From: "Jason Auvenshine" <auvenj@mailcity.com>
Paul and everyone,
On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 20:40:42 Paul Schauble wrote:
>There should be a bright line somewhere, some set of things that any
>real Libertarian will agree are beyond the pale. What are they?
>Matching funds? Tax exempt parties? Can we define what we won't do?
To me the "bright line" has always been between supporting/initiating force versus just benefitting from it. As others have stated, as long as the government is initiating force in such a widespread manner it is well neigh impossible to avoid benefitting from it in some way. The key question is do you SUPPORT that system? Do you INITIATE that force? This line is not necessarily crossed by precinct elections or taking matching funds but IS crossed by things like fighting for coercive election laws in court.
Use of government matching funds, precinct elections, roads, libraries, parks, etc. are all on the same continuum of benefitting from force. We should seek to minimize our benefit from government force, but in my view it is not a moral requirement to eliminate it. If a candidate thinks they can be effective without using any of the above benefits, GREAT. If a candidate feels they must use matching funds to be effective, OK, then there should be no party financial support but they should still be allowed to be a candidate.
As a thought experiment consider:
Candidate A opposes all forms of government coercion, explains so at every opportunity, and pledges to do everything in his/her power to eliminate the matching funds program if elected. However, he/she takes the matching funds.
Candidate B supports most of the Libertarian platform, but makes a few exceptions (ie supports drug prohibition). Like candidate A, he/she opposes matching funds. However, unlike candidate A he/she does not take the matching funds.
I submit that candidate B presents at least as serious and dangerous a departure from the Libertarian message as candidate A. In my view it would not be fair to kick candidate A out but allow candidate B to remain. However, if we seek to eliminate both A and B from the party, we must conduct the dubious process of "purity certification" at the party level. I don't suggest that. There are just too many opportunities for inquisitions and witch hunts.
I suggest instead that the decision of whether A, B, both, or neither is worthy of support belongs with individual party members: where they are willing to send their money, volunteer their time, and for whom they cast their primary votes.
--Jason Auvenshine