The ad hoc LP Historical Preservation Committee has been formally constituted comprising Caryn Ann Harlos (Chair), Joe Buchman, Joe Dehn, Ed Fochler, and James Gholston. The scope of the Committee is to begin an electronic archive of Party history records and to maintain and administer LPedia.org for the purpose of same. LPedia had fallen into electronic “disrepair” over the years and is in the process of being moved to a new host in preparation for re-opening to the public. The first meeting of the Committee (online) will be announced soon and any Party member is welcome to attend any meeting. Volunteers are sought to assist the Committee on either the technical or archival points (including the transfer of the raw archives to LPedia) and should contact Caryn Ann Harlos, [email protected] to volunteer. Donations are solicited to help fund this project at: https://secure.piryx.com/donate/uO2ehmy0/libertarian/historicalpreservation
180 Comments
Comments are closed.
Caryn Ann Harlos via lists.dehnbase.net
AttachmentsMar 22 (5 days ago)
to lphpc
LPHPC Meeting
Wed, Mar 29, 2017 4:00 mountain
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/920726965
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (872) 240-3212
Access Code: 920-726-965
First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready
Also attached is my draft meeting summary of last meeting for your review.
All former admins are welcome to stay involved – we just need to tighten procedures so they need to contact me to get the account set up and promoted.
We seem to be marching away from the official thread topic again.
dL, I’m not sure where to begin. It SHOULD be clear that my sense of the 89er’s shortcomings, a lack of diversity is not a major one. It’s entirely possible that a diverse 89 Randians might have come up with a similar amalgam of untruths and tin-eared rhetoric.
I’m also not sure you are factually correct (or incorrect) about the GOP…I’ve never been to one of their meetings. I would think they are more diverse than 5% women and no non-whites, but I s’pose that’s possible.
That almost all of the 89 were in their 20s is of some concern. I have nothing against 20-year-olds, of course, but a roomful of 20-year-olds seems likely to lack worldly wisdom or a sense of proportion. One 50 year old doesn’t really give me great confidence that the work the 89 did in a few hours was well thought out, as their work product indicates.
Do Rs have a 7/8ths depth charge for their handiwork? Likely not. That, it should be clear, is the nub of the uber critique of the 89ers.
In the United states, libertarian demos traditionally have followed the same demos as atheism, which is white male. Of course, internationally, the demos change. Believe it or not, I have heard people refer to atheism as “white privilege.” Of course, this is a closed, US-centric point of view(not surprising, given “white privilege itself is a European white man’s critical construct). From the global population sample, the most likely atheist is not white male. The same when it comes to the most likely libertarian.
In the case of Capaozzi, the “diversity critique” smells of desperation in light of his preference for a “lessanarchy politics” in the mold of a Ted Cruz GOP. The GOP has demos that are no better and maybe even worse than the LP.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/030117meetingsummary.docx
Jim, no, not in Ebonics. LoL. But it seems you misunderstand my point, so let me clarify:
As DFR deflected on whether there were non-whites at the Founding, my working hypotheses is that there were no non-whites among the 89ers. This brought out the inevitable from the L set: “So, do you want to play Identity Politics?” sort of feedback.
And that answer to that is No as well. It seems obvious to me that having SOME diversity can be helpful in a game like politics, and especially in crafting Founding documents that are protected in perpetuity by depth charges.
I could imagine that the 89 were almost all male, all white, and possibly all atheist. This sliver of society may lack the rhetorical sensitivity that I’d like to see when crafting a document that will be unchanged forever.
Clearer?
robert capozzi “‘Yo, ‘omnipotent’ don’t play in Compton or Spanish Harlem.’ Effective communication requires an understanding of the audience. I’d think this is a non-controversial point. Am I mistaken?”
Are you suggesting re-writing the platform in ebonics?
Latino’s supported Johnson at about the same rate as whites, so either understanding the word “omnipotent” hasn’t been as difficult for them as it has been for you, or it’s totally god damned irrelevant to their attraction to Libertarian candidates.
But, perhaps, re-writing the platform in ebonics would attract more Compton type blacks. Why don’t you write up a draft so we can see the language that you believe would work better?
Next meeting notice:
LPHPC Meeting
Thu, Mar 16, 2017 4:00 Mountain
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/291582493
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (872) 240-3412
Access Code: 291-582-493
First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready
more…
I get that my truth-seeking tires you, and for that, I am truly sorry.
OTOH, I have learned from you, CAH. I did indeed formerly use the term “booby trap.” While I think it was an accurate term, I have replaced it with YOUR term: “depth charge.”
Thank you.
cah, in the name of truth (which I would think you recognize is what sets us free), I copy below what I said earlier about the word “omnipotent,” which on review is reasonably carefully and accurately written.
It’s not a word I have heard in COMMON usage generally, and my travels mostly have been in suburban NY and DC. To the extent one hears the word, it’s in the context of God’s powers.
It is possible that “omnipotent” is commonly used in the ‘hood and the barrio. Has that been your experience? I’ve spent almost no time in the ‘hood and the barrio, which is why I ask and hypothesize, I don’t assert.
Rather than sharing contemporary Christian rap music, perhaps find something more appropriate to the historical context of the party’s founding…I’ve suggested Sly and the Family Stone and Santana, but these are not the only choices.
At the Portland 06 convention, CotOS definitely received a 3/4s vote to be deleted, and I definitely recall someone (possibly the person who moved to delete CotOS) describing the clause as “kooky.” I agreed then and I agree now. The body apparently more or less agreed with that sentiment as well, but the depth charge protected the language.
Sometimes, truth makes one uncomfortable. It even hurts. I suggest you keep your eyes on the prize, though, for ultimately the truth sets you free. Right?
***
“Rhetoric is particularly important in politics. A word like “omnipotent” is not a term one hears much in common usage, and it might especially not be used in the ‘hood or the barrio. White suburban Randians might love the word, as they might have recognized it from the title of a Mises book.
This is not to say that an African American or Latino 89er might not have heard it, too, but they might be more tuned into the communities that they come from, and they might have raised their hands to say, “Yo, ‘omnipotent’ don’t play in Compton or Spanish Harlem.”
Effective communication requires an understanding of the audience. I’d think this is a non-controversial point. Am I mistaken?”
Or this guy (Eric July, Backwordz)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGuj-Z3PNg8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkQte4Atxxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq8_2bjJqbo
Wow, what an paternalistic condescending view that words like “omnipotent” aren’t used or understood in minority communities. Wow. Just wow.
Particularly in a religious context….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEF94GBF40s
Bet there are words there that Capozzi doesn’t know or use. But this Christian rap group uses – type of music targeted to a minority demographic.
Key word is “tangential” – and it is way off in tangential la-la land.
Actually, in this instance, I think Capozzi’s hostility to SoP has tangential relevance to the primary topic at hand. i certainly gained new knowledge of the history behind SoP from DFR’s retorts/rejoinders. Granted, one had to navigate a brief interlude of questionable relevancy re: the intellectual disposition of Rothbard’s parents, but , in the end, message boards do as a message board does….which is invariably drift off topic.
Amen to that George. I am tired of the monomaniacal screeds. I could do an impression that would be indistinguishable from the original. If I were not an editor (and this was the case for me for a while), I would avoid commenting for fear of getting suck backed into the merry-go-round of “1972 arrogant twenty-somethings” of “7/8 booby trap” of the vacuous term “lessarchist” etc. Over and over and over and over and over.
Frank, Robert’s monologues never run their course. George
Robert, this dialogue has run its course.
dfr: My committee had hours.
me: This explains much, thank you.
Haste and possibly youth led to an ill-conceived document. It all seems QUITE relevant to a Historical Committee, trying to make sense of deep dysfunction and hastily-crafted falsehoods.
Personally, I’m not sure how much we can learn from history, which someone one said is the diary of mad men. Mostly it’s value is to learn what does NOT work. At the same time, it strikes me as important to recognize that everyone’s doing the best they can, and to view past dysfunction with a compassionate eye.
The hasty arrogance of the 89, then, is easier to fathom when we recognize the context of their actions, even if the outcome is so obviously flawed.
History.
Like all human endeavors, the Libertarian Party began in specific context. Actors make their decisions based on their unique personal experiences, their understanding of the past and their aspirations for the future. The founders of the LP are not unique in that sense.
We simply decided to take the most radical non-violent course we could think of in the political context of our time. I was tasked to assist that effort by establishing a continuing parliamentary procedure to further our common goal of presenting American voters with party committed to resist and lawfully overthrow the regime we faced.
Of course, time is always scarce. We didn’t have 55 days like the Philadelphia conspirators to produce a governing document. My committee had hours. We began with a typical voluntary organization template. An hour or so in our deliberations, Ed Carleson of New Mexico moved that we require the LP to adopt a statement of fundamental principles. In our discussions, I pointed out that American political party platforms in history were easily eroded and inconsistent. I proposed that we establish a supermajority rule to make the statement of principles, whatever we finally agreed it would state. The most obvious precedents were the rules from the U S Constitution. The framers established a 3/4ths ratification rule for the state to put their new form of government in effect.
I argued that a completely voluntary organization could have an even higher standard. I moved for 7/8ths. The committee agreed. Then someone, I regret I do not recall who, pointed out that all the proposed rules were easily amended by less than a 7/8ths vote, so our rule could withstand amendment or repeal. So we fixed that making the rule to amend the statement of principles also amendable by a 7/8ths vote of the entire body of delegates of a convention. That would guarantee two votes – one to amend the 7/8ths rule by a 7/8ths vote effective after the convention adjourned and a second 7/8ths vote at a future convention to amend or abolish the statement of principles itself.
We agreed this would make the content of the statement of principles virtually unamendable – IF the founding convention could even agree on a statement of principles. If not then our 7/8ths rules would be moot and eliminated as parliamentary authority.
We also created a standing Judicial Committee to offer opinions on the consistency of the platform with the statement of principles and a few other changes.
All other rules governing the LP would be the customary ones from in Roberts Rules of Order.
I informally notified David Nolan, presiding on the floor, of our committee’s plans. David was not totally delighted. He knew the debate to frame a statement of principles could obstruct the whole enterprise, but he agreed it was a good idea – in principle, so to speak. He agreed to attempt to get the convention to try to adopt a somewhat abstract statement of principles or preamble, but first they had to agree to the Rules including the 7/8ths provisions. Here, David Nolan intervened and insisted that whatever that statement of principles would say it should be subject to reconsideration at the next LP convention. I agreed and suggested a rule that the next convention be restricted to amending for a 3/4ths vote of the body. David Nolan, in effect, vetoed my proposal as too rigid. We compromised on a one-time-only two-thirds rule to amend the statement of principles at the next convention in two years. That provision would give everyone plenty of time for reconsideration.
I took David’s arguments back to the Committee. None of us could contest David’s judgment as a matter of principle. I admit I preferred the 3/4ths to amend rule. Two years later I learned what a mistake it would have been if David and the others had followed my preference – there would have been no “Dallas Accord” changes that allowed pro-market anarchists to join the LP on principle.
Now bear in mind that at the time we were resolving these procedural rules – no one knew what that statement of principles would actually say or if the convention would even agree to one! Failure to agree on a statement of principles would not have aborted the Libertarian Party. We were committed to go forward without or without a statement of principles.
Finally, the committee reported to the convention and debate ensued. The rules were adopted.
David moved for drafts of a statement of principles. I had virtually nothing to say about the text of the proposals received. Finally, the text presented by Dr. Hospers with some minor amendments was adopted unanimously. I don’t recall any delegate walking out in opposition.
Clearly, the original LP Statement of Principles presumed the legitimacy of government in some form. Since Dr. Hospers wrote the statement in a matter of minutes, he reflected his views as our prospective first presidential candidate. Nevertheless, it was general or abstract enough that any candidate acceptable to that convention could endorse it – because its adoption was unanimous!
The rest of the convention was “normal”. A platform, largely drafted by David Nolan, was adopted. Nominees were chosen and officers were elected.
Aside from the deliberations in the committee I chaired, the events on the floor of the founding convention are mostly documented in a set of audio tapes. Several digital copies of those original analog tapes are in the custody of the Libertarian national Committee and others. To this day, I retain custody of the original audio tapes. Those tapes are not gavel to gavel complete, but are substantially complete and a “live” record of speakers and motions adopted.
I also have custody of the tapes of the 1974 Dallas Accord convention and the LNC and others also have digital copies of those analog tapes. Scholars and other interested persons can obtain DVDs of these tapes from the LNC or myself. Then, after one has examined the record, one can comment intelligently on the work product of those persons at the conventions.
Out of respect to Caryn Ann, if I respond further to the tangent about 7/8 I will do so in the open thread. Andy’s comments at 10:21, 10:32 and 10:41 appear to have nothing at all to do with the historical preservation committee; I will take them down, but will give Andy a few hours to move them to open thread if he wants to do so in case he did not save a copy. As a general rule, we will be making more of an effort to keep threads on topic at reader request after some discussion among the editors. Please move all ongoing tangential discussions to open thread.
As the editor who posted this and this being about a subject I am involved with I echo George.
Move these hobby horses.
I am really tired of every thread turning into whatever subject Andy wants to go off on and Capozzi’s butthurt over the SoP. I think everyone is tired of it.
It is rude to the other IPR members and in this case rude to the project this post is about.
Cut it out. Go to the open thread.
Andy, Your post has nothing to do with the historical preservation committee. Put your rants on the Open Thread where they belong.
Capozzi: Move your monomania about strange words that you invented to the Open Thread.
Gp, I heard you the first time.
Can’t say I agree.
Capozzi, your opinion of the 7/8 rule has nothing to do with this thread. Take ti where it belongs.
Capozzi, your comments are complete off topic and mostly not relevant to anything. Please take them to the open thread where they belong.
pf: Based on what dfr said about the tapes there were definitely more than two women and I don’t know where you got the fake news that they were all white.
me: Re: women, I’m seeing he didn’t know the number. My sense is they were few. Since he won’t answer about non-whites, he deflects talking about his Cherokee blood. I did say “apparently,” but it’s my working hypothesis based on DFR’s deflection.
As for disagreement, God doesn’t invite disagreement. Biblical fundamentalists would say, I think, God says this, you better obey. If you don’t expect wrath. Thanks for allowing me to clarify.
Re: Are you saying that if they were not all white dudes there are no conditions under which we would accept the 7/8 rule?
My answer is the 7/8ths rule is unacceptable under virtually any circumstances. If and only if the 89 were themselves Lao Tzu/Jefferson hybrids might I buy that their work was timelessly unassailable. Clearer?
Re: So, if in fact the ‘hood and barrio are places where we hear words like omnipotent more than in the suburbs, here’s my response:
If true, that makes my point. Being pigmentally challenged myself ;), and from the ‘burbs, it could well be that Sly and the Family Stone and Carlos Santana used “omnipotent” in their tunes. Maybe it was a word spoken from the pulpit all the time in 69. Could be, though I am skeptical.
But, even with your hypothetical, I’m making a much broader point. All else equal, effective communications involves understanding the audience. If the 89 were all white, and they were not Lao Tzu and Jefferson hybrids, it’s entirely possible that their SoP language was not vetted by people who had a direct experience of minority communities who, it’s fair to say, use somewhat different language than does the majority community.
Is this really controversial for you, PF?
On the contrary, there are lots of churches and a great deal of religious activity in the hood and the barrio. So, in fact, those are the places where we hear words like omnipotent more than in the suburbs. Also, there’s a lot of hip hop rhyming in the hood and the barrio, and hip hop often uses grandiloquent and grandiose language such as omnipotent. It could easily fit into, for example, am Immortal Technique song. And who more so than the people in the hood and the barrio has first hand experience of just how omnipotent government can be?
Sure there is. According to biblical literalists God is omnipotent, but there are obviously those who disagree. Likewise, among biblical fundamentalists, there are clearly those who disagree with each other. Is that in itself proof that they are wrong about God’s omnipotence?
I do believe that the Cheeto Benito is trying to take that role on for himself.
No one is alleging they were all white dudes except you, as far as I can tell. And trying to parse your sentence, I don’t see what that conditional clause has to do with the rest of the sentence. Are you saying that if they were not all white dudes there are no conditions under which we would accept the 7/8 rule? That seems…illogical, and uncharacteristic of you.
Based on what dfr said about the tapes there were definitely more than two women and I don’t know where you got the fake news that they were all white.
more….
Rhetoric is particularly important in politics. A word like “omnipotent” is not a term one hears much in common usage, and it might especially not be used in the ‘hood or the barrio. White suburban Randians might love the word, as they might have recognized it from the title of a Mises book.
This is not to say that an African American or Latino 89er might not have heard it, too, but they might be more tuned into the communities that they come from, and they might have raised their hands to say, “Yo, ‘omnipotent’ don’t play in Compton or Spanish Harlem.”
Effective communication requires an understanding of the audience. I’d think this is a non-controversial point. Am I mistaken?
dfr, you make my point. Naismith didn’t make the rules for hoops unchangeable. And, of course, they’ve changed over the years. College and Pro have different rules. Sorry. No. Not all founders are control freaks.
dL, Trump’s words don’t call for government to be all powerful. Not even close. There is no disagreeing with an omnipotent state.
As for identity politics, that doesn’t work. IF the 89 were all white dudes AND they were off-the-charts on both wisdom and intellect, then we can begin to understand and possibly even accept the 7/8ths depth charge. IF, OTOH, they were all above or well above average, say, then their unanimity becomes far less impressive, and their arrogance becomes less justified (being kind) or just flat out UNjustified. Some kind of diversity — in thought and in background — might have been helpful to challenge the assumptions they seemed to all shared (Randianism).
Once Hispanics replace the dying whites Libertarians may actually have a chance of becoming a major party. We appeal to them and there scents of justice in such a more way.
Ladies and Gents, I present to you “The cult of the omnipotent state”
And nothing spells diversity like GOP-lite respectability politics…lol
The same can be said of James Naismith, the man credited with inventing basketball. How he dare make up something new? RC, we showed up at Denver. All founders of anything different face the same arch-conservative allegation.
Well, we’re slowly, painfully stumbling toward the truth. There probably were at least 2 women among the 89, and apparently everyone was white.
Now all we need to understand is what was it about these 89 that made them at least Lao Tzu wise and Jefferson intelligent so as to justify the depth charge that protects their work, makes it all-but-unassailable. Alternatively, we might easily assume that a bunch of 20-somethings + one 50-something prof got carried away with what they thought were universally and eternally true words, justifying a fail-safe depth charge making their words uneditable.
confirmed…in person, you would never mistake me for him…lol
Robert Capozzi “DFR, how about non-whites?”
Depends on who you ask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMUoxRM_Jsk
Non-whites? Well, I have Cherokee ancestry, but I don’t think ethnicity is relevant. 🙂
DFR, how about non-whites?
Robert, I am sure you will hear several women’s voices on the audio files besides Toni Nathan and Susan Nolan. I don’t believe my wife spoke as a delegate.
Oh, you answered above. Thanks.
DFR, thanks. Won’t be the first time wiki is incorrect.
Was Nathan there? Were there other women? Any non-whites? Again, just curious….
I can provide digital files from the audio tapes made at Denver and Dallas on request. People can listen and reach their own conclusions about why what was done.
My open box is [email protected].
Who were the founders? Well, I don’t recall meeting Edward Crane, Manuel Klausner, Murray Rothbard, Roy Childs, in Denver. I am certain Murray was not at Denver. Others came in at Dallas at the “second” founding convention.
robert capozzi “TIA is a new one for me. People have always had the capacity to kill one another, so I’m really not grokking that clause. Killing is not “omnipotence.” It means ALL powerful, like — I guess — God. Killing doesn’t rise to the level of omnipotence….”
If TIA is new to you, I don’t know what to say. They explicitly used that name during the early Bush years, but the pursuit of it is much older.
It’s not just state approved killing. It’s killing or imprisoning on the say-so of a single person, with no check on their authority. Bush claimed the authority to kill anyone in the world, on or off the battlefield, just by him declaring that they were a terrorist. Obama was in agreement. I haven’t heard Trump specifically agree or disagree on that, but I can’t imagine him refusing that power. Those are the most recent figureheads for the cult. The members of the cult are those who advocate for the President to have such power, and that the government ought to have Total Information Awareness.
Omnipotent means unlimited authority or influence.
rc: “btw, were there any women or non-whites among the 89? Just curious….”
dfr: Yes ,several. I didn’t take a head count, but among the women was my wife and my son’s mother. I still kick my own ass for not asking her to take lots of pictures!
Jim: If those pursuing Total Information Awareness while also claiming the authority to have anyone in the world killed or imprisoned on their say-so doesn’t qualify then nothing will ever satisfy you.
me: TIA is a new one for me. People have always had the capacity to kill one another, so I’m really not grokking that clause. Killing is not “omnipotence.” It means ALL powerful, like — I guess — God. Killing doesn’t rise to the level of omnipotence.
Blind worshippers who desire an all-powerful state MIGHT exist somewhere. TK says the Ba’ath Party wanted such a state, but it dissolved in 1966. The Khmer Rouge dissolved in 1999. There may be others. They might even exist in the US, which is what is relevant.
None cited thus far.
I’m still waiting.
robert capozzi “I’m guessing you [DL] are Joshua Katz, btw.
I’ve known Joshua Katz offline for a decade. I don’t think so.
robert capozzi “…the cult [of the omnipotent state] has yet to be identified, probably because there isn’t and never was one.”
If those pursuing Total Information Awareness while also claiming the authority to have anyone in the world killed or imprisoned on their say-so doesn’t qualify then nothing will ever satisfy you.
dL: …convert….
me: Revelatory word choice.
But I do agree that Trump is a frightening figure. Then again, so was Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.
I’m more interested in providing a plausible alternative to the morearchists of the various stripes that we see on the political stage.
Apparently, not so much for you…
Recalling my days as a Randian, I’m not sure that Randians would be converted to anarchism by yet another dysfunctional pol. They might even view Trump as an heroic businessman like Francisco d’Anconia but who shows signs of James Taggart-ism.
I’m guessing you are Joshua Katz, btw.
Actually, just hop back in the wayback machine and just play them one hour of cable/satellite news covering Trump from the year 2017 on the ole iPad…i imagine the shock would convert them all to anarchism on the spot. Problem solved for everyone.
wiki has some of the founders as:
This group included John Hospers, Edward Crane, Manuel Klausner, Murray Rothbard, Roy Childs, Theodora (Tonie) Nathan, and Jim Dean.
I suspect Crane’d be embarrassed by the CotOS language, and Jim Dean — Howard’s brother — seems to’ve moved on to politics closer to his brothers. Klausner might also find CotOS embarrassing.
Not that it matters, but I’ve met 5 of them, and 2 of them I’ve known reasonably well.
Definitely at least some women, as presumably Ms. Nathan was there to accept the VP nomination. Beyond that I will defer to dfr’s memory, or any written accounts.
dfr: The crafting of the LP’s “Prime Directive” shouldn’t be a quadrennial ego flash for the Presidential candidate and his or her transient clique.
me: 88 2- somethings + Hospers could easily be characterized as a “transient clique” as well. Unless there was something profoundly extraordinary about the 89 Founders. Each would need to have, I dunno, double the wisdom of Lao Tzu and make Thomas Jefferson’s intellect look like that of a 3rd grader.
Were you guys THAT good?
btw, were there any women or non-whites among the 89? Just curious….
dL: I would be fine w/ replacing “cult of the omnipotent state” w/ “the state is a criminal gang.”
me: If the point is to maintain an inconsequential political status, then by all means: Hop in the Wayback Machine and suggest that language to the 88 20-somethings + Hospers.
I’m not sure that would play with Randians, though. Rothbardians, yes, but they were IIRC a bit late to the founding to REALLY alienate the rest of America.
(b) classifies as crackpot prophecy
dfr: Whatever one’s taste for the phraseology of the SoP, it was adopted and reconfirmed in order to prevent the LP from sliding down the slippery slope of opportunistic mush found in all other previous party platforms.
me: I understand the motive.
In my case, given the choice of:
a) A “pure,” NAP-infused LP and the current state of affairs, or
b) A lessarchistic, liberty-themed LP had 10 members of Congress, one Governor, a serious double-digit showing in presidential races over the past 10 years as L-ism was ascendant and challenging if not a CotOS but statism, pressuring reductions in government spending and regulation while blocking military adventurism, which was meeting with some success
I’d pick b).
Fundamentalists might pick a), confusing politics with religion.
No, it is not an open question whether the people on the list are “libertarian” by today’s standards. It’s typically the other way around, frankly.
Actually, any quotations vis a vis “the state” by those on my list would be much worse than “cult of the omnipotent state. ” The consensus from that list would be: the state is the organization of criminality, plunder. Personally, I would be fine w/ replacing “cult of the omnipotent state” w/ “the state is a criminal gang.”
Libertarianism in the US today inherits more from the individualist anarchist, or liberal anarchist tradition than the social anarchist one. But personally, I would welcome them in if they so chose to join. I Certainly would welcome them over cast offs from the state communist party(i.e, the GOP).
Caryn Ann Harlos via lists.dehnbase.net
6:28 PM (18 hours ago)
to lphpc
Here is the log-in information for the next meeting.
LPHPC Meeting
Thu, Mar 16, 2017 4:00 Mountain
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/291582493
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (872) 240-3412
Access Code: 291-582-493
First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready
Suppose the first sentence of the SoP (COTOS) were removed. Is the second sentence more acceptable? Which proposed sentences as replacements could get a 7/8ths vote?
Whatever one’s taste for the phraseology of the SoP, it was adopted and reconfirmed in order to prevent the LP from sliding down the slippery slope of opportunistic mush found in all other previous party platforms.
The crafting of the LP’s “Prime Directive” shouldn’t be a quadrennial ego flash for the Presidential candidate and his or her transient clique. The cult of the omnipotent state is habitually a cult of personality. We at the founding convention unanimously agreed we want to avoid personality cults at all costs by having a stated core idea.
I agree it is possible that a better phrased SoP could be crafted, but it must be superior enough to attract over 7/8ths support from a convention. Nonetheless, if a cult of personality arises that is powerful to delete or reframe the SoP into an ego flash, then, well, we founders made a credible effort to prevent it — and successfully so far.
re COTOS:
Yep!
That’s a somewhat more comprehensive list. Good collection of writings at http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
Still pretty optimistic this is likely within the next decade or two if the Cheeto Benito does not succeed in blowing us all up.
My mind is fairly open, but I don’t see what you see.
I’d have to do some calculating, but that sounds about right, among others.
Unfortunately, yes.
People are living longer these days and may well be on the verge of living much, much, much longer very soon. If the Cheeto Benito doesn’t set evolution back by a few billion years after he starts a global nuclear holocaust, that is.
Yes. I’ve heard of him for a long time.
cah, in Portland in 06, deleting the Unabomber-esque CotOS language was indeed voted on. The Chair IIRC stated the move received a 3/4ths vote, not quite enough to overcome the depth charge.
I recall the guy who made the motion described the language as “kooky.”
dL, whether all those people on your list are what we’d call Ls today is an open question. Did any of them ever say anything about the cult of the omnipotent state, which the 89 Founders effectively have permanently tatooed onto the LP, complete with depth charges to protect said language?
Libertarian communists, huh? Were any of the 89 Founders “Libertarian communists”?
I sleep extremely well, according to my FitBit! Thanks for your concern.
If in 2008- the Republican lite contingent didn’t get greedy and all they wanted to do was take out the COTOS language, they could have succeeded. A future attempt that limited itself to that could succeed. But the minute they try to word things to set up for a purge or turn us into something else, it will fail again. No doubt. If anyone REALLY wanted to remove the COTOS language ONLY that could be done with a pretty easy alliance that then removed any future attempt at this silly business (I could even be convinced to get behind it). But nope. The “reformers” get too greedy and they were handed their head.
The convention that nominated Barr and Root and couldn’t get it done. Again, because of greed. (some state parties would lose their entire Board if any change went further than the COTOS – some state parties would disaffiliate)
Its been tried before and failed spectacularly. And it is pretty solidly against the intent of those Bylaws (technically can perhaps be done)- if one wants to completely ignore intent. And the delegates rejected this even after completely watering down the platform two years before. Such an attempt would once again fail spectacularly. And the Party would drop at least 25% of its most active members in one fell swoop. Which may not seem like much – but it is the ones doing the work. It would be lethal. And the ones that think they want that would end up right back in the Republican Party.
If 2/3 of the membership actually wished to get rid of the phrase “omnipotent state”, or the whole SoP, there doesn’t seem to be any barrier except time. It would require 3 amendments:
1) amend article 17, to delete section 2 (with its 7/8 rule re article 3, section 1);
2) amend article 3, section 1, to delete the 7/8 rule regarding the SoP;
3) amend the Platform by amending or deleting the SoP.
sir…
Off the top of my head list of noted 19th century libertarians:
Frederic Bastiat
Richard Cantillon
Charles Comte
Charles Dunoyer
Augustin Thierry
Benjamin Constant
Henry Thoreau
Benjamin Tucker
Lysander Spooner
Joseph Proudhon
Emma Goldman
Henry George
Gustave de Molinari
Voltairine de Cleyre
Joseph Déjacque
Lucy Parsons
Libertarianism proper originates w/ the 19th century French Liberal tradition:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/groups/28
https://www.amazon.com/French-Liberalism-19th-Century-Anthology/dp/041568742X
The term “libertarian” itself originates with libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque’s “Journal of the Social Movement,” published circa 1860 in New York City. The revolutionary potential of 19th century social anarchism in the United States was feared to the extent that it spawned things like, you know, the FBI.
I’m not sure IPR is the right forum for an extensive tract on the history of libertarianism, domestic or international. But it is clear that Bob apparently only has “newbie” knowledge of it. So, I pose the question to Bob again.This time seriously and not facetiously.
Bob, you find it hard to sleep at night underneath that rock?
dL: Bob, you find it hard to sleep at night underneath that rock?
me: Answer the question, kind sir or madam:
Who was challenging the cult of the omnipotent state 170 years ago? Spooner? Thoreau?
dfr: I confess that in 1972 I didn’t think the LP would need to last more than a generation or two at the most and then pass into history – mission accomplished. OK, I was an optimist.
me: Thank you for sharing this. In candor, I too thought similarly delusionally when I was a Randian/Rothbardian. It’s a thought system that seems to have all the answers, and if only the rest of humanity understood the NAP and its full implications, nearly everyone would get on board the train toward Somalia. NAPsterism could easily overpower Marxism, since Marxism was false and NAPsterism was true.
With a fair and open mind, sadly, NAPsterism is also easily seen as false as well. This is a shame, since it gets so many things right.
Re: not going anywhere. Well, I wouldn’t have used the double entedre. But would I agree that libertarian ideas will carry on with or without the LP.
Robert, re: “pond”. Actually, I confess that in 1972 I didn’t think the LP would need to last more than a generation or two at the most and then pass into history – mission accomplished. OK, I was an optimist.
Bob, you find it hard to sleep at night underneath that rock?
cah: Wow. What lack of class.
Me: Memento mori is one the kindest, classiest statements we can share.
Recognizing the reality of one’s mortality, if seen aright, is liberation. Sorry if that’s a foreign concept for you, as it sounds as if i might be. There’s much literature on the subject that you may find eye-opening.
dL: The modern libertarian tradition goes back 170+ years. It’s not going anywhere. And it doesn’t die w/ any man or women.
me: Hmm, this is news to me. Who was challenging the cult of the omnipotent state 170 years ago?
No matter what arbitrary point in time might be selected as the beginning of L thought, there remains the burning question: who are the members of the cult of the omnipotent state that the 89 Founders chose to challenge and place a depth charge to protect those words — in perpetuity?
Given the time that’s elapsed, many of the supposed cult — whoever they might have been — could be dead as well. Does the cult membership get passed down through the generations? We’ll probably never know, since the cult has yet to be identified, probably because there isn’t and never was one.
“At some point in the next decade or two,…”
In another role I am President of the world’s oldest international SF club (N3F.org). We were founded in 1941. One of the founders is still with us. Until last year, two of the founders were still with us.
We as Libertarians need to take a stand against bullying in all its forms.
Andy why are you so mean? People make fun of my name to. Its a from of bullying.
The modern libertarian tradition goes back 170+ years. It’s not going anywhere. And it doesn’t die w/ any man or women.
Beerwinkle? Is that a real name???
Wow. What lack of class. SMH
I feel sorry for you.
dfr: Our pond, our depth charge.
me: “Pond” is apt.
How many of the 88 are still living, aside from you? Are those survivors all still LP members?
At some point in the next decade or two, the last of The Moses Collective will be pushing up daisies. At that time, “our pond” will lack meaning.
The depth charge, however, will survive in perpetuity. You must be very proud! 😉
Robert, as a hypothetical, could you write a one page Statement of Principles for the LP you would substitute. Perhaps, it could swing a 7/8ths approval vote with its superiority.
Our pond, our depth charge.
Robert, actually it means we’re were fed up with the status quo (1969-72) and decided to do something outside the two-party blinders. Everyone still has that option today if the LP is too whatever for them.
dfr, yes, many would presume an “if and” in front of a “when.” Some would not.
Mostly, the phrasing ““Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights” is nonsense from an anarchist perspective. The “when instituted” adds nothing if the point is that governments must not violate individual rights, but at the same time the anarchist presumption is that they DO routinely and always violate rights. Adding an aside inside a prefatory clause is generally frowned on by linguists.
Witness the confusion over the Second Amendment, for example. Convoluted sentence structure is to be avoided.
more…
“Radical” is a poor word choice to describe the depth charge. “Arrogant” seems far more apt.
dfr: If the 7/8ths rule is too radical to preserve an identity for the Libertarian Party, people remain able to cut that fraction to whatever they want in another party.
Me: roughly equals:
Fuck y’all who find the handiwork of 88 20 somethings + Hospers dysfunctional in any way. Think of us as The Moses Collective. God gave us these Universal Truths, who the fuck are you to question Him? 😉
BTW, “when instituted” presumes an antecedent “if”. A government never instituted needs no “if”.
If the 7/8ths rule is too radical to preserve an identity for the Libertarian Party, people remain able to cut that fraction to whatever they want in another party. Recall a second re-ratification vote taken two years later at the Dallas Convention which required only a 2/3rds vote.
Plank statements in the LP Platform have always been removable by a simply majority. Some Libertarians think that is too weak. As the founding Chair of the Bylaws and Rules Committee, I had the view that the high standard for altering the SoP was balanced by a low standard to toss out statements in the platform. Furthermore, state affiliate parties and candidates have always been free to adopt any positions on any issues consistent with the NAP.
My study of the historical American party platforms from 1840 revealed their habitual trend to slide toward more and more centralized statism. I was convinced it was long past time to adopt a new paradigm to resist that trend.
Good enough for anti-government work.
The anarcho-friendly markup is still sloppy writing, btw.
“Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights,…”
It probably should say “if and when,” not “when.” There is also the issue of whether any government ever has not violated individual rights. My guess is that has never happened, from an anarchist perspective. If true, if governments ALWAYS violate individual rights, this clause becomes nonsensical or at least requires clarification.
IF the idea is to make anarchists comfortable, it should read something more like:
“Since governments, if and when instituted, routinely violate individual rights, we oppose all such interference by governments in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.”
That, I believe, would be clearer and less prone to misinterpretation. Unfortunately, the depth charge does not allow for fixing mistakes. 🙁
The search for truth can be exhausting. But since it is what will set us free, the effort is worthwhile.
Paulie, I wasn’t suggesting removal. I was asking the relevance. I for one am tired of every LP thread turning into the Capozzi screed about the SoP.
The Beerwinkle LPH thread is interesting.
At the time they didn’t make a huge deal of it- it kept the Party together and they moved on. Lack of post-event drama is not lack of evidence of an event. I have interviewed multiple people there – and the general consensus is that they didn’t think they were doing anything we would still be angsting over. They cared about keeping the Party together in 1974. They amended the SoP. That is the evidence of the effort. It didn’t become known widely as the Dallas Accord until much later – precisely wjennis still a mystery.
Here is the evidence of the event which comports with the witness recollections;
http://tomwoods.com/d/accord.pdf
dL: I wouldn’t call discussing liberal democracy in the Cairo cafes circa 1961seeing liberal democracy first hand.
me: I probably would not, either. If one lived in a pocket in Cairo where most people one encountered were vocal and committed liberal democracy ideologues, however, that would be a first-hand exposure to an ideology, even if Egypt at the time was not a liberal democracy.
But, yes, Rand’s exposure to the Russian Revolution was a far more palpable experience of Marxism than was Rothbard’s, agreed.
pf: It has to do with the subject matter of the committee, LP history.
me: Yes, it’s similar to discussing the US Constitutional Convention. In the case of the Convention, some opposed the provisions for slavery, which I would hope that most today recognize as a fatal flaw in the ratified Constitution.
Apparently, the fatal flaw in the LP’s foundation — the 7/8ths depth charge — was unopposed. This enabled the SoP to be effectively unchallengeable, despite its being riddled with untruth.
Marshall Beerwinkle via LP History on FB
March 1 at 4:36pm
… I also could not mention of it (Dallas Accord -p) in Rothbard’s Libertarian Forum (where I would expect to find it, given Rothbard’s AnCap views )….
It has to do with the subject matter of the committee, LP history. The original question being discussed in this tangent was Rothbard’s influence on the Dallas Accord. Historically, IPR has allowed threads to organically evolve tangents. Perhaps we should encourage excessive tangential discussions to move to open thread, but so far we have not made such a policy as a group.
Thank you, I sent a subscribe message to that address.
Unfortunately I missed it while I was on the greyhound bus to work on the Ohio ballot access drive.
dL, thanks for filling in the history. As I understand it, then, Murray Rothbard’s parents were an exception to the general trend of leftism among NYC Jews, but even their purported individualism hardly explains Rothbard’s support for Strom Thurmond (hardly the embodiment of Americanism), or his subsequent support for loathsome politicians such as Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan and David Duke, or the support for Trump by many of his disciples today. Note that Rothbard in the passage quoted above identifies himself as a rightist, which is precisely the problem with the whole branch of libertarianism that traces its roots back to him and/or Ayn Rand, another Republican fusionist. Original libertarianism, prior to their influence, was closer to the left, and artificially cleaving libertarianism from liberalism and the left while endlessly trying to fruitlessly fuse it with rightism and conservatism, is the biggest problem with libertarianism today.
Nothing….
sort of…for the mother. It’s pretty clear from sourcing Rothbard himself that his immediate family was not commie.
I wouldn’t call discussing liberal democracy in the Cairo cafes circa 1961seeing liberal democracy first hand. Same principle re: greenwich village marxist intellectuals. First hand is living under the government/rule.
Where does one siign up to contribute to the wikipedia page?
What does any of this have to do with the Committee? Which by the way:
The Historical Preservation Committee had its first meeting.
In the interest of Committee transparency we have set up a reflector list
You can subscribe (read-only) by sending a message to:
[email protected]
with “subscribe” in the subject line.
dL, interesting that you cite Raimondo, as the cite I provided had him describing MNR as a “Red Diaper” baby. Whatever, ultimately!
It also depends what one means by seeing something first hand. If one is surrounded by Marxists spouting Marxism in an otherwise non-Marxist country, I’d call that a first-hand experience. Apparently, you feel otherwise.
The same, more or less. Not an overtly political person.
From Raimondo’s own “Enemy of the State,The Life of Murrray Rothbard”
Never disputed that. Merely disputed that Greenwich Village Marxism is a first hand experience. And he was not rebelling against parental indoctrination.
Thanks, dL. I wonder what his mother’s political views were.
It seems he associated “sensitivity training” with Marxism, which seems off to me.
And the PF, Raimondo, and I recall the “Red Diaper” or equivalent angle (3 pretty diverse long-term Ls), I wonder what we’re recalling in the cobwebs of our minds. This passage does indicate, however, the point that he had many interactions with “communists,” so on balance it strikes me my MAIN point stands: The two greatest influences on the LP did have many interactions with Marxists in their respective youths.
From Rothbard’s “Life in the Old Right”
Mine as well, PF. dL’s been on the down low on this matter, keeping his specifics hidden.
Not party members, or not sympathizers? If the latter, they must have been exceptions to the people he said formed his larger social set growing up, if I recall my reading correctly.
dL: Gravely offended by the trivial…indifferent and apathetic to the serious moral offenses that are being committed “in the name of”
Me: offended? Where have I indicated that I’m offended?
I assure you I am not. I identify untruth and dysfunction with love. Love is my creed and my assumption. I call out a lack of love as a means to offer other others a different way of looking at this insubstantial pageant.
dfr, yes, and the Heaven’s Gate cult members can no longer feel the wind. 😉
What their “voluntary act” accomplished is not obvious.
Big L libertarians have considered it for over four decades always having the option to form the LINO Party and jettison the depth charge for which ever the winds blows. So far, no go.
And I find your moral offense be typical of the vulgarity of the american body politic. Gravely offended by the trivial…indifferent and apathetic to the serious moral offenses that are being committed “in the name of”
By Rothbard’s own account, they were not.
dfr, the 7/8ths depth charge could well be for many Ls a “voluntary” matter, just as members of the Heaven’s Gate cult all committed suicide “voluntarily.” Those assessing the depth charge’s utility are still alive to make that assessment, which seems better than the voluntary decision that the HG cultists made, since they are dead and cannot reconsider their decision.
For all intents and purposes, LP members can’t reconsider the depth charge, either.
Hmmmmm….
I will vouch for Rothbard having no influence in the founding of the LP in the period 1971-1973. Murray was at the convention in 1974. I saw him and heard him, but I did not speak with him personally. He WAS influential at the Dallas convention and the Accord was reached.
I’m sure Murray was well aware of the the party’s 7/8ths rule and participated voluntarily under those rules. The rest is disputed history.
And his — iirc — influence on the LP’s foundational documents
Rothbard was not in the LP for at least its first couple of years.
As for the Marxism in his youth, he said something along the lines that NYC Jews that he grew up around were basically all communists, with the only real debate being between joining the party vs infiltration/popular front tactics. I can’t say if this is true but I’m pretty sure I remember him saying it. If it’s true, it may be that his parents were of the non-party member set but still with the same beliefs. Or it may be that he was exaggerating, or that I am remembering it wrong.
In any case, it was certainly not normal for a NYC Jew to vote for Strom Thurmond, as Rothbard says he did. That reflects an extreme overreaction to something, whether he exaggerated about everyone he grew up around being communists or not.
dL, I’ve not suggested “fragility.” We all have “scars,” situations and patterns of observed behavior by others that shape how we perceive and (try to) make sense of the world. For decades, Rothbard exposed his anger with the world and, it seemed, even with most of his fellow travelers who did not share his particularly eccentric thought system and stances.
We are also all former parasites, i.e., fetuses. That MNR chose such a pejorative term FOR USE IN A MANIFESTO especially suggests a very dark inner world. That he lacked the judgment (which I don’t believe he ever retracted in subsequent years) to not use such an incendiary characterization of fetuses is a display of exceedingly poor judgment. I detect a pattern of wild overreaction and catastrophizing in his words that I would think would give great pause to others when considering his life’s work, including his influence and role in the formation of the LP.
Well, I’m the wrong person person to be put in charge of defending Murray Rothbard. I will say re: abortion that while most women wouldn’t see it that way, those forced to carry it to term b/c of government prohibition might see it that way.
Secondly, if dealing with Greenwich village marxists gives one emotional scars, one’s intellectualism would qualify only for right wing radio talk show host. I seriously doubt Rothbard was that fragile.
dL, it’s possible that Raimondo and my memory that MNR was a Red Diaper baby is incorrect.
Certainly Mises was a great intellectual influence on MNR. But it seems valuable to me to look at his emotional influences which may have led him to take the many wacko positions he took. His position that fetuses are parasites. His angry screeds in the Rothbard Report. His cozying up to the hater right in his later years. And his — iirc — influence on the LP’s foundational documents via the so-called “Dallas Accord,” which were protected by what CAH has termed “depth charges.”
While we can be impressed by MNR’s intellect on some levels, the picture emerges of a pretty twisted dude. Having to deal with Marxist tautologists in his youth may have left emotional scars that he sublimated but which were made manifest in his sometimes sociopathic behavior.
Pauli Cannoli experienced Marxist-Leninism first hand. Growing up in Greenwich Village or going to Columbia University is not experiencing it first hand. Nor is that being a “red diaper baby.” Rothbard’s parents were not communists.
Perhaps one could make a case Rand’s A is A Objectivism was an overreaction to the communist doublethink she experienced as a child in the Soviet Union. However, Rothbard is not explained by his attendance at Columbia University. He inherits from Ludwig Mises, and Misean praxeology originates from the Post WW I Socialist calculation debates. That has nothing to do with Marxism.
https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/hayek-social-insurance-and-serfdom/
dL, Raimondo’s article indicates MNR was a “Red Diaper Baby,” which was my recollection, meaning he grew up in a Marxist-Leninist home. My understanding is that he grew up in a time and place where Marxist-Leninism had many adherents. The point is: By all indications, he was heavily exposed to that thought system. In his youth, he had many dealings with Marxists.
He and Rand were likely repulsed by that thought system, so they created their own philosoph(ies) to counteract it. They mirrored the dogmatism they encountered from Marxists, and the result was their own brand dogmatism.
Growing up in greenwich village is not experiencing marxist-leninism first hand. Nor would I classify such an adolescence experience as being a “red diaper baby.” His parents immigrated from communist blocks, but they were not communist. Typically, that term refers to having parents who were members of the American communist party.
Intervention…lol. Let’s see, back in the day, how many dealers did I know who were in NA….
dL, MNR reportedly grew up as a Red Diaper Baby.
https://louisproyect.org/2010/07/29/justin-raimondo-the-america-first-committee-and-the-antiwar-left/
View my radical enquiry as tantamount to an intervention! 😉
Capozzi says he is in “recovery.” I noted that the typical routine for people in (recovery) 12-step programs usually involves making amends to others who were negatively affected by that person while that person was under the influence. They certainly do not involve the person going around pointing fingers at others that person still believes is under the influence. Of course, in reality, I’m being facetious and mocking the use of the term “recovery” in this context
Rand did. Rothbard did not. That being said, the analogy doesn’t work. Historians of political economy(or at least libertarian historians) would consider Marxist-Lenism to be right deviationism from Laissez faire. However, no one has ever had to “flee” from laissez faire. The better analogy would be something like:
Snowden : US Exceptionalism :: Rand : Soviet Communism
or even better,
Snowden : US Exceptionalism :: Solzhenitsyn : Soviet Communism
Noting the appeal of US Exceptionalism to many.
pf: The implication isn’t that you have hurt anyone on this board.
me: Well, if you and dL are saying I “accuse” others of being NAPsters, I’m sorry if it comes off that way. NAPsterism is a very seductive thought system, in that seems to explain everything. There’s a pat answer for all things political. In a world filled with nonsense, it has an internal logic to it that appears unbreakable and flawless.
NAPsterism is perhaps not surprisingly shares much of the appeal of Marxist-Leninism, which both Rand and Rothbard experienced first hand. Unfortunately, the NAP is based on false assumptions, which is probably why it has not become a popular thought system. Most who encounter it might admire some aspects of NAPsterism, but intuitively recognize that its flaws and lack of serviceability.
Caryn Ann via FB and LNC list:
Didn’t say anything about that one way or the other, I merely added to your list. But since you bring it up dL said
The implication isn’t that you have hurt anyone on this board.
pf, Yes, I’ve socialized with Chuck numerous times. Don’t believe I hurt him, either.
You met Moulton. iirc you said you went to 2006 lp convention in pdx? I’m sure some people who commented at ipr over the years were there. If you went to earlier LP conventions most likely you met some of the people who comment here, some pseudonymously or some who used to but not recently. If you go to any DC area small-l events it’s likely you’ve met some of the people who comment here over the years.
dL, I presume liberty as well. I kinda liked what I heard Richard Epstein say once at a Cato conference: liberty is his default position.
The problem with a soft science is that there are many, many more variables to consider. Does the Somalia or Zomia experience port neatly to, say, the current day US? Is there a significant subset of the population of the US who want nonarchy? Even if there were, say, 40% of the population who want nonarchy, the question of how to unwind the State becomes rather important, unless we don’t care about massive social dislocation.
NAP-Denier is not how I would phrase it. I subscribe to a hard liberal presumption of liberty. Liberty is simply presumed, not deduced. I recognize little authority of the state. Whatever authority that can be made for , it exceeds it on such a scale that the entire thing has no legitimacy. The state is the organization of plunder.
I regard libertarianism as a science, the science of political economy. That means it explains things, predicts things and is open to falsification. Others may start off with NAP. But that’s not my approach.
more…
“Moderate R” doesn’t resonate for me as a label. I’m far more fiscally conservative and socially liberal than that label connotes, and I’m way more dovish.
dL, I do believe the 12-step program calls for making amends to those one has hurt. I’ve not met nor hurt any of the IPR Commentariat, other than PF, Andy, Professor Phillies, and Counselor Sarwark. To my knowledge, I didn’t hurt them.
It’s interesting that you are a NAP-Denier and yet you defend the NAP and the SoP. And your reasons (other L traditions) make your stance doubly perplexing. Love to hear more.
I consider myself radical because I defer to the truth, not “traditions.” Traditions might be considerations, but I don’t fool myself that they are truth.
Libertarianism has the reputation of herding cats, not zombies following Moses. I will say there is one sect of it, the HoppeBots, and to a lesser extent, the Rothbardians, that revert to a hero worship. Particularly the HoppeBots. Of course, the Randians are the epitome of cult worship.
You describe yourself as recovering Randian/Rothbardian, implying you yourself were once guilty of cult worship. Otherwise, I’m not sure what you are recovering from. But my reading of the 12-step recovery programs has one supposedly apologizing to others for the actions of the earlier self, not sitting around accusing others of being like their earlier self.
Well, I’ve repeatedly said i don’t subscribe to NAP. Why not? For starters, different libertarian traditions have different approaches to private property. The communist tradition views it as aggression/theft. The socialist as liberty and theft. The liberal/capitalist as liberty. Within the liberal/capitalist tradition there is much dispute over Intellectual Property re: liberty vs theft. That’s a position change I came to after much study.
You on the other hand have reverted to exhibiting all the radicalness of moderate republicanism. Be conformist!
dfr: The refusal to act sounds arrogant to me.
me: Huh? This makes no sense. Are there not many dysfunctions in the world that you don’t act on? In your mind, does that make you “arrogant”?
I don’t start my own party because I’m just not that interested.
I enjoy engaging in teachable moments that are easy and convenient. IPR affords me that. NAPsters — who like to tell themselves they are “logical” — engage in non-sequiturs and false premise argumentation. It’s one of my hobbies to expose untruth if I feel so moved.
NAPsters seem to believe:
The 89 20-somethings + Hospers were latter-day Moses. They get to define L-ism. No one else can. Their views cannot be questioned.
Even for true-believers, such a position has to be uncomfortable. Check your premises, as Ayn liked to say. Be radical.
“Roll your own.”
Best. Comment. Ever.
Indeed, this constant bellyaching and daresay whining about what some folks don’t like is why I don’t bother to respond to them. Pompous self-importance and little doing. If I cared that much to be constantine kvetching on IPR, I would just go roll my own. If I ever become disenchanted with or dislike the LP, I will have better things to do than nurse that old beer.
Yes, I’ve heard this all before. So, why haven’t you and others over the last 45 years started a party without the LP Statement of Principles? Roll your own. The refusal to act sounds arrogant to me. You can go your own way and take on the ballot access laws. The LP might even join you in lawsuits against the D & R establishment. What a deal!
I try not to invent things out of my head….you previously wrote:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/01/caryn-ann-harlos-the-2016-lp-convention-and-taxation-is-theft/#comment-1520607
We’ve had spats over 20 or different subjects, from social contract to traffic lights, and I can’t recall you ever taking the libertarian position. You’re not a peckerwood, I’ll give you that. Moderate republican seems to be where you line up.
So what if David Dolan asked to be reimbursed/comped for expenses to attend conventions where he was a speaker? What is the big deal about that?
David Nolan made big contributions in time, labor, and money for the party and movement.
Nolan and “free lunch” may refer to his propensity to ask for fully comped packages, room, etc. at conventions where Libertarians wanted him to speak. He didn’t always get his way as he was amenable to negotiation. As I recall, he had to end up sharing/splitting a hotel room with me at Chicago convention in ’92. He, along with many others, sometimes stated “If liberty was worth saving, it was worth saving at a profit.” At the end of the day, Nolan usually proved more entertaining and worthwhile hearing than did a bunch of other speakers who commanded a nice honorarium.
dL, I maintain I am a libertarian, as I believe maximizing peace and liberty are indicated. I am recovering from a strain of libertarianism that I call either Randian/Rothbardianism or NAPsterism. Those in recovery often feel called to lend a hand to those still in the grips of a dysfunctional syndrome. Correcting dysfunction is not all that difficult once it is seen for what it is.
My intentions are positive, I assure you.
And I vote L when I vote, despite the lingering NAPsterism.
Actually, you have given yourself the boot. You have stated on numerous previous occasions that you are a recovering libertarian. Trying to “outreach” to people like you is like the Church trying to outreach to ex-christians turned atheist. Dry fishing well, there, brah. And that’s the most charitable way of putting it. if they are still hanging around thing, they are there w/ bad intentions. The left foot of fellowship is appropriate in that instance.
it’s absolutely how you roll. Anytime “principles” or “statement of principles” is mentioned here, you are sure to show up here like stink on shit.
Good vs evil is the standard Repub/Dem partisan view of the world. You know, the United States teeters between salvation and totalitarianism every four years. And, of course, it can easily go back and forth between the two. The last 8 years it was under communist dictatorship. Now Jesus is back in the driving seat making America great again. LOL…
dL: From an easy machination effort by people like you? Good! Fuck You! Form your own party. Don’t pretend you are some authority on what X should when you are opposed to X. Don’t pretend you have the best interests of X at heart when you don’t.
me: dL for LP Membership Outreach Director! Gracious Host/ess to boot! 😉
btw, I don’t “oppose” X. That’s not how I roll. Your apparent starkly b/w, good vs evil worldview may not be able to process the idea, but my practice is to flow to what works. NAPsterism, for ex., doesn’t work, so I let it go.
From an easy machination effort by people like you? Good! Fuck You! Form your own party. Don’t pretend you are some authority on what X should when you are opposed to X. Don’t pretend you have the best interests of X at heart when you don’t.
Yeah, it sort of ruins your phony schtick about redirecting the LP in a more “mainstream direction.” What it is always been about is redirecting the LP according to Capozzi. Hysteria? Well, that would be El Duce His Pomposity and your theocrat boy, ted Cruz. No, I don’t view hysteria as a positive development. However, I do view the press viewing the state more in line w/ the libertarian view as a positive thing. Probably not a permanent thing, so take advantage of it while you can.
dL, the USG built in an ability to reconfigure itself. The Founding 20-Somthings + Hospers made it all but impossible to reconfigure the LP.
Whether hysteria has become mainstream or not is really none of my concern. Tell us why you find this to be a positive development.
The United States government….though colorful is not the term I would use. Part tragedy, part comedy, particularly with the pomp and buffoonery of the current clown in charge.
Btw, apocalyptic rhetoric is now mainstream. So declared by the mainstream press. Capozzi, you are now out of the mainstream. By your own paradigm, we now have to exclude your considerations on the grounds of being nothing but the colorful rants of an extreme minority.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0222/In-age-of-Trump-apocalyptic-rhetoric-becomes-mainstream
dfr, yes, my understanding is it was 88 20-somethings and Hospers, who btw went on to support George W Bush.
When a small assembly dictates insanity on an organization in perpetuity, that COULD be labeled “colorful.” At the time, I’m sure you thought your collective tat was SO good that it must be chiseled in stone, an immutable 10 Commandments for political thought.
I suspect most would look at this history and use labels like “arrogant” and “delusional.”
Actually, the principal author of the LP Statement of Principles was 54 at the time, a PhD and head of the Philosophy Dept at So. Cal – John Hospers. I doubt he ever consider the SoP an embarassing tattoo.
American political parties are typically like Henry Ford’s Model T – all black. We Libertarians are colorful.
dft: If we didn’t want it to be essential we wouldn’t have protected it with the 7/8ths rule.
me: Yes, one could characterize the 7/8ths “depth charge” as CAH says as “essential” in that 89 young-ins thought their handiwork was some sort of masterstroke. One could also characterize the depth charge as a “youthful indiscretion,” an embarrassing event, like a drunken sailor getting a cheap tattoo with the name of a barmaid he had the hots for. 45 years later, he might recognize the tat wasn’t a great idea!
dfr: The SoP and the rule make the LP unique.
me: Unique? Yes, in the very odd sense.
Cross out there and substitute their. I’m rushed.
I’m with Caryn Ann. If we didn’t want it to be essential we wouldn’t have protected it with the 7/8ths rule. The SoP and the rule make the LP unique. Those who find that annoying could start there own run-of-the-mill party.
I for one believe the SoP is a huge deal and am honoured to have been invited to multiple conventions to go speech to other Libertarians about precisely why. Montana is next – March 11.
Shane, the SoP can remain obscure until its needed to block silly and even malicious “pragmatism”. Gee, one page is hardly long-winded.
I have no clue as to what you mean by Nolan demanding a “free lunch”. Perhaps specifics would help.
DFR, appreciate that. I’d disagree that protection of the Statement of Principles is that big of a deal. While I like some things about the SOP (especially the free interpretation of “the right to life”) it’s just a long-winded set of paragraphs that few will read.
I was clearly never a fan of Nolan due to his demands for a free lunch as “the founder” which I found hypocritical.
Evan Williams “It looks to me that the Libertarian Party wasn’t originally created to be a political party, but an educational outfit. Looks like a fraud to me and a violation of the NAP.”
Why does it “look like … a violation of the NAP?” There were lots of people (perhaps a majority) in the party who thought its main success would be as an educational tool. But education and campaigning weren’t seen as opposites, but complementary – the more elections you could contest and the better you could fund them, the more you could get the ideas out, and vice versa.
The Bylaws summed up the goals: run candidates to win elections (or at least get enough votes to influence policy), while publicizing the libertarian message, as “to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles” – which is still in the Bylaws.
Shane, I was there at the founding of the LP. I don’t know what David Nolan “liked to think”. I do know he always said he was a co-founder just as I do. As a co-founder I always tell people David was the Prime Co-founder, a first among equals who were all doing different tasks. My co-founding credits are primarily as author of the seven-eights rule to entrench the Statement of Principles. The Statement of Principles concept was neither mine nor David Nolan’s. That idea was proposed in my committee by Ed Carlson of New Mexico, another unsung co-founder. David embraced our ideas and promoted them to the convention. Another reason I credit David as the Prime Co-founder is his insistence that the SoP be amendable at the “Second Founding Convention” in 1974 by a two-thirds vote of those delegates. I wanted the a 3/4ths vote to amend. Fortunately, David and I came to a meeting of the minds (I deferred). That change in the bylaws made the Dallas Accord possible and likely sustained the LP into the future. Therefore, on that wise decision, if not many others, I think David Nolan fully deserves the honorific role of Prime Co-founder of the Libertarian Party and fully deserves having his name alone on the LP HQ building.
Furthermore, Dr. John Hospers book Libertarianism was another material contribution by a co-founder who was old enough to be a qualified and credible Presidential candidate in 1972. Most of the other co-founders were under age 35 including David, 28, and myself, 29.
And Evan, Nolan was one of several “founders.” While he liked people to think he was the only one, his thoughts were only his own and didn’t carry weight beyond that.
And please consider helping fund the line item for expenses associated with this. We are doing everything as streamlined as possible
We still need your support – the ball is started rolling on this, let’s keep it going:
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/uO2ehmy0/libertarian/historicalpreservation
Remember, this Committee needs volunteer – the Committee is very basically a steering group, the real passion and effort is going to be grass roots. This history belongs to all of us. Please contact me to volunteer or be on the list for needs as the committee starts meeting.
That’s not fraud, it’s historically fitting ways that alt/third parties have been able to influence policy in the US.
Libertarianism does not have an education problem…If one stood up in front an arbitrary crowd and read out Proudhon’s famous quote, how many people do you think would actually disagree with it?
Yes, before one attempts to write a novel one should seek a grasp of grammar. You follow?
It looks to originally be an educational outfit based on its Original Articles of Incorporation and Constitution of the Libertarian Party. http://libertarianism.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarian_Party_Constitution_and_Bylaws_1972 ;
the lifelong comments, speeches, discussions, etc. by David Nolan; and its primary actions since 1972, which is a huge emphasis on education, and not much emphasis on getting libertarians elected (but a lot of emphasis on getting ballot access so candidates can run to educate).
Well, we can’t have educated people voting to elect uneducated people to political office. Where do people get these dichotomies?
No, it was not originally created to be an educational outfit. Why does it look that way to you?
It looks to me that the Libertarian Party wasn’t originally created to be a political party, but an educational outfit. Looks like a fraud to me and a violation of the NAP.
George, that sure looks like my handwriting in the margin of the Bylaws. Amazing.
Excellent news. Whatever your committee can use from my little Libertarianism Wiki — I am thinking of the original LPC Constitution & Bylaws that Ms. Harlos found for me, but there may be other things — is of course yours for the taking.
(Here’s the link to that page, BTW): http://libertarianism.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarian_Party_Constitution_and_Bylaws_1972
I’m proud of your efforts – all of you. Beyond the convention tapes I don’t have much more to contribute.