proclivities
Nothing is fool-proof to a moderately proficient fool.
Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aries
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:29pm

 islander wrote:

If I were a betting man I'd say it was safe to say we'll be able to re-use a presidential name plaque next go 'round. 

 
I guess it could be worse - it could be "Buchanan".
islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:25pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Prognosticating already?

 
If I were a betting man I'd say it was safe to say we'll be able to re-use a presidential name plaque next go 'round. 
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:09pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
aflanigan wrote:
But I thought Libertariangirl (and you) believe in the big tent theory, and don't want to arbitrarily exclude different flavors in pursuit of purity?
Your apparent discomfort with the idea that libertarians should seek to have a broad cross section of the populace represented in their ranks is puzzling. After all, if the L party (or the l party) is the party of ideas, these ideas would presumably have appeal that was independent of sexual orientation, skin color, etc. So you would expect the demographics of libertarianism to generally reflect the demographics of the US if the movement truly does welcome all who embrace its ideals.

Don't confuse what you thought about any particular libertarian with...well, anything, really.

There is no theory to the idea of a Big Tent, that's a concept of political tactics, not philosophy. It means accepting minor differences from doctrine in order to swell the ranks. Minor being the key word, and for the incumbent parties a somewhat meaningless one.

I get tired of this rather juvenile "why do you hate America" twist to these arguments, but since I seem to have failed to get this point across I'll try again, more directly.

I can't control who is attracted to libertarian ideas, and I can't change them to attract any particular demographic. They aren't crafted to appeal to any particular race or gender, they are crafted to appeal to people who want more liberty. If a diverse crowd shows up, fine—but that's not the point. If it becomes the point then we've lost focus on what we care about.

As I pointed out earlier, other movements have pandered (sadly rather effectively) to target audiences. I don't want to change the ideas to match the minds in the audience, I want to change the minds in the audience to match the ideas. This takes time. The idea of liberty has been described in large part by its enemies, and we need to overcome that impression before we can make our own. We're playing catch-up.

But when we finally do get people's attention what are we going to tell them? "Vote for us, we'll favor your demographic" when really we want an end to demographic favoritism altogether? If we pander then our opposition to pandering means nothing.

 

OK, Mr. Snarky, I'll try to not be delicate and use qualifying statements like "I got the impression" and "it seems" and "I thought" and just flat out say "you're being inconsistent".

It's not a question of pandering, but of asking the question, if our movement mostly attracts financially secure white males, maybe our beliefs and princicples aren't all that universally appealing? Or perhaps are presented in a manner which includes implicit messages that exclude various other groups? 
ScottFromWyoming
Psycho. Poodle
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:05pm

 islander wrote:

Well, she will eventually be an ex-president. 

 
Prognosticating already?
islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:55pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
islander wrote:
She Values the title of first woman president. It's injust that she has had to wait 8 years for it. It is her right to carry that title, it is wrong for you to oppose her.

I think I got all the keywords in there.

She appeals to the "power-hungry psychopath" community as well.

 
Well, she will eventually be an ex-president. 


islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:54pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
aflanigan wrote:
But I thought Libertariangirl (and you) believe in the big tent theory, and don't want to arbitrarily exclude different flavors in pursuit of purity?
Your apparent discomfort with the idea that libertarians should seek to have a broad cross section of the populace represented in their ranks is puzzling. After all, if the L party (or the l party) is the party of ideas, these ideas would presumably have appeal that was independent of sexual orientation, skin color, etc. So you would expect the demographics of libertarianism to generally reflect the demographics of the US if the movement truly does welcome all who embrace its ideals.

Don't confuse what you thought about any particular libertarian with...well, anything, really.

There is no theory to the idea of a Big Tent, that's a concept of political tactics, not philosophy. It means accepting minor differences from doctrine in order to swell the ranks. Minor being the key word, and for the incumbent parties a somewhat meaningless one.

I get tired of this rather juvenile "why do you hate America" twist to these arguments, but since I seem to have failed to get this point across I'll try again, more directly.

I can't control who is attracted to libertarian ideas, and I can't change them to attract any particular demographic. They aren't crafted to appeal to any particular race or gender, they are crafted to appeal to people who want more liberty. If a diverse crowd shows up, fine—but that's not the point. If it becomes the point then we've lost focus on what we care about.

As I pointed out earlier, other movements have pandered (sadly rather effectively) to target audiences. I don't want to change the ideas to match the minds in the audience, I want to change the minds in the audience to match the ideas. This takes time. The idea of liberty has been described in large part by its enemies, and we need to overcome that impression before we can make our own. We're playing catch-up.

But when we finally do get people's attention what are we going to tell them? "Vote for us, we'll favor your demographic" when really we want an end to demographic favoritism altogether? If we pander then our opposition to pandering means nothing.

 
But no party really 'hates America'. They may dislike the methods others use to craft their vision of it, but I don't buy that anyone 'wants to destroy the country'.  Even the most diehard in the libertarian camp want some government (some one has to mind the borders while we nap). 

As you point out, they are all pandering to a target audience. The two established parties have such a lock on the system that even people who are widely recognized as outsiders feel like it is more effective to try and co-opt a party from inside than to try and strike out on their own. 

I think a large part of this problem is a fear of the other. So most people feel comfortable with a party they are unhappy with because they are afraid of the other party getting control. But what confuses me is that we have repeatedly shown that we can have changes of control and still effectively be a very powerful (and diverse) nation. We have our issues, but so does everyone else. Obama did not bring about the end times, Bush 2 didn't destroy all our credibility, Clinton didn't cause us to devolve into a nation of hedonists, Bush 1 didn't let the CIA loose inside the borders... It's not the end if the other side wins. It won't be the end if a 3rd party makes it either - just ask the Whigs... 

Back to the topic:  The libertarians are going to evolve. So are the dems and republicans. The real question is how do they pick up enough market share (steal enough attention from the target audience inside the other parties) to gain relevance. Yes - they do need to gain relevance eventually (probably soon). 1% showings are not going to sustain a movement.


RichardPrins

RichardPrins Avatar



Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:49pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
RichardPrins wrote:
I'm pretty sure most politically engaged people of any stripe (sans power-hungry psychopaths) want that. Whether they call it "values" or "justice", etc.

Explain Hillary Clinton. I dare you.
 
I had excluded her already. {#Mrgreen}

Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:46pm

islander wrote:
She Values the title of first woman president. It's injust that she has had to wait 8 years for it. It is her right to carry that title, it is wrong for you to oppose her.

I think I got all the keywords in there.

She appeals to the "power-hungry psychopath" community as well.
islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:43pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
RichardPrins wrote:
I'm pretty sure most politically engaged people of any stripe (sans power-hungry psychopaths) want that. Whether they call it "values" or "justice", etc.

Explain Hillary Clinton. I dare you.

 
She Values the title of first woman president. It's injust that she has had to wait 8 years for it. It is her right to carry that title, it is wrong for you to oppose her.

I think I got all the keywords in there. 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:36pm

RichardPrins wrote:
I'm pretty sure most politically engaged people of any stripe (sans power-hungry psychopaths) want that. Whether they call it "values" or "justice", etc.

Explain Hillary Clinton. I dare you.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:36pm

aflanigan wrote:
But I thought Libertariangirl (and you) believe in the big tent theory, and don't want to arbitrarily exclude different flavors in pursuit of purity?
Your apparent discomfort with the idea that libertarians should seek to have a broad cross section of the populace represented in their ranks is puzzling. After all, if the L party (or the l party) is the party of ideas, these ideas would presumably have appeal that was independent of sexual orientation, skin color, etc. So you would expect the demographics of libertarianism to generally reflect the demographics of the US if the movement truly does welcome all who embrace its ideals.

Don't confuse what you thought about any particular libertarian with...well, anything, really.

There is no theory to the idea of a Big Tent, that's a concept of political tactics, not philosophy. It means accepting minor differences from doctrine in order to swell the ranks. Minor being the key word, and for the incumbent parties a somewhat meaningless one.

I get tired of this rather juvenile "why do you hate America" twist to these arguments, but since I seem to have failed to get this point across I'll try again, more directly.

I can't control who is attracted to libertarian ideas, and I can't change them to attract any particular demographic. They aren't crafted to appeal to any particular race or gender, they are crafted to appeal to people who want more liberty. If a diverse crowd shows up, fine—but that's not the point. If it becomes the point then we've lost focus on what we care about.

As I pointed out earlier, other movements have pandered (sadly rather effectively) to target audiences. I don't want to change the ideas to match the minds in the audience, I want to change the minds in the audience to match the ideas. This takes time. The idea of liberty has been described in large part by its enemies, and we need to overcome that impression before we can make our own. We're playing catch-up.

But when we finally do get people's attention what are we going to tell them? "Vote for us, we'll favor your demographic" when really we want an end to demographic favoritism altogether? If we pander then our opposition to pandering means nothing.
RichardPrins

RichardPrins Avatar



Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:01pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
Libertarians want politics to be about right and wrong.
 
I'm pretty sure most politically engaged people of any stripe (sans power-hungry psychopaths) want that. Whether they call it "values" or "justice", etc.
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 11:50am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 aflanigan wrote:
I suggest you try actually reading the article rather than judging based on the catchy title. Written by a libertarian who I don't think is predicting libertarianism will come to an end, but rather that the version we've seen in the 20th century featuring some visible people like Rockwell and others who have, let us say, "issues" with women and people of color, gays, etc. will die and be replaced by one where this sort of baggage is left behind, and a broader variety of people will feel welcome in the movement. At least that's what I got from it.

Published by a "Left Market Analyst Think Tank"—talk about a shrinking movement and a tiny demographic!—it purports to be inside the libertarian tent.

 
But I thought Libertariangirl (and you) believe in the big tent theory, and don't want to arbitrarily exclude different flavors in pursuit of purity?
Your apparent discomfort with the idea that libertarians should seek to have a broad cross section of the populace represented in their ranks is puzzling. After all, if the L party (or the l party) is the party of ideas, these ideas would presumably have appeal that was independent of sexual orientation, skin color, etc. So you would expect the demographics of libertarianism to generally reflect the demographics of the US if the movement truly does welcome all who embrace its ideals. 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 11:40am

 aflanigan wrote:
I suggest you try actually reading the article rather than judging based on the catchy title. Written by a libertarian who I don't think is predicting libertarianism will come to an end, but rather that the version we've seen in the 20th century featuring some visible people like Rockwell and others who have, let us say, "issues" with women and people of color, gays, etc. will die and be replaced by one where this sort of baggage is left behind, and a broader variety of people will feel welcome in the movement. At least that's what I got from it.

Published by a "Left Market Analyst Think Tank"—talk about a shrinking movement and a tiny demographic!—it purports to be inside the libertarian tent.

And the demographics of the movement have been a source of hand-wringing for some time and likely will remain so. Political philosophies that craft themselves to gain market share quickly become like the existing mainstream political parties: directionless, power-hungry behemoths that have no guiding principles beyond "we should be in charge."

Republicans appeal to their white base by promising to keep them safe from those marauding hordes of different people who speak different (un-American!) languages and have different (un-American!) religions. Democrats appeal to minorities by catering to identity-politics grievances and promising to shower them with goodies paid for by others. But "these are the people we want to attract" isn't a principle, it's a marketing strategy. Principles are things you defend regardless of how popular they are; popularity doesn't make you right or wrong.

Libertarians want politics to be about right and wrong.

Libertarians appeal to people who believe in libertarian political philosophy. Maybe that means we'll never make it to the big time; I'm OK with that. So are most of the rest of us in the movement. Seeing it strictly thru the lens of who's on board right now misses the whole point of the movement.

And I share the frustration over the kookier elements inside that tent, and yes they do make it harder to recruit. But there is no central authority to define the movement and ostracize them, so they will continue to occupy the fringes and scare people away just as he can claim to be part of a movement he seems to despise for not being sufficiently diverse. All we can do about it is advocate for the kind of future we want, and hope that's attractive enough to make them irrelevant. If we change our principles to pander to a wider audience we may become the authors of the future, but it won't be the future we were striving for.

All movements face this battle between purity and influence. I'd respectfully suggest that the author's desire for demographics that resemble a network TV sitcom conflicts with being a libertarian, and I hope he finds some other label to apply to himself. Start his own movement. Just as the racist elements over at Mises (which has done some fine work, especially on economics, despite being tainted by some unsavory folks) has opinions that conflict with basic libertarian philosophy. Fine with me if they splinter off too. But I can't make  them, and I can't make him, and nobody else can either.

So yes, I read it.


Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 135, 136, 137  Next