Eric, Glad to hear that all it takes to "get your vote" is a reckless executive pardon of criminals that is designed to utilize executive power to bypass the checks and balances system and negate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches of government (known in some circles as "saying 'fuck the constitution'"). So to clarify (because I am completely baffled), you are saying it doesn't matter what the outcome of any legislative effort is at all? You seem to be saying that you are in favor of voting on your own "concious" (conscience?) regardless of outcome. So when they take every freedom you have, when your social security number is bought and sold amongst governments and big businesses, when every facet of your life is documented and displayed publicly, with any attempt at obfuscation deemed illegal, you will say that it is ok, because you voted with your conscience, and it didn't matter if your cause won. Of course it matters. At least to me it does. You may not agree, but I would like to see my privacy and personal freedoms protected by the government (in addition to my own strong efforts at defending them myself). That is not the case right now, and the Libertarian party has done fuck all to change it. So my question to you, posed for the third time, is whether you think it is easier to give a third party (you seem to think that it should be the Libertarian party, and I tend to agree with you) viability in Washington with our efforts (or rather MY efforts, as you are quite content to lose the fight), or whether it would be easier to convince an existing power to take up our cause. I am not currently trying to start a third party. I think I was very clear in my initial email about the third party talk being theoretical. I am in no position to be in the business of redefining political partisanship, and if I was, I would not have achieved that position by asking opinions of people who assert that crypto anarchy will make governments obsolete in the near future. In short, thank you again for your Andy Rooney moment, but you seem to have abandoned the question completely. ok, Rush Carskadden -----Original Message----- From: Eric Murray [mailto:ericm@lne.com] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 1:16 PM To: Carskadden, Rush Cc: cypherpunks@algebra.com Subject: Re: Parties On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote:
Eric, Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our work is done. Let's go get a drink. Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders.
Well, that gets my vote! Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. A "Libertarian Lite" party wouldn't get the principled voters away from the Libertarian party and wouldn't get any more mainstream voters than any other third party gets. But if you really want to do it, go ahead. The cipherpunks list isn't a very good place to discuss it though, as most posters seem to think that the Libertarian party isn't radical enough, and besides, crypto anarchy will soon make governments obsolete. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5