On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:04:32 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote of Don Ernsberger: > > >So you are suggesting we be active in the republican party to make > >changes from within and you use this guy who is trying to make changed > >to the LP by resigning for a position of power within the LP? > > I and others were disappointed at his resignation. Apparently he thought > about quitting LP, then decided to take part in a reform movement. > > >> BTW, for the record, I'm not a Republican either. I'm enrolled > >> Conservative. > > >Which is basically a third party that promotes republican ideas in NY > >since the NY republicans promote democrat ideas. If you are going to > >support a third party why not chose one that supports the same things > >you do? > > Because I'd rather be active in one that supports MUCH of the same stuff I > do and has SOME influence than one that supports practically ALL the same > stuff I do but has NO influence! .
They have no influence. They just chose candidates that the major parties will or have chosen to ensure they are recognized by the state for another couple years. It may make you feel important to be recognized by the state but I saw no more influence from the conservative party than I did the LP. I also saw little I agreed with in the Conservatives positions. > And besides, my influence on LP is of > little consequence, because of that very agreement, while within the > Conservative Party my influence means something because they DON'T agree > with me about everything. So why not join the republicans who agree with you even less and have even more power? Or better yet the democrats!!! > How much more can I try to turn the "knob" of LP's ideology toward liberty? > Practically none. However, I can try to influence the Conservative Party > in a more libertarian direction, because their "knob" isn't already up > against the end post. And, as I've written in LPNY_discuss, I believe I > have influenced the Conservative Party. Yeah, you may have influenced them. What good has it done? They still have no influence on government despite your stating otherwise. > >After taking many different groups perspectives on the Republican > >party and Libertarian Party, I have come to the conclusion the > >Republicans are actively working against what I beleive the majority > >of the time and the Libertarians are actively working torwards what I > >beleive. > > You'd better clarify; you switched in the middle of the above quote from > capital to lower case "republican" and "libertarian", so I think you may be > equivocating between political parties and ideologies. I fixed them above. Sorry. > >> It would be very rare for a 17 YO activist NOT to be > >> naive. > > >I told you I was born in 1977. > > Darn, I got the math wrong by 10 years! Sorry. I subtacted 1977 from 2004 > & got 17 instead of 27. > > > In addition you met me when I was 24 > >years old and I beleive even seen me in a bar. > > Yes, but I often don't connect real people with online identities. > Seriously, I don't connect "Travis Pahl" the poster with someone I've met, > even though I know I've met someone with that name. Trouble is, I tend to > get all the LP Manhattan people these days mixed up; I knew the LPers of > Manhattan a lot better in the 1980s. > > But aside from that, I find a person's online personality seems to diverge > a lot from hir real world persona. Gary Snyder's a prime example, though > lately his online personality's a lot nicer than it used to be. Axtually Gary is pretty much the same in both real and cyber world. He just does not take stupidity (or what he perceives as stupidity) well in either world, but in the real world people seem to catch on to that better and respond to him better. > >Besides even if I was 17, calling someone naive is considered rude and > >I would not have appreciated it anymore ten years ago then I do now. > > So let's use a less judgemental word. Inexperienced? I don't think it's > any coincidence that I came to this perspective at this age, after this > many years into this stuff. Experience does seem to have a lot to do with > it. You may be correct. But if that is the case, then I will not change to your side for another 20 years or so, so it would probably be best in the meantime not try and make your arguements by trying to set yourself up in some superior position based on age but rather by using logic. > Part of the problem is that many people with less experience with LP think, > "But we've never tried THIS. Maybe it will make for a big improvement." > But the more experienced remember that they HAVE tried "THIS". Yet you seem to be saying to me that we should try to work within the parties. Yet even in my 'naive' mind, I know that this has been tried. It is not successful. > I think it's also telling that the activists in, say, LP Manhattan are > mostly of your age. One would think that if the more experienced > libertarian activists still thought LP worthwhile, they'd stay with it. > But the absence of the older crowd should tell you something. Odd, when I went to the meetings, most were above there 40's. I know I am getting older but I have not really included 40 in my age bracket before. in fact 40 and above seems closer to your age bracket. On the manhattan lists, when I was most active I was the youngest libertarian on the list (greg hevia not being a libertarian of course). > Yet it's not > a function of personal youth per se, because when LP was fairly knew, and > we didn't know yet that it was useless, we had a mix of young & old. Most > have left quietly without trying to persuade everyone else to quit, as I'm > doing. I am willing to bet most are still voting Libertarian however. just because people quit being active does not mean they quit supporting the party. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
