Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:17:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1058 times
|
| |
|
|
<snipping>
(BTW, before I start, SCLC was the movement originally led by Martin Luther
King, Jr. - the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> If the question is meaningless, then why is the Libertarian Party almost
> exclusively white male? I'm not meaning that as a personal attack - I just
> am curious if you have an opinion as to why. A failing on minorities and
> women to understand the Libertarian message? A fear by them that they
> *think* they *do* understand the Libertarian message (it's legit for
> businesses to discriminate based on race, creed, and sex)? I'm not looking
> to make a put down of the Libertarian Party - I honestly think this is
> something that Libertarians need to consider more: if they are touting their
> message as so universal, why is such a narrow audience that is listening?
Notice that this answer is waaaaay over-simplified. Please don't attack me
on demographics, etc. (well, feel free to attack me on anything, but I doubt
I'll respond to that kind of reply).
For people lower on the social status, it's easier to look towards more
government, to help them more. People are willing to give up certain
freedoms in exchange for services. For example: communism appeals/ed to poor
countries; FDR's New Deal came to help the masses of Americans who were hit
by the Depression, and expanded the government's powers; etc.
For people who are better off, it's easier to say "oh, give up the
government, everyone can succeed if given a chance", because they already
ARE successful. Granted, anyone can say or believe the above sentence, but
honestly, who's more likely to? Someone earning $100,000 a month, or someone
earning $10,000 a year? C'mon. The former doesn't want more government
power; they pay the biggest price, and need the government least.
So, in my opinion:
rich --> want less government
poor --> want more government
It just so happens that in America (1) that white males are the best off. It
makes sense to me that they would side with Libertarians. (2)
-Shiri
(1) in *general*! I am not making this up. Cut me some slack here. I'm not
gonna back this up by "facts" right now, you know it's true. In general (not
case-by-case). It's unfortunate. But true.
(2) Note also that I'm not saying this is evil or morally wrong. It's just
common sense, IMHO.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) Shiri, you're a woman--you have no place in a discussion of white male rule. Take off your shoes and return to the kitchen, please. (the preceding draconian chauvinism was brought to us on the basis that Shiri has repeatedly demonstrated her (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) Thanks - I just never connect the initials to the group. :-) (...) It's a pretty good analogy that isn't quite right. Libertarians tend to be white, male, and middle-to-upper-middle class. That isn't rich. Shouldn't the rich be Libertarians if (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) South Coast Liesure Club? Sunny California Libertarian Clique? Advanced Ideas Mechanics? Accuracy in Media? Asian Internet Marketing? I don't speak initial. Well, solved the second with my Apache buddy literally walking by as I was typing (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
