Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:40:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1077 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > Since I share Bruce's misgivings on this subject, I'll mention a few
> > thoughts, too. The validity or invalidity of the LP's views is, of course,
> > wholly independent of the racial, cultural, age, or gender makeup of the
> > party, but that's not what Bruce appears (to me) to be disputing. My
> > feeling, and the feeling of many others, is that the message of the group is
> > apparently favorable to white males if white males are the principal
> > proponents of the message. If, as the LP press packet indicates, the
> > Libertarian agenda is truly the best plan for every man, woman, and child,
> > then why is it that only white males latch onto it? If the problem is
> > simply one of exposure (which I do not believe to be the case), then the LP
> > needs to make its presence known so that the non-white-male populace can see
> > the benefits of the party.
>
> > I suspect that Bruce isn't simply dismissing the LP's platform as a white
> > supremacist construct; he has noted its shortcomings and sees in those
> > shortcomings something that the white male constituency identifies as
> > expressly beneficial to them. The supposition is that, if it were the
> > greatest good for all, then all would be eager to join.
>
> Let's dig into that a bit... Is that an accurate supposition? That is, *are*
> there things that are "good for you" that you wouldn't necessarily choose to do?
>
> We know that's true in the individual case, right? I know that exercising
> more and eating less meat isn't something that I easily choose, or favor,
> even though it *may well be* good for me. But maybe I'm not carrying out the
> analysis to actually see the deeper or more long term benefit.
>
> Is that individual example extendable to the aggregate? I dunno.
>
> Let's go back to the SCLC example. The changes that the SCLC advocated in
> society were good for society, right? Yet they weren't popular across all
> segments. Those changes may have benefitted (at least at first glance) some
> segments more than others, right?
>
> And those were the segments that disproportionally supported the SCLC,
> right? But was the first glance benefit the real benefit in the long run? I
> would say no. The vitriolic effect of segregation was corroding all of
> society and all of society benefited when it was removed from force of law.
>
> Is that a valid example? Is it extensible?
I have no idea what the SCLC is, so I have no real opinion on it.
> If we look at what libertarians advocate and say "well it seems to be
> supported by white males, mostly", what can we conclude (as *necessarily*
> true) from that? That they are the only beneficiaries?
One could argue that you are using your memebership fee to invest in a
Libertarian future. Your fellow members may hope for a return on that
investment in the longer or shorter term. Why to only white males feel it is
worth investing in that future? Why? Is it because it will beifit them more?
Perheps non-white males feel excuded? Perhaps they are just not intersest in
a return to segragation?
Scott A
> That doesn't follow.
> That they even ARE beneficiaries? That doesn't follow (necessarily) either.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) Let's dig into that a bit... Is that an accurate supposition? That is, *are* there things that are "good for you" that you wouldn't necessarily choose to do? We know that's true in the individual case, right? I know that exercising more and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
