56,014
edits
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
The idea that LP members are motivated by a desire for personal glory is ludicrous; how much public adulation have [[John Hospers]] and [[Murray Rothbard]] received as a result of their efforts on behalf of the LP? What did [[Roger MacBride]] stand to gain, personally, by casting his Electoral Vote for [[Hospers and Nathan Presidential Campaign 1972]]? If anything, he risked reprisals from high places. These men--like the rest of us--became involved simply because they realized that time is short, there is a tremendous amount of work to be done, and about the only time the average person listens to ideas is during to political campaigns: ergo, the Libertarian Party. A question, Miss Rand: Is it easier to gain access to public forum by proclaiming "I am an Objectivist; and I would like to speak to your group about The Truth"--or as a representative of a recognized political party? | The idea that LP members are motivated by a desire for personal glory is ludicrous; how much public adulation have [[John Hospers]] and [[Murray Rothbard]] received as a result of their efforts on behalf of the LP? What did [[Roger MacBride]] stand to gain, personally, by casting his Electoral Vote for [[Hospers and Nathan Presidential Campaign 1972]]? If anything, he risked reprisals from high places. These men--like the rest of us--became involved simply because they realized that time is short, there is a tremendous amount of work to be done, and about the only time the average person listens to ideas is during to political campaigns: ergo, the Libertarian Party. A question, Miss Rand: Is it easier to gain access to public forum by proclaiming "I am an Objectivist; and I would like to speak to your group about The Truth"--or as a representative of a recognized political party? | ||
"And in the light of today's events, particularly Watergate, should teach any kind of people with amateur political notions..." | |||
Now, wait a minute, Ayn. Are we to understand that Watergate demonstrates the virtue of "professional" politics? Is not Watergate a dramatic affirmation of Lord Acton's statement (quoted in the [[Ayn Rand]] lLetter of July 16, 1973) that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? In its two years of existence, the Libertarian Party has never advocated any measure that would increase the power that politicians possess. Can any other political party honestly make that statement? What Watergate demonstrates is the necessity of a political movement like the Libertarian Party. | |||
"... that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity." | |||
First, we're not rushing into it. For most of us it is a last resort; a step we have taken only because we are firmly convinced that it is one of the last alternatives left to those who consider their freedom worth fighting for. As for Miss Rand's persistent assertion that we are out to get publicity, I can only reply "How in Hell are supposed to get our ideas across to the public, if not through publicity?" | |||
"that the issue is so serious today that to form a new party on some half-baked or borrowed--and I won't say from whom--ideas is truly irresponsible..." | |||
Well, which are they? Half-baked or borrowed? If they were only half-baked ideas (which they clearly are not), they would still be infinitely superior to the raw dough being offered by the two major parties. Curiously, Rand has never seen fit to identify which positions of the LP she disapproves of. (Presumably, we differ on the issue of whether people should accept Federal subsidies for their personal jaunts to witness Moon-shots.) I suppose that only a woman who would have the audacity to appoint an "intellectual heir" (subsequently disinherited) would feel that she has a proprietary claim on the ideas expressed by the Libertarian Party. | |||
<hr /> | <hr /> |