http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe212-20030224-04.html
Libertarians Support Al Sharpton For President
by Doug Heard
[email protected]
Based on the theory that things must get worse before they get better, all libertarians should support the candidacy of Al Sharpton. He couldn't be any worse than the other candidates from communist party A, and he is a lot more up front about it than the rest. He won't do any more harm to freedom than Kerry, Edwards, or Daschle. He won't do any more harm to freedom than Bush or any other candidate communist party B might run.
People who are for individual freedom would be better served if things were out in the open. While libertarians can see that both communist party A and communist party B favor slavery of the individual to the state, most voters haven't realized that yet. Libertarians would be better served by forcing that point into the daylight.
While libertarians rarely talk of energizing their base, they too have a base and it is not the Republican Lite version that we have been pushing in the last elections, which hasn't gained the LP anything except to alienate their base. While they may vote for Republican Lite they aren't happy about it, just like a lot of gun owners aren't happy voting Republican they just don't see a choice. (I know that Libertarian is a better choice, but they feel it is a wasted vote.)
If every libertarian went out and registered Democrat and voted in the primary for Al Sharpton it "might" have an effect. If the Democrats ran Al Sharpton some or many of the "true" liberals "that's Jeffersonian liberals" might see that the Democrats are communist party A (in favor of slavery of the individual to the state) and move somewhere else. I don't see them moving to the Republicans who they hate, that only leaves the Greens or the Libertarians.
Maybe we could get ten parties with legislators. What a mess that would make of congress, it would take them 2 years to figure out where to seat everyone. A very inefficient government, and efficient government is the enemy of individual liberty.
Representatives from small parties would be less likely to compromise, because they wouldn't have to deal with the communist party A or communist party B caucus saying you won't get any money for the next election if you don't compromise.
Bottom line. Supporting the enemy you can see is better than supporting the enemy who pretends to be your friend while stabbing you in the back. Let's get it out in the open. Those who support individual liberty vs. those who support slavery of the individual.
Doug Heard - short, fat, bald, old guy [sic - ed.]
Libertarians Support Al Sharpton For President
by Doug Heard
[email protected]
Based on the theory that things must get worse before they get better, all libertarians should support the candidacy of Al Sharpton. He couldn't be any worse than the other candidates from communist party A, and he is a lot more up front about it than the rest. He won't do any more harm to freedom than Kerry, Edwards, or Daschle. He won't do any more harm to freedom than Bush or any other candidate communist party B might run.
People who are for individual freedom would be better served if things were out in the open. While libertarians can see that both communist party A and communist party B favor slavery of the individual to the state, most voters haven't realized that yet. Libertarians would be better served by forcing that point into the daylight.
While libertarians rarely talk of energizing their base, they too have a base and it is not the Republican Lite version that we have been pushing in the last elections, which hasn't gained the LP anything except to alienate their base. While they may vote for Republican Lite they aren't happy about it, just like a lot of gun owners aren't happy voting Republican they just don't see a choice. (I know that Libertarian is a better choice, but they feel it is a wasted vote.)
If every libertarian went out and registered Democrat and voted in the primary for Al Sharpton it "might" have an effect. If the Democrats ran Al Sharpton some or many of the "true" liberals "that's Jeffersonian liberals" might see that the Democrats are communist party A (in favor of slavery of the individual to the state) and move somewhere else. I don't see them moving to the Republicans who they hate, that only leaves the Greens or the Libertarians.
Maybe we could get ten parties with legislators. What a mess that would make of congress, it would take them 2 years to figure out where to seat everyone. A very inefficient government, and efficient government is the enemy of individual liberty.
Representatives from small parties would be less likely to compromise, because they wouldn't have to deal with the communist party A or communist party B caucus saying you won't get any money for the next election if you don't compromise.
Bottom line. Supporting the enemy you can see is better than supporting the enemy who pretends to be your friend while stabbing you in the back. Let's get it out in the open. Those who support individual liberty vs. those who support slavery of the individual.
Doug Heard - short, fat, bald, old guy [sic - ed.]
