RE: [lpsf-discuss] RE: A quick Mises and Rothbard redux

[brianholtz1965]

Starchild wrote:

A better analogy here is not Libertarians hitching a ride, but who's

going to get into *our* car. <SC

That analogy is only better if you think that there are more people inside
the LP who would pull north on the Nolan chart than there are outside. If
you are right in so thinking, then the cause is already lost, and our
activism indeed is more about indulging in nonconformity than it is about
having political effect.

Are we picking up people who are liable to run the LP car off the road

when they reach their destination <SC

If we reach my destination of libertarian minarchy, and our 28% government
share of GDP is reduced to about 5%, then people like me leaving the LP
would hardly "run the LP car off the road". It would just restore the LP's
status quo ante -- which is that it has already been run off the road by
anarchism.

> or refuse to allow enough gas to be put into the tank to get us where
we want to go? <SC

I'll agree that anarchism can be described as "gas" of a certain kind ,
but I'm confident it will never propel the LP beyond its current level of
self-marginalization.

They should be welcome to hitch a ride and get off whenever they like,

so long as they don't try to impede the car's reaching its ultimate
destination or take down the sign in the window that says "Freedom or Bust!"
<SC

The sign now reads "Anarchy or Irrelevancy", the tank is full of fumes, and
the odometer has been stuck near zero for decades. We can either recruit
people to help push, or we can keep sitting behind the wheel and shouting
"Vroom!".

watering down our principles to accommodate people who aren't

libertarians <SC

the party has already watered down its libertarianism with anarchism

<BH.

Either the anarchists and other folks you disagree with are "extremists"

(as you call them in your blog) or they are "watering down the libertarian
message" (as you say here). I think the latter position would be pretty
hard to defend <SC

Let's not pretend you've unearthed some deep logical contradiction in my
position just because I turned your "watering down" metaphor against you
only imperfectly. If you're unfamiliar with the argument that anarchism is
an adulterated version of libertarianism, here's the short version:

True libertarians want to minimize aggression and maximize liberty in the
real world. Anarchists want to show off their non-coercively-white gloves
by agreeing with fellow club members to set a good example of abstaining
from coercion in an anarchotopia in which they'll never have to live a
single day. Anarchists indeed water down full-bodied aggression-minimizing
libertarianism by tainting it with the self-indulgent seltzer of
consequence-free zero-aggression-principle bumper-sticker philosophizing.

Thus, anarchism is both 1) watered-down on the dimension of minimizing net
real-world incidence of aggression, and 2) extremist on the dimension of
aversion to using coercion. QED.

If someone wants more liberty and less government on every issue, the

only possible reason to exclude him is if you value your badge of
ideological purity/nonconformity more than you value your political
effectiveness.<BH

Please show me someone who wants more liberty and less government on

*every issue*, and yet is *not* a hardcore libertarian, <SC

Me. So I'm still curious how you would answer my reductio above. Would you
exclude me from the LP for not pledging allegiance to the flag of anarchism,
and to the fantasy for which it stands, one treehouse, under Rand, with
imaginary liberty and justice for all, no girlz or minarchists allowed?

because they only want to move a *little ways* toward freedom on each

issue. <SC

Fallacy of the excluded middle. I want to move all the way toward anarchy on
most issues, but only most of the way on about eight or so.

Do such individuals exist at all, let alone in any significant numbers?

<SC

For my reductio to apply, only one need exist. The more important question
is the one I mentioned above: are there more people inside the LP who would
on net pull north on the Nolan chart than there are outside? I find such
people pretty much every time I describe libertarianism to anyone among my
peers who hasn't heard of the LP. Most of them didn't know there was even a
name -- much less a party -- for socially-tolerant Republicans or
market-oriented Democrats. But in a sense they're right -- the LP does not
present itself as such a party, because it cares more about its contrarian
self-image than about its effectiveness.

So if, five years from now, the U.S. government's "PATRIOT Act" has been

expanded to be even worse than it is now, you would welcome someone as a
full-fledged Libertarian who advocated *as their ideal* the "PATRIOT Act" as
it existed in 2005? <SC

I want the LP to be the political voice and electoral broker of everyone who
wants to pull America neither left nor right but up toward the light of
liberty. When they stop pulling is their business, as long as they promise
(as I do) never to use the party to pull in another direction.

As a general rule, I would recommend not using the term "libertopia." It

makes it sound like libertarians are seeking something utopian and
unrealistic. <SC

So Libertarians are currently hard-nosed and realistic about achieving their
goals, even though you (apparently) claim the party already includes most
people who would pull north on the Nolan chart?

There's nothing stopping anyone from dropping out of the LP or the

libertarian movement when it has achieved the amount of liberty that he or
she personally desires. But this does not require any revision of the
party's pledge. <SC

Yes it does, if the Pledge is going to continue to be used as an anarchist
loyalty oath by those who are ignorant of its origin in 1971 as a way to
help forestall COINTELPRO-style investigation of organizations advocating
political violence.

Brian Holtz
Yahoo! Inc.
2004 Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)
http://marketliberal.org/&gt;
blog: http://knowinghumans.net/&gt;
book: http://humanknowledge.net/&gt;

[Starchild]

Starchild wrote:

> A better analogy here is not Libertarians hitching a ride, but who's going to get into *our* car. <SC

That analogy is only better if you think that there are more people inside the LP who would pull north on the Nolan chart than there are outside. If you are right in so thinking, then the cause is already lost, and our activism indeed is more about indulging in nonconformity than it is about having political effect.

  It's not about numbers inside the party versus outside. It's about whether the libertarian movement will be guided by libertarian principles, or by indulging the need to feel like "winners."

> Are we picking up people who are liable to run the LP car off the road when they reach their destination <SC

If we reach my destination of libertarian minarchy, and our 28% government share of GDP is reduced to about 5%, then people like me leaving the LP would hardly "run the LP car off the road". It would just restore the LP's status quo ante -- which is that it has already been run off the road by anarchism.

  When you say that, you ignore the historical roots of the party. The LP has had a strong anarchist streak from the beginning -- in other words, during the time it grew from a few people in a Colorado living room to become by most measures the foremost alternative political party in the United States.

> or refuse to allow enough gas to be put into the tank to get us where we want to go? <SC

I'll agree that anarchism can be described as "gas" of a certain kind , but I'm confident it will never propel the LP beyond its current level of self-marginalization.

  Clever quip, but regarding the fallacy that anarchism has marginalized the LP, see previous note above. Or perhaps I've simply overlooked all the vastly more successful non-anarchist parties that have arisen in the U.S. during the past half-century, and you can point out some examples. No? Hmmm, I wonder why not...

> They should be welcome to hitch a ride and get off whenever they like, so long as they don't try to impede the car's reaching its ultimate destination or take down the sign in the window that says "Freedom or Bust!" <SC

The sign now reads "Anarchy or Irrelevancy", the tank is full of fumes, and the odometer has been stuck near zero for decades. We can either recruit people to help push, or we can keep sitting behind the wheel and shouting "Vroom!".

  Again, making light of peoples' beliefs like that isn't accomplishing anything. I can toss out clever insults too, if you wish the dialogue to degenerate to that level.

> watering down our principles to accommodate people who aren't libertarians <SC

>the party has already watered down its libertarianism with anarchism<BH.
> Either the anarchists and other folks you disagree with are "extremists" (as you call them in your blog) or they are "watering down the libertarian message" (as you say here). I think the latter position would be pretty hard to defend, but that's your call. Regardless, you can't very well have it both ways. When have you ever heard of "watered-down extremism?" It's an oxymoron. <SC

Let's not pretend you've unearthed some deep logical contradiction in my position just because I turned your "watering down" metaphor against you only imperfectly.

  Fine, if you'll agree not to gloss over the fact that your metaphor was self-contradictory, and stop insisting that anarchism is both extremist AND watered-down at the same time.

If you're unfamiliar with the argument that anarchism is an adulterated version of libertarianism, here's the short version:

True libertarians want to minimize aggression and maximize liberty in the real world. Anarchists want to show off their non-coercively-white gloves by agreeing with fellow club members to set a good example of abstaining from coercion in an anarchotopia in which they'll never have to live a single day. Anarchists indeed water down full-bodied aggression-minimizing libertarianism by tainting it with the self-indulgent seltzer of consequence-free zero-aggression-principle bumper-sticker philosophizing.

Thus, anarchism is both 1) watered-down on the dimension of minimizing net real-world incidence of aggression, and 2) extremist on the dimension of aversion to using coercion. QED.

  The first half of that two-point description uses as an argument the very overall case you are trying to prove, namely that pursuing anarchist goals is less effective at minimizing real-world aggression than is demanding less liberty. In the real world, most people don't see anarchism as "watered-down" anything.

> If someone wants more liberty and less government on every issue, the only possible reason to exclude him is if you value your badge of ideological purity/nonconformity more than you value your political effectiveness.<BH

> Please show me someone who wants more liberty and less government on *every issue*, and yet is *not* a hardcore libertarian, <SC

Me. So I'm still curious how you would answer my reductio above. Would you exclude me from the LP for not pledging allegiance to the flag of anarchism... <bullshit snipped here>

  Like I said, if you want this conversation to degenerate into spurious insults, you're on the right track. If there was a serious question buried in there, please let me know.

> because they only want to move a *little ways* toward freedom on each issue. <SC

Fallacy of the excluded middle. I want to move all the way toward anarchy on most issues, but only most of the way on about eight or so.

  Uh, if you want to move all the way toward anarchy on most issues, then I think you've pretty much defined yourself as a hardcore libertarian. Whether you claim that label or not, it's pretty clear that you are *not* an example of someone who wants more liberty on every issue but only wants to move a little ways in that direction.

> Do such individuals exist at all, let alone in any significant numbers? <SC

For my reductio to apply, only one need exist.

  I wouldn't favor changing the party pledge to accommodate one person. Would you?

The more important question is the one I mentioned above: are there more people inside the LP who would on net pull north on the Nolan chart than there are outside?

  The goal is not the triumph of the Libertarian Party; the goal is liberty. The party is only a means to that end. Just because someone is not in the LP does not mean that he or she cannot work for liberty, whether in concert with Libertarians or independently. And no one is being kicked out of the LP for not meeting the kind of purity test you're describing. The question is simply whether the LP will advocate libertarianism -- whether of the anarchist or limited government variety -- or merely less government. I think it ought to advocate libertarianism. After all, the GOP claims to advocate less government, and a lot of people believe it. What makes you think you'll be so much more successful at keeping future Libertarian politicians from advocating more taxes and so on than principled Republicans have been at this, once you've removed the LP's ideological goals?

I find such people pretty much every time I describe libertarianism to anyone among my peers who hasn't heard of the LP. Most of them didn't know there was even a name -- much less a party -- for socially-tolerant Republicans or market-oriented Democrats. But in a sense they're right -- the LP does not present itself as such a party, because it cares more about its contrarian self-image than about its effectiveness.

  Do you really believe that people who want the LP to stay "the party of principle" and feel that continuing to speak truth to power is not only the most principled, but the most effective way to promote liberty, are simply being "contrarian?" Would you say this about Ron Paul, just because he is known as "Dr. No?"

> So if, five years from now, the U.S. government's "PATRIOT Act" has been expanded to be even worse than it is now, you would welcome someone as a full-fledged Libertarian who advocated *as their ideal* the "PATRIOT Act" as it existed in 2005? <SC

I want the LP to be the political voice and electoral broker of everyone who wants to pull America neither left nor right but up toward the light of liberty. When they stop pulling is their business, as long as they promise (as I do) never to use the party to pull in another direction.

  I have no problem with that vision. And I don't have any doubts of your commitment to liberty; you just mistakenly think we'll get there faster by aiming lower. But if you're successful in letting party policy be set by people who not only want to aim lower, but who don't share our belief in limited government, then one day you'll wake up to find yourself on the "extremist" wing of the LP, and realize that the party is lost and that you'll have thrown away all the hard work it has taken us to get this far.

  I believe there are two main bulwarks which have so far prevented the Libertarian Party from becoming as soulless and power-hungry as the Republicans and Democrats:

(1) The Libertarian Party does not yet have enough money or power to attract many of the self-serving careerist types who dominate the establishment parties
(2) The Libertarian Party still has enough idealists, and enough idealism, to make it an uncomfortable atmosphere for the self-serving careerist types

  If the right confluence of events causes the LP's clout to suddenly increase, we better hope we still have enough outspoken principles and people who are unafraid to demand adherence to them to make up for the loss of bulwark #1. In other words we better hope the party has not followed the advice of people like yourself who seem to want to throw every practical difference that distinguishes us from the political establishment out the window in order to pursue "success."

  Otherwise, the Libertarian Party will be finished as an effective vehicle for liberty. It may well be an effective vehicle for *something* or *someone*, but it won't be for libertarian ideas. The LP will be just another corrupt party seeking power, with only an extremely loose adherence to liberty the way Republicans loosely adhere to lower government spending or the Democrats loosely adhere to civil liberties.

  How exactly do you plan to prevent this from happening? That is the key question for which the mainstreamers never have a coherent answer.

> As a general rule, I would recommend not using the term "libertopia." It makes it sound like libertarians are seeking something utopian and unrealistic. <SC

So Libertarians are currently hard-nosed and realistic about achieving their goals, even though you (apparently) claim the party already includes most people who would pull north on the Nolan chart?

  That was your assumption; I have never claimed that most people who want more freedom than currently exists belong to the Libertarian Party. Most people who want more freedom don't even live in the United States. I think most anarchists and limited-government libertarians you'll talk to are quite hard-nosed and realistic. They are not under any illusion that we are going to have real freedom any time soon.

> There's nothing stopping anyone from dropping out of the LP or the libertarian movement when it has achieved the amount of liberty that he or she personally desires. But this does not require any revision of the party's pledge.<SC

Yes it does, if the Pledge is going to continue to be used as an anarchist loyalty oath by those who are ignorant of its origin in 1971 as a way to help forestall COINTELPRO-style investigation of organizations advocating political violence.

  I don't know where you get this "anarchist loyalty oath" crap. I'm pretty sure that most Libertarians who support the pledge are not anarchists. I'm not an anarchist. Nor is the pledge being used to drive anyone from the party simply for wanting to move too slowly in the direction of liberty. On the rare occasions when anyone has been kicked out of the LP, it has only been for openly advocating or committing violence, or stealing money from the party, or things like that as far as I'm aware.

  You have yet to explain why people cannot support the Libertarian Party and simply drop out when as much liberty as they desire has been secured, without getting rid of the pledge.

For liberty,
      <<< Starchild >>>

[stevedekorte]

I would, in the following sense; If I have $1 that will buy one loaf of bread today and, due to increases in efficiency will buy two loaves of bread next year, but the government interferes with the economy in such a way as to make my $1 worth only 1/2 a loaf next year - then the government has stolen 1.5 loaves of bread from me via artificial *inflation* of the currency's relationship to real value - which in this case results in the lose of 3/4 of my real assets.

-- Steve

[dej72]

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

[stevedekorte]

There's a number of problems with the deflation that moving to a 100% gold-standard would bring about.
The worst is that it could lead to artificially high real interest rates and choke off capital investment, since the nominal interest rate can never fall below zero.

How so?

In addition, deflation nearly always means falling wage rates and unemployment.

There's no problem with falling wage rates if the buying power is constant or increasing. As for unemployment, I don't see how a fixed amount of currency would change the desire to consume (and therefore the need to production and the required labor).

It seems to me that there are no shortage of examples to disprove the supposed positive relation of deflation to reduced consumption. Consider the computer hardware industry. About every 18 months one can buy 2x the product for the same price. I think would be fair to can that a form of hyper-deflation. And yet this hasn't prevented people from buying computers because having something now still has value regardless of how cheap it will be tomorrow.

-- Steve

[ricochetboy]

Thank you Mr. or should I say Ms. Keynes
"The worst is that it could lead to artificially high real interest
rates and choke off capital investment, since the nominal interest
rate can never fall below zero." Assuming a fixed supply of money, if
deflation was raging at say 3percent, dropping nominal interest rates
near zero then only high value investments would attract capital at
higher rates, and the the the junk low value prjects would go unfunded
leaving more for consumption in books, theater, art, or lapdancers.
How bad is that. sure a lot better than freezing in your Mc Mansion
trying to figuure out if your gonna pay the natural gas bill, filll up
;the car or pay the mortgage, cus all three of them just went up by a
lot and your income is steady. slow deflation in prices with a
constant money supply is simply economic heaven. the price decline
when due to natural increases in human knowledge and real productivity
does not require wage cuts.

" In addition, deflation nearly always means falling wage rates and
unemployment." Monetary deflation means falling wages and
unemployment, but in a stable monetary environment, such as we
experienced in some portions of the nineteenh centtury,when a groth in
productivity induced price deglation and the government was
temporarily put out of the inflation business, things boomed. Even
Volkers brief deflation resulted in prosperity for many years, althogh
the inflation machine soon resumed. Nothing in historical politiical
economy shows clean cause and effect because ther are innumerable
variables,but good principles do seem to lead to good effect.We could
start by revising an old English tradition by digging up the bones of
Keynes from Westminster Abbey or wherever they are, tring him for high
treason and deawing and quatering the remains in the tower of london
spreding the bones to the four quartes of england and placing the
skull on the London bridge to rat further for twenty years

[brianholtz1965]

Starchild wrote:

It's not about numbers inside the party versus outside. It's about

whether the libertarian movement will be guided by libertarian principles,
or by indulging the need to feel like "winners." <SC

There are two independent issues here. The first is whether the LP's
goal/destination should be minimization of aggression by enemies of liberty,
versus merely abstention from aggression by friends of liberty. The former
principle is libertarian, and the latter is anarchist.

The second issue is whether the party of liberty should try to harness the
political efforts of everyone who wants increased liberty, instead of just
being a club for those willing to take an anarchist loyalty oath. I haven't
yet seen you deny my repeated charges that the anti-minarchism of the LP is
motivated more about indulging in nonconformity than it is about increasing
liberty in the real world. By contrast, I'll instantly deny that I favor
harnessing all liberty-lovers just to "indulge the need to feel like a
'winner'". Rather, I have a need to feel that I've chosen the best strategy
for maximizing liberty in the real world. Working through the LP is pretty
close to the last thing anyone would try in order to feel like a political
winner.

The LP has had a strong anarchist streak from the beginning -- in other

words, during the time it grew from a few people in a Colorado living room
to become by most measures the foremost alternative political party in the
United States. <SC

If the party wants to be anarchist, then it shouldn't sully the good name of
libertarianism, and instead should have the intellectual courage to call
itself what it is. Even if the founders had explicitly wanted the LP to be
anarchist, that's not a good argument that the non-anarchist majority of
libertarians should not use the party for their goal of maximizing liberty.

The LP is certainly the best-organized third party, but the Greens have more
registered voters (even adjusting for the LP's problem in New York) and I
think usually get more votes when both a Green and a Libertarian are in the
same race.

perhaps I've simply overlooked all the vastly more successful

non-anarchist parties that have arisen in the U.S. during the past
half-century, and you can point out some examples. No? Hmmm, I wonder why
not...<SC

In any multi-dimensional analysis of American's political views, Americans
cluster mostly in the 2-D plane defined by the Nolan chart, and even more so
along the left-right diagonal of the Nolan plane. As noted by Duverger's
"Law" (Duverger's law - Wikipedia), this in combination with
plurality voting laws means that successful third parties cannot arise along
that diagonal without being co-opted by the two existing major parties
already encamped on that line. Too few Americans occupy the totalitarian
quadrant of the Nolan plane to support a viable third party there, so the
only opportunity for a significant American third party is in the
libertarian quadrant. That the Greens do arguably better than the LP
despite this situation is a stunning indictment of how badly the LP has
botched its opportunity.

The sign now reads "Anarchy or Irrelevancy", the tank is full of fumes,

and the odometer has been stuck near zero for decades. We can either recruit
people to help push, or we can keep sitting behind the wheel and shouting
"Vroom!" <BH

Again, making light of peoples' beliefs like that isn't accomplishing

anything. I can toss out clever insults too <SC

I agree that argument by metaphor is only one step above grunting, and is
about as likely to be misinterpreted. Every clause in what I wrote above
maps to a serious critique of exclusivism within the LP. If you talk about
"Freedom or Bust!" written on a car you claim is in metaphorical motion
while saying you are "not under any illusion that we are going to have real
freedom any time soon", then I don't think the Vroom joke is very
inappropriate. Also, satire is not the same thing as insults. An example of
an insult is when anarcho-libertarians call me "socialist" or "fascist".

Let's not pretend you've unearthed some deep logical contradiction in

my position just because I turned your "watering down" metaphor against you
only imperfectly. <BH

Fine, if you'll agree not to gloss over the fact that your metaphor was

self-contradictory, and stop insisting that anarchism is both extremist AND
watered-down at the same time. <SC

For a metaphor to be "self"-contradictory, the contradictory things have to
be part of the same metaphor. They weren't. I didn't say watered-down and
extremist "at the same time", I just said them in the same month. No form
of the word "extreme" occurs in the email in which I returned your use of
"watered-down". You didn't even dispute my explanation that both
characterizations can be valid, but instead merely denied an empirical
premise underlying one of the characterizations.

Thus, anarchism is both 1) watered-down on the dimension of minimizing

net real-world incidence of aggression, and 2) extremist on the dimension of
aversion to using coercion. QED. <BH

The first half of that two-point description uses as an argument the

very overall case you are trying to prove, namely that pursuing anarchist
goals is less effective at minimizing real-world aggression than is
demanding less liberty. <SC

You claimed that to characterize anarchism as "watered-down" and "extremist"
as I've done is inherently contradictory. I explained how, given an
empirical claim about the real-world effect anarchism would have on the
incidence of liberty, the contradiction disappears. That you disagree with
my empirical claim does not mean you've demonstrated an inherent
contradiction, nor does it mean that I've committed the fallacy of assuming
the consequent.

In the real world, most people don't see anarchism as "watered-down"

anything. <SC

The relevant linguistic community for my "watered-down" claim is just people
whose highest political value is to maximize the incidence of liberty. Even
if those people tended not to understand that anarchism doesn't maximize the
incidence of liberty, that wouldn't make my characterization inaccurate.

If someone wants more liberty and less government on every issue, the

only possible reason to exclude him is if you value your badge of
ideological purity/nonconformity more than you value your political
effectiveness.<BH

Please show me someone who wants more liberty and less government on

*every issue*, and yet is *not* a hardcore libertarian, <SC

Me. So I'm still curious how you would answer my reductio above.

Would you exclude me from the LP for not pledging [...]? <BH

Like I said, if you want this conversation to degenerate into spurious

insults, you're on the right track. If there was a serious question buried
in there, please let me know. <SC

If you had addressed my question the first time, I wouldn't have been
tempted to use satire to make my re-asking of it more noticeable. I don't
recall you ever invoking Rand, so please don't think that joke was at your
personal expense.

Uh, if you want to move all the way toward anarchy on most issues, then

I think you've pretty much defined yourself as a hardcore libertarian. <SC

Please don't equivocate. I've already claimed to be
more-libertarian-than-thou in wanting to maximize the incidence of liberty.
But in this context, by "hardcore libertarian" I understood you to mean a
zero-taxes zero-first-use-of-force no-government anarchist.

Whether you claim that label or not, it's pretty clear that you are

*not* an example of someone who wants more liberty on every issue but only
wants to move a little ways in that direction. <SC

Wow, you brazenly repeat your "little ways" strawman, even after I diagnosed
it in the email you quote. The problem case for my position is not someone
who wants only a little more liberty on every issue, but rather someone
whose desire for a net increase in liberty includes issues on which she
wants less liberty than the status quo.

For my reductio to apply, only one need exist. <BH

I wouldn't favor changing the party pledge to accommodate one person.

Would you? <SC

I only needed one example to prove that the set is not empty, but that
doesn't mean you get to assume that the set has only one member. Your
continuing evasiveness is all the answer I need: it's apparently
embarrassing to say you would exclude people like me who agree with our
direction but not completely with our destination.

The goal is not the triumph of the Libertarian Party; the goal is

liberty. <SC

The goal is liberty, and the path to liberty is -- increasing liberty. There
aren't any teleporters or wormholes available to warp us forward. I'll take
any conveyance along that path, be it donkey or elephant or torch lady. I'd
forsake my lifetime LP membership in a heartbeat if the Demopublicans or
Republocrats came to their senses and enduringly supported increasing
liberty.

Just because someone is not in the LP does not mean that he or she

cannot work for liberty, whether in concert with Libertarians or
independently. <SC

In politics, and especially electoral politics, the best way to work for X
is for all the people who want X to unite in a voting bloc. For some of us,
X is "increased liberty". For others, X is apparently something like
"elimination of government" or "reputation for ideological purity". It's
pretty obvious which of these groups can best be described as libertarian.

And no one is being kicked out of the LP for not meeting the kind of

purity test you're describing. <SC

You were in the room at the LPC Platform Committee meeting when multiple
people told me that the Pledge means zero taxes. If one has to pledge
opposition to all taxation in order to join the LP, that's obviously a
purity test.

> The question is simply whether the LP will advocate libertarianism --
whether of the anarchist or limited government variety -- or merely less
government. <SC

For the fourth time: the issue of what destination we advocate is different
from whether we encourage membership in our bloc only by people who agree
with our ultimate destination. The pledge I propose is "The Libertarian
Party will always advocate increasing liberty and decreasing government on
every issue. As a member of the Libertarian Party, I will not attempt to
change this." What's so terrible about that?

What makes you think you'll be so much more successful at keeping future

Libertarian politicians from advocating more taxes and so on than principled
Republicans have been at this, once you've removed the LP's ideological
goals? <SC

Please don't imply in front of my fellow Libertarians that I want the LP not
to have libertarian ideological goals. That my ideology does not fit on a
bumper sticker does not mean that I'm not rigorously committed to a
libertarian ideology. If you are unsure as to what libertarian ideological
goals I think the party should have, please start at
Hidden Agenda: Ideas to Infect You With.

the LP does not present itself as such a party, because it cares more

about its contrarian self-image than about its effectiveness. <BH

Do you really believe that people who want the LP to stay "the party of

principle" and feel that continuing to speak truth to power is not only the
most principled, but the most effective way to promote liberty, <SC

1) Please do not imply in front of my fellow Libertarians that I want the LP
to not be a party of principle. I indeed want the LP to be the party of
libertarian principle -- which is why I argue the the LP should favor
libertarianism over anarchism.

2) While I of course believe that libertarian principles are superior to
alternative principles (including anarchism), I think it's intellectually
silly for the party to pretend that any disagreement with it is inherently
unprincipled. For example, it's silly to say the Greens are not a party of
principle.

are simply being "contrarian?" <SC

No, because "simply" means "merely" or "only", whereas I said "cares more
about its contrarian self-image than [...]".

I want the LP to be the political voice and electoral broker of everyone

who wants to pull America neither left nor right but up toward the light of
liberty. When they stop pulling is their business, as long as they promise
(as I do) never to use the party to pull in another direction. <BH

I have no problem with that vision. And I don't have any doubts of your

commitment to liberty; you just mistakenly think we'll get there faster by
aiming lower. <SC

By "liberty" here you must mean my brand of minarchist liberty, since I've
made clear my non-commitment to anarchism. Do you really think that in
politics, the most expeditious way to reach a goal (e.g. minarchy) is to
demand nothing less than something beyond that goal (e.g. anarchy), and to
decline to organize with those who share only the intermediate goal?

My "aim" is straight north on the Nolan chart, and I consider it obvious
that the more people pulling together in that direction, the faster we'll
move in that direction. It's simply untenable to adopt your ballistic
metaphor, in which you claim that the further you are from your goal, the
more extremist and exclusive you have to be in order to best make progress
toward your goal.

But if you're successful in letting party policy be set by people who

not only want to aim lower, but who don't share our belief in limited
government, <SC

What limited government? The current platform envisions no government --
unless you want to call voluntary associations like AAA a government. For
the fifth time: the pledge debate is not about rewriting the platform, it's
about taking down the sign that says "no non-anarchists need apply".

then one day you'll wake up to find yourself on the "extremist" wing of

the LP, and realize that the party is lost and that you'll have thrown away
all the hard work it has taken us to get this far. <SC

As long as the party always stands for increasing liberty and decreasing
government on every issue, it won't be "lost".

The Libertarian Party does not yet have enough money or power to attract

many of the self-serving careerist types who dominate the establishment
parties. The Libertarian Party still has enough idealists, and enough
idealism, to make it an uncomfortable atmosphere for the self-serving
careerist types. <SC

It's interesting that you can discern the internal motives of these
hypothetical Libertarian career politicians, but seem oblivious to the
contrarianism and clubby exclusivism that helps motivate so many actual
Libertarians to keep the party small.

If the right confluence of events causes the LP's clout to suddenly

increase, we better hope we still have enough outspoken principles and
people who are unafraid to demand adherence to them <SC

Are you claiming that I do not speak out for or advocate adherence to any
libertarian principles?

to make up for the loss of bulwark #1. In other words we better hope the

party has not followed the advice of people like yourself who seem to want
to throw every practical difference that distinguishes us from the political
establishment out the window in order to pursue "success." <SC

Sorry, but your "seem to" is not a big enough fig leaf to cover this smear
against me. The only difference with the political establishment that I've
here advocated eliminating is our self-indulgent refusal to join with people
who won't pledge to anarchism.

Otherwise, the Libertarian Party will be finished as an effective

vehicle for liberty. It may well be an effective vehicle for *something* or
*someone*, but it won't be for libertarian ideas. The LP will be just
another corrupt party seeking power <SC

The LP right now is hardly "an effective vehicle for liberty" -- it's more
of a tattoo club for anarchists. It's true that keeping the LP as a club
for comparing anarchist tattoos will guarantee that it will never be
corrupt. Any proposal for increasing the LP's political effectiveness can
be said to increase its potential for corruption compared to a tattoo club,
so your argument doesn't impress me.

Re: "won't be for libertarian ideas", your assertion is refuted just by
repeating my proposed replacement pledge. "The Libertarian Party will always
advocate increasing liberty and decreasing government on every issue. As a
member of the Libertarian Party, I will not attempt to change this."

How exactly do you plan to prevent this from happening? That is the key

question for which the mainstreamers never have a coherent answer. <SC

If you think the current pledge is doing the job of preventing corruption,
then the replacement pledge can do it just as well. In reality, a pledge
can only guarantee against corruption to the extent that it guarantees
self-marginalization.

I have never claimed that most people who want more freedom than

currently exists belong to the Libertarian Party. Most people who want more
freedom don't even live in the United States. <SC

The context here is politics in America. Again, your evasiveness speaks
volumes. Do you think there are more Americans who want increased liberty
inside the 200K reglibs or outside? (I won't even bother asking about
inside the LP's 20K pledge-takers or outside, as the reglib count already
answers that question.)

I don't know where you get this "anarchist loyalty oath" crap. I'm

pretty sure that most Libertarians who support the pledge are not
anarchists. I'm not an anarchist. <SC

If you believe that the power of the "government" to use force is the same
as that of AAA -- i.e. self-defense and contract enforcement -- then you're
an anarchist. Anarcho-libertarians invoke the Pledge whenever the concept of
taxation is mentioned.

Nor is the pledge being used to drive anyone from the party simply for

wanting to move too slowly in the direction of liberty. On the rare
occasions when anyone has been kicked out of the LP [...] <SC

I never said anyone was expelled from the party for violating the Pledge. I
said the Pledge is used by anarcho-libertarians to keep minarchists out and
to harangue the ones who join.

You have yet to explain why people cannot support the Libertarian Party

and simply drop out when as much liberty as they desire has been secured,
without getting rid of the pledge.<SC

Yes I have -- I've explained that the Pledge is used by anarcho-libertarians
to exclude and harangue minarcho-libertarians. If this
support-then-drop-out scenario is so unobjectionable to you, then what's
wrong the more inclusive pledge?

Brian Holtz
Yahoo! Inc.
2004 Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)
http://marketliberal.org/&gt;
blog: http://knowinghumans.net/&gt;
book: http://humanknowledge.net/&gt;

[dej72]

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

[Starchild]

Starchild wrote:

>It's not about numbers inside the party versus outside. It's about whether the libertarian movement will be guided by libertarian principles, or by indulging the need to feel like "winners." <SC

There are two independent issues here. The first is whether the LP's goal/destination should be minimization of aggression by enemies of liberty, versus merely abstention from aggression by friends of liberty. The former principle is libertarian, and the latter is anarchist.

  How do you tell who is a friend of liberty and who is an enemy? I think the goal should be minimizing aggression, period.

The second issue is whether the party of liberty should try to harness the political efforts of everyone who wants increased liberty, instead of just being a club for those willing to take an anarchist loyalty oath. I haven't yet seen you deny my repeated charges that the anti-minarchism of the LP is motivated more about indulging in nonconformity than it is about increasing liberty in the real world. By contrast, I'll instantly deny that I favor harnessing all liberty-lovers just to "indulge the need to feel like a 'winner'". Rather, I have a need to feel that I've chosen the best strategy for maximizing liberty in the real world. Working through the LP is pretty close to the last thing anyone would try in order to feel like a political winner.

  I think I've seen a lot more "anti-anarchism" than "anti-minarchism" in the LP. Case in point: You're attacking anarchy in this conversation; no one is attacking minarchy. And if you're going to keep talking about anarchists as wanting to indulge in "nonconformity," please substantiate that charge. It certainly doesn't seem to square with your complaints about the pledge, since having an ideological pledge of any type is going to to encourage more ideological conformity within a group, not the opposite.

>The LP has had a strong anarchist streak from the beginning -- in other words, during the time it grew from a few people in a Colorado living room to become by most measures the foremost alternative political party in the United States. <SC

If the party wants to be anarchist, then it shouldn't sully the good name of libertarianism, and instead should have the intellectual courage to call itself what it is. Even if the founders had explicitly wanted the LP to be anarchist, that's not a good argument that the non-anarchist majority of libertarians should not use the party for their goal of maximizing liberty.

  Since you argue from the premise that anarchists cannot be libertarian, and I disagree, there seems to be little basis for further discussion of this point.

The LP is certainly the best-organized third party, but the Greens have more registered voters (even adjusting for the LP's problem in New York) and I think usually get more votes when both a Green and a Libertarian are in the same race.

>perhaps I've simply overlooked all the vastly more successful non-anarchist parties that have arisen in the U.S. during the past half-century, and you can point out some examples. No? Hmmm, I wonder why not...<SC

In any multi-dimensional analysis of American's political views, Americans cluster mostly in the 2-D plane defined by the Nolan chart, and even more so along the left-right diagonal of the Nolan plane. As noted by Duverger's "Law" (Duverger's law - Wikipedia), this in combination with plurality voting laws means that successful third parties cannot arise along that diagonal without being co-opted by the two existing major parties already encamped on that line. Too few Americans occupy the totalitarian quadrant of the Nolan plane to support a viable third party there, so the only opportunity for a significant American third party is in the libertarian quadrant. That the Greens do arguably better than the LP despite this situation is a stunning indictment of how badly the LP has botched its opportunity.

  That's a reasonable argument, however it provides absolutely no basis for assuming that the LP would have more electoral success without becoming corrupt or un-libertarian by following your suggestions.

> The sign now reads "Anarchy or Irrelevancy", the tank is full of fumes, and the odometer has been stuck near zero for decades. We can either recruit people to help push, or we can keep sitting behind the wheel and shouting "Vroom!" <BH

> Again, making light of peoples' beliefs like that isn't accomplishing anything. I can toss out clever insults too <SC

I agree that argument by metaphor is only one step above grunting, and is about as likely to be misinterpreted. Every clause in what I wrote above maps to a serious critique of exclusivism within the LP. If you talk about "Freedom or Bust!" written on a car you claim is in metaphorical motion while saying you are "not under any illusion that we are going to have real freedom any time soon", then I don't think the Vroom joke is very inappropriate.

  That simply means that where we are now is a long way from freedom, not that we want the car to be standing still. As I'm sure you well know.

Also, satire is not the same thing as insults. An example of an insult is when anarcho-libertarians call me "socialist" or "fascist".

  Or when you call them "exclusivist?"

> Let's not pretend you've unearthed some deep logical contradiction in my position just because I turned your "watering down" metaphor against you only imperfectly. <BH
> Fine, if you'll agree not to gloss over the fact that your metaphor was self-contradictory, and stop insisting that anarchism is both extremist AND watered-down at the same time. <SC

For a metaphor to be "self"-contradictory, the contradictory things have to be part of the same metaphor. They weren't. I didn't say watered-down and extremist "at the same time", I just said them in the same month. No form of the word "extreme" occurs in the email in which I returned your use of "watered-down". You didn't even dispute my explanation that both characterizations can be valid, but instead merely denied an empirical premise underlying one of the characterizations.

  Fine -- it's your overall characterization of anarchy that's self-contradictory, not your specific metaphor.

> Thus, anarchism is both 1) watered-down on the dimension of minimizing net real-world incidence of aggression, and 2) extremist on the dimension of aversion to using coercion. QED. <BH

> The first half of that two-point description uses as an argument the very overall case you are trying to prove, namely that pursuing anarchist goals is less effective at minimizing real-world aggression than is demanding less liberty. <SC

You claimed that to characterize anarchism as "watered-down" and "extremist" as I've done is inherently contradictory. I explained how, given an empirical claim about the real-world effect anarchism would have on the incidence of liberty, the contradiction disappears. That you disagree with my empirical claim does not mean you've demonstrated an inherent contradiction, nor does it mean that I've committed the fallacy of assuming the consequent.

> In the real world, most people don't see anarchism as "watered-down" anything. <SC

The relevant linguistic community for my "watered-down" claim is just people whose highest political value is to maximize the incidence of liberty. Even if those people tended not to understand that anarchism doesn't maximize the incidence of liberty, that wouldn't make my characterization inaccurate.

  Sorry, that's just technical quibbling based on an unsubstantiated (mistaken, in my opinion) claim which is in any case unprovable at present. In the real world, anarchism is *still* not viewed as watered-down anything, and I've never heard anyone try to use the term "watered-down" the way you want to use it here.

> If someone wants more liberty and less government on every issue, the only possible reason to exclude him is if you value your badge of ideological purity/nonconformity more than you value your political effectiveness.<BH

> Please show me someone who wants more liberty and less government on *every issue*, and yet is *not* a hardcore libertarian, <SC

> Me. So I'm still curious how you would answer my reductio above. Would you exclude me from the LP for not pledging [...]? <BH

> Like I said, if you want this conversation to degenerate into spurious insults, you're on the right track. If there was a serious question buried in there, please let me know. <SC

If you had addressed my question the first time, I wouldn't have been tempted to use satire to make my re-asking of it more noticeable. I don't recall you ever invoking Rand, so please don't think that joke was at your personal expense.

  I didn't think it was a joke at my personal expense, the humor was just poorly chosen if you're trying to have a constructive dialogue. And I thought I'd made myself clear by now on this point, but I'll say it explicitly so you'll have no doubts: No, I would not exclude you from the LP for not pledging to be an anarchist. Fortunately for both of us, no such pledge is required to support, vote in, or belong to the Libertarian Party.

> Uh, if you want to move all the way toward anarchy on most issues, then I think you've pretty much defined yourself as a hardcore libertarian. <SC

Please don't equivocate. I've already claimed to be more-libertarian-than-thou in wanting to maximize the incidence of liberty. But in this context, by "hardcore libertarian" I understood you to mean a zero-taxes zero-first-use-of-force no-government anarchist.

  When you accuse me of wanting to maximize liberty less than you do, you are revealing yourself as unwilling to credit me with the basic good motives with which I credit you. If you're anarchist on most issues, that qualifies you as a hardcore libertarian in my book, and I never meant to imply otherwise.

> Whether you claim that label or not, it's pretty clear that you are *not* an example of someone who wants more liberty on every issue but only wants to move a little ways in that direction. <SC

Wow, you brazenly repeat your "little ways" strawman, even after I diagnosed it in the email you quote. The problem case for my position is not someone who wants only a little more liberty on every issue, but rather someone whose desire for a net increase in liberty includes issues on which she wants less liberty than the status quo.

  You misunderstand that sentence. Please don't be so quick to leap to a negative interpretation. What I said is that the position of wanting more liberty on every issue but only wanting to move a little ways in that direction, is not the position you hold. Is that clearer?

> For my reductio to apply, only one need exist. <BH

> I wouldn't favor changing the party pledge to accommodate one person. Would you? <SC

I only needed one example to prove that the set is not empty, but that doesn't mean you get to assume that the set has only one member. Your continuing evasiveness is all the answer I need: it's apparently embarrassing to say you would exclude people like me who agree with our direction but not completely with our destination.

  A question is not an assumption. You are the one who is evading the question of whether you'd favor changing the pledge to accommodate one person. You are also avoiding making an estimate of how many people belong to this set whose existence you've postulated; my point is simply that I don't believe it contains any significant number, if in fact it includes anyone. You still haven't proven to my satisfaction that it does include anyone, since I demonstrated that you do not belong to the set yourself.

> The goal is not the triumph of the Libertarian Party; the goal is liberty. <SC

The goal is liberty, and the path to liberty is -- increasing liberty. There aren't any teleporters or wormholes available to warp us forward. I'll take any conveyance along that path, be it donkey or elephant or torch lady. I'd forsake my lifetime LP membership in a heartbeat if the Demopublicans or Republocrats came to their senses and enduringly supported increasing liberty.

  Yes, I feel the same.

>Just because someone is not in the LP does not mean that he or she cannot work for liberty, whether in concert with Libertarians or independently. <SC

In politics, and especially electoral politics, the best way to work for X is for all the people who want X to unite in a voting bloc. For some of us, X is "increased liberty". For others, X is apparently something like "elimination of government" or "reputation for ideological purity". It's pretty obvious which of these groups can best be described as libertarian.

  It's not obvious to me. Libertarianism is the belief that you should be able to do what you want as long as you do not harm others. A group of people with a reputation for ideological purity could be a libertarian. So could a group of people who want increased liberty. And so could a group of people who want to eliminate government.

> And no one is being kicked out of the LP for not meeting the kind of purity test you're describing. <SC

You were in the room at the LPC Platform Committee meeting when multiple people told me that the Pledge means zero taxes. If one has to pledge opposition to all taxation in order to join the LP, that's obviously a purity test.

  And were you kicked out of the LP for disagreeing with them?

> The question is simply whether the LP will advocate libertarianism -- whether of the anarchist or limited government variety -- or merely less government. <SC

For the fourth time: the issue of what destination we advocate is different from whether we encourage membership in our bloc only by people who agree with our ultimate destination. The pledge I propose is "The Libertarian Party will always advocate increasing liberty and decreasing government on every issue. As a member of the Libertarian Party, I will not attempt to change this." What's so terrible about that?

  Nothing. And if you want to try to add that as an additional pledge, be my guest. What I object to is the attempt to throw out the important pledge that we have now.

> What makes you think you'll be so much more successful at keeping future Libertarian politicians from advocating more taxes and so on than principled Republicans have been at this, once you've removed the LP's ideological goals? <SC

Please don't imply in front of my fellow Libertarians that I want the LP not to have libertarian ideological goals. That my ideology does not fit on a bumper sticker does not mean that I'm not rigorously committed to a libertarian ideology. If you are unsure as to what libertarian ideological goals I think the party should have, please start at Hidden Agenda: Ideas to Infect You With.

  From what you've written in this exchange, your idea of libertarian ideology seems to be that anarchy is incompatible with libertarianism, while someone who merely wants *a little* more freedom than we have now *is* espousing libertarianism. I think that's exactly backwards.

>the LP does not present itself as such a party, because it cares more about its contrarian self-image than about its effectiveness.<BH

>Do you really believe that people who want the LP to stay "the party of principle" and feel that continuing to speak truth to power is not only the most principled, but the most effective way to promote liberty, <SC

1) Please do not imply in front of my fellow Libertarians that I want the LP to not be a party of principle. I indeed want the LP to be the party of libertarian principle -- which is why I argue the the LP should favor libertarianism over anarchism.

  Again, the core libertarian principle is that people should be able to do what they want as long as they do not hurt others. Anarchism is certainly compatible with such a vision. Some would argue that it's the *only* political philosophy compatible with this vision, although I disagree. Although our goal should be the elimination of the initiation of force, realistically rights violations will probably be with us for eons if not forever, and I feel that a limited government would stand a better chance of minimizing them on a sustainable basis.

2) While I of course believe that libertarian principles are superior to alternative principles (including anarchism), I think it's intellectually silly for the party to pretend that any disagreement with it is inherently unprincipled. For example, it's silly to say the Greens are not a party of principle.

  I believe the "party of principle" slogan refers primarily to the fact that Libertarians are more philosophically consistent, and tend to take positions based more on principle and less on expediency, than other parties. The Greens are more principled than the Democrats and Republicans, but they have (among other things) shown themselves more willing to stand aside for another party's candidates than the Libertarians have. It may also allude to the fact that our philosophy is based on the Non-Aggression Principle.

> are simply being "contrarian?"<SC

No, because "simply" means "merely" or "only", whereas I said "cares more about its contrarian self-image than [...]".

  So you really think that libertarians who want the LP to remain committed to the libertarian idea that people have the right to do what they want as long as they do not hurt others (the Non-Aggression principle) are motivated more by a desire to be "contrarian" than by the belief that -- people should have the right to do what they want as long as they do not hurt others?

>I want the LP to be the political voice and electoral broker of everyone who wants to pull America neither left nor right but up toward the light of liberty. When they stop pulling is their business, as long as they promise (as I do) never to use the party to pull in another direction.<BH

>I have no problem with that vision. And I don't have any doubts of your commitment to liberty; you just mistakenly think we'll get there faster by aiming lower.<SC

By "liberty" here you must mean my brand of minarchist liberty, since I've made clear my non-commitment to anarchism. Do you really think that in politics, the most expeditious way to reach a goal (e.g. minarchy) is to demand nothing less than something beyond that goal (e.g. anarchy), and to decline to organize with those who share only the intermediate goal?

  Libertarians are not declining to organize with people who favor limited government but not anarchy -- you keep repeating that obvious misstatement. Most Libertarians favor limited government.

My "aim" is straight north on the Nolan chart, and I consider it obvious that the more people pulling together in that direction, the faster we'll move in that direction. It's simply untenable to adopt your ballistic metaphor, in which you claim that the further you are from your goal, the more extremist and exclusive you have to be in order to best make progress toward your goal.

  If someone wants to move straight north on the Nolan chart, they'll see that the LP is the party moving in that direction. As we've discussed, they can get out of the car whenever they feel it's reached their destination.

>But if you're successful in letting party policy be set by people who not only want to aim lower, but who don't share our belief in limited government,<SC

What limited government? The current platform envisions no government -- unless you want to call voluntary associations like AAA a government.

  That is factually incorrect. Nowhere in the LP or LPC platforms does it say that the goal is zero government or that government has no role in protecting life, liberty, or property.

For the fifth time: the pledge debate is not about rewriting the platform, it's about taking down the sign that says "no non-anarchists need apply".

  No such sign exists -- it is in your imagination. As a non-anarchist, I would feel very uncomfortable in the LP if the party took the position that "non-anarchists need not apply."

>then one day you'll wake up to find yourself on the "extremist" wing of the LP, and realize that the party is lost and that you'll have thrown away all the hard work it has taken us to get this far.<SC

As long as the party always stands for increasing liberty and decreasing government on every issue, it won't be "lost".

  And how long do you think that will be, if your faction succeeds in downplaying the importance of ideology and simply focusing on "success" and "results"?

> The Libertarian Party does not yet have enough money or power to attract many of the self-serving careerist types who dominate the establishment parties. The Libertarian Party still has enough idealists, and enough idealism, to make it an uncomfortable atmosphere for the self-serving careerist types. <SC

It's interesting that you can discern the internal motives of these hypothetical Libertarian career politicians, but seem oblivious to the contrarianism and clubby exclusivism that helps motivate so many actual Libertarians to keep the party small.

  The main thing keeping the Libertarian Party small, in my view, are the attitudes of trying to be "respectable," corporate, top-down, etc., rather than trying to build a mass movement. It is possible to hold these attitudes and simultaneously hold very radical personal views. Harry Browne, who is a hardcore libertarian and possibly even an anarchist, is a good example. His campaign style was to have high-priced "business attire" events for small numbers of people in upscale settings. I don't know about "contrarian," but if you want to brand that as clubby exclusivism, you'll get no argument from me.

>If the right confluence of events causes the LP's clout to suddenly increase, we better hope we still have enough outspoken principles and people who are unafraid to demand adherence to them<SC

Are you claiming that I do not speak out for or advocate adherence to any libertarian principles?

  No.

>to make up for the loss of bulwark #1. In other words we better hope the party has not followed the advice of people like yourself who seem to want to throw every practical difference that distinguishes us from the political establishment out the window in order to pursue "success."<SC

Sorry, but your "seem to" is not a big enough fig leaf to cover this smear against me. The only difference with the political establishment that I've here advocated eliminating is our self-indulgent refusal to join with people who won't pledge to anarchism.

  Again, no such refusal exists. That's what makes it difficult to credit someone who advocates getting rid of the pledge on these grounds with good motives -- although I still do believe your motives are good, despite your characterization of me as "smearing" you.

>Otherwise, the Libertarian Party will be finished as an effective vehicle for liberty. It may well be an effective vehicle for *something* or *someone*, but it won't be for libertarian ideas. The LP will be just another corrupt party seeking power<SC

The LP right now is hardly "an effective vehicle for liberty" -- it's more of a tattoo club for anarchists. It's true that keeping the LP as a club for comparing anarchist tattoos will guarantee that it will never be corrupt. Any proposal for increasing the LP's political effectiveness can be said to increase its potential for corruption compared to a tattoo club, so your argument doesn't impress me.

  Yeah, encouraging people to wear (but not look at) their "I'm a happy tax slave" tattoos sounds like a much better recipe for being effective!

Re: "won't be for libertarian ideas", your assertion is refuted just by repeating my proposed replacement pledge. "The Libertarian Party will always advocate increasing liberty and decreasing government on every issue. As a member of the Libertarian Party, I will not attempt to change this."

>How exactly do you plan to prevent this from happening? That is the key question for which the mainstreamers never have a coherent answer. <SC

If you think the current pledge is doing the job of preventing corruption, then the replacement pledge can do it just as well. In reality, a pledge can only guarantee against corruption to the extent that it guarantees self-marginalization.

>I have never claimed that most people who want more freedom than currently exists belong to the Libertarian Party. Most people who want more freedom don't even live in the United States.<SC

The context here is politics in America. Again, your evasiveness speaks volumes. Do you think there are more Americans who want increased liberty inside the 200K reglibs or outside? (I won't even bother asking about inside the LP's 20K pledge-takers or outside, as the reglib count already answers that question.)

  *Your* context may be politics in America. I am for worldwide liberty, and I think that should be the Libertarian Party's goal -- in cooperation with libertarian groups in other countries, of course. My stating a context where no explicit context had been stated was not an attempt at evasion, but simply an attempt to get you to think globally.

>I don't know where you get this "anarchist loyalty oath" crap. I'm pretty sure that most Libertarians who support the pledge are not anarchists. I'm not an anarchist.<SC

If you believe that the power of the "government" to use force is the same as that of AAA -- i.e. self-defense and contract enforcement -- then you're an anarchist.

  I don't understand what you mean by that.

Anarcho-libertarians invoke the Pledge whenever the concept of taxation is mentioned.

  Are you saying it's impossible to believe taxation is theft unless you're anarchist?

>Nor is the pledge being used to drive anyone from the party simply for wanting to move too slowly in the direction of liberty. On the rare occasions when anyone has been kicked out of the LP[...] <SC

I never said anyone was expelled from the party for violating the Pledge. I said the Pledge is used by anarcho-libertarians to keep minarchists out and to harangue the ones who join.

  It sounds like you are defining a minarchist as "anyone who wants to increase liberty." I disagree with that definition. A minarchist -- although frankly I dislike the term, because it sounds too much like "monarchist" -- is someone who wants a limited, minimal level of government. I don't see such people being pressured to stay out of the party, or being harangued by other Libertarians.

>You have yet to explain why people cannot support the Libertarian Party and simply drop out when as much liberty as they desire has been secured, without getting rid of the pledge.<SC

Yes I have -- I've explained that the Pledge is used by anarcho-libertarians to exclude and harangue minarcho-libertarians. If this support-then-drop-out scenario is so unobjectionable to you, then what's wrong the more inclusive pledge?

  I don't believe your explanation is based in reality -- please show me a minarchist who has been kept out of the LP.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

[ricochetboy]

When real interest rates are artifically high, otherwise profitable
projects do not get funded, and economic progress is stifled.

If important projects are not funded then the deflation stips, and
raal interest rates can rise. End of problem. Your rules based idea
still does not address the fact that money creation is a conterfeiting
operation and theft from those who hold money and a gift to the powers
that create it. we alredy have the rules as set out in 1789 which
every government officer swears to obey. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Only gold
cannot be couterfeited. Only gold acts as a check on the tyranny of a
king or a majority. Without that check the yielders of power will
always eventually lose all restraint anddestroy the currency and
impoverish the land. It is basic human nature. The founders knew it,
and the citizens of this country knew it, at least until 1932. The
tides of history cannot be held back. It may be weeks, nonths, years,
decades or centuries, before a category 1V hurricane washes away the
US dollar, but I don't think it will take that long.

for a long time I have kept my blue shield health insurance PPO
because it pays for my wcpensive HIV drugs. My premium is now 1499
hundred amont plus about 350 a month copays and desuctables. I didn't
want to go on ADAP, or Medicare part D and give up my blu, not because
I have any compuntion about sucking off a system that sucked me dry,
but because I was afraid the government couldn't actually continue
the benefits. Then one daya light went off, and I realized no matter
far in the whole Uncle Sam is and the entitlements swamp any
possibility of being funded, the checks will always pur out of
Woodlawn, SS HQ and will never stop. The money will be borrowed, and
when that no longer works, the money will be printed, just like every
other damn two bit socialist country jas done. The resulting inflation
will drive the US and the world to the only natural store of value
that durable, portable, divisible, and easily recognizable. If the US
dollar is not backed by gold with 30 years, and I am still alive, I
will take you out to a very good restaurant for dinner. Mother nature
has her rules, and she is patient, but hell hath no fury like a woman
scorned.

[stevedekorte]

I don't follow this argument. A lender (basically) lends when he believes that doing so is better than his other options. Let's say a lender lends $1 for a year at 10%. At the end of the year he gets back $1.10 which is more than he would have both in terms of currency and in terms of value (assuming deflation) than he'd have if he kept the dollar in his pocket. This is true regardless of the rate of deflation. It's inflation that is the enemy of the lender. If inflation is higher than his interest rate, then he's losing value, even if he's gaining currency.

So inflation is what keeps interest rates artificial high and therefore acts as a barrier to access to credit. Now you'll probably say we have to consider risk - because the lender is assured to lose value under inflation and is therefore encouraged to lend if only to preserve value. But this is like saying it's a good idea to steal goods from everyone (which is exactly what artificial inflation does) so they'll have to keep producing goods to maintain the same standard of living. And that, would seem to me at least, to make no sense if our goal is to secure and increase our standard of living, not maintain it with constant risk of losing it entirely.

-- Steve

[dej72]

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

[ricochetboy]

Disaster relief was the driving force that brike down political and
constitutional restrainsts on Federal intervention into the economy.
Thereofre it is imperative for statists to find reasons for the
problems in NO unrelated to the fundamental imperative of federal aid.
Thus blame must be placed on the particulars of the incumbents
personality and actions, or the race card must be played. But the
ideal of federal intervention is not to be questioned, for to do that
is to question the historical, political, and practical inderpinnings
of the the welfare state.

http://tinyurl.com/bb6vb

[stevedekorte]

Which aspect of what I'm arguing here do you not follow:
A. that nominal interest rates never go below zero, or that

If, by nominal, you mean the interest rate as measured in currency (not buying power). I agree with that.

B. artificially high real rates choke of profitable investments?

I agree with that as well.

What I don't follow is:

a) how deflation would cause the nominal (as measured in currency) interest rates to go to or below zero
(as my example below demonstrates)

b) how deflation would cause "artificially" high real rates

[dej72]

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

[dej72]

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

[stevedekorte]

Do you then agree that the ideal situation is a fixed money supply?

-- Steve

[dej72]

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

[dfrhodes]

Derek - I'm glad that you denounced central banking as
a solution to the problem in an early post. I was
getting worried there for a minute.

But I would repeat Phil's question - who would come up
with such a rate? Representive government? Economists?
The people by referendum? Assuming there would be some
distribution curve of optimal rate..would you take the
rate at the top of the curve? Would this be a one time
thing or put to vote on an annual basis? Who would
decide that?

Personally, I would prefer a libertarian solution to
the problem. How about we let the free market decide
the best currency? That way you can compete against
Phil's gold standard for viability. Since most of the
currency transactions are computerized these days it
shouldn't be too difficult to implement.

After living in the UK and Europe I found that letting
Visa and Mastercard take care of the transactional
duties worked very well. At least I knew what the
transactional costs were, as opposed to fiat inflation
costs.

In any event, I couldn't sanction a fiat based
currency system purely on principle - be it fixed rate
or a government controlled gold standard.

cheers,

david

--- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:

[stevedekorte]

Why is that the ideal situation and how do you come to the 3-4% figure?

-- Steve