Please count me in also as a fuddy duddy Libertarian. No more would
I suggest watering down the Libertarian Pledge than I would the
Apostle's Creed...or the Bill of Rights...or the principle of
unalienable rights.
But, specifically regarding the Libertarian Pledge and the principle
of non-intervention, I submit that the current carnage in the Middle
East is a direct result of our intervention; and such carnage is no
less tragic than Saddam's excesses. A morass indeed.
Anybody out there going to the Rockwell Anti-War conference November
18-19?
Marcy
Dear Brian,
Your spirited articulation of your position is terrific. However I
must
still disagree with you. As a member of the Catholic Church,
arguably
the largest organization (some call it "corporation") in the world,
we
have a loyalty oath called the Apostle's Creed. There are many other
"oath" aspects to the Church too. While many Catholics don't
understand
or appreciate all the nuances of these creeds, the Church has
correctly
determined that members are required to accept that these are the
creeds
of Catholics. Those who don't understand and/or accept all the
tenets
put forth in the creeds can either keep their concerns to
themselves,
learn more about the core values of the creeds while going along
with
the organization in the meantime, dissent silently or even less
silently
or they can leave the Church. Disruption of the Church isn't an
option.
Despite centuries of problems and conflicts, this has worked pretty
well
compared to the vast majority of human institutions.
It seems the same approach makes sense for Libertarians. You are
suggesting that it isn't practical for Libertarians to require an
oath
to the non-aggression principle. Whether it is or isn't doesn't
matter
in my view. It is a statement of principles we hold as true. Now
some
who call themselves Catholic might use birth control. Some who call
themselves Catholic might stray from other core values. As one who
has
had plenty of problems with the Catholic Church, I am very aware
that
the organization is much stronger than I am. And a strong
organization
sticks firmly to their core principles and allows those who might
not
understand the value of some of the precepts or might even disagree
participate but they must do so with ultimate respect for the creed.
The care you demonstrate by your passionate participation in the
debate
is all Libertarians should need to appreciate you. Jesus said "Be
thou
either hot or cold but if thou art lukewarm I shall vomit thee from
my
mouth." To your everlasting credit, you are clearly not one to
accept
lukewarm positions. But is doesn't mean the organization should
change
its values or creed to accommodate your position even if it is
practical
which I personally don't believe it is. Saint Augustine hated
Christians
so badly that he waited outside churches so he could throw stones
and
rotten fruit at them when the left Mass. But eventually he came to
understand and appreciate the values the Church represented.
The Catholic Church is an example of a "big tent" organization that
is
uncompromising in its statement of values however controversial and
unpopular even among some of its members. True lovers of the Church
and
the LP should accept that these institutions have strong core
values not
subject to change for practical reasons. In my view and practice, it
seems that those of us with disagreements in both organization
should
find comfort in the stability of the principles both organizations
represent and work harder to understand and appreciate them rather
than
expecting these organizations we hold dear to change as to
accommodate
our personal views or those of majorities.
Maybe I'm just a conservative libertarian fuddy duddy but that's
the way
I feel.
Thanks for participating with such conviction though. Much
appreciated.
Michael Denny
________________________________
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Brian Holtz
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:54 AM
To: marketliberal@yahoogroups.com; lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: How far into the swamp do we set the
tent
poles?
* If the Pledge does not exclude one who you say advocates
"slavery", who precisely does it exclude?
* Of 13 claims and implications I quote here by you about my
positions, 12 are flatly false the other is unintelligible.
* This is the fourth consecutive email in which I've diagnosed
as
a strawman your claim that my goal is accomodate those who want
only "a
little bit" more liberty. Please stop misrepresenting my positions.
* Unless you'd allow concealed carry of nuclear mortar rounds
and
smallpox bullets, you're not a purist on gun control.
* There is no ethical system which can guarantee that false
ethical claims are mechanically identifiable as such. The naive or
intellectually lazy hope for such a system is what attracts a lot of
people to anarcho-libertarianism.
* You claimed earlier that you personally agree there are
exceptions to the absolutist NAP that you say underlies the Pledge,
but
you failed to identify any actual cases in which the government
should
be allowed to initiate force
* The best way to move America in a given direction in Nolan
space
is to aggregate into the same party everyone who prefers that
direction.
* Being a taxpayer plainly does not satisfy the English
definition
of being a "slave", and it's laughably hyperbolic to claim
otherwise.
* So unless we actually take a scissors to their party
membership
card, no practice or policy of the party counts as discouraging
membership?
Starchild wrote:
> aggression doesn't end up minimized if the strategy for
minimizing it is just for liberty-lovers to promote "aggression
virginity" by the example of their abstinence. Anarchists claim
that if
we're ever willing to initiate force to maximize liberty, then what
we're maximizing cannot truly count as liberty. They assume that the
landscape of attainable levels of liberty has no local maxima, i.e.
that
an investment in force initiation could never lead to a net
reduction in
the overall incidence of force initiation. <BH
> It might also be true that in some circumstances,
receiving
a severe unprovoked beating against one's will could turn out to be
a
character-building experience that would be to the net benefit <SC
First, it's utterly against libertarian principles to force a
competent
adult to do something that is primarily for his own good.
Second, when I talk about investing in force initiation, I'm not
talking
about an agent having plenary power to initiate near-lethal force
under
the unreviewed and arbitrary determination that it would net reduce
the
overall incidence of force initiation. I'm talking about a
strictly-limited constitutionally-defined marginal taxation power
that
must be applied in an equitable way under due process of law. To
analogize this to a "severe unprovoked beating" is simply to flee
from
engaging my position. If the 5% taxes in my libertopia qualify as
"slavery" as you claim, then they should be sufficiently horrific
that
you need not invoke such silliness as "severe unprovoked beatings".
The
yawning chasm between my proposal and your hypothetical is a
measure of
how far you are from engaging my actual position.
> If you make the mistake of getting into splitting hairs by
talking about how an unprovoked beating is sometimes useful, you
needlessly abandon the moral high ground <SC
This proves my point that you choose the non-aggression principle
more
because of your interest in the height of your own moral ground,
whereas
I choose the anti-aggression principle more out of a desire to
maximize
the net liberty of everyone.
> and lose moral credibility with people who may not
understand the intricacies of the issue and/or who mistake your
willingness to be "realistic" with a lack of commitment to the
cause of
minimizing aggression. <SC
The overwhelming majority of Americans understand that if the weak
depended only on charity for their protection, they would become the
victims of the strong. This is an "intricacy" only to
anarcho-libertarians who are conflicted between the values of
minimizing aggression and having clean hands.
> Most critically, you undermine that larger anti-aggression
message that you are trying to promote. If you had a higher public
profile, one could imagine an erudite Bush lawyer arguing in
defense of
conditions at the Guantanamo camp that "even libertarians like Brian
Holtz readily admit that an 'investment in force initiation' is
sometimes for the best." <SC
This slippery-slope argument just doesn't work, because I advocate
force
initiation to solve only the specific textbook problems of market
failure: http://marketliberal.org/Lesson.html#Rivalry.
> You're attacking anarchy in this conversation; no one is
attacking minarchy. <SC
> Prominent Libertarians regularly use the Pledge's
zero-force-initiation logic to accuse people like me of being
un-Libertarian or worse <BH
> They probably wouldn't say those things if they didn't see
an active effort to distance the party from the Non-Aggression
Principle
<SC
No kidding. My point still stands: they, like you, use the Pledge's
NAP
to attack minarchism as the advocacy of "slavery".
> Libertarian candidates *should* be actively discouraged
from
running on planks that are counter the party platform. <SC
So you agree with this person that someone should be disqualified
from
LP nomination if they proactively advocate any change in the LP
platform?
> Have any Libertarians accused *you* of not aiming north on
the Nolan chart or said you don't belong in the party? If they
have, I
am sure they are few and far between. <SC
Not on the Ex-Comm they aren't. In calling me a "fascist", Paul
Ireland
effectively said I was aiming south. And Mark Selzer openly admits
that
he doesn't want people like me in the party. Now you yourself -- a
Judicial Committee member -- say that my positions violate the LP
membership pledge.
> The fact that a small minority of non-conformists all
non-conform from the mainstream in the same way doesn't mean that
non-conformity with the mainstream isn't one of their values. <BH
> What you term "non-conformity with the mainstream" is not
simply being nonconformist for the sheer sake of nonconformity, but
rather disagreement with a particular set of values. <SC
I never said "sheer" sake of nonconformity. I said "more about
indulging
in nonconformity than it is about increasing liberty in the real
world".
> To someone who valued nonconformity for its own sake, a
pledge would be inherently objectionable. <SC
If you're unfamiliar with the phenomenon of small groups of
non-conformists all rigidly non-conforming the same way for
purposes of
cohesion with their small non-conformist group, then we'll have to
table
this issue due to the divergence in our respective empirical
understandings of reality. 
> Since you argue from the premise that anarchists cannot be
libertarian <SC
> I don't think I've ever said anarchists cannot be
libertarian. <BH
> I think you said something like "they aren't libertarians,
they're anarchists." <SC
I didn't. I said "anarcho-libertarians are more aptly called
anarchist
than libertarian". You were probably confused by my earlier
statement
that "The former principle is libertarian, and the latter is
anarchist."
> [Cato] is not a good model for the LP. They have achieved
much of their success by working closely with the GOP establishment.
That is not really an option for us. It is vital that the LP strike
a
balance between left and right, so as to attract people roughly
equally
from both camps, so as not to fall into a vicious cycle of
attracting
people overwhelmingly from one side whose influence takes the party
farther and farther in that direction. <SC
As far as I can tell, Cato's positions are unchanged in its multi-
decade
history. I know of no self-designated libertarian organization that
has
ever succumbed to this "vicious cycle" you worry about. Meanwhile,
the
LP has for decades been mired in the self-marginalization that I've
diagnosed.
> under my revised Pledge, the party automatically becomes
more ideologically pure as it becomes more successful, because as
America moves north in Nolan space, the revised Pledge excludes
marginal
liberty-increasers that it used to include. <BH
> I don't recall what proposed language you've come up
with.
<SC
"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."
> exclusivist n. An advocate of excluding some or most, as
from membership or participation. <BH
> A political party which wishes to offer the ability to
register with it and vote in elections to more of the world's people
than any other political party in the country where it operates
cannot
credibly be called "exclusivist." <SC
It's untenable to say a political party cannot be called exclusivist
merely because it's on the ballot in all jurisdictions. But thank
you
for moving closer to my view that LP registration is a better focus
of
party efforts than is loyalty-oath-abiding dues-paying anarchy-club
membership.
> So you see appeal to the practice of a linguistic
community
as a poor argument, but appeal to the authority of a dictionary
(which
you make farther along in this message where you tell me that the
words
"anarchism" and "slavery" have English-language definitions which
Libertarians "misuse") as a sound one? <SC
Appeal to community practice (as codified in a dictionary) is a good
argument in a semantic debate about what words mean. Appeal to
community
beliefs is a poor argument in a sociopolitical debate about the
hypothetical effects of two alternative policy proposals.
> Would you exclude me for not pledging that government
should
completely abstain from the initiation of force, even just the
minimal
coercive taxes to finance police and court protection for the
indigent?
If no, then how you do reconcile that with the Pledge? If yes, then
what do you see as the difference between anarchism and having a
"government" that has no more power than any other institution? <BH
> First, let's get our terms straight. Being able to vote
as a
delegate and central committee member or hold office within the
Libertarian Party is not a required part of belonging to the party.
One
can belong to the party as a registered voter or an associate
member and
not do these things. <SC
Are you claiming that the party has any choice about the conditions
under which American voters may register as Libertarian? As for
associate membership, that concept is not found in the national LP
bylaws, and in the LPC bylaws it appears mainly to be a way to
extract
dues from sympathetic non-members. I had never heard of associate
membership, and I'd be surprised if there are even five associate
members statewide.
> I would not exclude you from such membership. The language
of the pledge could perhaps be interpreted as excluding you, but
I'll
leave it up to you to make that interpretation for yourself. <SC
So if the pledge does not exclude one who you say
advocates "slavery",
who precisely does it exclude?
> an LP member who publicly holds positions which are widely
seen as incompatible with the pledge may see his or her reputation
for
honesty suffer somewhat in the party. <SC
I honestly agree with David Nolan's original idea that party members
should not initiate force to achieve the party's political goals. If
party members don't understand the intention of their own party's
pledge, that says more about their ignorance than about my honesty.
> I don't think you were crediting me with very good motives
when you
* implied I favor "watering down our principles to accommodate
people who aren't libertarians";
* implied I oppose that our movement "be guided by libertarian
principles, [instead of] indulging the need to feel
like 'winners'." ;
* said I want to "remove the LP's ideological goals";
* said I don't want the "LP to stay 'the party of principle'
and
continue to speak truth to power";
* said I want to "let party policy be set by people who don't
share our belief in limited government";
* implied I'm not someone with "outspoken principles and
unafraid to demand adherence to them";
* said I "seem to want to throw every practical difference
that
distinguishes us from the political establishment out the window in
order to pursue 'success'";
* said I "downplay the importance of ideology and simply focus
on 'success' and 'results'".
> My comment about "indulging the need to feel
like 'winners'"
was a response to your comment about "indulging nonconformity."
Your comment remains unjustified. I never implied that exclusivists
oppose that our movement be guided by libertarian principles. I just
said that exclusivism is "motivated more about indulging in
nonconformity than it is about increasing liberty in the real
world."
> I think most of the rest of my comments above can be
accommodated under your statement that "A label is not an insult if
its
dictionary definition plainly applies." <SC
Each of your assertions and implications about me above is flatly
false,
and I defy you to produce quotes from me substantiating any of them.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the following:
-You're OK with someone being a policy-making member of the LP
who supports the status quo exactly as it is except for wanting to
see a
tiny bit more freedom on one issue <SC
False. I can't imagine favoring such a person for a policy-making
position over the alternative members that would always be
available.
> -When principles conflict with what's practical, you want
the LP to do what's practical more of the time and adhere to
principle
less of the time than is done at present <SC
False. I'd prefer that the LP adhere more to optimally
minarcho-libertarian principles and less to its current suboptimal
anarcho-libertarian principles.
> -You want less focus on ideology in the LP and more focus
on
"success" and "results" <SC
False. I want more focus on the optimal minarcho-libertarian
ideology,
which will have the side-effect of more political effectiveness. If
the
party's platform were currently Nolan-south of where I want it to
be, I
wouldn't advocate that the pledge focus on direction instead of
destination.
> -You're afraid that being outspoken in voicing libertarian
ideas such as "taxation is slavery" will cost us support, so you
want to
take this kind of language out of the platform <SC
False. I'm quite confident that oxymoronic hyperbole like "taxation
is
slavery" hurts the cause of liberty more than it helps it.
> -You want the LP to emulate the way the Democrat and
Republican parties operate in most respects other than their
corruption
and the ideas they espouse <SC
Unintelligible. What is left of the way the Republocrats "operate"
if
you take away their interest-group rent-seeking and their bogus
ideas?
> -Although you've written an alternative pledge, you'd
prefer
the LP not to have any pledge at all <SC
False.
So you are 0-5-1 on your new set of claims about what I believe,
just as
you were 0-8 in the list I gave above of your claims and
implications
about my beliefs. Given this abysmal track record in statements
about
what I believe, you would be advised to use more quotes and less
inferences in any future such statements.
> which approach will maximize liberty is not simply a
matter
of semantics, but a matter of speculation on which opinions will
naturally differ. <SC
Thank you for finally understanding my point about such speculation
being a "conceptual" matter and not a semantic or lexicographic one.
> I've acknowledged assuming that you do believe that the
approach you favor will maximize liberty (even if I think the
approach
is mistaken). Are you similarly willing to concede that
Libertarians who
support keeping a strong platform and retaining the pledge generally
hold these views because they want to maximize liberty? <SC
No, because to emphasize their disagreement with me they so often
describe in graphic terms the horrific aggressions that they would
allow
to transpire without organized opposition from third-party
liberty-lovers. When I challenge them to claim that net aggression
would
be minimized merely by advocating aggression-virginity through
liberty-lovers' example of abstention, their NAP/ZAP dogma usually
prevents them from even parsing the question.
> I've indeed said that anarchists (i.e. absolute opponents
of
any institution being able to initiate force) don't value maximizing
liberty as much as I do. I've never said that they love the
principle of
liberty less than I do. Quite the contrary, I've accused them of
valuing
the theological veneration of liberty over its real-world
protection.
<BH.
> I brought up L. Neil Smith's essay "Lever Action"
previously. Have you read it? <SC
No. If he says something relevant to my core claim about the
difference
between anarchism and optimal libertarianism, I'd love to hear his
point
summarized.
> It doesn't engage my point when you just focus on the
extreme case of someone who wants America to move only a nanometer
north
on the Nolan chart and no further. Those people are irrelevant
anyway,
since my Pledge excludes them from the party as soon as America
moves a
nanometer north. <BH
> Would you then agree that it would be irresponsible to
encourage such people to become LP candidates or decision-makers
within
the party, since as soon as we make a tiny bit progress, they will
no
longer share our goals? <SC
"Irresponsible" implies that there is a practical danger that such
people would become LP decision-makers, when of course there isn't,
for
the following reasons.
1) The new Pledge would automatically exclude them from the
party as soon as America makes a tiny bit of progress.
2) People who want to move America only "a tiny bit" north
from
its current position in Nolan space have zero motivation to
influence or
even join the LP, since their goal would be best achieved by working
within the major parties. Helping the LP would threaten to make
America
drastically overshoot their desired destination.
3) Would-be LP influencers at this extreme end of this
distribution would inevitably lose any intra-party election to
competitors closer to the middle of the distribution.
Now if we're done worrying about your hypothetical extreme case that
corresponds to no prospective LP influencer who you can name, let me
know if you ever get interested in engaging my point about the
middling
example who has actually been named here: me.
> I assume you believe that people we elect to internal and
external office ought to be people who share our goals? <SC
Yes, and most party members even under the relaxed Pledge would
share
that belief, which is why your hypothetical nearly-status-quo-
itarian
bogeyman would not ever win internal office.
> Contrary to being "irrelevant," I think that people who
favor only a little more liberty are central to our discussion,
because
it is your desire to rewrite the party platform and change or
eliminate
the pledge in order to accommodate them that seems to be fueling
this
debate. <SC
Our dispute indeed is running on little fuel other than your
repeated
(and by now apparently intentional) misrepresentation that
I "desire to
accommodate" people who favor "only a little" more liberty. You
JUST
QUOTED ME diagnosing this strawman claim of yours, and now you
brazenly
repeat it. I'm fresh out of ways to restate my point, so I'll just
repeat:
Sep 6: 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.
Sep 8: 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 [...]
Sep 11: I never said you said the "little ways" strawman
characterized MY beliefs. I said it was a strawman (or fallacy of
the
excluded middle) to focus on the case of people who only want
a "little"
more freedom on every issue, and I offered myself as an example of
someone in the middle you excluded -- i.e. who wants more than a
"little" more freedom. It doesn't engage my point when you just
focus on
the extreme case of someone who wants America to move only a
nanometer
north on the Nolan chart and no further.
If you can't be bothered to accurately characterize my repeatedly-
stated
intentions, then I've no interest in further discussion.
> you still haven't shown that the set of people who favor
only a little more liberty on all issues is not empty. <SC
This is your a-little-more-liberty strawman yet again. I've never
made
any claims about how many people favor "only a little" more
liberty. My
claims have been about how many people favor more liberty but not
full
anarchy.
> I don't have a litmus test for excluding people from the
Libertarian Party, and I don't think the LP needs one (unless you
want
to call the pledge a litmus test, but it's pretty hard to apply that
description to something that works on the honor system <SC
So a loyalty oath is not a "litmus test" if dishonor is the only
sanction for those whose statements are "widely seen" by loyalists
as
violating the oath?
> I do hope that Libertarians will expect their candidates
and
leaders to take stands based on reasonable interpretations of the
Non-Aggression Principle (or reach most of the same conclusions by
other
means as do most of those who derive their views from the NAP), and
I
hope they will curtail political support for LP candidates and
leaders
who do not follow one of these two paths, in proportion to the
degree to
which they stray. <SC
Such judicious proportionality is the antithesis of a litmus test,
and
I'm curious how you would apply it in practice. If I run for
Congress
again, do you rule out endorsing me for the nomination?
> You seem to assume that the LP would retain its general
character of favoring more liberty across the board if it abandons
the
Non-Aggression Principle <SC
I indeed assume that if Pledge is changed to call for more liberty
across the board, it would not endanger the LP's "general character
of
favoring more liberty across the board".
"Abandon the NAP" is a deliberately contentious characterization of
my
position. I could as easily say you oppose my Anti-Aggression
Principle,
but it's wrong for either of us to suggest the other isn't opposed
to
aggression.
> Your assertion here was that there are a significant
number
of people out there who favor more liberty on all issues, but only a
little more liberty in each area <SC
This statement's incorporation of your little-more-liberty strawman
makes it utterly false. I have never included your "little more
liberty"
strawman language in my statements on this topic:
Sep 6: 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. [...] Are there more people inside the LP who
would
on net pull north on the Nolan chart than there are outside?
Sep 8: Do you think there are more Americans who want
increased
liberty inside the 200K reglibs or outside?
Sep 11: I clearly said it would be wrong to "think that there
are more people inside the LP who would pull north on the Nolan
chart
than there are outside".
Please stop making false claims about what I've said. Recent events
in
the LPC have shown just how dangerous such false claims can be.
> Even many people who only want to move a little ways
towards
liberty may welcome safeguards intended to make it more likely that
the
people making policy for the Libertarian Party will be committed
libertarians. <SC
I doubt you could name a single such person, let alone provide
evidence
there are "many".
> By the way, I've had San Francisco voters tell me in so
many
words that they didn't necessarily agree with all my libertarian
ideas
but appreciated me taking principled positions and voted for me on
that
basis. <SC
Your principled-ness and incorruptibility are quite evident to
anyone
who interacts with you. I think this is more of a character issue
than a
Nolan-space calculation about aiming high to avoid undershooting.
> [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.<BH
>A group of people with a reputation for ideological purity
could be libertarian.<SC
> I didn't say the other groups couldn't be described as
libertarian. See the now-capitalized word above. <BH
> Well, you've deleted the part of the thread where you
described the other groups, so I guess we'll move on. <SC
Context restored above. My point stands unrebutted.
> The Pledge is still a purity test if it's only used to
keep
people out, and not to kick people out. <BH
> Fine, call it a purity test if you want to. <SC
No, I call it a purity test because that's what it obviously is.
> That doesn't mean it's bad. <SC
Then why were you so reluctant to admit that's what it is? Not
because
you think all purity tests are necessarily bad -- they obviously
aren't.
Rather, it was probably because you recognize at some level that
this
particular purity test is interpreted to exclude people as
liberty-loving as I am, and that excluding such people is clearly
not
the optimal path for promoting our cause.
> 1) maximizing the real-world incidence of liberty is
optimal
libertarianism, and 2) rational liberty-maximizers should gladly
join
with liberty-increasers because they're both pulling in the same
direction. <BH
> The idea that maximizing liberty requires the LP to stop
promoting a state of maximum liberty is merely a supposition, not
proven
fact. Those like yourself who advocate this approach do not possess
a
monopoly on rationality. <SC
I've presented this idea as neither a "supposition" nor a "proven
fact",
but rather as a highly plausible contention. I've never claimed a
monopoly on rationality here. You seem to be admitting here that
reasonable liberty-maximizers can disagree between the NAP and the
Anti-Aggression Principle, which would suggest that it's
unreasonable
for the party to demand a Pledge that mandates one approach and
excludes
the other.
> If you were convinced that a hypothetical Republican or
Democrat wanted a bit less liberty overall than exists now, would
you
say that he should gladly join with the Nazis or Communists if he is
rational, since they are both pulling in the same direction? 8) <SC
This is your little-more-liberty strawman yet again, this time with
reverse polarity. Not only is it still made of straw, but it's
irrelevant for reason (2) I gave above regarding
nearly-status-quo-itarians.
> The only instances I can immediately think of in which I
would favor government *initiating* force are to prevent actions
which
hold a significant potential for causing great loss of life,
liberty, or
property (for example, preventing the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction), <SC
The potential for negligent harm can easily rise to the threshold of
reckless endangerment, which is a form of force initiation. That's
why
it's so silly for NAPsters to claim to be absolutists regarding gun
control. Unless you'd allow concealed carry of nuclear mortar
rounds and
smallpox bullets, you're not a purist on gun control. (Ted Brown,
are
you paying attention? Ted has questioned my commitment to gun
rights.)
> and to compel people accused of crimes to stand trial <SC
Trying people accused of initiating force isn't itself an
initiation of
force.
> (I think compelling witnesses would be stretching it). As
far as what a libertarian government would do, it would protect
individual rights and maintain structures and institutions
necessary for
that purpose (e.g. holding elections, and possibly
maintaining "public"
lands on which one could freely exercise one's rights). <SC
How would your libertarian government enforce its monopoly on
legislating?
> I dispute your apparent implication that I do not want the
LP to remain committed to the general principle that people have the
right to do what they want as long as they do not hurt others. <BH
> Without the Non-Aggression Principle, what would be the
basis for asserting this principle? Couldn't someone say, "By
stopping
you from watching porn I'm not hurting you, I'm actually helping
you,"
for example? <SC
Someone could just as easily say that watching porn (or whatever)
is an
initiation of force against women (or whoever). There is no ethical
system which can guarantee that false ethical claims are
mechanically
identifiable as such. (I think the naive or intellectually lazy
hope for
such a system is what attracts a lot of people to
anarcho-libertarianism.)
> 1) There is a contrarianism and clubby exclusivism that
helps motivate many Libertarians to keep the party small. 2) If
someone
wants more liberty and less government on every issue, the most
likely
reason to exclude him is if one values one's badge of ideological
purity/nonconformity more than one values the party's political
effectiveness. <BH
> It's hard for me to take any concern about "clubby
exclusivism" in the LP seriously if it does not include criticism
of the
party for things such as Harry Browne's upscale campaign events, the
holding of conventions in luxury hotels, and the failure to strongly
cultivate a bottom-up, mass movement approach. <SC
If you don't want to talk about the contrarian exclusivism that I've
identified, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And my second point
stands unrebutted.
>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?<BH
> How many times do I need to say it? I am not "declining to
organize" with those who share only the intermediate goal of a bit
more
liberty. I just don't want to reconfigure the party around them or
entrust them with setting party policy. <SC
How many times do *I* need to say it? "Bit more liberty" is a
strawman,
and is especially inexcusable here because you know perfectly well
that
minarchy is not just "a bit more liberty" than we have now.
> So you would not object to a modification of the Pledge on
the grounds that the modification allows membership by those who
believe
in the existence of a government with limited coercive power? <BH
> The problem I see in the LP right now is not that the
party
adheres too strictly to principle and is too unwilling to compromise
libertarian ideals. If anything, there is a dangerous trend *away*
from
principles and ideals. So although I can see some merit to the
logic of
your suggestion (and please do not quote me out of context on
that), I
would be unwilling to support it as a stand-alone measure. I would
be
potentially willing to support it in tandem with another change or
changes such that there would not be a net movement of the party
away
from libertarian ideals. <SC
I can't make any sense of your position. You claimed earlier that
you
personally agree there are exceptions to the absolutist NAP that
you say
underlies the pledge, but you failed to identify any actual cases in
which the government should be allowed to initiate force. Now you
agree
that the Pledge could be modified to accommodate such exceptions, as
long as it's not part of a net increase in such exceptions. I see
no
evidence here of the perfect moral clarity that you say is the
primary
virtue of the LP's current exclusivist extremist stance.
> Someone who wants to work for liberty on a particular
issue
without favoring more liberty across the board has many other
organizations to choose from which do not have pledges <SC
Well, you've inadvertently identified a practice of the Republocrats
that I think we should adopt. They recognize that the best way to
move
America in a given direction in Nolan space is to aggregate into the
same party everyone who prefers that direction. I think they're
obviously right, and I'm stunned at the lack of political
astuteness it
would take not to realize this. By your logic, it would be perfectly
fine for there to be separate pro- and anti- abortion libertarian
parties, separate pro- and anti-death-penalty libertarian parties,
separate pro- and anti- unlimited-immigration libertarian parties,
etc.
> The LP platform doesn't specifically envision government,
but neither does it specifically deny the possibility of having it.
That's precisely the balance I think it ought to have. <SC
So the all-seeing all-knowing NAP underlying your Pledge doesn't
answer
even the most basic question of whether there should be a
government?
> Once again, with respect to "imperfect libertarians": I am
not "refusing to join with them," "declining to organize with
them," or
any other permutations of that phrase! <SC
Of course you are. You just said they have "many other
organizations to
choose from" if they don't like your anarchist pledge. Just look
at the
subject line you chose for this discussion. If you're not
disagreeing
with my position that the LP should be more inclusive of "imperfect
libertarians", then what the hell are we arguing about?
> Anarchism and slavery are actual English words, and
Libertarians only marginalize themselves when they misuse such
words.
<BH
> Slavery means working for someone else involuntarily for a
period usually of long duration. Coercive taxation meets that
definition.<SC
The Merriam-Webster, Columbia, Compact OED, Cambridge International,
American Heritage, Infoplease, and Encarta dictionaries ALL include
being "chattel" or "property" in their primary definition
of "slave".
Being a taxpayer plainly does not satisfy the English definition of
being a slave, and it's laughably hyperbolic to claim otherwise.
>Do you think there are more Americans who want increased
liberty inside the 200K reglibs or outside?<BH
> Outside, no question. <SC
Thank you for finally answering my question on its third asking.
> There is no global Libertarian Party, so when Americans
talk
about membership in the "LP" and the "Pledge" required for it, the
context is America. I made that context explicit in my question
above.
<BH
> Sure, I realize when we talk about "the LP" or "the
Pledge"
we are talking about the LPUS. However when you start making
statements
that sound universal, I may take your words at their plain English
value, even if *you* only meant them to apply to the United States.
<SC
When the context makes it obvious that I'm talking about the United
States, there is nothing about the plain English meaning of the
words
I've been using that overrides that context. I invite you to quote
my
words to the contrary.
> I would say government ought to have a bit more power to
use
force than the AAA. <SC
I would ask how much more, but I don't have time for three more
massive
emails before I get a straight answer. I think I've established my
point
that the vaunted NAP-based Pledge does not provide anything
approaching
the omnibus moral clarity that you claim is its primary advantage.
>Are you saying it's impossible to believe taxation is theft
unless you're anarchist?<SC
> I'm saying that if you consider even the least amount of
taxation to be impermissible for any reason, then there is no
practical
difference between you and an anarchist. <BH
> I'm sorry, but I'm unable to tell whether your answer
above
translates into a "yes" or a "no." <SC
For our purposes, that's a yes.
> I'm fine with some taxation, as long as it is voluntary
<SC
Here we go again. Almost all the dictionaries mentioned above say
that a
tax is "mandatory" or "required" or "demanded". If you're against
involuntary taxation, you're against taxation.
SC Those are examples of people who *voluntarily* choose not
to
belong to the LP, not people who were kept out. <SC
So unless we actually take a scissors to their party membership
card, no
practice or policy of the party counts as discouraging membership?
OK,
you've managed to inadvertently identify another Republocrat
attribute
that I would like us to adopt: the basic political astuteness to
know
the correct answer to this question.
>While it's not clear that my revised pledge would by itself
convert such liberty-lovers to membership, I think the LP could be
several times its size if it maintained 90% of its ideology while
embracing the tactic of brokering the votes of the millions of
Americans
who want a net increase liberty. <BH
> Those people can vote Libertarian now without any
modification of the pledge. <SC
Why should they vote for a party whose leaders (like you) say they
are
unfit for membership in it?
> But if someone's reason for not voting Libertarian is
because they think the party is too extreme, I think it would
usually
take more than a 10% ideological adjustment to get his or her vote.
Some
new people would surely join, but some current Libertarians would
leave,
too. Hard to say which group would be larger. <SC
Hard to say? When I asked whether there are more Americans who want
increased liberty inside the 200K reglibs or outside, you
said "outside,
no question". So we're comparing the current 20K LP members with
what
you admit is at least 400K Americans who want increased liberty.
My own
estimate is that 5% to 15% of Americans eligible to vote would agree
that America should have both more personal/social freedom and more
economic freedom. What is your estimate?
> And it's *still* not clear how you'd maintain 90% of our
current ideology in a Libertarian Party several times its current
size
with most members being people who think what we stand for now is
too
extreme. <SC
To question this is to claim that there is no stable ideological
ground
in the vast Nolan space between the anarchist north pole and
America's
current position. That claim is clearly untenable, and the Cato
Institute is just one of many examples that refute it.
Brian Holtz
2004 Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)
http://marketliberal.org/>
blog: http://knowinghumans.net/>
________________________________
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "lpsf-discuss
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss> " on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe>