[NV Greens] Re: Re: RE: Fw: The key (debra dedmon)

[charleslaws at att.net]

Hi Debra, All, 

this is Charles Laws writing in reply to Debra, "libertariangirl",
and offering a suggestion on net etiquette

Suggestion:
As it makes finding the discussion easier if all the previous posts are not included 
..I suggest that the posts to which we reply are pared down to the core before sending the reply.. saves my eyesight, and megabytes of memory of the inbox...  :-)

Debra, 
please don't paint tar all over PaulE .. for my poorly expressed comments.
the signature.. sometimes just "/c"  is supposed to mean "per charles [laws, that is].

Yes, I have read lot's of Libertarian stuff and history. And find commoncause with many Libertarians.  A recent find that put into words most of my assumptions about the LP is www.fff.org/aboutUs/whatIs.asp,  which presents one set of perspectives. And while a member of the GPUS Platform Committee, I did scan through the LP platform.. have a hard enough time reading all the GPUS platform, so didn't study the LP's.. but referred to the layout in some conversations and noted the defined scope..

I put LP in my recent comment to say, in my obtuse way, that IAP and LP are obvious, what they say is what they believe, and GOP is obvious in the hypocritical extreme (not necessarily the conservative and conscientious members, but certainly the empowered leaders) to all who are paying attention.. Dems - I choose to think- pretend not to be hypocritical, and are therefore more dangerous.

I also have been in the Greens a long time and have wondered how the history of other parties contributed to where they are today. and got into reading some of, and some about, Murray N. Rothbard and the early days of LP and the Cato Institute.   Wikipedia has a good section on him and through that I found some other stuff about usual internal party strife and competitions/disagreements  .. all seemingly consistent with the Green's trajectory to date. The exception of importance is the LP 19th century origin of a coherent economic philosophy. Greens do take note from Native Americans, Populists of the 19th century, and lots of the Thoreau type thinkers, and a deep, quiet, touch of anti-capitalist/anti-consumer notions embedded in the search for a sustainable social/ecological/economic/political system, but have not found a bible or single cause that demands committment.. 

There is one major advantage that LP has over GP: a coherent focus on economics:
the Austrian school of economics. For those not wanting to read up on this, Austrian school types "approach economics as an a priori system like logic or mathematics, rather than as an empirical science like geology. It attempts to discover axioms of human action (called "praxeology" in the Austrian tradition) and make deductions therefrom. Some of these praxeological axioms are:
        * Humans act purposefully.
        * Humans prefer more of a good to less.
        * Humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later.
        * Each party to a trade benefits "ex ante".("Ex ante" evaluations deal with forecasting and forecasted returns on invested money. Since some parameters are not known, they have to be estimated.) " [Quoted from Wikipedia..  ]

I don't know where most Greens stand on these issues, which is "the" problem I think. I have come to disagree with some of the premises of the 19th century Austrian school thinking, which I accept as sort of the root of Libertarianism.  And, these get expanded on in the LP platform, which, BTW, I believe fits quite closely with GP's platform on social issues.

A major difference, as far as I'm concerned, is the GP focus on responsibility to the future, and all that entails in terms of ecology and building a pervasive sense of justice. It can't be done, by my perspective, without the "sovereignty" of the grassroots.. the final authority in all matters is the local community. Libertarians, I think would say "individual". and from that they lead into what's been called anarcho-capitalism.. I think.   For me, there is a greater responsibility to the community as, collectively, it provides many things I could not otherwise enjoy..And the "individual", with all rights claimed by Libertarians(?) can do what they personally deem right, good or bad for the neighborhood?

Which is where I personally part from LP.  Humans _may_ "act purposefully", though my take on psychology is that they act and then fabricate verbally a purpose. And, "Humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later" which I accept with the shadow of greed and lust for power, which seems antithetical to justice and community stability.  Leaving it to the self-determining anarchist is acceptable... when that individual living beyond another's domination has comprehension of the probable effects of her/his behavior on the environment, neighbors, and future.. meaning, pre-existing sensitivity and learnings.

Another probably irreconcilable difference is in gun control. Being brought up with guns, married to a onetime NV concealed weapons permitted Green, and through [with] the military, I know the place for private possession. However evolution occurs [within some minds] and I have let the pendulum swing. LP members I know that carry loaded guns and declare an interpretation of the second amendment and reference to the Articles of Confederation, may have not read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Articles of Confederation carefully.  And anyway, the practices and laws have been so deeply violated by government and "law enforcement" that these references are meaningful only to those arguing.  If citizens were to have means of force capable of balancing the forces of "government" we'd have nuclear weapons, water cannons, tear gas, too.  think non-violence as intellectually and morally superior to force perpetrated by an armed and enslaved "protector of the law".

A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor prompted a reply that sort of indicates my stance on "arms":

"Change the rules of war, or the ability?

"Exercise of power and violence is a psychological and physiological equivalent of drug abuse.
One approach to drug abuse is to control the sources.  Eliminating access to weapons is the only means of reducing the consequences of their use, by terrrorists or power addicted officials.

"No organization, nation or associations of nations, can stop the addiction to violence as long as there is  provision of the materials and abilities to conduct violence. 

"Enable international intervention in all humanitarian abuse within all territories and undertake significant sanctions of individuals, organizations, and governments which provide any support  to abuse and violence directed at any group, tribe, race, faith, or nation.

"We must terminate all international weapons trade, terminate weapons development, and stop
weaponizing the world.

"Bite the bullet! The sooner we amputate the infected limb, the sooner we can get back to living."

So anyway, Debra.. [still here?].. The Green Party of Nevada, last time I saw the bylaws, accepts as a member anyone who will affirm, in general, the GP's 10 key values, and regardless of their voting registration. see: www.nevadagreenparty.org/tenkeyvalues.html and bylaws.

    Thanks for reading, and providing dialog opportunities.

/c

> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:13:03 -0800 (PST)
> From: debra dedmon <libertariangirl702 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NV Greens] RE: Fw: The key to a lasting Democratic
> 	majority --	You.
> To: charleslaws at att.net, gpnv at clarkcountygreens.org,
> 	nvgreen at dasbistro.com
> Message-ID: <20061121171303.66260.qmail at web54302.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> I am a member of the L.P . as is a very active member of G.P  activities up 
> North . Last Presidential cycle the L.P and the G.P worked hard together . I 
> know that we have our differences but I also know we have more in common . I 
> post to this list when  there is an activity that I feel has interest for your 
> people as well such as a protest against excluding 3rd Party' in debates  , a 
> Anti-Patriot Act meeting etc . 
>    
>   In Paul E's letter I couldnt help  but be a little offended by being lumped 
> together with the IAP and GOP as obvious , I think he meant obvious enemys . 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

...rem. deleted...