Comments on: Contra Costa LP Endorses Arnold’s Initiatives

by: Stanley H.

Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:03:37 +0000

You’re right, Otto. A compromise would involve agreeing to something that you don’t want.

It would kind of be like someone who is against the war in Iraq agreeing to a plan that would get the last of our troops out of there in 20 years. It would be giving that person what he wants eventually. The only problem is, he would be agreeing to a plan that would keep our troops over there for 20 years.

by: Otto M. Kerner

Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:28:30 +0000

I’m not at all clear on what’s a compromise here. Limiting spending, cutting tenure at public schools, depoliticizing districting—those are all things that libertarians are in favor of (well, the latter two are technically neutral on libertarian grounds, but are probably supported by most libertarians)—these are our goals. Wouldn’t a compromise involve agreeing to something that we don’t want? And I’m honestly not sure where and when libertarians actually do the following: “If a program is introduced that moves things a little bit in the right direction, libertarians love to jump out and denounce it for not going nearly far enough.” Libertarians love to denounce half-assed measures for making things worse, and they could also be expected to criticized politicians who don’t go as far as is politically feasible. What sort of cases do you have in mind where this turns negative?

by: es

Sat, 02 Jul 2005 07:37:49 +0000

The two major parties don’t have a monopoly on all positions that are “winnable”. There are plenty of ideas out there which would work if implemented correctly.

They can still have different opinions…they just need to be framed in realistic terms. Rather than being academic statements of “We need to do this…all at once…TODAY!” it’s far more practical to start out on a step-by-step process of how a particular goal is going to be realized, which actually makes it feasible.

by: Stanley H.

Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:54:48 +0000

I’m not sure that it’s a good idea for third parties (such as the Libertarian Party) to just “take positions that are winnable.” If that’s their objective, they might as well just run from within one of the two major parties. One of the things that make third parties so interesting is that they present different ideas. If their positions are just going to be more of the same, what’s the point of them running as third party candidates? That’s just my opinion.

by: Tim West

Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:49:48 +0000

There is a burgeoning movement in the LP to start acting like a political party instead of a purist shrine. We dont want the purists to leave, we just want them to stop blocking the political success of the party by demanding every solution and reaction be pure and principled to the point that it’s absurd.

My blog is dedicated to this movement within the LP and as a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus we want to get the LP back on track to become a real political party.

http://libertyforsale.com

by: Mikey

Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:39:02 +0000

It is a good start, but is it a one-time only event? We need to see them “bend” a bit more before calling it progress.

On a side note, do you have a link to what these ballot initiatives are? I’d like to read them.

by: es

Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:18:04 +0000

How refreshing! The LP is finally being realistic…maybe now they’ll start to make some actual progress, rather than just talk to people about what they’d do if they got elected.