[statecom-discuss] Working with other political parties - open thread

Fri Nov 10 10:46:09 EST 2006

Supporting public education?  Perhaps, because everyone is entitled to tools and knowledge for somehow getting along.  But attached is another view - well worth reading - of what public education in this country is really about.

Cheers!

Adam

----- Original Message ----
From: John Walsh <jvwalshmd at gmail.com>
To: Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 7:14:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [statecom-discuss] Working with other political parties - open thread

First, I believe that you should read Antiwar.com - and The American
Conservative.  I think you will agree at least as often as you
disagree with the latter.
Second, one of the main planks of the Libertarian platform is to END
CORPORATE WELFARE.
Third, let us draw up the list: No war, no empire, troops home, close
foreign bases, downsize the military industries, no police state laws,
no domestic spy agencies, no corporate welfare.  We both agree on
those but the Dems (and Republicans) do not.
Finally, I am confident that if we settle those issues, then we can
argue about things like single-payer health care (which by the way is
a non-statist solution, the more statist solution being a national
health service like the NHS in UK or the VA here).  I am confident
that on these issues Greens will win.  But that does not mean we give
up a valuable ally in the struggle of the moment.  Valuable in that
they work from an ideology which appeals at this point to many
Americans.
jw
p.s. The first woman to serve in Congresss was a Republican,
essentially a Libertarian though.  She voted against entry of the US
into WWI.  Both genuine Right and genuine Left were antiwar in those
days.

On 11/9/06, Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote:
> John,
>
> At this stage in history, what would happen if "government would wither
> away"?
>
> The real rulers of the planet are the very wealthy few, especially those
> who rule our nation.
>
> My understanding (admittedly superficial) is that the libertarians are
> for limited government in the political sense of the word. I am unaware
> of anyway that they support controls over the corporations and the
> wealthy elite.
>
> My guess is that we both support public education. What would happen to
> our children if the libertarians got their way and the government would
> no longer have this function? Where is the common ground?
>
> I believe that most people in the GRP oppose the multiple systems of
> white, male, rich supremacy as well as the war on our ecosystem. Isn't
> this also the empire that we oppose? Where is the common ground  with
> the  Libertarians?
>
> Yes, there is common ground in important areas where we can better work
> together. However, there are fundamental differences that I do not
> believe are secondary to the vision of our party.
>
> Mike Heichman
>
>
>
> John Walsh wrote:
>
> > Empire?  You know it when you see it.
> > At least the Libertarians, the genuine ones, are against war and
> > empire.  Imagine if we could get that far and then duke it out over
> > the rest.  Humanity would thank us profusely.
> > And I like talking to the Libertarians because they constantly
> > challenge me to defend my views - instead of pretending they agree
> > with me like the PDA.  As a result I feel that my views are correct -
> > but I am always looking for flaws.  And the Libertarians are also in
> > favor of a state free of religious influence and for a state that does
> > not interfere in sexual preference or speech in any way, shape or
> > form.  Are not those much more important than the level of taxation or
> > the size of government?  And anyway I believe in the inherent evil of
> > the state and hope for its withering away in its present form.  The
> > Dems do not like that idea at all.
> > jw
> >
> >
> > On 11/9/06, Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> What do you mean by "empire"?
> >>
> >> The reason why I ask this is because the Libertarians believe in limited
> >> government. However, there idea of liberty means that they are OK with a
> >> "SYSTEM" that may mean allowing a few to be billionaires while billions
> >> of people live in misery.
> >>
> >> I do not believe that there vision is consistent with our values.
> >>
> >> For me, opposition to empire means to be opposed to the multiple systems
> >> of domination and oppression.
> >>
> >> At the same time, I do agree that there is a wide area of common ground
> >> for us to work collaboratively.
> >>
> >> Mike Heichman
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> John Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think that our main job is to tell the whole truth with lots of
> >> > documentation.
> >> > The GRP makes no sense if the Dems are doing a fine job.
> >> > For example, on the question of single-payer, the Dems have sold out
> >> > their base and the entire electorate again and again.  Many have
> >> > pretended to be allies but when push comes to shove, they have sided
> >> > with the insurers - for example, Travaglini.  Rember Travaligni was
> >> > the Senate author of the single-payer bill.  But once he got into
> >> > leadership (partly thru the kind words of the single-payer folks), he
> >> > turned against the bill that bore his name.
> >> > Our job right now is to build party and movement, and that is why I
> >> > emphasized party in that op-ed (NOT a letter to the editor) which by
> >> > the way was carried in a paper in the TandG with a circulation of
> >> > 100,000.
> >> >
> >> > And many of the "progressive" Dems, like Marzilli and Bonifaz, are
> >> > far, far, far more loyal to party than principle.
> >> >
> >> > Two people mentioned to me that they thought that the GRP had gone
> >> > easy on the Dems in this last round, and I think we lost one of those
> >> > votes for that reason.  But of course that is all in one's perception.
> >> >
> >> > Actually I would prefer coalitions with Libertarians, were there any,
> >> > since at the very least they oppose war and empire.
> >> > jw
> >> >
> >> > On 11/9/06, Colby E. Peterson <saphron at verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Topic of discussion:
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's say we win a seat in the state legislature at some point, which
> >> >> is bound to happen.
> >> >>
> >> >> What are everyone's expectations for working with members of other
> >> >> political parties? Be as general or specific as you'd like. I bring
> >> >> this up because however unsavory we may find other political parties,
> >> >> we will have to work with individual legislators in order to govern.
> >> >> This may also mean compromise, which is getting some things and
> >> >> sacrificing other things on all sides.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thoughts?
> >> >>
> >> >> - Colby
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> statecom-discuss mailing list
> >> >> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> >> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> statecom-discuss mailing list
> >> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss