Kennita,
Politicians who don't believe in things like individual sovereignty,
free markets, free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to
control your own body, etc., may occasionally enact good, pro-freedom
legislation by accident or whim, but it's a lot less likely that they will
consistently do so than that an office-holder with sound libertarian values
will do the same. Doing the right thing tends to result from having correct
ideas (being right) about public policy; they are connected.
Compared with people of other political stripes, how much do
libertarians – who generally do believe in free speech – really want to "shut
down disagreement", or otherwise resolve disputes via the use of force? Not so
much, it seems to me.
Taking pride in being right may not be the most laudable emotion, but
it certainly seems more laudable than taking pride in any number of other
things that people often take pride in with far less logical justification,
such as their nationality, gender, race, ancestors, sexual orientation, etc.
(things they had little or nothing to do with).
Sometimes it seems like there's a weird tendency to discount the value
of being right, as if it counts for nothing, when in reality it counts for a
great deal. Would you rather, for example, be an astronaut on a mission where
the engineers got the calculations wrong, or a mission where they got the
calculations right?
Where does the Libertarian Party presume any "magical" transportation
or transformation? Can you give any examples? Our approach seems to me to
involve far less "magical thinking" than that of different varieties of statism
– believing, for example, that even though criminalizing drugs, prostitution,
etc., has never worked, it will work if enough resources are devoted to it; or
believing that government can spend unlimited amounts of money without
provoking an economic collapse.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
On Aug 22, 2021, at 5:31 PM, Kennita Watson wrote:
I note the asymmetry; changing “be right" to "do right”. When people
complain about libertarians want to be right, what they often mean is that
the libertarians want to shut down disagreement so they can look like the
smartest person in the room and feel smug, or worse, holier-than-thou.
The Libertarian party line seems to presume that we are somehow magically
transported to Libertopia, and that the people are magically transformed into
the sorts of people who wantto live there. Right will win if and only if you
can convince voters that it's right for them, preferably as soon as possible.
Meaning: our task as libertarians is to be right AND win, which will
require picking up the Overton window and dragging it in the direction of
freedom. It will also require picking up the window from where it is, not
where we wish it were. In golf this is called playing the ball where it lies.
Live long and prosper - Kennita
On Aug 20, 2021, at 01:36, Starchild <sfdreamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
People seeking to change politics, include sometimes libertarians, have
often been charged with caring more about being right than about winning
elections. This is typically expressed in a way meant to convey something
along the lines of, "You're too radical; you should compromise more, water
down your ideas in order to get more people to support you."
But being accused of caring too much about being right is rather
interesting, when you think about it. Because the reverse implication of
"you care more about being right than about winning," is that those who make
the accusation care more about winning than about being right.
Consider what that means, to value winning over being right. It suggests a
willingness to do what's wrong, to act unethically, if you think it will
help you win. Do we really want or need more ethically bankrupt politicians
who care more about winning than about doing the right thing?
If the ideas and approach advocated by a person or a group won't make the
world a better, freer place, that person or group does not deserve your
political support, no matter how popular, charismatic, successful, famous,
rich, compassionate, cool, or nice they may be.
So do care about whether your ideas are right, and when you believe they are
right and worth defending on their own merit (not just because they are
yours!), defend them and advocate them in their purest form. Run on them, if
you run for office. Don't hold back based on your guesses about who or what
you think can win. People's guesses about that are often wrong, especially
over the long haul. Do be willing to adopt and support whichever ideas you
think will make life, the universe, and everything as good and free as
possible. Be and support the change you want to see in the world.
De-emphasize winning, and focus on doing what's right.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. – TLDR, Short answer: Yes, I would. Better to be right and not win,
than win and not do right.
