By Kristin Davis at ManhattanMadam.com. H/T Scott Lieberman in IPR comments on a previous post.
Last Saturday I gave the first political speech of my life. I spoke to the Manhattan Libertarian party and told them I planning a campaign for Governor of New York State. I have not decided whether to seek the Libertarian party nomination or form my own party based on my platform; legalization, regulation and taxation of prostitution, marijuana, and legalizing gay marriage.
When was the last time a candidate put forward this kind of honest, radical platform? When is the last time a politician offered the voters something different than higher taxes, more spending, greater debt and service cuts.
I will also run to highlight the inequities of our criminal justice system which discriminates against women, minorities and poor people, a system which sent me to jail while Eliot Spitzer broke the law and walked away free. Eliot Spitzer is symptomatic of the problem we are dealing with in NY- dirty politicians who believe they are above the law – this precedent must be broken!
More importantly I would run as an advocate for real reform.
I have written extensively on my support for these three proposals on this website long before I thought about running for public office. I have a business background, ran a hedge fund for ten years and built a multi-million dollar business from scratch. Unlike any of the other candidates for governor I have created jobs and made a payroll. I am certainly more qualified than the losers and hacks we have in Albany now!
I am in a unique position to understand the economics of sex. I built a multi-million dollar escort service from scratch before pleading guilty to promoting prostitution. Prostitution in New York is estimated to be a $5 Billion a year business. Legalization and a reasonable tax rate could bring $ 1Billion in new revenues to New York State each year. Legalizing Marijuana would reap another $2 Billion a year. Then New York could balance the budget and still cut property and income taxes.
If I run it will not be some publicity stunt or effort to help,or hurt any other candidate. The publicity I have received in the past was not by choice- I was arrested! Now, I plan on using this megaphone attribute to run as a advocate for women’s rights and personal freedom. I figured out I was libertarian by nature by going to the national libertarian party website. I found myself in agreement with 80% of their platform. I am a member of no party. They are all corrupt!
I am confident about my ability to raise $2 million for a real campaign. I already have campaign contribution pledges from supporters as diverse as Northern California Pot farmers, Hip-Hop artists, Gay and lesbian friends an even some conservative businessmen. My friends at G-Unit, Penthouse magazine and High Times have both encouraged me.
I have retained Roger Stone, a well know political consultant to help me prepare for a campaign for governor. I met Roger Stone after we were on a radio show together. He helped expose the hypocrisy of Eliot Spitzer. He is brilliant. He knows how to get the 15,000 signatures I will need to get my name on the ballot. He also shares my positions regarding legalization of prostitution, pot and gay marriage.
I am the one who will be running and putting my name on the ballot. I am the one who will offer New York voters something different. I am the one advocating using our voice to speak out against inequality and the one who is ready to take on the career politicians and expose them for who they really are! I know the politicians and political reporters wont take me seriously at first. Let’s see if they are still laughing when my campaign files three times the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot.
New York voters will have a chance to vote to legalize prostitution, pot and gay marriage next November. What could be more exciting?
As a form LP member, serious supporter, and candidate (MA state rep on two occasions), who became disenchanted with the party and drifted away from it some years ago:
How enlightening to come here to read about an unusual, liberty-oriented candidate, and find the comments section choked with Libertarians bickering about the LP platform. Man, some things never change.
I would like to suggest instead of legalizing gay marriage, to disband government involvement in marriage. Do civil unions for both straight and gay couples instead. It would allow equal rights for taxes, property rights, rights to choose, etc… for gays, which is what they say their stand is all about. For religious types that claim it violates their 1st amendment rights by government intruding on the religious definition of marriage, it would leave marriage as a religious only institution and each religion could define marriage how they saw fit.
eg, the more facile mechanism to address more current issues is resolutions, which only require 50%.
I’m with ya on the death penalty, btw.
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR DECISION TO RUN! I THINK YOU ARE A FABULOUS CANDIDATE!
CRIS ERICSON FOR U.S. SENATOR FOR VT
http://crisericson.com
Also….
* “Closing all military bases outside of the U.S.” wouldn’t get 2/3 delegate support, if only because of concerns about early-warning radars etc.
-If this can’t get 2/3 support, then adjust the language so that it accounts for these things instead of tossing the suggestion aside. If a re-worded statement still can’t get 2/3 support, I’d fear the conservative influence on the party is already too strong.
* The LP platform has never taken a stand against the death penalty, and supporters of it could easily muster the 1/3 needed to block it.
– I disagree, but that’s fine. Pro-death libertarians are clearly confused people, but that still wouldn’t stop me from proposing this measure.
* Plank 2.5 already calls for ending any special power or privilege the Fed or any other such agency has, so demanding the Fed close its doors misses the point. Also, remember the risk of getting hung up on specific agencies:
– If the name changes, change the platform when it happens. I’m not afraid of taking a bold stance on this issue just because of some silly graphic you’ve made. The timid language of 2.5 does nothing to ease my comfort with the platform. This absurd logic almost makes it sound like you never want us to take any specific stand, which is foolish. Voters and citizens don’t want empty rhetoric about issues, they want detailed proposals for how Libertarians would address such measures. They might not support the details, but they’d at least appreciate (and perhaps be educated by) the proposal over fluffy words.
Brian,
Perhaps that’s because your definition of ‘radical’ applies only to those you’ve deemed so. Obviously, your definition of ‘radical’ and mine differ greatly.
To me, making the platform more ‘radical’ entails taking more radical stands (i.e. specifics, not empty rhetoric), and making the language truly more friendly to libertarians (unlike the St. Louis Accord, which I believe is just fluff for opening our arms to neo-cons like Bruce Cohen). By making the language more friendly, I specifically mean phrasing our platform in a manner that is not necessarily anarchistic, but at least anarcho-friendly. As it stands today, our language is antagonistic towards a core constituency of our party in the name of attracting people like Cohen or Root, who are weak on libertarian issues, to say the least.
Given that we’re not going to win major races, and the primary purpose of the party is libertarian outreach and education, I’d rather our language appeal to more of our natural constituency than people who have very shallow, mixed views on government. Most of the people the current platform’s language is trying to reach out to just have a smattering of opinions without much philosophical influence (which is, sadly, most Americans).
Erik, your proposals would make the Platform more detailed, but they wouldn’t necessarily make it much more “radical”. I see only three possible exceptions:
* “Closing all military bases outside of the U.S.” wouldn’t get 2/3 delegate support, if only because of concerns about early-warning radars etc.
* The LP platform has never taken a stand against the death penalty, and supporters of it could easily muster the 1/3 needed to block it.
* Plank 2.5 already calls for ending any special power or privilege the Fed or any other such agency has, so demanding the Fed close its doors misses the point. Also, remember the risk of getting hung up on specific agencies:
The language about a “role” and “purpose” of government dates from the original 1972 platform, and variants of it existed even in the last radical platform (2004): “The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. ”
The bright line is that the Platform should not advocate the necessity or monopoly authority of the State to protect individual rights, and the current Platform does not actually cross that line.
BH @ 14,
You asked for what I would specifically change, so here are my suggestions:
– Explicit condemnation of torture, the continued operation of Guantanamo (or facilities similar), the use of rendition, and the trial of terror suspects in military courts.
– A call to close all military bases outside of the United States.
– Language that recognizes it costs far more for enemies to attack us at home than it does abroad. [studies confirm this, as the more money is spent in defensive measures (as opposed to offensive measures), the more it costs opponents in time, money, and resources to attack]
– A dramatic reduction of U.S. nuclear warheads, as well as opposition to the use of foreign ‘missile shields.’
– A call for the elimination of no-bid defense contracts
– Language that recognizes regulation are a burden to small businesses, often to the benefit of (and created by) large businesses.
– An explicit call for the end of the Federal Reserve system.
– Opposition to the death penalty.
– Language that recognizes medical licensing is one of the reasons for the increase in health care costs.
– Language that recognizes the deadly effect of the drug lag (caused by FDA regulation).
– Language that recognizes that, whether they believe it or not, high taxes affect the poor, as the cost of goods and services rise with taxes. Language that then asserts that individuals and the market are a better judge of the needs of citizens/consumers than the spending of bureaucrats.
– Language that explicitly condemns government spending, as 80% of it is wasted.
-Language that government aggression causes poverty rather than eliminates it.
-Language in the ‘drug war’ or ‘crime’ section that recognizes that the more prisoners we have, the less productive society is. Families are without providers, wealth is destroyed (via taxes to care for prisons rather than prisoners being productive members of society), and children are without role models.
-Language (in 3.3, 3.4 or 3.7?) that we encourage other nations to voluntarily find ways to protect property rights, limit licensing and regulation, and other aggression from government so as to create wealth for themselves and become a part of the international trading community.
– I think the first two sentences of 2.6 are a bit of a contradiction, since corporations are afforded their privileges by government.
Also…
There are a couple places in the platform (such as 1.5 or 2.0) that give government a ‘proper role.’ If we’re all really trying to promote ‘party harmony,’ couldn’t we find a way to re-phrase this without explicitly giving ‘government’ a role?
I wonder if she will be at the convention in Albany in April.
EG, like I said, you have to ask them. Some “radicals” have a penchant for saying THE L position on issue X is tantamount to settled law, beyond challenge.
No one wants to “silence” anyone that I’m aware of. The new platform is designed to allow a wide range of Ls to run on the platform, not away from it. Any number of sub-constituencies will be unsatisfied if their pet issue is not covered in detail in the platform. My view is that no one’s stopping any L from running on that issue; having a caucus devoted to popularizing that issue; and even advocating that issue be in the platform. The only stipulation is that if they want pet issue X in the platform, they need to convince the Convention by a 2/3s vote that it merits inclusion.
Erik, if you’re not going to get specific, then I don’t understand what your complaint is about.
I absolutely agree that the Platform shouldn’t rule out anarchism, and on PlatCom I’ve opposed changes that try to do so. Do you agree that the Platform also should not (implicitly or explicitly) rule out minarchism? (By “minarchism” I mean a state with only the authority to protect each individual’s right to his life, liberty, and property.)
As for getting called un-libertarian, we geolibertarians on the LPCA candidate’s Yahoo group have been getting flamed again just this week, with anarchists and hardcore Austrians calling us “socialists” and comparing us to Marxists. I don’t believe that the LP platform should be shaped into a bludgeon for use in such LP-internal disputes.
RC @11,
Again, the ‘fellow traveler’ label has never been thrown at me. Of course, this could perhaps be due to my open mind towards their ideas, and my refusal to cast aside their opinions. Though I disagree with many of what the ‘reform’ crowd labels ‘radicals,’ I don’t intend to silence their voice.
BH @ 10,
And yet… not everyone who opposes the watering down of the platform (that the reformers call for) insist on those specific items to be included in a new platform. Talk about strawman tactics.
I’ve never said we should hold high the banner of anarchism or other radical measures, but I certainly don’t think the platform should eliminate such possibilities. Eliminating such possibilities is exactly what many ‘reform’ efforts do.
Not everyone who opposes the efforts of the reformers necessarily thinks the items you’ve listed should be in the platform. You need to either quit thinking everyone who opposes you is in that camp, or quit trying to insinuate that those who oppose you are advocating such items.
eg, generally, you have to ask them, point blank. The response I’ve gotten is no, you’re only a “fellow traveler.” You can probably replicate my experience by advocating your geoL views, for ex.
Personally, I don’t think holding high “radical,” (i.e., extreme, rapid change from the current configuration of laws) is a good idea. For ex., abolitionists will often grudgingly accept a 50% cut in spending in one year as “sufficiently” L. But then if you tell them the implications of such a precipitous change, they generally will not engage you. At least, that’s my experience.
Interestingly, most nonLs I meet find ME to be the radical. There are ranges of radicalness, and having some edge works for me. Too much radicalness alienates all but the truest believers. And then there’s practical considerations and appropriateness of message.
I maintain there’s “correct” answer to any of these sorts of issues.
The point of platform reform isn’t “to water down our message to attract voters”. The point is to unite Libertarians around our common ground.
Attracting someone like Ms. Davis probably has as much to do with the 20% she disagrees with as the 80% she agrees with. Whatever that 20% is in the current platform, it’s hard to see what it could be that could repel someone with bona fide libertarian instincts.
But it would be another story altogether if that 20% included:
* personal secession
* immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws
* privatization of all streets, pipes, and wires
* policing pollution only through private torts
* elimination of all restrictions on immigration
* repealing laws against sex/drug commerce with minors
RC @7,
I’m not an ‘abolitionist,’ nor have I heard any of the ‘radicals’ proposing a strong platform say I’m not a libertarian despite my minarchist/geo-libertarian views. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone say I’m not a libertarian, ever.
As for which platform she looked at (pre-04, post-o4), I think it’s irrelevant. The point I was making is that she self-identifies as a libertarian despite not agreeing with all of the platform. Thus, I think the platform could take some fairly strong (‘radical’) stands on key issues without alienating those who come across it.
Also, this issue again comes back to the critical divide line between the purpose of the LP. While I welcome her campaign as a means of libertarian education, I don’t expect her to win (and hope that she doesn’t expect to win). Fortunately, the many tactics one may take to ‘win’ are also the tactics best used to educate and awaken voters to the benefits of libertarianism. Until electoral roadblocks are done away with (plurality voting, debate access, single-member districts, etc.), I think it’s unwise for the LP to water down its message to attract voters, when said voter-acquisition won’t help the LP win.
I can’t recall a contested LP nomination other than for president, certainly not a highish-profile one like this one in NY. Perhaps this is all a healthy development on some levels.
eg, it’s certainly true that not all Rs and Ds agree with 100% of their platform.
The Davis situation proves nothing, on a lot of levels. She’s read the CURRENT platform, not the pre-04 one. She’s an anecdote. It’s not just prospective candidates we reformers wish to reach out to, but voters…millions of them.
What’s been happening these past few decades in the LP is that the abolitionists have used foundational documents like the platform to carp and otherwise disrespect the views non-abolitionist Ls. It’s an extreme form of litmus-testing, inspired in part by employing the Leninist tactics the Godfather of Abolitionism (MNR) learned in his youth.
Read Rothbard’s unexpurgated “strategy memo” and perhaps some Block on the “virtues” of the “plumbline” approach.
I agree on all three issues ! I also think she should get in touch with NORML to see if they can help. Kristen I hope you see this (but you probably won’t ) you can email NORML here–> [email protected]. YOU GO GIRL !!
*when I say “wiggle room for candidates,” I mean ‘lower-office’ candidates (i.e., not the presidential candidate).
tab @3,
I’ve heard constant arguments from reformers that the platform taking strong stances on libertarian issues would drive away people from having a positive view of libertarians, which I find to be nonsense.
As to that 20% of which you speak, yes, very important issues can make up the 20%, but she’s not running to be party chair or our presidential candidate, so I’m less concerned with her not being 100% in-line with the platform. I believe we should have a strong platform, but wiggle room for candidates.
A strong platform will ensure that what I’d call ‘core libertarians’ stay with the party (and thus have a strong influence on party issues and management). At the same time, the same party members can be sensible enough to endorse candidates for office that are more ‘pragmatic’ in approach, should their stances be palatable to libertarians.
@2,
Should that be directed at the Reformists?
I think it just depends which 80% she agreed with because a couple of very important issues can make up that 20%.
And to the ‘reformers’…
” I figured out I was libertarian by nature by going to the national libertarian party website. I found myself in agreement with 80% of their platform”
*gasp* She figured out she was “libertarian by nature” even though she only agreed with 80% of the platform?!?!?! Further proof that people can recognize their libertarian identity even if they don’t agree with a full platform.
I hope Ms. Davis realizes that taxing things such as prostitution and marijuana to ‘balance the budget’ isn’t enough. Undoubtedly, a lot of things can be cut to balance NY’s budget (props though, for at least admitting she can cut income or property taxes).
A telling passage of New York woes from ESPN’s Gregg Easterbrook,
“I further pound the table about minor government functionaries having taxpayer-funded bodyguards, not for any real security need but to make themselves feel important (and to pick up their dry cleaning). Rich McGowan of Brooklyn notes this development, which sounds like badly written satire, but sadly is true: “New York City’s newly elected comptroller, John Liu, and new public advocate, Bill de Blasio, each are being assigned six full-time police officers as bodyguards. The City Council speaker, Christine Quinn, has six officers as a personal well security detail as well.”
Set aside that in New York City government, the “public advocate” is someone who supposedly represents the people against the powerful: Now even this person will be screened by taxpayer-funded bodyguards to keep the public away. Is there any chance such security actually is needed for minor functionaries? The Times account says that a previous New York City public advocate once was harassed by a man at a public event; police “spoke to the man” but did not charge him with any offense. That justifies dozens of police officers serving as round-the-clock ego-strokes? Read the item carefully; the minor functionaries not only are receiving full-time bodyguards — school board meetings can be frightening! — but also get a full-time police officer as a driver.
The chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, has a driver; no other Supreme Court justice has a driver. No chief judge of any of the federal appellate courts has a driver. But in New York City, minor functionaries get taxpayer-funded drivers. Why does a public official in New York City — where car ownership is formally discouraged by government policy, and average people are expected to ride the subway — even have a taxpayer-provided car? The reason is to feel important. Now, with police officers as their drivers, these factotums will be able to put Kojak lights on their cars and roar through red lights, feeling even more important as they head to pick up the dry cleaning. Why was this item in a New York Times city-beat blog, rather than on the front page? New York is drowning in red ink: Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants a federal bailout because, he says, the city has cut, cut, cut to the bone. This obviously isn’t true. One reason government deficits keep soaring is that wasteful, self-serving spending by government officials rarely is challenged in the press. ”
link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100209&sportCat=nfl