Dogmatism - our worst enemy.

[Prometheus]

as libertarians, we are all more dogmatic than the rest of the world. We have our principals, and base our politics on those rather than expediancy, but we often go too far.

Being totally inflexible will only hurt us. I was at a LP meeting here in Utah, and we were considering coming out in support of a bill lowering the local sales tax. We ended up not supporting the bill because many in the party refused to advocate anything but total abolition of sales taxes.

Let us remember to throw our support toward causes that bring our nation incrimentally closer to our goal, instead of disgarding opportunities because they do not match our philosophy perfectly.

[Milton Bradley]

Incremental steps in the right direction are good, unless they are tied to incremental steps in the wrong direction, like all compromises in government. It is always the compromise that subverts the desired goal. Think pork barrel spending for the perfect example.


The reason we are in such a mess is the constant compromises made by Democrats to Republicans, and Republicans to Democrats. They compromised the people right out of a constitution.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prometheus, I agree to a point.

I would agree in your case cited, I would have preferred to take action to prevent any more taxes than to do nothing. However, there are many who are asking all third parties to homogenize their message, so they can join for voting block power in the next presidential election. In that case, I would think no matter what good could come of it, the overall outcome could be bad if not handled with kid gloves and micromanaged to success.

I am all about bridging logical gaps in ideology, but there are gaps that exist for a reason.

Regardless of mission of intent, or menial imrpovenments made, I would never support anything that directly contradicted the Constitution.

[RickSp]

The LP has an official position against "incrementalism."

It is theoretically satisfying and profundly stupid. If all we will accept is utopia now, we will never move a single step down the road toward a freer society.

[Thunder Wave]

Perhaps the 'Utopia' you speak of is a process. One can not just free the nation by small steps but maybe through Greater steps like focusing on the constitution and how it should be changed for the better, freer will, than a more closed and binding will.

I think the constitutional changes can be an asset if we promote better changes than those that promote laws of Christian belief (No offense to Christians). I think the constitution should be a main focus. Perhaps we could remove Marriage altogether.... lol

I think the constitution is going the wrong way. We must try to define what a constitution should be and state it.

Anyways, I'm new to this and am not sure how closely I think with Libertarianism. But so far I like what I read.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp The LP has an official position against "incrementalism."

Are you sure about this? Where is this official position documented?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Prometheus I was at a LP meeting here in Utah, and we were considering coming out in support of a bill lowering the local sales tax. We ended up not supporting the bill because many in the party refused to advocate anything but total abolition of sales taxes.

Ticks me off to no end. Is politics some kind of theoretical game to these people?!

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Are you sure about this? Where is this official position documented?

Yes. It was taking a quote directly from Murray Rothbard. Adpoted as policy by the LP over twenty years ago in response to Ed Crane and Ed Clark's "Reasonable Radicalism" approach. Intellectually satisfying, politically lazy and fundamentally stupid.

I don't have it at my fingertips but will find and post it.

[RickSp]

Resolution on Strategy for the Libertarian Party, Adopted by the National Committee, October 2, 1977

The strategy statement in itself is OK, if a bit pompus, but has been interpreted as opposing any practical action. The third paragraph, in particular, opposing "gradualism" seems to have been taken as gospel by many.

"Holding high our principles means avoiding completely the quagmire of self-imposed, obligatory gradualism: we must avoid the view that, in the name of fairness, abating suffering, or fulfilling expectations, we must temporize and stall on the road to liberty. Achieving liberty must be our overriding goal."

I have added my person commentary and links to that of others in my post "Hold High the Banner" if anyone is interested.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Quote by: Murray Rothbard "Holding high our principles means avoiding completely the quagmire of self-imposed, obligatory gradualism: we must avoid the view that, in the name of fairness, abating suffering, or fulfilling expectations, we must temporize and stall on the road to liberty. Achieving liberty must be our overriding goal." The strategy statement in itself is OK, if a bit pompus, but has been interpreted as opposing any practical action. The third paragraph, in particular, opposing "gradualism" seems to have been taken as gospel by many.

Ok, I see the issue. But here's the deal: "gradual action" is not the same as "gradualism".
There's nothing in this statement against gradual action.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Ok, I see the issue. But here's the deal: "gradual action" is not the same as "gradualism". There's nothing in this statement against gradual action.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many Libertarians take "gradualism" and "gradual action" to mean essentially the same thing. An opposition to gradualism too often becomes an excuse for doing nothing and worse as a means of attacking any Libertarian who proposes to do something.

Do a Google search on Libertarian gradualism and you will find multiple essays attacking "gradualism" as if gradualism, as opposed to statism, is our real enemy.

Those who wish to "hold high the banner of pure principle" too often seem to want only to sit around and discuss the finer points of the non-aggression principle rather than getting down to the hard work of actually beginning to change things. We should never abandon our fundamental values but by its nature politics requires coalition building and compromise.

The old cliche is that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The same applies to the road to freedom. We've got an awfully long way to go and opposing those who want to take the first steps isn't going to get us where we want to go.

[Osborn F Enready]

We need to work to educate and energize people to understand and respect their rights, and the concept of Common Law.

[m3talsmith_redu]

I support a full reversal of the current policies towards our policies. But I don't see this happening overnight. I think the route Ron Paul is taking has been more effective for his gradualism towards the right ideals and his opposition of gradualism towards the wrong ideals, than say the current ineffectiveness that is miring the current LP.

But do take note, there is a shift in the party. Look towards the Iraq Exit Strategy as an example of a proper move towards gradualism in the right direction; one that I feel could be effective. We need more of this.