Re: Operation Politically Homeless
George J. Lee (gjlee@uclink4.berkeley.edu)
05 Dec 1997 19:38:33 -0800
schoen@uclink4.Berkeley.EDU (Seth David Schoen) writes:
> George J. Lee writes:
>
> >schoen@uclink4.Berkeley.EDU (Seth David Schoen) writes:
> >
> >> I'd be glad to participate in an Operation Politically Homeless as long as
> >> it's not too manipulative. (Is there anything a little more direct and
> >> a little less rosy than the WSPQ?)
> >
> >I understand what you're saying, but I think it's a good approach. I
> >don't think it's manipulative. The WSPQ helps us identify potential
> >members quickly in a fun way. The idea is to get people's attention
> >first. If they're interested in libertarianism, then we can get
> >serious. For those who don't agree with us, at least they get a good
> >impression of us.
>
> Here are two parodies of the WSPQ from links from Mike Huben's "Critiques
> of Libertarianism" site.
<parodies snipped>
> So, in any case, there are different ways of phrasing things, and the WSPQ,
> in my opinion, does tend to try to draw people toward a libertarian view
> on an issue.
>
> I want people to think about libertarianism rather than just laughing at it,
> but I don't want to hide that life would probably be very different without
> any government coercion. These parodies exaggerate things -- but so does
> the WSPQ!
As you know, they make many errors and false assumptions in those
parodies. I could refute just about every single one of them, but the
point is we are trying to sell liberty. To do so, we have to make
people see its importance and necessity. Though it was designed by
libertarians, I feel the WSPQ is fair enough. Glen Raphael wrote a
defense of it in the "Liberator" and made several good points. First
of all, one can't score at the very top without truly being a
libertarian. It's also pretty accurate in separating the left from
right. In addition, it doesn't force people to say yes or no to tough
questions; they can pick "maybe/unsure".
And besides, I thought the whole idea was to "draw people toward a
libertarian view on an issue". The WSPQ definitely does make people
"think about libertarianism", but I'm not sure what you mean by
"hid[ing] that life would probably be very different". I don't see how
it hides the truth. If anyone's hiding the truth, it's the people who
wrote those parodies. We're not trying to persuade them to score in
the libertarian quadrant anyway (at least not at first); we just want
to get them thinking about these ideas. They can come to a decision
for themselves and can find out more from us.
Please clarify on what you mean by the WSPQ exaggerating things.
>
> >> I'm still interested in organizing some kind of debates with
> >> non-libertarian groups. I think that would be a good thing.
> >
> >That would be great. We should try to contact some other groups and
> >see if they're interested.
>
> I used to have lots of ideas on that front, but now I don't remember all of
> them. But I'll try to talk about that next semester.
--
George J. Lee
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire,
it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." --George Washington