. . . and that's to stop listening to people who call each other assholes, or worse.
I have been perusing, and occasionally participating in, a variety of threads at Third Party Watch that I'm not even going to bother to link with.
That's because, instead of actually discussing the issues, or even the candidates, most of the posts devolve into scatological name-calling and multi-paragraph self-justifications of "my prior credentials as a better Libertarian than you are."
What's truly disturbing about this is that it is occurring in The Party of Principle, in which the fundamental principle is supposed to non-aggression or the non-initiation of force, fraud, or coercion.
Now I am a firm supporter of free speech, even though I am fighting the urge to initiate force and send a few of these jerks to the gulag.
But exactly how does a Libertarian, who supposedly believes in personal responsibility and non-aggression actually rationalize (a) the idea that calling other people offensive names equates with winning an argument, or that (b) any of this would make anyone ever want to listen to a Libertarian candidate anyway?
After all, isn't it a Libertarian premise that a state with a minimal government (or even an anarcho-capitalist society with no government at all) would be a preferable place to live? That people and communities would be self-regulating without the intrusion of government?
And calling other members of your party assholes (and, trust me, much worse) proves this point, exactly how?
So here's my thought for Libertarians trying to select a President: Make some logical--even passionate--arguments for your candidate and your cause, but realize that the first (or at least the fifth) time you descend into name-calling you've not only lost me, but most of the other adults in the room.
(I am pleased to report that supporters of Dr George Phillies--and the candidate himself--have not to my knowledge been engaging in such idiocy. In fact, several people posting, some of whom are not supporting Phillies on the issues, have made positive comments about his ability to remain civil.)
I have been perusing, and occasionally participating in, a variety of threads at Third Party Watch that I'm not even going to bother to link with.
That's because, instead of actually discussing the issues, or even the candidates, most of the posts devolve into scatological name-calling and multi-paragraph self-justifications of "my prior credentials as a better Libertarian than you are."
What's truly disturbing about this is that it is occurring in The Party of Principle, in which the fundamental principle is supposed to non-aggression or the non-initiation of force, fraud, or coercion.
Now I am a firm supporter of free speech, even though I am fighting the urge to initiate force and send a few of these jerks to the gulag.
But exactly how does a Libertarian, who supposedly believes in personal responsibility and non-aggression actually rationalize (a) the idea that calling other people offensive names equates with winning an argument, or that (b) any of this would make anyone ever want to listen to a Libertarian candidate anyway?
After all, isn't it a Libertarian premise that a state with a minimal government (or even an anarcho-capitalist society with no government at all) would be a preferable place to live? That people and communities would be self-regulating without the intrusion of government?
And calling other members of your party assholes (and, trust me, much worse) proves this point, exactly how?
So here's my thought for Libertarians trying to select a President: Make some logical--even passionate--arguments for your candidate and your cause, but realize that the first (or at least the fifth) time you descend into name-calling you've not only lost me, but most of the other adults in the room.
(I am pleased to report that supporters of Dr George Phillies--and the candidate himself--have not to my knowledge been engaging in such idiocy. In fact, several people posting, some of whom are not supporting Phillies on the issues, have made positive comments about his ability to remain civil.)
Comments