Message from Ron Paul

Discussion
41

This was the position taken by Ayn Rand, but I think she hadn't thought
it through any farther than this. David Friedman and others have
argued, to my mind persuasively, that violence is very expensive, and
very bad for business, so the prospect for the sort of shoot-out you
envision is practically nil. There is every reason to expect competing
insurance agencies to have worked out arrangements among themselves for
dispute resolution, just as insurance companies have today.

There have been a couple of interesting articles on anarchy just this
week, one from the Independent Institute
(http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2024
<http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2024> ) and one from
the Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org/story/2701). You (or someone
recently) made a dismissive remark about articles on anarchy written by
people who had never lived under such regimes, but, if I'm not mistaken,
the author of the second piece, about Somalia, did live there for
awhile.

I don't feel any need to persuade you of anarchy, so I wouldn't expect
to keep the conversation going here. I would just mention that, in my
own experience, it has been easier to argue from what I experience as a
consistent, principled position, however radical, than from a more
compromised one, where everything is a matter of degree. But that
doesn't mean it has to work that way for you. I join Marcy, Starchild,
and others in welcoming any opinions respectfully expressed.

42

Think of it this way, Jeremy.

Under the present watered-down post-Portland platform, I could run on a platform advocating a 100% income tax on all income above $50,000 per year, and still be a "100% platform-compliant Libertarian."

That wasn't the case prior to the Portland massacre.

The LP platform is a benchmark to measure the "libertarianness" of candidates running under the LP banner. People disagree with various elements, yes, but vast distances from the LP platform in the past tended to indicate that a candidate probably wasn't a "real" libertarian -- and tended to avoid candidacies like the hypothetical one I've posed above.

So you really think that if our platform stays the same, we're going to have a massive influx of fascists and communists running under the LP banner? Honestly? How would they get past the nomination process? And, given that the LP is of so little importance in national politics currently, why would anyone even WANT to do that?

With the emasculated platform we presently have, and particularly with the even further reduced platform the LRC is certain to attempt to present, it won't be long until George W. Bush could run for office as a "platform compatible Libertarian candidate."

Why would he want to? All these hypotheticals are great, but in the real world, no one cares what ANY party's platform says. How often do you see Republicans or Democrats talk about whether a candidate is "platform compliant" or not? If I'm going to call someone unlibertarian, I can do it without resorting to our platform. Clearly, as you yourself stated, a candidate who disagrees with certain parts of the Platform can already run as a Libertarian, so it's not like the Platform would really discourage George W. Bush from running anyway.

There's no benefit to taking the "L" out of "LP."

The Paul campaign doesn't do that (yet?) because it's a Republican campaign. It's relatively easy to point out the problems with supporting a Republican, and Paul's vanishingly small share of the GOP primary vote indicates that lots of Libertarians tend to see those problems. When it comes to an actual LP candidate, however, things get a bit more "interesting." Most people tend to assume that a candidate will be in-line with the platform and that being in-line with the platform makes them libertarian -- however, that's not the case with the LRC non-platforms as proposed or implemented.

People assume that candidates will be in-line with their party's platform? Really? In the real world, I've ONLY seen Libertarians talk about that sort of thing, not anyone else. The best platform I can think of is a very broad, general statement of principles on various issues, that every candidate can tailor as they wish to their own specific views or community. I think the draft platform Brian Holtz posted is the best I've seen so far.

Jeremy

43

A couple of links that answer this question better than I could (all campaigns that kicked off after the Portland Massacre):

http://www.imperato2008.com/imperato2008/issues.asp

http://www.kevincraig.us/

Both these candidates can now claim that they're in the "Libertarian platform mainstream," and dozens of similarly wacky guys are gearing up for national-health-care-endorsing, charity-banning, Christian-Theocratic campaigns under the LP banner across the country.

It's not that it's "going to happen," but rather, it already *is* happening.

Cheers,

Brian

Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...> wrote: So you really think that if our platform stays the same, we're going to
have a massive influx of fascists and communists running under the LP
banner? Honestly?

44

I see absolutely no mention of the Libertarian Party Platform in either of these websites. I joined the Party well before the reworking of the Platform in 2006, and I know for a fact that there were plenty of un-libertarian nutcases running for office back then, too. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Platform. Remember the blind guy who talked about banning abortion and making the country a Christian nation in Atlanta in 2004?

Jeremy

45

There's no mention of the platform -- however, without the platform there's no basis for criticism. Thanks to the LRC's efforts, these two candidates (and dozens like them) are now "good Libertarians."

Cheers,

Brian

Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...> wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Brian Miller wrote:

> A couple of links that answer this question better than I could (all
> campaigns that kicked off after the Portland Massacre):
>
> http://www.imperato2008.com/imperato2008/issues.asp
>
> http://www.kevincraig.us/
>
> Both these candidates can now claim that they're in the "Libertarian
> platform mainstream," and dozens of similarly wacky guys are gearing up
> for national-health-care-endorsing, charity-banning,
> Christian-Theocratic campaigns under the LP banner across the country.
>
> It's not that it's "going to happen," but rather, it already *is*
> happening.

I see absolutely no mention of the Libertarian Party Platform in either of
these websites. I joined the Party well before the reworking of the
Platform in 2006, and I know for a fact that there were plenty of
un-libertarian nutcases running for office back then, too. It has
absolutely NOTHING to do with the Platform. Remember the blind guy who
talked about banning abortion and making the country a Christian nation in
Atlanta in 2004?

Jeremy

46

There's no basis for criticism without the Platform? Trust me, I can say these people aren't good libertarians without any Platform references, in the same way that Republicans call each other RINOs without any mention of the Republican Platform. If you need the Platform to criticize someone, then we have a real problem because as I've said a dozen times already, no one in the real world cares one bit what the platform of ANY political party says.

Instead of saying "this person disagrees with the Platform," just say "this person is way out of step with almost every single other member of the LP." The second statement is much more compelling anyway to an average person.

Jeremy

47

Ah, but then you get the one-word rejoinder: "purist!"

Perhaps I'll mix in a "you're hurting the party by limiting its appeal" and "who are you to make these pronouncements, these guys are good Libertarians based on the platform" for good measure.

Welcome to the club. You're in great company! :wink:

Cheers,

Brian

Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...> wrote:
There's no basis for criticism without the Platform? Trust me, I can say
these people aren't good libertarians without any Platform references, in
the same way that Republicans call each other RINOs without any mention of
the Republican Platform. If you need the Platform to criticize someone,
then we have a real problem because as I've said a dozen times already, no
one in the real world cares one bit what the platform of ANY political
party says.

Instead of saying "this person disagrees with the Platform," just say
"this person is way out of step with almost every single other member of
the LP." The second statement is much more compelling anyway to an
average person.

Jeremy

48

I do like the draft I have seen floating around Santa
Clara that is broad and allows each candidate to use
in their own way for the issues that matter to their
candidacy. I also think it would save a lot of time at
convention for more fun events like speakers etc....
instead of boring 5 hour debates on (usually) cosmetic
changed to the platform..... if you are one of those
that wants the LP to be more of an educating tool, you
too would support an easy, broad platform, so we could
"educate" voters quicker and have more "educational"
events at conventions....

-TJ
--- Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...> wrote:

49

Imperato is crazy, but I have to say, Kevin Craig, so
far seems ok, he calls himself a radical, like most of
you call yourselves, the thing is, he is tailoring his
message to the voters around him who beat the bible on
their foreheads every day..... the hard thing for us
libertarians is we have "principles" but we have to
realize not everyone's principles are the same and
that if you want to have power to help form (or change
or end) the laws of this land you must find a message
voters will vote for you on, sometimes regardless of
those principles... as for a platform, a general or
broad platform may allow a crazy or two to run, but
the D's and R's have that all the time... when that
happens they usually get shunned, we shunned John
Webster here twice now in Mountain View because he
doesn't take care of himself and has a vendetta
against the San Jose PD and is not a good
candidate.... we are helping him make a comeback now
as we elected him secretary of our county party. We
dont HAVE to support every LP member who runs for
office unless our party votes to endorse someone...

-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

50

Michael Edelstein wrote:

ME) If you are a radical libertarian, please consider joining the LP Radical
Caucus. (ME

Fair enough. And if you are a non-anarchist libertarian -- or an anarchist
libertarian who thinks anarchism is so obviously correct and contagious that
you don't fear broadening the LP Platform to accommodate not-yet-anarchist
libertarians -- then please consider joining the Libertarian Reform
<http://reformthelp.org/> Caucus.

Michael Acree wrote:

MA) it has been easier to argue from what I experience as a consistent,
principled position, however radical, than from a more compromised one,
where everything is a matter of degree. (MA

I always suspected as much -- at least about some of the radicals I've
debated. :slight_smile: Alas, some of us can't shake the impulse to follow the trail
marked True when it diverges from the trail marked Easy. :slight_smile: I've fallen
from deontological anarchist grace after having eaten of the forbidden fruit
of the modern theory of political economy, with all it tells us about humans
and how they behave in groups -- e.g.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem> free riders, the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons> tragedy of the
commons, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_externality> negative
externalities, the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma>
Prisoner's dilemma, the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox>
Liberal paradox, the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_paradox> Allais
paradox, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases> bounded
rationality in general, and the possibility of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor-Hicks_efficiency>
Kaldor-Hicks-efficient social policies. If the technology of Total Recall
ever becomes available, it would be interesting to take a vacation from this
knowledge and spend a week as an anarchist. :slight_smile:

Starchild wrote:

BH) The Greens are by most measures larger than the LP -- as San Francisco
Libertarians should be painfully aware. (BH

SC) it's not my impression that the Greens are larger overall, though I'm
not intimate with all the current data. While they have gotten more
presidential votes running the well-known Ralph Nader, and have perhaps
elected more candidates to *significant* posts due to being
disproportionately stronger in some left-leaning areas of the country, it is
my understanding that the LP has more over-all officeholders, (SC

Nope. There are 189 elected
<http://www.lp.org/organization/elected_officials.shtml> Libertarians, but
there are 226 <http://greens.org/elections/> elected Greens. The Greens
out-elected us 25-7 in 1996, 47-34 in 2000, 81-43 in 2002, and 71 to at most
42 in 2004 (since the lp.org article was inconsistent about whether the 42
includes appointed officials). The Greens also list 47 election wins in
2005, 65 in 2003, and 64 in 2001.

SC) a broader grassroots base of support, better ballot access, etc. It's
possible the Greens have more registered voters, (SC

It's definite -- 289K to 235K.

SC) but again if you leave out a state or two (e.g. California) this would
probably not be the case. (SC

The Green lead holds up even if you exclude their 36K-to-1K advantage in New
York, where Libertarians only recently won the right to register as such.
They do have a 141K-to-84K advantage here in California, but in our context
that underscores my point, rather than undermines it.

SC) Your draft
<http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Greatest_Hits_Draft_Platform> platform
is much better than I might have expected. It even includes the
Non-Aggression Principle, though not as prominently as I would like to see
it affirmed. While there are no doubt things from our pre-2006 platforms
that should be included, it doesn't sound like an attempt to run headlong
away from solid libertarian principles. If this is what the "reform" faction
supports, we're in better shape than I thought. (SC

Thanks. Libertarians have a lot more common ground than all these
(literally -- see below) repetitive debates might lead one to believe.
You'll have to forgive me for not trying to make the draft more ecumenical
toward liberventionists like you and me, but I'm putting the need to repair
the Platform ahead of my personal desire to make it more inclusive on that
issue.

SC) There is even at least one area in which it goes *farther* than I
might, namely the unconditional upholding of voluntary contracts (I'm not
sure I support upholding a contract that voluntarily makes someone a slave
for life). (SC

As the color-coding indicates, that language on contract is original to the
1972 Platform, and I think has been in every Platform since.

SC) What are the rules for editing on your Wiki? Would you be willing to set
them up in such a way that you or other "reformers" don't have any more
control than other folks, if that is not currently the case? (SC

All PlatCom members have editing privileges, but the PlatCom policy (over my
opposition) is that any Wiki page must be private if it quotes or
characterizes the opinions of a PlatCom member who has not agreed to public
visibility for that opinion. I don't have a way to give editing privileges
on the public pages without violating this policy regarding the private
pages. However, I'll happily post thoughtful content to public pages that
anyone cares to submit -- hint, hint. :slight_smile:

SC) How would you feel about opening up the process for changing the
platform, so that delegates have more direct input instead of having to
first consider everything that the Platform Committee has come up with
before introducing their own proposals on an equal footing? I made some
suggestions on the LP Radicals and Grassroots Libertarians lists about how
that could work. (SC

Yes, I saw those. I generally agree with Tom Knapp's responses to your
suggestions. I don't see any chance of that process changing for Denver,
especially in light of how much work the Platform needs. An effective
Platform Committee of 400 delegates is a recipe for keeping the current
broken Platform. Knapp is absolutely right that in this cycle we need to
front-load the work, with PlatCom getting the maximum amount of feedback and
buy-in before passing its report in February in Las Vegas. The subsequent
three months will be needed for prospective delegates to consider the
PlatCom recommendation, so that the issues and options are clear well before
delegates arrive in Denver.

If in Denver we avoid our traditional Platform bloat and adopt a GH-style
statement of timeless principles, then that would make more room for each
convention to focus on passing timely resolutions or even an LP Program.
There is a growing amount of support for a "two-document" approach, in which
we pair a Platform of timeless and unifying principles with a separate
Program that moderates and incrementalists and legislative technicians can
be happy about. I'm looking for feedback on my draft skeleton of such a
Program: http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/MarketLiberal_Campaign_Program
.

Brian Miller wrote:

BM) Under the present watered-down post-Portland platform, I could run on a
platform advocating a 100% income tax on all income above $50,000 per year,
and still be a "100% platform-compliant Libertarian." (BM

LOL. Except for changing $90K to $50K, this is a re-run of an Aug 28
assertion by you that I demolished
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/12848> (without any
apparent response) the same day:

BM) It's now possible for a Libertarian Party candidate to run as a
candidate who supports a 100% income tax on income over $90,000 as a
replacement for the property tax, and be 100% platform-compliant. (BM

BH) I guess you're simply ignorant of this sentence in plank I.3: "We oppose
taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all
taxation." (BH

Surely you remember that email -- it was the one where you exclaimed: "Read
the Portland platform yourself, if you don't believe me!" Still drawing a
blank? I also quoted the Portland Platform to correct your mistaken claims
that it allows hiring quotas and "Nuclear Ethnic Cleansing of the Middle
East". Does that ring a bell?

BM) With the emasculated platform we presently have, and particularly with
the even further reduced platform the LRC is certain to attempt to present,
it won't be long until George W. Bush could run for office as a "platform
compatible Libertarian candidate." (BM

Utter nonsense. Regarding "the emasculated Platform we presently have", I
repeat from the same email above something to which I've still seen no
response from you:

BH) The LRC's agenda in Portland was to fix the Pledge. We failed. The LRC
did not come to Portland with a plan to rewrite the Platform, and as far as
I know had no idea that so many delegates would register so much protest in
the plank retention vote. I personally voted against only the
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=315> 13 planks tainted by
anarchism or absolutist non-interventionism. I, and presumably most
delegates, were of course not voting that the LP should forever be silent on
the topics of the planks we voted against. Rather, our vote was to protest
the extremism of the Platform, and to try to use the ratchet mechanism of
the Bylaws (51% to remove, 67% to reinstate) to open the door to making the
Platform more inclusive of non-anarchist libertarians. We're halfway done,
and we plan to finish the job in Denver. Don't confuse a construction site
with a finished edifice. (BH

Regarding "the even further reduced platform the LRC is certain to attempt
to present", you're simply ignorant. You saw and responded to my Aug 29
message here in which I identified "the leading LRC proposal" as
http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Greatest_Hits_Draft_Platform -- but of
course you offered no comment on it, and apparently haven't even read it.

BM) Most people tend to assume that a candidate will be in-line with the
platform and that being in-line with the platform makes them libertarian --
however, that's not the case with the LRC non-platforms as proposed or
implemented. (BM

More ignorance. I defy anyone to read the GH draft and then say with a
straight face that advocating it is not sufficient grounds for being called
libertarian. Any takers?

51

Michael Acree wrote:

  MA) it has been easier to argue from what I experience as a
consistent, principled position, however radical, than from a more
compromised one, where everything is a matter of degree. (MA

I always suspected as much -- at least about some of the radicals I've
debated. :slight_smile: Alas, some of us can't shake the impulse to follow the
trail marked True when it diverges from the trail marked Easy. :slight_smile:

I'd be surprised if you misunderstood me here. I argue from a
principled position not because it's easy, but because it's true. The
principled position is claimed by many libertarians to be the more
difficult path; I thought it worth noting that my experience had been
the opposite.

I've fallen from deontological anarchist grace after having eaten of the
forbidden fruit of the modern theory of political economy, with all it
tells us about humans and how they behave in groups -- e.g. free riders
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem> , the tragedy of the
commons <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons> , negative
externalities <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_externality> , the
Prisoner's dilemma <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma> ,
the Liberal paradox <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox> , the
Allais paradox <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_paradox> , bounded
rationality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases> in general,
and the possibility of Kaldor-Hicks-efficient
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor-Hicks_efficiency> social policies.
If the technology of Total Recall ever becomes available, it would be
interesting to take a vacation from this knowledge and spend a week as
an anarchist. :slight_smile:

And how is government supposed to make these problems go away? Are you
suggesting that bureaucrats aren't really humans? The tragedy of the
commons, for one, is a consequence specifically of public (i.e.
government) ownership, as in the destruction of BLM range lands.

Mike