Subject:
|
Re: boulders on shoulders
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:33:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
284 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Katie Dokken writes:
> > but it's odd to me that a post from one of the biggest local opponents
> > against Libertarianism is singled out as if it were a recruitment poster for
> the party.
>
> You can take this whole "LP" thread and insert any other party you'd like
> there and the arguments would be the same. Why do some jump on the
> Independant bandwagon and others do not? Or insert any group name in place
> of "LP" and say, why do some people participate in that group and some do
> not? I don't think that its a blanket "they don't get the message" as a
> reason for non-involvement. If you want to keep this on politics, I think
> many of us are just far too busy earning a living to be involved in this kind
> of stuff. That doesn't mean that we don't get the message, be it from
> Republicans, Independants, Greens, L's, or whatever.
Ah, thank you. Your phrasing has made me realize what I've been missing
in your previous posts, and some clarification from my "side" is indeed in
order. Let me paraphrase and see if I'm understanding you:
You're objecting to the assertion (who made it is unimportant) that the
only reason people fail to join a group is because they don't understand it.
Further, you're asserting that there are plenty of valid reasons, such as
justifiably higher priorities, time constraints, etc., not to join a group.
Am I reading you correctly? If not, please correct me.
If so, then I should clarify that I haven't been trying to equate support
of the Libertarian Party with Libertarian Party Membership, nor vice versa.
For my purposes (and for Bruce's, I believe) demonstrable support can come
in the form of votes, rather than membership. To that end, I admit that the
observation of the overwhelmingly white constituency of the LP is based on
an assessment of actual party members, rather than overall demographic
representation of pro-LP voters.
Having made this assertion (and again, please correct me if I'm reading
you wrong), one can look at election results for a rough idea of who
supports the LP. Even if the +/- 300,000 votes in the presidential election
somehow miraculously represent the full demographic spectrum of the US, the
LP voters are still in a staggering minority, and one may reasonably wonder
why. I don't (as you do not) accept that the number is low because everyone
else "doesn't get it," nor do I accept that everyone else failed to vote LP
simply because of higher priorities. Some, no doubt, were unable to vote
precisely for that reason, but not enough to explain the low numbers.
I hope this post clarifies some of my perspectives on the debate, if not
the issue itself. If I've misunderstood or misrepresented your views, let
me know. Likewise, if my clarification has been less than clear, let me know.
Dave!
> Katie
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. (...) While I don't have numbers in front of me because politics is not my area of expertise, I am under the understanding that voter totals seem to be going down more every year, across the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) Not even going there. (...) party. Who is doing that? I'm certainly not doing that. If my posts sound that way, then I'm perhaps choosing the wrong words. You can take this whole "LP" thread and insert any other party you'd like there and the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
