Re: LP Press Release: Jerry Springer (fwd)

Kevin Dempsey Peterson (peterson@autobahn.org)
18 Mar 98 07:10:59 GMT 

> Recently the national LP sent out a press release opposing federal
> subsidies for close-captioning the Jerry Springer show that has caused some
> concern among our members, and we would like to clarify our position.
> 
> The central point of the release was that Libertarians object to the
> government forcing taxpayers to finance television shows that millions of
> Americans consider to be offensive -- in this case, the Jerry Springer
> show.

If this was the central point of the release, that people shouldn't be
forced to subsidise things they find morally offensive, then I don't plan
on ever joining the LP or even registering as a libertarian (I'm
registered "unaffiliated" or whatever it is).  My political stance is
based on the idea that no one has the right to force their morals on
someone else, and everything else follows from that.  The original
release, and the apology, betray that the central idea of the libertarian
party is that no one has the right to spend anyone else's money on things
they don't like.  

I won't be joining the LP until they take an absolute pro-choice stance
(which still leaves those who oppose abortion free to not have one), and
drop the "stable currency" thing -- if people want to trade with rubber
dollars, that's their business (though I support the "no government
monopoly on money" idea).

> Unfortunately, some of the phrasing in release left readers with the
> impression that we were making a moral judgment on the type of behavior
> depicted on the show. That was certainly not our intent, and we apologize
> to those who were offended.

They did make a moral judgement.  They did not give an impression that
they were making a moral judgement, but clearly called the things
portrayed on the show "perversity."  There is no weaselling out --
claiming they didn't make a moral judgement is a lie.  Saying that it is
not their place to make a moral judgement would be honest, but politically
inept -- it's better to claim things never happened than to admit they did
happen but they shouldn't have.

> Our intention was for the Libertarian Party to criticize the subsidies for
> the show -- and the subsidies only -- and leave judgments about content to
> the television critics.

That is, "of course, we all know this is smut, but we can't go around
saying that".  Whatever their stated intention, what was attacked was the
Jerry Springer Show, with subtitle subsidies being a part of it, not
subsidies with the subtitles in the Jerry Springer Show being an example.

> For example, the fifth paragraph said:  "Libertarians are fervent
> supporters of free speech, so we don't object to such programs being
> broadcast," said Dasbach. "We do object to the federal government forcing
> taxpayers to underwrite what millions of Americans consider to be extremely
> offensive material."

Like the middle ages catholics, the Libertarian Party is willing to
"tolerate" offensive material, so long as it isn't done with government
money.  This assumes that the government, or the people, have the right to
"tolerate" anything at all, because toleration means that they have a
moral right to not tolerate (i.e. punish) any given actions.

I agree with the basic idea of the LPs position: Jerry Springer's
subtitling should not be federally subsidized.  But it should not be
subsidized because it isn't the place of government to subsidise anything.
Subsidies should not be removed because the american public (i.e.
Religioous Wackos) don't like the subject matter, which the point of view
which the article seems to promote.

> Nevertheless, in other parts of the release we simply were not vigilant
> enough in making the point that our party declines, as a matter of
> principle, to pass moral judgment on anyone's lifestyle. As a result, many
> readers understandably were left with the wrong impression. The fault was
> ours, and we will be more sensitive in the future. 

> Sincerely,
> 
> George Getz
> Press Secretary
> Libertarian Party

So can we take it as the official position of the Libertarian Party that
calling something "perversity" is not passing judgement on it?

Regarding Dan's mention of possibly changing our affiliation to ISIL
(which is probably uncalled-for at this point), the question is what kind
of group are we.  ISIL is an ideological group, promoting a libertarian
ideal of freedom.  The LP is a political group, attempting to reform the
american polical system.  Idealogy is clean -- you just keep trying to
persuade people until they see the truth of your point of view.  Politics
is dirty, because it's about results.  You need to speak out of both sides
of the mouth in politics, and I support conning people into doing the
right thing.  I think the libertarian *political* movement is too early to
have any real effect right now, and that any supposed gains, like prop.
215 or 209 are just chance outcomes of the standard two party politics.  I
can't think of any cases where a political party slowly built up enough
strength to have a significant effect -- successful political revolutions
are the outcomes of social factors, not long term politics.  (e.g. Slavery
was abolished with a short drastic change in political feelings.  It
wasn't as if there had been continuous votes with abolition getting first
10%, then 20%, then finally working it's way up to 51% -- it wasn't even
proposed, then it all happened at once)  

Convincing another 1% of the population that the libertarian view of
things is correct is more important in the long term than passing 1% of
what can be considered libertarian policies, because with current rates of
change, there is plenty of time for any political victories to be
overturned, but ideological victories will last.

If we are going to consider changing affiliations, we need to consider
what the goals of the group (Cal Libertarians, I mean) are, and how those
goals can be acheived.

Best off to bed, so that I can get up bright and early tomorrow to spread
the good news that Dr. Friedman will be here (still have about 80 flyers
to put up).

-- 
peterson@autobahn.org                               Home: 510-665-9670 
http://www.autobahn.org/~peterson                   Page: 510-726-8960