KallanDaMan Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 I find this infuriating. The Libertarian Party thinks the NAP is irrelevant. That sort of thinking is the reason they will never win. People loved Ron Paul in the 2012 election because they felt he was principled. Most of his supporters weren't even libertarians. In my experience people generally think libertarianism is just a hodgepodge, and saying "We're liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues" doesn't help. It sounds like you shot darts at a board when you were drunk one night and arrived at that conclusion. Voters understand principles. They don't understand random assortments of policy positions. http://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-libertarian-party-nomination/the-top-three-libertarian-party-presidential-candidates-agree-the-non-aggression-principle-is-irrelevant/#sthash.GU0OIdPN.dpbsIt goes to show that those seeking office, even in the Libertarian Party, are completely unprincipled and really just want to enforce "their" ideas. The NAP is the core unifying principle for libertarians, and the Party is just hurting our image by disregarding it. They're never going to convince anybody with "my way works better". Is it moral, or is it not? 1
B0b Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 I guess the libertarian party is not really libertarian since it was not opposed to having candidates who would represent the state if they won. NAP is incompatible with a state obviously.
shirgall Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 When I was a party official, it was difficult to do any outreach with the NAP in and of itself. Policy statements drew eyeballs and discussion. Theory was boring and ignored. 1
dsayers Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 NAP is incompatible with a state obviously. This is why I read the topic title as "group predicated on the initiation of the use of force rejects the claim that the initiation of the use of force is immoral." Political parties REQUIRE the initiation of the use of force to be valid. This is not news. 1
shirgall Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 This is why I read the topic title as "group predicated on the initiation of the use of force rejects the claim that the initiation of the use of force is immoral." Political parties REQUIRE the initiation of the use of force to be valid. This is not news. Political parties are not an argument, they are an organization of people with (presumably) common goals. They are neither valid or invalid, but their statements might be, and their actions might be moral or immoral too.
KallanDaMan Posted March 25, 2016 Author Posted March 25, 2016 Ron Paul did well in 2012 by standing on principle. I know many people who adored him who were not libertarians (and some are still not). But one could tell that he stood for his principles and never watered down his message for his audience. From what I've seen, people respond to that. Since Republicans will not positively respond to Libertarian policy positions and Democrats will not positively respond to Libertarian policy positions, the only effective way to reach out, as I see it, is with principles. That's not to say don't talk about policy, but from what I've seen the Big L candidates talk about ONLY policy, and to outsiders, their positions make no sense. It just sounds like they took some Republican ideas and some Democrat ideas and mashed them together with a little bit of anti-government extremism.
shirgall Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 Ron Paul did well in 2012 by standing on principle. I know many people who adored him who were not libertarians (and some are still not). But one could tell that he stood for his principles and never watered down his message for his audience. From what I've seen, people respond to that. Since Republicans will not positively respond to Libertarian policy positions and Democrats will not positively respond to Libertarian policy positions, the only effective way to reach out, as I see it, is with principles. That's not to say don't talk about policy, but from what I've seen the Big L candidates talk about ONLY policy, and to outsiders, their positions make no sense. It just sounds like they took some Republican ideas and some Democrat ideas and mashed them together with a little bit of anti-government extremism. Yes, he stood on principle, but he drew interest by criticizing policy and offering alternatives. And, as for the rest, you are right. I don't have anything to do with the Libertarian Party any more for pretty much the same reason.
Recommended Posts