Knapp: ‘The Libertarian Party’s Immigration Plank vs. the Dallas Accord’


Thomas L. Knapp at Kn@ppster:

Brief refresher, for which Wikipedia will do:

The Dallas Accord was an implicit agreement made at the 1974 Libertarian National Convention to compromise between the larger minarchist and smaller anarcho-capitalist factions by adopting a platform that explicitly did not say whether it was desirable for the state to exist.

Plank 3.4 of the Libertarian Party’s platform:

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

The text highlighted in red implicitly calls for the continued existence of the state. That’s one of the reasons (there are others) it needs to go.

The text highlighted in yellow preserves the ability of minarchists to propose state action vis a vis immigration — all they have to do is claim that their plans are “reasonable” — without committing the party to the idea of the state.

101 thoughts on “Knapp: ‘The Libertarian Party’s Immigration Plank vs. the Dallas Accord’

  1. Kevin S Bjornson

    Once government is “privatized”, “private” security will perform similar functions. Those who own the ports, will pay for security and decide who may use their facilities and what the fees would be.

    If the US border were completely open, and other complementary reforms not enacted, the result would be negative. Many of the immigrants would qualify for “affirmative action” (i.e. racial preference) and most would vote the wrong way. See:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/06/immigration-and-equality/

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    Kevin,

    I’m trying to figure out how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote.

    Trying, and failing.

    Side note: The US border is completely open. The US border has always been completely open. The US border always will be completely open. The choice is between open borders with a police state, or open borders without one.

  3. Andy

    Tom just can’t fathom the idea that socialists, communists, theocrats, and welfare parasites are not peaceful people, and should be kept out of the country (at least as much as possible). People with communicable diseases should be denied entry as well.

    We don’t live in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, but if we did, there’d still be a market demand for keeping some people out of various places.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Again — what on God’s green Earth does what you wrote have to do with what I wrote?

    So far as I can tell, the answer is “not a damn thing.”

  5. paulie

    Kevin’s comment above hit the nail on the head.

    It’s more like the thoughts of someone who hit himself on the head with a nail.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    I guess I need to summarize and reiterate the content of the post:

    The final sentence of the plank in question violates the spirit of the Dallas Accord insofar as it calls for a role for the state.

    Additionally, as I point out, the use of the word “unreasonably” makes it possible for Libertarian candidates, activists, etc. to argue for immigration restrictions, so they don’t NEED to violate the accord in order to do that.

    In THIS post, I am not arguing over the desirability or non-desirability of immigration restrictions. I am arguing for preserving the position of the party vis a vis not organizationally endorsing either side of the anarchist/minarchist debate.

  7. paulie

    Thank you, I’m here all week.

    Meanwhile, reprising a comment from the original posting of the article at Kn@ppster:

    (wikipedia:)

    The Dallas Accord was an implicit agreement made at the 1974 Libertarian National Convention to compromise between the larger minarchist and smaller anarcho-capitalist factions by adopting a platform that explicitly did not say whether it was desirable for the state to exist.

    paulie • 3 days ago
    I seem to recall seeing recently that Caryn Ann Harlos unearthed evidence that the accord was explicit, not implicit. Fully agreed on your larger point.

  8. Kevin S Bjornson

    TK: “The US border is completely open. The US border has always been completely open. The US border always will be completely open. The choice is between open borders with a police state, or open borders without one.”

    K: Of course the US border is not completely open. Otherwise many more millions would be streaming in. Many of my friends in the Soviet Union among them, who now can’t get immigrant visas and are stopped at the ports of entry.

    This seems to be a case of a type of solipsism, of someone whose ideology is so all-inclusive as to deny plain reality. A type of word play, wherein the map is supposed to shape the territory.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Of course the US border is not completely open. Otherwise many more millions would be streaming in. Many of my friends in the Soviet Union among them, who now can’t get immigrant visas and are stopped at the ports of entry.”

    In other words, if someone agrees to cross the 95,500 miles of US border and coastline at one of a very few points covering perhaps 1/1000th of that border and coastline, and to there submit themselves to inspection/questioning by the AUTHORITAHS, they may be told “nope.”

    On the other hand, of those who choose to cross at some point along the other 999/1000ths, almost all of them enter and leave the US at will.

    The border is open, the existence of a police state feeding on the fantasy that it isn’t notwithstanding.

    But like I said, that was a side note. The purpose of the post was not to argue whether or not the border are, or should be, open. The purpose of the post was to argue that some particular verbiage in the LP’s platform violates an internal agreement as to the allowable content of said platform.

  10. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Andy

    Tom just can’t fathom the idea that socialists, communists, theocrats, and welfare parasites are not peaceful people, and should be kept out of the country (at least as much as possible). People with communicable diseases should be denied entry as well.

    So, I’m guessing you didn’t actually read his post.

  11. Andy

    Kevin S Bjornson
    April 30, 2017 at 18:07
    TK: ‘The US border is completely open. The US border has always been completely open. The US border always will be completely open. The choice is between open borders with a police state, or open borders without one.’

    K: Of course the US border is not completely open. Otherwise many more millions would be streaming in. Many of my friends in the Soviet Union among them, who now can’t get immigrant visas and are stopped at the ports of entry.”

    BINGO!

    Yes, millions more would come here, and a every statistic available indicates that a high percentage of these people will end up on welfare, and that they will hold Marxist and/or theocratic views.

    “This seems to be a case of a type of solipsism, of someone whose ideology is so all-inclusive as to deny plain reality. A type of word play, wherein the map is supposed to shape the territory.”

    BINGO!

    I hold self professed libertarians to a higher standard that I do people from other ideologies. I expect the stupid “let’s flood the country with unlimited numbers of foreigners, many from 3rd world countries, even though we have a welfare state which we aren’t going to be able to get rid of anytime soon, and even though we have political enemies who want to use these foreigners because they know that once they become citizens and register to vote, the statistics indicate that a super-majority of them vote for bigger government, and most of them engage in ethnic/racial block voting which the leftists can easily manipulate” from Democrats and other left wing idiots, but I expect libertarians to be capable of processing data and to be able to engage in rational thought, and to not stick their fingers and their ears and shout “Racist!” or “Xenophobe!” or other programmed leftist smears used to disengage people away from rational thought and discussion.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I expect libertarians to be capable of processing data and to be able to engage in rational thought”

    Why expect something from others that you’re completely unwilling to do yourself?

  13. JT

    I have to agree with Kevin and Andy. Instead of talking about how many more third world immigrants we can import, why not explore progressive pro-liberty solutions such as offering cash incentives for reporting illegals so as to create more jobs for working class Americans, banning Islam due to its horrible treatment of womyn and LGBTQWERTYs, encouraging the progressive practice of assisted suicide among Khazar-Americans, and offering African-Americans financial incentives and subsidized transportation to the Motherland, thus helping to right a wrong perpetrated hundreds of years ago against their ancestors? With these progressive, pro-liberty policies in place we would also help preserve and expand open spaces for the enjoyment of future generations, an environmentally friendly policy that does not burden taxpayers.

  14. dL

    Many of my friends in the Soviet Union…

    Medicare doesn’t have a co-pay for dementia meds, Bjornson?

  15. dL

    but I expect libertarians to be capable of processing data and to be able to engage in rational thought, and to not stick their fingers and their ears and shout “Racist!” or “Xenophobe!” or other programmed leftist smears used to disengage people away from rational thought and discussion.

    My guess is that anyone who would buy Ron Paul briefs has forfeited any claim to rational mental data processing …

  16. dL

    I guess I need to summarize and reiterate the content of the post:

    Pretty pictures always helps….

  17. Andy

    I have posted this here before, but here it is again for anyone who may have missed it. If “Mr. Libertarian” Murray Rothbard, one of the most influential libertarians ever, were alive today, he’d agree with me on the proper application of immigration policy.

    “This is from Murray Rothbard’s Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State. It was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1994.
    Full quote & context below.

    IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL
    I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain “public”; every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere.

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem

    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a ‘second-best’ solution that most people might be willing to live with.

    If you haven’t read Raspail’s ‘The Camp of the Saints’ that Rothbard referenced, you should at least read about the book to understand what influenced him and what he was referring to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

  18. Andy

    Here’s a video that talks about how the plot to the 1973 novel, “The Camp of Saints,” is coming true today.

    Crisis in Calais: The Jungle

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I have posted this here before, but here it is again”

    Summary of what it has to do with whether or not the LP’s platform plank on immigration conforms to or violates the Dallas Accord:

    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

    “Here’s a video that talks about how the plot to the 1973 novel, ‘The Camp of Saints,’ is coming true today.”

    Summary of what it has to do with whether or not the LP’s platform plank on immigration conforms to or violates the Dallas Accord:

    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

    The post has a topic.

    You’re not addressing that topic, you’re just flooding the thread, as you usually do, with repeated postings of authoritarian rants by proxy.

  20. ATBAFT

    Murray was great in “how many Libertarians can dance on the head of a pin?” discussions. Not so valuable for a political party seeking electoral success in 21st century U.S.A. But then, have we ever decided if LP should seek electoral success or just hold the banner high for the 1/2% of the population who believes, or can be persuaded to believe?

  21. DJ

    I see a lot of referencing the welfare state having and effect on an open borders argument.

    IF there is a libertarian POTUS (or majority in congress) would there be a welfare state? I think that’s a straw man argument.

    And I agree the usual arguments have 0 to do with the OT post.

  22. Great ideas

    Knapp is correct, despite the usual nonsense from Jacobs and Bjornsen. The current platform plank is not compliant with the Statement of Principles or the Dallas Accord and needs to be brought into compliance.

  23. Andy

    The current platform plank is perfectly compatible with the Dallas Accord and the NAP. Tom knows this, and he knows that I’m right, and he just does not want to admit it. The late great anarcho-capitalist Murray N. Rothbard agreed with me, as does anyone else with any sense.

    This debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with anarchy vs minarchy as I’m an anarcho-capitalist, as was the late Murray N. Rothbard.

    This debate is about people who are too naive to understand that you won’t have a free society if you have a welfare state and mass democracy while at the same time flooding the country with Marxists and theocrats from impoverished nations in unlimited numbers (as if this is going to solve world poverty, which it will NOT), versus people who live in reality.

    I don’t believe that the state should even exist, much less control immigration or anything else, but reality is that we live in a world where the state does exist, and it is not going away any time soon. Given this reality, the state presently provides a variety of functions, such as road construction and maintenance, fire fighting, prosecuting criminals, national defense, etc… I believe that all of these things could be better provided in a voluntary society, but this is unfortunately NOT the world in which we live. So while government exists in our present reality, even libertarians have to drive on the government roads, and even libertarians have to rely on government fire departments to put out fires. If somebody steals a libertarian’s car, or robs a libertarian’s home, they are most likely going to call the police, and they will have to rely on the police to have the person who steals their property prosecuted. If another country, say China, were to attack the USA, we’d have to rely on the military for protection.

    Saying, “I’m an anarchist, so I don’t think that the government should repair the roads.” when you don’t have a free market alternative ready to go for people who have a want or need to use the roads would be stupid. Saying, “I’m an anarchist, so I don’t think that the government should put out the fire at my neighbor’s house,” if you have no free market alternative ready to go to stop your neighbor’s house from burning down is stupid. You can wax philosophical about how the free market could do a better job providing and maintaining roads, or putting out fires, but if there is an immediate problem with either, your philosophical pontificating does NOTHING to solve it.

    So it is really idiotic to act like we live in an anarcho-capitalist society, when are far from something like this, and even if we were living in an anarcho-capitalist society, such a society’s immigration policies would NOT be that anyone goes anywhere they feel like going, but rather it would be up to the discretion of a bunch of different property owners, accept in the case of unclaimed land, but I doubt there would be much unclaimed land given that the world has over 7.5 billion people in it, and even if there were unclaimed land, once that land was settled, it would not be unclaimed anymore.

  24. Andy

    “accept in the case of unclaimed land, ”

    Should read, “except in the case of unclaimed land…”

  25. dL

    I see a lot of referencing the welfare state having and effect on an open borders argument.

    Actually, you are seeing a broken record from a set of usual suspects. And I’m pretty sure if we had threads on Rockets vs Spurs, NFL Draft, Group Sex, Playstation 5 specs, Katy Perry or Outdoor barbecue, the same set would manage to get in the same spin of said record.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    If you’re so sure you’re right, surely you have an argument that actually addresses the question, instead of a bunch of cut-n-paste crap about a completely different question.

    When and if you want to address the actual issue brought up in the post (hint: The issue is neither borders or immigration), I’ll be interested. Until then, you’re just polluting the discussion with verbal smog.

  27. Anthony Dlugos

    “The current platform plank is perfectly compatible with the Dallas Accord and the NAP.”

    Considering the source, I can’t think of a better indication that the plank needs to be fixed.

    Ensuring the abortion plank is strengthen/kept as is and fixing this plank are 1 and 1A in New Orleans in my book, and I don’t care which order.

  28. Andy

    There’s an island in the Indian Ocean called North Sentinel Island. There is a tribe of people who live on this island called the Sentilese who are quite possibly the most primitive people in the world.

    The Sentilese do not take kindly to outsiders visiting their island, as they meet them with spears and rocks and bows and arrows, and they apparently point their rear ends at outsiders as a form of insult. They have actually killed some of the few people from the outside who have visited this island.

    The island is claimed by the government of India, but they have decided to take a “hands off” approach with this island, as they do not want to disturb the natives living there. They fly over it once in a while just to see whether or not the natives are alive, but that’s about it.

    Now going by the “open borders”, anyone can go anywhere, “We are all the same, dude. Share the planet, bro.” line of thinking spouted by Tom Knapp and dL, they should be able to waltz on to North Sentinel Island, even though the natives don’t want them there, and even though Tom and dL could both be like walking bioweapons to the Sentilese, given that their isolation from the rest of the world means that they have not built up an immunity to lots of outside diseases.

    So should Tom be able to immigrate to North Sentinel Island against the wishes of the Sentilese? If Tom moved to North Sentinel island, would he magically transform into being Sentilese, or would he be a white American guy on North Sentinel Island? How long would Tom last on North Sentinel Island before a native put a spear through him or bashed his head in with a rock?

    Must watch – A Banned Island in India – North Sentinel Island – Sentilese

  29. Luke

    “There’s an island in the Indian Ocean called North Sentinel Island. There is a tribe of people who live on this island called the Sentilese who are quite possibly the most primitive people in the world.

    The Sentilese do not take kindly to outsiders visiting their island, as they meet them with spears and rocks and bows and arrows, and they apparently point their rear ends at outsiders as a form of insult. They have actually killed some of the few people from the outside who have visited this island.”

    Too bad Andy is not from there. It sounds like he would fit right in.

  30. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . .Tom just can’t fathom the idea that socialists, communists, theocrats, and welfare parasites are not peaceful people, and should be kept out of the country (at least as much as possible). People with communicable diseases should be denied entry as well. . . . . ”

    The level of your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. The lack of logical rational thought you spew almost daily is embarrassing.

    Andy . . . LEAVE THE LP! Your xenophobia is incompatible with libertarianism

    Andy . . LEAVE THE LP! You are a stain on it’s existence

    Andy . . . LEAVE THE LP! You give them a bad name.

    Andy . . . LEAVE THE LP! Please . . . we beg you

  31. dL

    Now going by the “open borders”, anyone can go anywhere, “We are all the same, dude. Share the planet, bro.”

    That’s not the “open borders” position. The North Sentinel Island example only serves to illuminate the abject stupidity of associating “anarcho-capitalism” w/ closed borders. And since the island does not serve to impede anyone else’s movement from any arbitrary point A to point B on the planet, it is not a problem for anyone else on the planet re: freedom of association. For the umpteenth time, “open borders” does not mean the right to trespass or that one can take any path from A to B, it just means there is a path from A to B.

  32. Tony From Long Island

    Why do some people believe that if the U.S. Border were entirely open, hundreds of millions of people would automatically run right in? Not everyone wants to live here.

    The number of border crossings have been decreasing for many years. As the economies of some countries has improved, the need to emigrate has decreased.

    —————————————-
    TK, I read the first sentence in the Plank as agreeing on the existence of a state.

    I am OK with the part you highlighted in red, but, of course, it is difficult to decide or agree on what or who constitutes a “threat”

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    “TK, I read the first sentence in the Plank as agreeing on the existence of a state.”

    It neither agrees nor disagrees on the existence of a state. It just calls for removal of particular features of a state without specifying whether or not the state itself should be retained. It is classic Dallas Accord language.

  34. Tony From Long Island

    I see ” . . . .not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries . . . ”
    . . . . as allowing for a government. I guess I don’t parse it the way you do.

  35. Luke

    If there is no government, you are not unreasonably constrained by a government. See?

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    The Dallas Accord says that the LP’s platform will neither explicitly call for the continued existence of the state, nor explicitly call for the abolition of the state.

    Calling for the state to NOT do something, or to STOP doing something, leaves open the question of whether that is accomplished by abolishing the state or just by restraining it.

  37. Andy

    Walter Block has some interesting comments on immigration. He says that he’s for open borders, but that as a catch, there should be a compromise to the other side of the issue, and that is that everything should be privatized, as in all land and resources should be put in private hands instead of in the hands of government. This is essentially the same thing that Rothbard, Hoppe, and I have said (among others), as in that this would be the anarcho-capitalist immigration model.

    Walter Block brings up an interesting point about unoccupied land in our present society. He presents a hypothetical situation about immigrants moving on to unsettled land in a remote part of Alaska or Wyoming, although he acknowledges that this is not what is happening, in that modern day immigrants move into areas that have already been developed. However what if immigrants were to move into areas that are not settled in the present day USA? He thinks that this should not be a problem.

    I see problems with this:

    1) When people move into a country, they can impact that countries political process. If say a group of Muslim refugees were to move into some remote part of Wyoming or Alaska or some place else, they could still get on welfare (and note that the Refugee Resettlement Program IS in fact a tax payer financed welfare program), and they can also end up effecting the political process after gaining citizenship and becoming voters. If enough of them were to move into the same remote area and form their own settlement, that settlement could be incorporated into being a new city/town, which means they get a city/town council, and a mayor, and a police force, and perhaps a local judge and prosecutor as well,
    and they could even end up getting their own state legislators,, and if it were to grow enough they could get their own US House district (keep in mind that China and India both have over 1.3 billion people, so there it is not unrealistic at all to say that enough foreigners could settle in a presently unsettled part of the USA and end up getting their own US House district). They could also end up effecting the outcomes of statewide ballot initiative and referendums (note that 24 states have this process via petition, and that in the states that don’t have it via petition, their state legislatures can place issues on the ballot, so this could effect ballot question votes in every state). So these people can gain political power even if they were to move to unsettled land and build their own cities. It would be one thing if there were no welfare state, and if it was more difficult to become an American citizen and a voter, and if it were not possible to use the ballot box to vote people’s rights away, but this is clearly not our present reality.

    2) They can still commit crimes and/or acts of terrorism against the native population even if they were to hypothetically build their own settlements on presently unoccupied land in the USA.

    3) I think that present Americans should have first crack at any unsettled land in this country.

    Here’s another question I have for Walter Block: You say to privatize everything and they you can open government borders. I basically agree with your general premise, but how do you go about doing this in a fair and equitable manner? “Privatize everything” is a lot easier said than done, especially when you’ve got ZERO political power or influence to pull it off.

    Some libertarian sitting back in easy chair making statements like, “Open the borders.” or “Privatize everything.” is nothing more than pontificating without having any power or influence to carry it out, and without even having a realistic plan to carry it out.

    This is one reason why some people don’t take libertarians seriously. There are too many libertarians out there who are armchair philosophers who don’t have a fucking clue how to implement their philosophy in the real world.

    I think that philosophy is great, but you also need to spend time on things like political strategy, and how to actually implement your philosophy in the real world, and if you don’t, you are just pissing in the wind.

    Anyway, check out what Walter Block as to say here:

    Walter Block on Immigration

  38. Anthony Dlugos

    Walter Block said Libertarians should vote for Trump because he’s a “anti-war, pro-peace candidate,” so his opinion on anything means less than zero at this point.

  39. Andy

    “1) When people move into a country, they can impact that countries political process. ”

    I just thought of another point about a hypothetical situation where a bunch of foreigners move into the USA and build their own settlement in an area that it not presently occupied.

    That is in regard to natural resources and infrastructure. They’d still have to get water and power somehow. Presumably they’d want roads as well. Some parts of the country are already having problems with water shortages, and there have been problems with rolling blackouts some places as well (California has had both of these problems). Perhaps these are problems that could be solved via free market reforms, but good luck getting those reforms passed. The foreigners would likely end up lobbying the federal and state government for money to build roads and etc…

    This is all hypothetical anyway, since we all know that immigrants move into cities/towns that are already built and occupied. The pioneer days in this country ended a long time ago.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I just thought of another point”

    In English:

    “I’m just going to keep spamming this thread with repetitive crap that has nothing to do with its topic.”

  41. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    May 3, 2017 at 12:52
    Walter Block said Libertarians should vote for Trump because he’s a ‘anti-war, pro-peace candidate,’ so his opinion on anything means less than zero at this point.”

    Anthony Dlugos said that Libertarians should vote for the Gary Johnson/Bill Weld ticket because they are anti-war, pro-peace, even though Bill Weld has a long record of being a warmonger, and even though Gary Johnson said that he supports “humanitarian wars”, so the opinion of Anthony Dlugos (who also said that he’d vote for pro-war Mitt Romney to be the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 2020 if Mitt were to declare for the nomination) on anything means less than zero at this point.

    Also, in all fairness to Block, his argument in favor of voting for Trump was more along the lines of he thought that he was less bad, and less pro-war, than Hillary Clinton. Whether he is or not is hard to say, but even Walter Block is not happy with Trump right now.

    I did not agree with Block’s support for Trump, but this is a separate issue.

  42. Anthony Dlugos

    When did Weld or Johnson say they would “bomb the sh*t out of ISIS,” kill the family members of ISIS, and re-institute torture, even over the potential explicit rejection of those techniques by the military leaders themselves? All this Trump said BEFORE anarcho-dope Block called him “pro-peace, anti-war.”

  43. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    On the one hand, Andy tends to appeal to authority — Famous Libertarian X said something monumentally stupid and authoritarian, but it must be true because Famous Libertarian X said it.

    On the other hand, you’re engaging in argumentum ad hominem — dismissing Block’s argument not because of any defect in it but because it’s Block making it.

    And, for the nth time, the topic of the post is whether or not the Libertarian Party’s platform plank on immigration violates the Dallas Accord, not whether or not the Libertarian Party’s position on immigration is correct or incorrect.

  44. Andy

    Let’s say that Tom Knapp got into political office, and he got his “Open the borders right now and allow unlimited immigration” bill passed (say that everything else remained the same, as in he could not get any other bills passed). What would the effects of this be?

    I bet that the following would happen:

    1) The number of people receiving various forms of government welfare would explode, and any attempts to cut it would be met with protests (some violent), and cries of “racism” and being “cruel” and etc…

    2) There will be a big increase in those trying to get jobs or get into colleges via Affirmative Action.

    3) Voting demographics would skew more in favor of increasing the welfare state and enacting more gun control laws than they are now. Pro-gun rights voters would become a minority in a short period of time.

    4) The traditional American population would quickly become a minority, which means that the traditional American population will be outvoted in the land of their forefathers.

    5) Crime will increase (as has happened in Europe as a result of mass immigration).

    So unless there were other big reforms were enacted at the same time, or preferably prior to Tom’s immigration bill getting passed, like Walter Block’s “Privatize Everything” Act, Tom’s immigration bill would actually be a big NET LOSS for liberty.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    Interesting assessment of my hypothetical political fortunes and their hypothetical effects. Here’s what it has to do with the topic of the post:

    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

  46. Anthony Dlugos

    Nothing to do with the topic of the post, I agree, but its got alt-right dystopian fiction down cold.

    Andy missed his calling. He’s got the chops to whip a National Policy Institute seminar into a frenzy of admiration. Instead, he wastes his time whistling Dixie in the most open border party in the country.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    Andy may not be wasting his time at all.

    His pattern of advocacy suggests that seeding the LP with, or associating it with, ideas that discredit it is his intention and goal — that it’s a feature, not a bug, of his method.

    He obviously failed with the attempts to get the LP to bite on his evidenceless “9/11 was an Inside Job” and “All Mass Shootings Are Staged by the Government” outings, but immigration authoritarianism, while just as fucking silly, comes with a larger base of gullible rubes to leverage. So he may be on to something.

  48. George Dance

    Mr. Knapp: I hope you’re still reading the thread, considering all the smoke that’s been blown over to disguise your topic; because I’d like to get back to it:

    As I understand your point, you’d like to eliminate the final sentence of the immigration plank, that says “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property,” because it violates the Dallas Accord by assuming the existence of government. At the same time, you’d change the sentence “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries,” by changing “constrained” to “unreasonably constrained,” to allow candidates to leave candidates free to put things like the final sentence in their election literature, etc., without being in violation of the platform.

    I appreciate your intent, but I have 2 objections to the change.

    The first is that you’re replacing an explicit (and therefore explicitly limited) role for a border police with a only a vague requirement that it be ‘reasonable’. The problem with that is precisely that vagueness. The revised plank would allow Libertarians to campaign on any immigration restrictions at all, even the Constitutionalist Party plank – banning all immigration until the welfare state is completely eliminated – provided they presented them as ‘reasonable’ constraints (IOW, provided they gave reasons for them). As the example of the erstwhile “libertarian libertarian” Andy Jacobs shows, they’re fully capable of giving plenty of reasons.

    So I don’t see this change as being a meaningful compromise, in the sense of helping the LP get its act together on immigration, so much as a way to sweep the whole thing under the rug; which I’m certain is not your intention.

    Second, you may disagree that “individuals not be constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries” already assumes the existence of a government; so let’s assume for a moment that it doesn’t: that there can be a territory within the present borders of the United States, but with no governments, just a market framework of private security forces. Doesn’t it stand to reason that those forces would be doing something to secure that territory from foreign invasion? So: would they have any powers to stop people from crossing the border? It stands to reason they would have some; if Russian or Chinese military ships suddenly showed up on the shores of the U.S. and began disgorging tanks and troops, I can’t see a free-market border patrol just sitting by and doing nothing provided no shots were fired. But if they have any powers, at all, to stop anyone from crossing the border, shouldn’t those powers be limited? And if so, what would be the proper limitation: an explicit restriction that they be allowed to exclude only “foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property,” or a requirement that their power to exclude must not be used “unreasonably”?

  49. Thomas L. Knapp

    George:

    “As I understand your point, you’d like to eliminate the final sentence of the immigration plank, that says ‘However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property,’ because it violates the Dallas Accord by assuming the existence of government.”

    That’s incorrect. I want to eliminate that sentence, and that sentence violates the Dallas Accord, but the latter is not my reason for the former. And the latter is the entire point of the post.

    “At the same time, you’d change the sentence ‘Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries,’ by changing ‘constrained’ to ‘unreasonably constrained,’ to allow candidates to leave candidates free to put things like the final sentence in their election literature, etc., without being in violation of the platform.”

    No. It already reads “unreasonably constrained” and I do not seek to change that. The existing “unreasonably constrained” language leaves room for Libertarian candidates to advocate immigration restrictions on the grounds that said restrictions are “reasonable.” If there’s anything legitimate in the final sentence, that “unreasonably” already covers it — without violating the Dallas Accord.

    I’m not going to engage (or even read) your arguments that follow, since those arguments are presumably based on the two incorrect claims which precede them vis a vis why I’m trying to do one thing, and that I’m trying to do another.

  50. JT

    What kind of “political boundaries” do you envision in anarcho-utopia? Don’t “political boundaries” mean there is some sort of state? Or are you envisioning an anarcho-utopia surrounded by nation states?

  51. George Dance

    TK – “That’s incorrect. I want to eliminate that sentence, and that sentence violates the Dallas Accord, but the latter is not my reason for the former. And the latter is the entire point of the post.”

    Well, as I pointed out (and thanks for admitting that you didn’t read it), assuming the existence of “political borders” either also violates the Dallas Accord, or it assumes that, in the absence of a state, there would still be borders – and a force that could secure those borders from someone.

    The question being, from whom? People who pose a threat to the health, security, and property of Americans, or anyone it wanted provided it decided that such exclusion was ‘reasonable’?

    “I’m not going to engage (or even read) your arguments”

    Pity.

  52. dL

    The first is that you’re replacing an explicit (and therefore explicitly limited) role for a border police with a only a vague requirement that it be ‘reasonable’. The problem with that is precisely that vagueness.

    George, if you have read the relevant posted threads on the the topic, “credible threat” is used as proxy for either bigotry, authoritarian lunacy or vapid idiocy. It is not an explicitly defined and/or limiting category.

  53. George Dance

    Luke – “If there is no government, you are not unreasonably constrained by a government. See?”

    I don’t exactly see what ‘political borders’ there would be in the absence of government.

    But assuming there would be ‘political borders’ in the absence of government, how does that deal with the problem of who can cross them or not?

  54. George Dance

    dL – “George, if you have read the relevant posted threads on the the topic, “credible threat” is used as proxy for either bigotry, authoritarian lunacy or vapid idiocy. It is not an explicitly defined and/or limiting category.”

    The phrase is “credible threat to health security or property.” Perhaps that can be twisted in such a way. Yet a simple declaration that immigrants can ‘reasonably’ be excluded can’t be?

  55. dL

    What kind of “political boundaries” do you envision in anarcho-utopia? Don’t “political boundaries” mean there is some sort of state? Or are you envisioning an anarcho-utopia surrounded by nation states?

    For the nation-state. a a reversion back to the liberal enforcement that predated the the 20th century global wars and the progressive era. Meaning: little or none. Abolition of the passport.

    RE: anarcho-capitalism. That term gets thrown around quite a bit on an apparent assumption that libertarianism, or radical libertarianism at least, equals anarcho-capitalism. Bad assumption. In any event, given that anarcho-capitalsim treats law and security as a market provision, there are no political/legal jurisdictional boundaries in an AC realm. Private property boundaries, yes. But no “borders.”

  56. George Dance

    JT – “What kind of “political boundaries” do you envision in anarcho-utopia? Don’t “political boundaries” mean there is some sort of state? Or are you envisioning an anarcho-utopia surrounded by nation states?”

    Well, you’re an unlikely ally; but you’ll do, as long as you agree with my “logic” (scare quotes just for you).

  57. dL

    The phrase is “credible threat to health security or property.” Perhaps that can be twisted in such a way.

    Um, yeah. Go back and read some threads from the past few months on the topic. Hint: Andy Jacobs, Kevin S Bjornson, Robert Capozzi.

    Yet a simple declaration that immigrants can ‘reasonably’ be excluded can’t be?

    Actually, I agree w/ you there. I’m not fan of that language, either.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    George,

    There is no “declaration that immigrants can ‘reasonably’ be excluded.”

    There’s simply a declaration that they must not be UN-“reasonably” excluded.

    You seem to be reading things to say what you want them to say instead of actually what they say.

    The reason I’m not engaging your detailed arguments is simple: Your basis for them was two completely incorrect claims as to my position. Why should I defend the position you’re attributing to me since it is not my actual position?

    The post is not complicated. It makes two very specific arguments.

    1) The final sentence of the plank violates the Dallas Accord; and

    2) There’s already a hook in the plank (“unreasonably constrained) that DOESN’T violate the Dallas Accord and that proponents of the policies implied in that last sentence can hang their positions on.

    The Dallas Accord problem is not the reason I want the sentence removed. I would want the sentence removed even if it didn’t violate the Dallas Accord, for other reasons. But the facts that it violates the Dallas Accord, and that it is unnecessary to its purpose, seemed like reasonable things to point out.

  59. George Dance

    dL – “RE: anarcho-capitalism. That term gets thrown around quite a bit on an apparent assumption that libertarianism, or radical libertarianism at least, equals anarcho-capitalism. Bad assumption.”

    I’m afraid I’ll have to defend JT here: ‘anarcho-capitalism’ refers to a political society with no government.

    In any event, given that anarcho-capitalsim treats law and security as a market provision, there are no political/legal jurisdictional boundaries in an AC realm. Private property boundaries, yes. But no “borders.”

    But the immigration plank explicitly calls for the continued existence of “political borders”, and no ancaps have expressed any problem with that.

  60. dL

    I’m afraid I’ll have to defend JT here: ‘anarcho-capitalism’ refers to a political society with no government.

    true…but the converse it is not true. Political society with no government does not necessarily mean anarcho-capitalism.

    But the immigration plank explicitly calls for the continued existence of “political borders”

    The plank (sans 3.4) reads:

    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

    Where’s the explicit call for the continued existence of “political borders”?

  61. paulie

    ‘anarcho-capitalism’ refers to a political society with no government.

    Capitalism is not a necessary condition of a society without monopoly government.

    But the immigration plank explicitly calls for the continued existence of “political borders”,

    No, it explicitly says that political boundaries (implicit: if they exist) not be used to unreasonably limit free movement of people. It says nothing about whether they should exist at all or not.

  62. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Where’s the explicit call for the continued existence of “political borders”?
    —–

    In the imagination of the person claiming said call exists.

  63. George Dance

    TK – There is no “declaration that immigrants can ‘reasonably’ be excluded.”
    There’s simply a declaration that they must not be UN-“reasonably” excluded.”

    Logically, there is no difference.

    If you amended Section 1.0 to say that “No individual, group, or government may unreasonably initiate force against any other individual, group, or government,” what would that say?

    “1) The final sentence of the plank violates the Dallas Accord;

    Which, as you’ve stated, is not why you want to eliminate it.

    2) There’s already a hook in the plank (“unreasonably constrained) that DOESN’T violate the Dallas Accord and that proponents of the policies implied in that last sentence can hang their positions on.

    And which Andy Jacobs, JT, Nate, et al, can hang their positions on, as well.

  64. dL

    There’s simply a declaration that they must not be UN-“reasonably” excluded.

    True, but the below would be a clearer(and better) statement:

    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.

  65. Anthony Dlugos

    That’s a vastly improved plank that I would have zero problem supporting.

  66. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    TK – There is no “declaration that immigrants can ‘reasonably’ be excluded.”
    There’s simply a declaration that they must not be UN-“reasonably” excluded.”

    Logically, there is no difference.
    —–

    That’s just another way of saying that logic is not your strong suit.

    “You may not take the $5 bill under the paperweight on my table” is NOT the same statement as “you may take the $5 bill that’s not under the paperweight on my table.”

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    2) There’s already a hook in the plank (“unreasonably constrained) that DOESN’T violate the Dallas Accord and that proponents of the policies implied in that last sentence can hang their positions on.

    And which Andy Jacobs, JT, Nate, et al, can hang their positions on, as well.
    —–

    Yes.

    Um … so?

  68. George Dance

    TK – Where’s the explicit call for the continued existence of “political borders”?

    “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.”

    In the imagination of the person claiming said call exists.

    OK; it calls for the continued existence of “political boundaries”. My bad.

  69. paulie

    It does not call for continued existence of political boundaries. If political boundaries get eliminated completely, no one will be unreasonably restrained in crossing them. But, if they continue to exist, we still don’t want people to be unreasonably restrained in crossing them.

  70. George Dance

    dL – “Actually, I agree w/ you there. I’m not fan of that language, either.”

    Good; you’re half-way to seeing my point: That if the LP is to support, by declaration or by omission, any group (government or not) having the power to exclude immigrants, it should clearly and explicitly place limits on that power.

    Tom, OTOH, seems to prefer the ‘reasonable’ loophole instead.

  71. George Dance

    Andy – Let’s say that Tom Knapp got into political office, and he got his “Open the borders right now and allow unlimited immigration” bill passed (say that everything else remained the same, as in he could not get any other bills passed). What would the effects of this be?”

    Reread Tom’s immigration plank. It wouldn’t stop you from assembling a gang of vigilantes to go down to the border and constrain the immigrants from coming through.

    Your constraint wouldn’t even have to be ‘reasonable,’ so long as you weren’t affiliated in any way with any government.

    to stop that.

  72. George Dance

    Paulie – It does not call for continued existence of political boundaries. If political boundaries get eliminated completely, no one will be unreasonably restrained in crossing them. But, if they continue to exist, we still don’t want people to be unreasonably restrained in crossing them.

    Suppose you’re successful in eliminating all governments in U.S. territory. Wouldn’t there still be a “political boundary” between that territory and Mexico?

    Or is it a goal of the LP to eliminate the Mexican government simultaneously?

  73. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Tom, OTOH, seems to prefer the ‘reasonable’ loophole instead.
    —–

    No, I don’t “prefer” it or “like it.” I’m just not proposing to fix it AT THE MOMENT. There are a lot of things in the platform that I don’t necessarily like. I picked one, and only one, thing to try to fix.

    —–
    Your constraint wouldn’t even have to be ‘reasonable,’ so long as you weren’t affiliated in any way with any government.
    —–

    Actually, no, that last qualifier isn’t in there, either explicitly or implicitly.

  74. George Dance

    TK – ““You may not take the $5 bill under the paperweight on my table” is NOT the same statement as “you may take the $5 bill that’s not under the paperweight on my table.”

    No one said it was.

    On the other hand, saying “You may not take the $5 bill under my paperweight unless you have some reason to take it” does imply, “You may take the $5 bill under my paperweight if you do have some reason to take it.”

    Which matches your preferred platform language: that the government may not constrain immigrants unless it has some reason to constrain them.

  75. paulie

    Suppose you’re successful in eliminating all governments in U.S. territory. Wouldn’t there still be a “political boundary” between that territory and Mexico?

    Or is it a goal of the LP to eliminate the Mexican government simultaneously?

    My ultimate goal is to eliminate all regime gangs. Naturally, the one that shakes people down and curtails liberties in the area where I live is my highest priority for elimination. Regardless of whether we can manage to completely eliminate any or all regime gangs, or which ones, I don’t want them to unreasonably restrain the travel, trade and migration of people.

  76. George Dance

    GD – “—–
    Tom, OTOH, seems to prefer the ‘reasonable’ loophole instead.
    —–

    – No, I don’t “prefer” it or “like it.” I’m just not proposing to fix it AT THE MOMENT. There are a lot of things in the platform that I don’t necessarily like. I picked one, and only one, thing to try to fix.

    So you decided to focus on eliminating health and security screening, while intentionally leaving in a loophole big enough to drive an ICE prison van through?

    Any reason for that?

    —–
    Your constraint wouldn’t even have to be ‘reasonable,’ so long as you weren’t affiliated in any way with any government.
    —–

    TK – Actually, no, that last qualifier isn’t in there, either explicitly or implicitly.

    Oh, come on. Your plank makes it quite clear that the LP objects only to border-crossers being “unreasonably constrained by governments”.

  77. George Dance

    “Paulie – The plank (sans 3.4) reads:

    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

    Where’s the explicit call for the continued existence of “political borders”?

    I’ve already admitted that error: it says “political boundaries” and “national borders.” Want to declare victory?

  78. George Dance

    —–
    2) There’s already a hook in the plank (“unreasonably constrained) that DOESN’T violate the Dallas Accord and that proponents of the policies implied in that last sentence can hang their positions on.

    And which Andy Jacobs, JT, Nate, et al, can hang their positions on, as well.
    —–

    Yes.

    Um … so?

    Well, I got the impression that some LP members think their position – banning all non-white immigration – shouldn’t be advocated by Libertarian candidates. Maybe that’s just me.

  79. George Dance

    GD – “Suppose you’re successful in eliminating all governments in U.S. territory. Wouldn’t there still be a “political boundary” between that territory and Mexico?
    Or is it a goal of the LP to eliminate the Mexican government simultaneously?

    PF – “My ultimate goal is to eliminate all regime gangs. Naturally, the one that shakes people down and curtails liberties in the area where I live is my highest priority for elimination.”

    That’s nice, but it doesn’t answer my questions.

    PF – “Regardless of whether we can manage to completely eliminate any or all regime gangs, or which ones, I don’t want them to unreasonably restrain the travel, trade and migration of people.

    Noted – You don’t want governments to unreasonably restrain the travel, trade, and migration of people.

    OTOH, a government that claims a reason; or a non-governmental group, with or without a reason, would be another story.

  80. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Well, I got the impression that some LP members think their position – banning all non-white immigration – shouldn’t be advocated by Libertarian candidates. Maybe that’s just me.
    —–

    No, it’s me as well.

    But I don’t have to fix everything all at once. I can pick one thing and try to convince the party to fix that, then move on to the next thing. I picked one thing and gave my reasons for picking that thing.

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Oh, come on. Your plank makes it quite clear that the LP objects only to border-crossers being “unreasonably constrained by governments”.
    —–

    In your imagination, perhaps. In reality, words mean things.

  82. paulie

    That’s nice, but it doesn’t answer my questions.

    I did answer your question. The best case, but far fetched for the time being, scenario is that neither the US nor the Mexican regimes continued to exist. In this case, no one would be unreasonably restrained in crossing that political boundary, since there would be no political boundary to cross.

    The second best case scenario would be if only one of these gangs – from my selfish viewpoint, preferably the US regime gang – was gone. In that case, you can argue about whether or not there would be a political boundary, but regardless, I still would not want people to be unreasonably restrained in crossing it if it exists.

    Lastly, it’s highly likely that we will have to put up with the continued existence of gangs calling themselves the US and Mexican government for some indefinite period of time into the future. Nevertheless, even in that scenario, my preference is that people not be unreasonably restrained in crossing the political boundary between the turf claimed by those two gangs.

    Naturally, that does bring up the question of unreasonable according to whom, and thanks for pointing that out. What I would consider to be reasonable is that I would restrain an occupying army from trying to expand the turf of the Mexican regime gang by force. Now, the US and Mexican regimes may consider all kinds of other restraints to be reasonable, as might Andy, Nate/JT, etc., but I don’t have to agree with them that their reasons are reasonable, and I don’t. Just because someone offers an excuse does not make it reasonable.

  83. dL

    I’ve already admitted that error: it says “political boundaries” and “national borders.” Want to declare victory?

    It had nothing to do w/ any literal distinction between border and boundary. It had to do w/ the fact there was no call for either.

    E.g: “I should be able to eat dessert w/o first having to eat my broccoli” is not an exhortation to eat broccoli. Likewise, “I should be able to cross political boundaries w/o interference” is not an exhortation for political boundaries.

  84. Fred

    If all land is private what gives you a right to travel over private lands? That doesn’t sound right.

  85. paulie

    It says political boundaries so that’s a red herring. And yes, I’m watching to see if you are Nathan Norman.

  86. dL

    Well, I got the impression that some LP members think their position – banning all non-white immigration – shouldn’t be advocated by Libertarian candidates. Maybe that’s just me.

    (i) Who in the LP holds a position that all non-white immigration should banned
    AND
    (ii) simultaneously thinks that position should not be advocated????

  87. George Dance

    I did answer your question. The best case, but far fetched for the time being, scenario is that neither the US nor the Mexican regimes continued to exist. In this case, no one would be unreasonably restrained in crossing that political boundary, since there would be no political boundary to cross.

    The second best case scenario would be if only one of these gangs – from my selfish viewpoint, preferably the US regime gang – was gone. In that case, you can argue about whether or not there would be a political boundary, but regardless, I still would not want people to be unreasonably restrained in crossing it if it exists.

    Lastly, it’s highly likely that we will have to put up with the continued existence of gangs calling themselves the US and Mexican government for some indefinite period of time into the future. Nevertheless, even in that scenario, my preference is that people not be unreasonably restrained in crossing the political boundary between the turf claimed by those two gangs.

    Well, that does answer my question – you can call it an “political boundary,” as long as there’s a state on the other side, but the platform isn’t saying there *should* be a state on the other side. That’s a good place to leave it.

    Naturally, that does bring up the question of unreasonable according to whom, and thanks for pointing that out. What I would consider to be reasonable is that I would restrain an occupying army from trying to expand the turf of the Mexican regime gang by force. Now, the US and Mexican regimes may consider all kinds of other restraints to be reasonable, as might Andy, Nate/JT, etc., but I don’t have to agree with them that their reasons are reasonable, and I don’t. Just because someone offers an excuse does not make it reasonable.

    True. If one of them runs, you still might get tarred with that, but there’s no need for me to belabor that point; you see the problem with the ‘reasonable’ language, as does dL, and even Tom may see it once he morphs out of battle mode.

  88. dL

    If all land is private what gives you a right to travel over private lands? That doesn’t sound right.

    All land under private enclosure w/ every step you take having to be under explicit contract is an absurd premise.

  89. George Dance

    GD – “Well, I got the impression that some LP members think their position – banning all non-white immigration – shouldn’t be advocated by Libertarian candidates. Maybe that’s just me.”

    dL – (i) Who in the LP holds a position that all non-white immigration should banned
    AND
    (ii) simultaneously thinks that position should not be advocated????

    By “their position”, I was referring to the position of the people I named – “Andy Jacobs, JT, Nate, et al” – not to the “some LP members” who wouldn’t want LP candidates saying that.

    I’m tired, and think I’ve made my point; so I’m going to chalk that up to an honest misunderstanding.

  90. George Dance

    TK – “—–
    Well, I got the impression that some LP members think their position – banning all non-white immigration – shouldn’t be advocated by Libertarian candidates. Maybe that’s just me.
    —–

    No, it’s me as well.

    But I don’t have to fix everything all at once. I can pick one thing and try to convince the party to fix that, then move on to the next thing. I picked one thing and gave my reasons for picking that thing.

    No, you don’t have to. But you volunteered for the job, and the job is to clean up the platform. Maybe you think it’s strategically best to leave the loophole in, to get the new language passed; I’m not going to guess.

    Anyway, I made my points – you seem to have read and understood this one – so there’s no point in my repeating it. From what I know of you, my belaboring the point will be as likely as not to increase your resolve to keep that word ‘reasonable’ in there.

  91. George Dance

    Fred – “If all land is private what gives you a right to travel over private lands? That doesn’t sound right.”

    If all land is private, that would include the roads and sidewalks. There’s an unstated expectation here that the road and sidewalk owners would want people riding and walking on their property.

  92. George Dance

    GD – “—–
    Oh, come on. Your plank makes it quite clear that the LP objects only to border-crossers being “unreasonably constrained by governments”.
    —–

    TK – In your imagination, perhaps. In reality, words mean things.

    Indeed; “unreasonably constrained by governments” does not mean the same as just “constrained,” or even “unreasonably constrained” in my imagination, or in reality.

    You may recall that I made the same point about the LP’s capital punishment plank.

    There’s no reason to give other examples here, and a reason not to – they’re all off-topic – but I don’t want you to think that particular discussion has been resolved.

  93. Thomas L. Knapp

    “you volunteered for the job”

    Are you referring to platform committee? I have never understood that committee’s job — or, especially, any particular member of that committee’s job — to be “deliver a set of recommendations which, if adopted, will make the platform perfect” in any given period. The platform is worked on and amended for hopeful improvement every two years, and that work has to fit into a relatively short timeframe at each convention. Had I been selected to serve on the committee, I would have ended up working on various things with others. I decided to limit myself to bringing one thing instead of 500 myself, so that I could hopefully get that one thing into the limited timeframe for consideration of amendments, and also do my duty vis a vis the things brought by other members.

    Your addition of the word “only” in front of “unreasonably constrained by governments” is your addition. It does not appear in the platform. My intent is to work on the real platform, not the platform in your imagination.

  94. dL

    True. If one of them runs, you still might get tarred with that, but there’s no need for me to belabor that point; you see the problem with the ‘reasonable’ language, as does dL, and even Tom may see it once he morphs out of battle mode.

    While I have a problem with the use of “not-un” in the language–“not-un” is a famous Orwell political language nitpick–it nonetheless has no bearing on the objective of removing the last sentence of 3.4 from the platform.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *