Open Thread for July 2019

It’s not only the beginning of a new month, but it’s also the start of the second half of 2019! July can be a fun month to be outdoors, but it also can be a great time to stay inside your air-conditioned home and post to IPR.

Here is our monthly thread. It’s a place for you to post anything that doesn’t fit on another thread–an article, a comment, or something humorous. It would be great if it applies to the site’s general topic of third-party and independent politics, but as long as you don’t slander someone or plagiarize another’s work, you should be okay.

Be careful out there!

402 thoughts on “Open Thread for July 2019

  1. Thomas Knapp

    “July can be a fun month to be outdoors, but it also can be a great time to stay inside your air-conditioned home and post to IPR.”

    Thanks for giving me an excuse to exercise less!

  2. robert capozzi

    ES (from June): Politics is divisive, bare knuckles BS against your fellow man.

    Me: It certainly CAN be that way, and sometimes is. At the root of lessarchy is a desire for peace. Even some NAPists agree with Leonard Read: “Anything peaceful.”

    Can we achieve peace with bare knuckles? Perhaps. Personally, my default position is to advocate peace peacefully.

    I’d note that the NAPists are so few that their bare knuckles feel like a fly to the Leviathan.

  3. dL

    Your IPR photo for the July ‘Open-Thread’ may be illegal in the District of Columbia (US Flag Code).

    thanks to the hypersensitivity of snowflake conservatives, we learn about these inane us codes on the books. But my reading of that tortured legalese doesn’t incriminate that piece of stock photography

  4. dL

    Can we achieve peace with bare knuckles?

    Sundwall’s comment wasn’t a commentary on peace; it was a statement on politics. Politics is a contact sport, which is both true and universally acknowledged as such. People who have a problem with that–and there are legitimate reasons to have a problem with that–are generally against politics. People who want to play the game but are adverse to contact sit in the peanut gallery. And there’s a term for that: fan. Short for fanatic.

  5. C. Al Currier

    ” hypersensitivity of snowflake conservatives” …dL
    I just learned about it (flag code) from Kn@ppster (Thomas Knapp) who doesn’t fit my general concepts of a sensitive conservative.
    http://knappster.blogspot.com/

  6. Master Baiter

    I’m taking time off from fishing to take up the clarion call above. Should fishing with the use of explosives be illegal? Pro or Con?

  7. dL

    I just learned about it (flag code) from Kn@ppster (Thomas Knapp) who doesn’t fit my general concepts of a sensitive conservative.

    No, he doesn’t. But I’m confident that it was Doug Ducey’s overt sensitivity on matters of Nike shoes that prompted Knapp’s post.

  8. SocraticGadfly

    Paulie (and others):

    What are the odds on Justin Amash, having left the GOP:
    A. Running for Congress still, as an independent;
    B. Running for Congress as a Libertarian:
    C. As speculated, running for prez as a Libertarian.

    Under C, how strong is the section within the LP tired of ex-Republicans?

    And, re Ron Paulists, how strong, if at all, is the section within the LP tired of people who should be Constitution Party candidates seeking (and in Paul’s case years ago, getting) the LP nomination?

    https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2019/07/quick-hot-takes-on-justin-amash.html

  9. paulie

    I don’t think Amash will run for congress as anything. I could be wrong. If he does, it’s more likely as independent than LP. I think there’s a decent chance he will run Prez LP, and if so, I don’t expect we’ll be able to beat him for the nomination. I think there are still a lot of LP members who are closer to Republican and Constitution parties, although some of them left the party in the last few years, but might rejoin if Amash runs and/or to support a Mises Caucus chair candidate.

  10. Richard Winger

    Sometimes when well-known figures leave a major party, they switch to being independents as an interim step, and then they join a third party. One example is Lincoln Chafee, who went from Rep, to Dem, to independent, to Libertarian. Another is Maine Representative Ralph Chapman, who switched from Dem to independent on May 26, 2017, and then switched from independent to Green on September 21, 2017. Another is former Congressman Virgil Goode, who went from Democrat to Republican to independent to Constitution.

  11. dL

    Under C, how strong is the section within the LP tired of ex-Republicans?

    Amash is not a libertarian, but the party of principle grades on a sliding scale. My guess is that his relatively well-publicized anti-Trumpism is enough to comfortably secure the LP nomination and solidify the LP’s rep as plan B for disgruntled republicans. If the LP is willing to overlook Weld’s gun grabbing, then they surely will find a way to overlook Amash’s christian social conservatism on abortion and gay rights, as long as he doesn’t talk about it too much.

  12. dL

    I don’t think Amash will run for congress as anything. I could be wrong. If he does, it’s more likely as independent than LP.

    He quit the GOP today, so he is now an independent. Let’s see if the Dems give him the Bernie Sanders treatment(i.e., decline to run a candidate).

  13. Tony From Long Island

    dL: ” . . . . Let’s see if the Dems give him the Bernie Sanders treatment(i.e., decline to run a candidate). . . . ”

    Why would they even remotely do that? Bernie is at least in line with most planks of the Democratic Party. So why run a candidate against him to split votes and elect a republican.

    Justin Amash is not at all in line with the Democratic party. Running a candidate against him and his republican opponent would make the chances of winning that seat very likely.

    I am surprised dL would even post something like that.

  14. dL

    Why would they even remotely do that? Bernie is at least in line with most planks of the Democratic Party. So why run a candidate against him to split votes and elect a republican.

    Bernie Sanders was not in line with Bill Clinton’s democratic party machine at the time. Dem candidates did run against Sanders, it’s just that said Dem candidates didn’t get any support from the DNC.

    I am surprised dL would even post something like that.

    Because it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

  15. Eric Sundwall

    “At the root of lessarchy is a desire for peace.”

    Well this certainly helps. If one does a search for “lessarchy” nothing comes up. So knowing that the root of this particular ideology(?) is concerned for peace helps us unpack the bigger picture being advocated. Of course the elusive conclave of “NAP-ists” is another question altogether. I have come across the “Knappists”, but never the man himself. Offline, emails etc., yes. Wikipedia does have a citation for the Non-Aggression Principle btw.

    Now, whether or not the Less vs. NAP dichotomy has any reality behind the RC paradigm is a bit of speculation that I can’t really dwell on with any effective measure. My own experience in the LPNY and LNC has been that it is not the case. Everyone seems to have their own unique “Shining Path” and those who do claim to be “anarchists”, tend to treat their affliction with a healthy dose of reality based reasoning. In my case, I’ve always stated that any potential candidate ought to stake out three strong “libertarian” issues and run the protest candidacy that is possible. Am I weak? Perhaps, but I have renounced my SS benefits, unlike even some of my most ardent “Iibertarian” colleagues. Flaying on all levels seems so pedestrian no matter who you identify with. Take Kirsten Gillibrand for instance.

    So, now that we know that “lessarchy” has a root in “peace”. Let’s explore that movement’s (ie. The true Lesserarchists) relationship to 1.) the electorate 2.) The LP 3.) the dreaded NAP-ists. 4.) Current membership numbers 5.) a broader definition and specific corollaries (?) – seems like it will get a bit cringe worthy at that point – but let’s try for the sake of saving IPR.

    Of course my time is limited as Paulie might be able to attest to, having visited my tumultuous world last summer, but I did say I’d come out and play a bit in the July thread.

    Good for Amash, btw. But a John Anderson type of effort none the less. You still end up with war mongering, debt addicted morons in the house that is white and over on the Hill. I do agree with RC on the Tulsi kudos. At least stop the interventions and argue about bridges and cheap insulin from Canada is a good start.

    Nothing I’d vote for . . . but still I’m out of politics and happy to entertain the apocalypse when it starts. Protein and water, being the top priority. Probably find me in Boston Corners in the Taconic Hills if you’d like to share some stale coffee over a campfire and talk about the history of Columbia County. I recommend John L. Brooke book, “Columbia Rising – Civil Life on the Hudson from the Revolution to the Age of Jackson” before setting out to find me.

    If I did get back into the game, it would be bare knuckles, throat warbling, media defying hot shite that burned a path into each consciousness that could be potentially affected. Seems like any Shining Path could also do that without being stuck poo-pooing a NAP-Chimera in luke warm rhetoric. Shrug. But man, I’m busy this summer . . . no sigs to collect though.

  16. dL

    If one does a search for “lessarchy” nothing comes up.

    No, a random screed against Bryan Caplan circa 2008 appears. Unfortunately, it appears that Bob’s budding movement has since been expropriated by a gang of Napist eyebrow cosmetic surgeons.

  17. dL

    For the record, the only “Knappist” I know of is me. My preferred designation is “KN@PPSTERist,” though, and I have established a KN@PPSTER Caucus. Here’s our first communique.

    NapsterNotKn@ppsterBeforePivotingToNapistNotKnappist

  18. robert capozzi

    es,

    As far as I know, I coined both NAPism and lessarchism. NAPism is a (probably a tiny) subset of lessarchism. If the terms don’t work for you, don’t use them! 😉 I’ve used the term in forums other than IPR, and it seems that other Ls comprehend my meaning. It seems a useful short-hand, which is all language is, anyway.

    Have you never coined a word that helps you understand your world a bit better? Many do so, in my experience.

    Yes, I recognize that NAPism has many flavors. But I use the term to describe the political philosophies of those who dwell mostly on the construct of the NAP. They tend to focus on their desired end-state, i.e., a world without coercive government. They seem less interested in undoing the government in ways that are palatable and ripe. Importantly, they usually ascribe to a “no particular order” approach to politics, although not all NAPists do so.

    While I was once a NAPist, I was willing to question the natural-law assumptions that NAPism is based on. NAPists tend believe individual liberty is the only real and meaningful basis for political expression. As a lessarchist, I still appreciate the goal of maximizing individual liberty, for me PEACE is the more valuable normative goal, particularly in the short to intermediate term.

    Lessarchists (including myself) focus more on direction; NAPists tend to have more focus on destination.

  19. TomP

    I don’t comment on here often, but I thought this would be a good place to communicate an issue with Richard Winger’s Blog, ‘Ballot Access News.’ The past two days, when I’ve attempted to check that blog for news stories, I was taken directly to a log in prompt, indicating I needed to be a member to review the content on that website? Is this a glitch, or was this designed to limit access? Given the quality of some comments on that website, I’d understand why Richard would want to limit access, but I’m not sure this is what’s going on?

    Just thought I would comment on this to see if others are having this issue, or if anything is known about it. I wanted to re-read the opinion of the Arkansas District Court that enjoined Arkansas’s terrible new ballot access law.

  20. dL

    Just thought I would comment on this to see if others are having this issue

    It’s a basic authentication prompt, which would not be part of the WP membership system. .htaccess file configuration issue

  21. NewFederalist

    I would like to see a Tulsi Gabbard/Justin Amash LP ticket. In that order BTW. Gabbard is a fool and Amash is a liar so that should be the order.

  22. Tony From Long Island

    dL ” . . . . .Bernie Sanders was not in line with Bill Clinton’s democratic party machine at the time. Dem candidates did run against Sanders, it’s just that said Dem candidates didn’t get any support from the DNC. . . . . ”

    Dude? Really? Bill Clinton??

    When Bernie was in the house (during The Clinton administration) there were DEM candidates against him (though not EVERY time).

    Since he has been in the senate (since 2006) there have not been any. You’re talking about 25 years ago. Shouldn’t you be focused on right now?

  23. Gene Berkman

    A better term than “lessarchism” is “monarchism” coined in the 1970s probably by Sam Konkin. If you google “monarchism” you will probably get something. I just googled “monarchism” and got 196,000 hits.

  24. paulie

    I’m OK with lessarchist, actually. I want to move government to be smaller by degrees until it’s either all gone, so small and weak that practically no one has to worry about it, or something along those lines. As long as the direction of travel for less government exists, and people agree that’s where it needs to go, I’m all good.

  25. dL

    A better term than “lessarchism” is “monarchism” coined in the 1970s probably by Sam Konkin. If you google “monarchism” you will probably get something. I just googled “monarchism” and got 196,000 hits.

    Konkin coined the term “minarchist.” The etymology of the term monarch is middle english, originally derived from the Greek. No one coined it. However, Hans Hoppe is noted for preferring monarchy to liberal democracy.

    Ostensibly, lessarchy refers to directional liberty. However, many of Bob’s views are not libertarian, so it is unclear what direction one is actually pointing to. In practice, directional liberty–libertarian leaning, libertarian flavored–is just a trailing indicator for today’s authoritarianism.

  26. dL

    I want to move government to be smaller by degrees

    “libertarian leaning” is an euphemism for bend over. Incremental decrease of government is not how the state works. At best, it’s one step forward, two steps back. And any progress is not advanced by mealy-mouthed moderates. It begins at the margins.

  27. dL

    Gabbard is a fool and Amash is a liar so that should be the order.

    I would think it would be the other way around, Gabbard the liar, Amash the fool

  28. paulie

    It begins at the margins.

    That’s incremental. Non-incremental wouldn’t have a beginning, it would happen all at once. The state works much like other types of change by s-curve change graphs. The pace of change increases, then decreases after cresting of the rate of change. For example, glasnost and perestroika began as mere reforms of the Soviet state, then spun out of the intended range and brought the Soviet bloc down. To take another example, cannabis laws began to change very slowly with a few medical cannabis states. then those expanded ever more rapidly, then recreational in some states, and now some cities are starting to decriminalize natutal psychedelics. There are many other examples. Think of it in terms of blades of grass cracking through a sidewalk or water cracking through a dam.

  29. paulie

    just a trailing indicator for today’s authoritarianism.

    If you look at from the pessimistic side yes. But also in practice change does not start from a blank slate and we are not ever – and certainly not soon – likely to have undivided supermajority control of all branches and levels of government. We have to start from wherever we are, and that place in practice is getting better on some issues and worse on others. Even if we were to grant that it would start as a trailing indicator for authoritarianism, momentum could still grow past the momentum rate of authoritarianism over time, eventually reversing that direction.

  30. Jim

    Bernie Sanders has either faced a Democratic opponent in the general or won the Democratic primary IN EVERY SINGLE ELECTION that he has been in, with the possible exception of a mayoral campaign (I didn’t check two of them.) In the elections for US House and US Senate where Sanders did not have a Democratic opponent in the general election, it was because Sanders won the Democratic primary and then proceeded to resign, so he would only appear on the ballot as an independent. The Democratic Party, figuring that Sanders won their primary and was the top choice of Democratic voters, opted not to replace him with another candidate after he resigned. Bernie has won the Democratic Primary and then resigned 6 times now, including all three times he won US Senate elections.

    Sanders did have a Democratic opponent in his first election for Mayor, but not a Republican opponent. His Democratic opponent in that first Mayoral election was the preferred choice of the Republicans. Bernie ran to the left of the “Republican with a D next to his name” in a town that was overwhelmingly Democratic. That is how Bernie became Mayor.

    Bernie used that Mayoral position to build up his name recognition and reputation in the state. Prior to being elected Mayor, Bernie ran twice for US Senate and twice for Governor. He got mid to low single digits each time. After his 3rd Mayoral term, he ran for Governor again, this time getting 14%. In the following election, after his 4th term as Mayor, Bernie ran for US House and finished ahead of the Democrat, but losing to the Republican. The Democrat and Bernie combined far exceeded the Republican vote. It became obvious that, in that district, Bernie was stronger than the Democratic Party, and he wasn’t going away. The Democratic Party played the role of spoiler, when he was in the race. The Democratic base knew it. And in the following election they voted for Bernie, rather than the Democrat. And that is how Bernie was elected to the US House.

    All this stuff about how the Democrats declined to run a candidate against Bernie, (later amended to say that they ran candidates, but didn’t get support from the DNC), is bull.

    Sanders ran to the left of a right-leaning Democrat (with no Republican opponent) in a left leaning town to get elected Mayor, then leveraged that position to build his reputation to the point where his personal brand was stronger than the Democratic party in a left leaning state. In elections where he doesn’t want the general election to be close, he runs in the Democratic primary, wins it, and then resigns to assure he has no Democratic opposition in the general. That is the Sanders model.

  31. robert capozzi

    pf: Even if we were to grant that it would start as a trailing indicator for authoritarianism, momentum could still grow past the momentum rate of authoritarianism over time, eventually reversing that direction.

    me: Very well put. I coined “lessarchism” because I find the minarchist/anarchist divide among Ls unhelpful, and because neither term describes me. Is the ideal destination stateless or a nightwatchman state? Dunno, and I find it arrogant for anyone to really say with any kind of certainty. To the extent I consider such things way off in the future, you may recall that, in the long run, I advocate for a theoretical, asymptotic anarchism, and for now I’m an applied lessarchist, or TAAAList.

    I also find no-particular-orderism to be especially dysfunctional from a practical politics perspective. Not one line item in the federal budget can increase $1 is, for me, a silly stance. I might vote for a $1 increase in the line item to increase the food going to the “kids in cages on the border,” for ex., even if I believed that ultimately, as many NAPists do, there should be no borders. (In my case, I think there should be a border for the time being, that immigration rules are too strict, but that there should be some checks to ensure that the taxpayers should not be further burdened by a precipitous influx of tax consumers and potential threats to domestic tranquility.)

    The $1 increase in the line to feed the kids in cages should be, at minimum, offset by at least a $1 decrease in another line item.

    Should there be no cages? Even if a subset of the kids are rented props or worse? At the moment, I don’t have a clean, unswerving position, other than I don’t believe that a no-borders stance is viable and a closed-border stance is Draconian and equally unviable. The sweet spot is somewhere in the middle.

    I plead gulty to nuance, flexibility, and reasonableness. Dogmatic NAPists often find such thinking “unprincipled,” even threatening. Feels like a sad place to be to me.

  32. dL

    All this stuff about how the Democrats declined to run a candidate against Bernie, (later amended to say that they ran candidates, but didn’t get support from the DNC), is bull.

    I wrote “declined to field a candidate” which meant a candidate with state and national party support. A clarification, not an amendment. Obviously, the Dem party can’t stop individuals from running on their own.
    It is pretty to easy to verify that the Dems cleared the field for Sanders vis a vis his senate elections. It’s a little harder to confirm with specific google searches this for his congressional runs in the 90s. E.g, Dolores Sandoval, 1990

    https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/07/us/the-1990-elections-the-message-vermont-socialist-ex-mayor-elected-to-house.html

    In this election, Dolores Sandoval, the Democratic candidate, was not supported by any of the state’s major Democratic figures, including the Governor, Madeleine Kunin, and she did not make a dent in Mr. Sanders’s tally.

    Jack Long, 1996
    https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1996-07-09-9607080852-story.html

    The only independent member of Congress is getting to look so much like a Democrat that many of Vermont’s Democrats are backing him instead of one of their own. Rep. Bernie Sanders, the 55-year-old self-described Democratic Socialist who campaigned at a senior citizens center Monday, has the support of 25 prominent Vermont Democrats, who fear their declared candidate, Jack Long, will actually give the election to a Republican.

    In elections where he doesn’t want the general election to be close, he runs in the Democratic primary, wins it, and then resigns to assure he has no Democratic opposition in the general. That is the Sanders model.

    Sanders was always a write-in candidate in the Dem primaries. Based on the numbers, his write-in candidacies only won when there was sparse primary turnout. if turnout was heavy, he got creamed. Thus, I conclude that Sanders never actively campaigned for the democratic primary. His write-in candidacy lost whenever some random democrat actually bothered to run. He only won when the other candidates were write-ins, too.

    DEM PRIMARIES
    —————————-
    1990
    Dolores Sandoval 5,979 41.3%
    Bernie Sanders (write-in) 2,005 13.8%

    1996
    Jack Long 9,291 68.0%
    Bernie Sanders (write-in) 4,037 29.5%

    2000
    Peter Diamondstone 20,539 90.9%
    Bernie Sanders (write-in) 1,337 5.9%

    2004
    Larry Drown 14,870 86.1%
    Bernie Sanders (write-in) 1,878 10.9%

    2000 and 2004 saw a huge spike in voter turnout for the Dem primary, and Sanders write-in tallies were crushed. In the general election, those same democratic candidates got low single digits because they were not supported by the party apparatus. The only time Sanders was in danger of losing the general election was the Gingrich 1994 wave. That year, no one of the democratic side even bothered to run. You’re insistence on the Sanders model is not correct.

  33. dL

    s-curve change graphs

    trig sinusoidal relationship between x and y? I ain’t seeing that. One step forwards, two steps back would be a discreet function. For example, pot legalization would be a step forward. A crackdown on prescription pills, chronic pain and the DEA becoming the de facto central planner of the pharmaceutical industry would be 2-steps back.

    Pot is the easiest damn drug to get, prohibition or not. On the other hand, a prescription pills crackdown has a profound effect on availability(white and black markets) and introduces dubious street market drugs as substitutes. I would also note you are not out of the woods yet when it comes to rolling marijuana into DWI laws. If you are a regular smoker, fat soluble THC is always in your system. Hooray!, pot is legal, but if you use it, you can no longer drive because a piss test would always incriminate you as under the influence.

  34. dL

    If you look at from the pessimistic side yes.

    I’m looking at the outcomes of centrism, moderate libertarianism realistically. However, I’m not saying do nothing until that glorious day of a radical supermajority. First, that day will never come. Secondly, collective action is dominated by the minority. Supermajorities aren’t required. Build/Join coalitions on a position by position basis rather than fashioning watered-down big tents.

  35. dL

    I coined “lessarchism” because I find the minarchist/anarchist divide among Ls unhelpful,

    lol. I’m sorry you find the reality of the LP unhelpful. You may not wish it were so, but that’s what it is. You can fantasize about some republican reject ushering in some mass infusion of suburbanite conservatives to take over the LP platform committee and rewrite the SoP according to what you think it should say, but it ain’t happening. Personally, I would think one have a bit more fanciful fantasy life beyond the bureaucratic capture of the LP platform.

  36. Jim

    dL “I wrote “declined to field a candidate” which meant a candidate with state and national party support. A clarification, not an amendment. Obviously, the Dem party can’t stop individuals from running on their own.”

    The amendment, not clarification, was needed because what you wrote was demonstrably wrong.

    dL “Yeah, well, just manage to find some elections where the one of the two major parties don’t run a candidate. That’s how Sanders got elected every time. When he got elected Mayor, the democrats didn’t run a candidate. The first time he ran for congress, he lost in a 3 way race. The second time he ran, the Dems didn’t field a candidate, and he won.”

    That’s what you originally wrote. It was the Republicans, not the Democrats, that didn’t field a candidate when Sanders ran for Mayor the first time. The Democrats did field a candidate the second time. And unmentioned, but very relevant, is that the first time Sanders ran for US House and lost – he finished ahead of the Democrat. That is important. That is what made him flip from being a spoiler candidate to the Democratic party being the spoiler. You provided evidence that supports that position in your Orlando Sentinel quote:

    Orlando Sentinel “Sanders… has the support of 25 prominent Vermont Democrats, who fear their declared candidate, Jack Long, will actually give the election to a Republican.”

    That is what happened in 1988. That is why, ever since, Sanders has had the support of both the Democratic base and the state party. That is why the Democratic base nominates him (when he has equal ballot access footing: write-in vs write-in.) That is why the Democratic Party opts to not replace him on the ballot when he resigns the position.

    dL “Bernie Sanders was not in line with Bill Clinton’s democratic party machine at the time. Dem candidates did run against Sanders, it’s just that said Dem candidates didn’t get any support from the DNC.”

    Sanders was not in line with Clinton’s Democratic party…. but the Democratic party wasn’t providing support for Democratic candidate’s either. Why wouldn’t the DNC provide support for Democratic candidates, if they didn’t like Sanders? Because they knew doing so would throw the election to the Republicans and Sanders was acceptable because he was caucusing with the Democrats.

    dL “It is pretty to easy to verify that the Dems cleared the field for Sanders vis a vis his senate elections. It’s a little harder to confirm with specific google searches this for his congressional runs in the 90s. E.g, Dolores Sandoval, 1990” “In this election, Dolores Sandoval, the Democratic candidate, was not supported by any of the state’s major Democratic figures, including the Governor, Madeleine Kunin, and she did not make a dent in Mr. Sanders’s tally.”

    Sanders had already proven that he was stronger than the Democratic party at that point. He did that 2 years earlier, in 1988, when he beat the Democrat, but threw the election to the Republican.

    dL “His write-in candidacy lost whenever some random democrat actually bothered to run. He only won when the other candidates were write-ins, too.”

    He won when he was on equal footing. It’s obviously much more difficult to win as a write in when the other candidate’s name is on the ballot.

    dL “You’re insistence on the Sanders model is not correct.”

    My explanation accounts for both how Sanders beat the Democrat in 1988 and why he won in 1990. Your version – that the DNC didn’t like Sanders but for some reason withheld support from Democratic candidates while the state party did like him and so also withheld support from Democratic candidates – seems rather limited in its explanatory power.

  37. Eric Sundwall

    Yeah. I guess I don’t recognize some forum banter as the quality assurance of a peer review journal or even a launching point of meaningful discourse, let a lone to be treated as serious movements or dissertations . “NAPism” or “lessarchy” have no real meaning beyond RC’s twisted, ubiquitous algorithm. So, in person, I’d laugh and say “good luck” dude. Any functional corollaries or derived generalities about such terms or people (specifics would help) are quite ludicrous. Until I see at least a TEDx talk on the matter I can’t consider it as meaningful.

    The “Ideological Process” might be more useful in understanding an other’s position and what might be done about. Making a deeper case that most “statists” and many “anarchists” are the same in terms of this process might provide greater insight. Most offerings of ideology front a historical perspective that justifies conclusions that require action, in a nutshell. So saying that one is more concerned about destination rather than process, still amounts to the same application of the “Shining Path”. Perhaps equally absurd from the simple perspective that the state is not morally justified. Perhaps the only “action” required is the recognition of the absurdity of the State. No weapons, no vote, no consensus, no problem . . . until you start to apply your Shining Path as the universal standard. That’s when it stops being peaceful, when the line is drawn in the sandbox. It’s like an atheist talking to a Priest, the burden of proof is on the Priest.

    Peeling off the pond scum of ideology in favor of proper reckoning about the state is a gestalt pivot that is hard to grok. Accepting the necessity of Shining Path may amount to rejecting an Agorism of sorts, but it shouldn’t preclude activism in terms of those who decry the harm of the state. Simply protesting that harm without a fervent dependence on electoral “success” is something that these chimera descriptors could have in common without getting all cranked at each other. Tweaking the membership and or waiting for the “moment”, strikes me as silly and desperate. A waste of otherwise valuable time. No caucus required.

    Understanding that the American System of Single Plurality districts is some something that myself and folks like Bill Redpath can share without having to have a discussion about whether taxation is theft, and makes the LP a place where the Dallas Accord makes sense. Hence my own activities in the simple arena of ballot access without the shrill Vora or Kokesh style that I think RC is reacting to in such a milquetoast manner.

    The constant hammering about the two terms is more the issue than any desire to understand or use them. They are simply not relevant, mindful or interesting IMHO. Shrug. Man, I could have finished the lawn in the time it takes to hack this crap out . . .

  38. robert capozzi

    ES,

    “Relevance,” like most things in this Great Simulation, is in the eye of the beholder.

    Here’s a way of thinking of this subject: I’m a former member of both the Catholic Church and the LP. Both institutions have elements to them that I admire. IMO, though, both have blindspots that make them far less effective in my view. The Church was in denial and remains largely in denial about, for ex., its pedophile problem. The LP’s problem is a dogmatic and rigid adherence to the NAP, aka, NAPism.

    fwiw, from what I’ve seen of Kokesh, he doesn’t strike me as “shrill.” He actually seems to be a bit of a happy warrior who enjoys taking extremist positions in public.

  39. dL

    The amendment, not clarification, was needed because what you wrote was demonstrably wrong.

    Jim, the democratic party can’t out a gun to people’s heads and tell them not to run. But when neither the state part nor the national party supports the nominee, it’s clear the party is not fielding a candidate. The only thing demonstratively wrong in this thread vis a vis “the Sanders Model” is your claim that Sanders would run in the primary as a democrat and then resign to assure he had no Democratic opposition in the general. I can’t find any substantiation for that. AFAIK, Sanders never registered as democrat to run in the Vermont democratic primaries. He was always a write in candidate. Whenever some random democrat actually put their name on the ballot, Sanders write-in votes lost badly in the democratic primary. Those are the facts.

    I’m not a Sanders scholar, nor am I connoisseur of Vermont 1980s/1990s politics. And I’m guessing neither are you. You’re sudden expertise on the motivations of the Vermont state democratic party circa the 1990s is belied by the fact that you continue to confuse Sander’s party registration flip flop in 2016 in order to run for the Democratic POTUS nomination with how Sanders operated while running for congress.

    That is why, ever since, Sanders has had the support of both the Democratic base and the state party. That is why the Democratic base nominates him (when he has equal ballot access footing: write-in vs write-in.) That is why the Democratic Party opts to not replace him on the ballot when he resigns the position.

    AFAIK, Sanders was always an independent. If he had actually had been doing the party flip flop as you claim, he would have appeared on the Democratic primary ballot as a candidate. Not as a write-in.

  40. dL

    Understanding that the American System of Single Plurality districts

    Yes, this scientifically guarantees a two-party system, relegating any third party to minor status. With few exceptions. Anyone selling watering down the message in order to achieve parity with the two major parties is pimping snake oil.

    The Sanders Model being discussed in this thread is one such exception. However, Sanders is an independent. If he had aligned himself with, say, the Green Party, the democratic party almost assuredly would have taken him on.

  41. robert capozzi

    Non-NAPist lessarchism is NOT “watered down” no-particular-orderist NAPism. It’s similar, in that both approaches advocate for smaller government, but different, in that the former takes into account more factors than just the NAP.

  42. Jared

    I basically agree with Bob’s lessarchism (asymptotic anarchism) as a destination-agnostic philosophy, but I wouldn’t call go so far as to call it a movement. I can see it appealing to open-minded consequentialist anarchists in the vein of David D. Friedman. While I’m pessimistic about the prospects of a stable, libertarian, fully stateless society, I think we should push the private sector’s capacity to supply public goods–including those provisions typically reserved to a night-watchman state–to the limit, relying heavily on counter-economics.

  43. dL

    I basically agree with Bob’s lessarchism (asymptotic anarchism) as a destination-agnostic philosophy, but I wouldn’t call go so far as to call it a movement.

    Neither would I, for the simple fact no one knows what in the hell “a destination-agnostic philosophy” means.

    I think we should push the private sector’s capacity to supply public goods

    By definition, so-called non-excludable, non -rivalrous public goods cannot be provided by “the private sector.”

  44. Thomas Knapp

    If “lessarchy” meant something like “less government” or “fewer rules” or whatever, it might be a useful term.

    However, as a Cappozi-ism what it actually seems to mean is that RC believes

    1) Aggression can be quantified in commensurable units such that it’s possible to know how many broken windows equals how many rapes equals how many murders equals how many thefts of $X;

    2) That these units can then be traded in a non-zero-sum fashion to “reduce net aggression;” that

    3) The balance of these units constitutes a second type of calculable factor, “domestic tranquility,” which can be optimized by such trading; and that therefore

    4) Those who oppose aggression both in principle and in specific instances instead of trying to trade it like a commodity are are “abolitionists” who would refuse to trade 95 cents worth of permitted window-breaking for elimination of a dollar’s worth of rape, resulting in a sub-optimal societal “domestic tranquility” fund.

    Which is an interesting fantasy both as a whole and in each of its parts, but not terribly useful except possibly as the background world for a novel set in an alternate universe.

  45. Thomas Knapp

    “By definition, so-called non-excludable, non -rivalrous public goods cannot be provided by ‘the private sector.'”

    Sure they can. It’s possible that in some cases they can’t be provided profitably (due to “free riders” taking advantage of the non-excludability), but that’s a different question.

  46. robert capozzi

    j,

    i’ve not suggested that lessarchism is a “movement.” Most lessarchists, however, seem to recognize that general principles must be tested against whether they stand a chance to be consequential when advocating for a change in public policy. NAPists — especially no-particular-orderist ones (NPO) — are playing a one-dimensionalist game of moral theory. Now, to be fair to them, even NPO NAPists don’t lead with their destinational fever dreams. By all indications, however, the specific destination is what animates them.

    This leads to the Cantwells, the Vohras, and the Kokeshes. Their “macho flash” approach tends to alienate all but the truest Believers, and it stigmatizes the rest of the vaguely lesserchist universe.

    As a rough rule of thumb, I’ve suggested a 5-year rule: Don’t advocate for Position X unless it could plausibly be enacted in the next 5 years. Anything beyond that time horizon is not politics, it’s speculative theorizing, which is fine, but purely an academic exercise. In politics, stick to the ripe and ripening issues.

    And, thanks, “destination-agnostic” is a helpful way of putting it.

  47. robert capozzi

    tk: 1) Aggression can be quantified in commensurable units such that it’s possible to know how many broken windows equals how many rapes equals how many murders equals how many thefts of $X;

    me: Not really so. For the most part, some coercive policies are roughly approximate-able and some are almost entirely subjective. Some issues that are ripe or ripening are easily discerned and others less so. What can be sold in a political context definitely is an art.

    I am a lesserchist. As are you. As is, near as I can tell, JA. I disagree with both of you sometimes.

  48. dL

    Sure they can. It’s possible that in some cases they can’t be provided profitably (due to “free riders” taking advantage of the non-excludability), but that’s a different question.

    Note, the “so-called” qualifier. There are very few, if any, so-called “public goods.” Your billboard example would not be a non-excludable, non -rivalrous demonstration. The billboard owner is most certainly selling ad space as excludable and rivalrous. If an add is sold, the billboard space is occupied with that ad. The billboard owner can exclude others from placing an ad on that billboard. That anyone can eyeball the ad is what advertising is. But they are eyeballing an advertisement from XYZ company and not XYZ’s competitor, ABC.

    “Public goods” provided by the private sector is just conservative privatization crap trap. Privatize the state, i.e, political rent-seeking, is not libertarianism.

  49. dL

    As a rough rule of thumb, I’ve suggested a 5-year rule:

    You have no idea what will be “politically viable” 5 years from now. That’s like saying only buy stocks that will be higher in price 5 years from now. Plus, I’m not aware of any time you have actually used this “5 year rule” to promote any expanded liberties. You have only used it to shoot down any expanded liberty under the pretext of “wouldn’t be prudent at this juncture.”

  50. dL

    This leads to the Cantwells

    Conservatism, not radical libertarianism, is the root of the Cantwell’s and the Molyneux’s. The views of Cantwell and Molyneux are part and parcel with mainstream conservatism. Radical libertarianism does not result in everyone eventually moving over to mainstream conservatism.

  51. Thomas Knapp

    “Your billboard example would not be a non-excludable, non -rivalrous demonstration.”

    The billboard is not the good in question. The message on it is.

    If the message is “BUY NIKE SNEAKERS AT FOOT LOCKER,” some people may well take the “BUY NIKE SNEAKERS” part to heart but buy those sneakers at another store instead. That other store is “free riding” on Foot Locker’s advertising expenditure. The message is both non-rivalrous (its existence does not deprive others of the good — information) and non-excludable (Foot Locker can’t prevent people from going to other stores for the advertised product).

    And in fact, just such things HAVE been treated as “public goods” — e.g. the Dairy Council getting the government to force all dairy farmers to fund advertising for dairy.

  52. dL

    some people may well take

    That’s a different economic problem. Predictive data analytics. Conversions. Brand awareness/loyalty. Trust me, there is an entire industry devoted to economically maximizing those things. However, if an advertisement for brand X selling product Y was just as much a free-rider ad for brand Z selling Y, then no one would advertise.

  53. paulie

    I basically agree with Bob’s lessarchism (asymptotic anarchism) as a destination-agnostic philosophy, but I wouldn’t call go so far as to call it a movement.

    To be a movement it would have to have people who self-identify that way. Capozzi does, and I can answer to that description, but generally only when he brings it up; I have no particular interest in trying to popularize it. If lessarchists don’t generally call themselves that, what do they usually call themselves or get called by others? How about “NAPists”? If there are no people who call themselves that, and no other term they generally use to describe themselves but not other people who are not part of their alleged movement and/or is widely used by others to describe them, how can they be a movement?

    Capozzi has referred to stylistic marxism lately, but I don’t remember if he ever defined it. Here’s my take of some common elements of Marxists in style and practice:

    -They love to invent acronyms and commonly use terms which are their own invention and not in common use

    -They have a theory about something that is holding us back from the promised land or its nontheistic equivalent

    -The story has a villain or villains

    -All facts are analyzed in terms of that narrative (ie when you are a hammer every problem is a nail, or everything starts to look like a nail, etc)

    -Real world data is either irrelevant, or only relevant when it confirms the theory. If any aspect of it does, other aspects which don’t are ignored. If it doesn’t, it’s ignored or waved away as being of no consequence.

    -Constant repetition is key. Responses may be addressed but the narrative never changes.

    -There’s often a tale of personal failure or fault in the past, followed by redemption, and an offer to help guide everyone else to the alleged light.

    Am I correct in identifying these as common stylistic elements of Marxism? Who here displays these elements most completely and unvariably? What are some other elements of stylistic Marxism?

  54. Thomas Knapp

    “However, if an advertisement for brand X selling product Y was just as much a free-rider ad for brand Z selling Y, then no one would advertise.”

    True — and irrelevant.

    All so-called “public goods” have markets comprising 1) people who want those goods and are willing to pay for them and 2) people who want those goods but aren’t willing to pay for them.

    The arguments for measures to reduce “free ridership” aren’t “if we don’t force everyone to pay for this, no one will buy it.”

    They are “if we don’t force everyone to pay for this, enough people will decline to buy it that less of it will be produced” (coupled with a claim that the good is needed by everyone whether they realize it or not and that those who benefit from it should therefore have to pay for it whether they want it or not).

    One classic example offered of a “public good” is “national defense.”

    If the Pentagon had to persuade people to pay for the F-35 and the Ford class aircraft carrier instead of just forcing everyone to pay for it, some people would write checks — and other people wouldn’t.

    But the argument is that everyone within the “security umbrella” these expenditures supposedly create would supposedly benefit from those expenditures, and if the Air Force can only afford 3 F-35s and one carrier instead of 10 F-35s and three carriers, everyone — including those who contributed — would benefit less.

    The thing is, whether or not I “benefit” from it is a matter of subjective valuation. Maybe I would LIKE the area I live in to be annexed by Bermuda and forcing me to pay for those F-35s and carriers is actually nullifying, not effecting, my preferences.

    When shoe store A advertises shoe brand B, they know that some people are going to drive past the billboard, think “yeah, I need a pair of shoes,” then go to shoe store C and buy brand D. They respond to that in two ways:

    1) Sucking it up and deciding that the portion of people the billboard sends to their store for that brand is sufficient to make the advertising profitable even WITH the “free riding” of other stores and other brands; and

    2) Looking for ways to target their advertising better so that it does a better job of directing viewers to their store and that brand (e.g. Internet advertising to their own past customers, past buyers of that brand, with just people who have been searching for shoes as a market that may not be AS profitable, but will produce SOME customers).

    If they wanted to treat that advertising as a “public good,” what they’d end up with is a tax on all shoe makers and shoe sellers for the purpose of putting up GOT SHOES? billboards, or perhaps just directly delivering a random pair of shoes to each taxpayer without regard to whether that taxpayer wants shoes, likes the brand, or gets the size that fits.

  55. dL

    True — and irrelevant.

    Tom, I’m not sure where you got the notion that I ascribe to the economic concept of “public goods” that originated with Paul Samuelson. I don’t. I take no issue with your example of national defense. I only took issue with your contention that advertising eyeballs was an example of a non-excludable, non-rivalrous good.

  56. robert capozzi

    pf,

    The single biggest commonality between Marxists and NAPists is that they leave no room for the possibility that they are incorrect and that those who don’t share their worldview are “wrong.” I’ve changed my views often, though my political views have always been lessarchist.

    I’m quite open to alternative taxonomies so long as they work.

  57. robert capozzi

    PF,

    Also, I have no problem with using empirical tools in the search for truth. Is there a mathematical “proof” for the NAP?

  58. Thomas Knapp

    The NAP is neither “empirical” nor an instrument for finding “truth.” It’s a constraint principle (“anything is fine as long as it doesn’t include X”) that many people consider reasonable and some consider central and/or non-negotiable.

    There’s nothing special about it in that respect. Most people choose constraints (“torture isn’t acceptable as an interrogation method,” “execution isn’t acceptable as a criminal sentence,” etc.) vis a vis policy, some of them consider any given constraint central, and some consider their chosen constraint non-negotiable.

    The NAP is slightly more universal in application than some, but not all, constraints found in political and policy discussions.

  59. paulie

    Also, I have no problem with using empirical tools in the search for truth. Is there a mathematical “proof” for the NAP?

    There’s logical and historical and real world evidence aplenty, as I discovered by reading all the books in the Further Reading appendix of Libertarianism in One Lesson in 1002-4 and lots of study since. But it’s not my focus now. I’d rather point to it as a north star, start off or course correct in that direction and see what happens.

    I was talking more about empirical evidence of electoral systems, alt parties over a number of decades, LP relative indicators and things of that nature. We’ve been over them all many times.

  60. paulie

    I basically agree with Bob’s lessarchism (asymptotic anarchism) as a destination-agnostic philosophy, but I wouldn’t call go so far as to call it a movement. I can see it appealing to open-minded consequentialist anarchists in the vein of David D. Friedman. While I’m pessimistic about the prospects of a stable, libertarian, fully stateless society, I think we should push the private sector’s capacity to supply public goods–including those provisions typically reserved to a night-watchman state–to the limit, relying heavily on counter-economics.

    Whoop, there it is. Other than the pessimism.

  61. paulie

    It’s similar, in that both approaches advocate for smaller government

    Yes, but one calls for much less government, at least in the long run, or perhaps none at least of a coerced monopoly type. From a directional standpoint one is watered down from the other in how far they envision likely going. There’s an overlap among those of us who are incrementalist extremists.

  62. paulie

    However, I’m not saying do nothing until that glorious day of a radical supermajority. First, that day will never come. Secondly, collective action is dominated by the minority. Supermajorities aren’t required. Build/Join coalitions on a position by position basis rather than fashioning watered-down big tents.

    Yep. LP just as the hub of those spokes.

  63. paulie

    trig sinusoidal relationship between x and y? I ain’t seeing that. One step forwards, two steps back would be a discreet function.

    Those were just examples of general ways change happens. Evolutionary, geologic, what have you. Water dam bursting. Grass cracking a sidewalk. Time frames vary.

    Pot is the easiest damn drug to get, prohibition or not.

    Other drugs are easy to get too, yet prohibition ruins oh so many lives in so many different ways.

    If you are a regular smoker, fat soluble THC is always in your system. Hooray!, pot is legal, but if you use it, you can no longer drive because a piss test would always incriminate you as under the influence.

    Rideshares are spreading and driverless cars may be coming.

  64. paulie

    Or hovercraft, or something. Jetpacks, electric skateboards, all sorts of fun stuff. But less and less reason to ever go anywhere.

  65. paulie

    I also find no-particular-orderism to be especially dysfunctional from a practical politics perspective. Not one line item in the federal budget can increase $1 is, for me, a silly stance. I might vote for a $1 increase in the line item to increase the food going to the “kids in cages on the border,” for ex., even if I believed that ultimately, as many NAPists do, there should be no borders.

    That’s not my understanding of NPO. To me NPO is rejecting things like the “no open borders before no welfare” crap. or “no ending welfare before ending occupational licensing laws” or “no ending occupational licensing laws before ending medicaid and medicare” etc etc. Basically not holding one policy hostage to another, which becomes an endless loop.

    be some checks to ensure that the taxpayers should not be further burdened by a precipitous influx of tax consumers and potential threats to domestic tranquility.

    Birth control of a non-voluntary sort, or forced sterilization would be more the issue with that one than border control…but you probably wouldn’t follow that nasty little rabbit hole, would you? Immigration control shouldn’t be any more acceptable.

    Should there be no cages?

    Yeah, no concentration camps, no child prisons. Shouldn’t be a hard question among regular folks, much less libertarians. Shheesh.

    Even if a subset of the kids are rented props or worse?

    FFS. They are fleeing horrific violence, economic collapse and environmental destruction in their countries caused by US intervention. Many are being sent by desperate parents deathly afraid of what will happen to them otherwise. Rented props?!

    Besides…kids in cages…that should be a no right there. Anything after that is gums flapping in the breeze.

    I plead guilty to nuance, flexibility, and reasonableness.

    Then why do you come off so often and to so many as Captain Ahab chasing 88 twentysomething whales?

  66. dL

    Other drugs are easy to get too,

    pills are a lot harder to get now with the surveillance tracking

  67. dL

    be some checks to ensure that the taxpayers should not be further burdened by a precipitous influx of tax consumers and potential threats to domestic tranquility.

    That’s the Hans Hoppe bullshit. Same positions taken by Cantwell and Molyneaux. It doesn’t matter much to me whether one defends that garbage with a white genocide screed or “doesn’t meet the criteria of the 5-year plan.” Same outcome.

    Should there be no cages?

    Ending the concentration camps doesn’t meet the 5-year plan criteria, either.

    Directional liberty, indeed.

  68. dL

    The NAP is neither “empirical” nor an instrument for finding “truth.” It’s a constraint principle

    Precisely. It’s a moral constraint on what others may or may not do to you. Perhaps Bob is confused because of the Randian prescription that one can only rationally/consistently arrive at this moral constraint by way of Objectivist philosophy.

  69. paulie

    pills are a lot harder to get now with the surveillance tracking

    Other drugs in the same classes then. Illegal labs are less likely to have pill presses or to find that to be the best format for them. But you can get opiates, stimulants, psychedelics, all with little effort most places. Not sure about benzos, the are not my thing for quite a while now.

  70. robert capozzi

    pf: Then why do you come off so often and to so many as Captain Ahab chasing 88 twentysomething whales?

    me: Because it’s the root of the problem. This is a putatively “radical” in the deeper sense of the word, that is, the root of the problem, as I see it. The original sin, as it were.

    In your metaphor, the IDEA may have been to serve as the hub for the spokes of change, but it’s not serving that function. It’s serving instead as a transient pariah on the island of misfit toys.

    As for sounding like Cantwell and Molyneux, no, when I speak of domestic tranquility, I’m referring to the costs of the tax-consuming elements of those who illegally immigrate. (I’ve still not seen a COMPREHENSIVE estimate of this phenomenon that includes education and health care.) There is an understandable resentment of those who are taxpayers who are already profoundly overburdened by the cost of government. While there certainly are haters who hate the browning of America trend, I’m definitely not one of them. You know better than that! That would be unCosmotarian of me! 😉

    Many NAPists are in the tiny “no borders” assumption minority. It’s why they arrive at such an outlying position. Most of the rest of the lessarchist community probably agree with me that no borders is not a plausible (or even desireable) outcome in the next 5 years or so; that immigrants should not be dissuaded (especially due to their color); and that the current system is not working. A new workable paradigm is indicated.

  71. Thomas Knapp

    “Many NAPists are in the tiny ‘no borders’ assumption minority.”

    For about half a billion people in 26 countries, “no borders” isn’t just an “assumption,” it’s a policy that’s existed for 23 years (it’s called the Schengen Agreement).”

    Until 1947, that “assumption” was also policy (and until at least the 1980s de facto policy vis a vis Canada and Mexico) for the United States.

    Probably better to argue the merits of the policy than to pretend it’s on the fringe when that’s so easily disproven.

  72. dL

    There is an understandable resentment of those who are taxpayers who are already profoundly overburdened by the cost of government

    if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…

  73. dL

    Probably better to argue the merits of the policy than to pretend it’s on the fringe when that’s so easily disproven.

    Garbage rationalizations is the only currency of immigration restrictionism

  74. robert capozzi

    pf and TK,

    re: “constraint”

    1) Is there evidence that the 88 20-something mostly-Randian NAPist founders aligned with your “constraint” principle re: application of the NAP? If not, how do you justify going against the wisdom of these early 70s Apostles?

    2) If there were to be a federal budget that cut, say, 5% of total spending but raised one line item by $1, would that meet your “constraint” test? Whenever I’ve asked this or a similar question of a NAPist, they’ve said such a budget is evil.

    To me, this REALLY misses the forest for the trees.

    Profoundly so.

  75. robert capozzi

    tk,

    I’m going to call bullshit on that, mostly because the Schengen Agreement is NOT a “no borders” policy. Europeans still have to show their passports. Non-Europeans still have to honor the border.

    While it might be ultimately a better world if you could just fly into de Gaulle unchecked, it’s simply not the case UNLESS you have a German passport.

    You know better.

    Fail.

    Your better examples would be Zomia and Somalia. Those territories don’t iirc have tax consumers, or payers, so those also doesn’t apply.

  76. Thomas Knapp

    “Is there evidence that the 88 20-something mostly-Randian NAPist founders aligned with your ‘constraint’ principle re: application of the NAP?”

    Assuming they were in fact mostly Randian, the evidence would be that they were mostly Randian.

    “If there were to be a federal budget that cut, say, 5% of total spending but raised one line item by $1, would that meet your ‘constraint’ test?”

    I have no idea, since the test in question isn’t something I use but something you made up.

  77. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    Call bullshit all you want. That’s usually what people do when they create a fantasy world and then others upset the fantasy by declining to live in it.

  78. dL

    Is there evidence that the 88 20-something mostly-Randian NAPist founders aligned with your “constraint” principle re: application of the NAP?

    Read a book, Bob. University political philosophy textbook 101. Moral constraint is exactly what it means, although academia might refer to it as liberal individualism instead of libertarianism.

  79. dL

    While it might be ultimately a better world if you could just fly into de Gaulle unchecked, it’s simply not the case UNLESS you have a German passport.

    You know better.

    German passport?

  80. robert capozzi

    tk,

    So in your world, you can fly to Paris and enter unchecked?

    And as for the test, more generally: would you support a plan that lowers the federal budget but some line items increase? Seems pretty straightforward test of the NAPist constraint, and when I’ve asked NAPists this question, they either:

    1) Throw up their hands, or

    2) They say “no,” as a matter of “principle”

    Answer #1 feels like bad faith to me. Answer #2 strikes me as silly.

  81. Thomas Knapp

    “So in your world, you can fly to Paris and enter unchecked?”

    I don’t have a personal world.

    In the REAL world, if I am from the Schengen area and traveling within that area, I get to do so across its internal borders without restriction (not without “being checked”).

    Also in the REAL world, whether I am from the United States or not, if I am traveling within the United States, I get do so without even being “checked” at the border between Nevada and Utah, the border between Illinois and Wisconsin, etc.

    “And as for the test, more generally: would you support a plan that lowers the federal budget but some line items increase?”

    That would depend on what the line items are, but it’s a subsidiary question to where that budget comes from. If it comes from initiation of force in the form of coercive taxation, I would oppose it but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t also support cutting it if I couldn’t get rid of it entirely. As far as increasing individual line items as part of an overall cut, I suppose I might, but I wouldn’t pretend to be able to calculate how much aggression the $1 increase created versus how much aggression the other cuts reduced. It would be a crap shoot, not a test of a constraint.

  82. robert capozzi

    tk,

    My recollection is that when landing in a European country, there were 2 basic lines: EU and non-EU.

    If that’s the case and there is NO check, then when you fly into de Gaulle, you could just say you are from an EU nation and can walk right through the EU gate COMPLETELY UNCHECKED, is that right? I’m pretty sure I saw them at least waiving their passports, but it’s been a long time since I’ve been over there.

    Non-EU people ARE checked, it seems you agree. It that’s the case, that doesn’t sound like “open” or “no” border places.

    No, unless you have some really compelling answer, the only open/no borders places on Earth are Somalia and Zomia, and perhaps a few other garden spots around the globe. Semi-open borders restricted by nations of origins is not the same as actual open borders, like between US states, I’m sure you agree.

    I think it’s safe to say that you’ve been unsuccessful in getting “rid of [coercive taxation] entirely,” so Plan B will have to do as the next, least bad option.

    It strikes me that $1 is $1, a pretty darned measurable thing! Weighing relative harms of that incremental spending is highly subjective, agreed, but we do have a specific unit of measure in this case.

  83. dL

    So in your world, you can fly to Paris and enter unchecked?

    Bob continues to confuse passports with visas. Technically, a passport is merely a permission to exit and enter one’s own host country. A visa is a permission to enter a foreign country. For travel purposes, a visa is usually not required. So, if you fly from NY to France, you do not need permission from the French government. You just need permission from the United States government. And a plane ticket.

  84. dL

    Also in the REAL world, whether I am from the United States or not, if I am traveling within the United States,

    Unfortunately, beginning next year, you may need that passport to travel within the continental US by air.

  85. robert capozzi

    Let the record show that I’ve not used the words “visa” or “passport,” as any fair-minded observer would attest. Unfair-minded commenters can say whatever they want, and, sadly, they often do. In a country with OPEN/NO borders, one should need neither. One would be completely unchecked, like passing between CA and NV. Or, I assume, from Ethopia to Somalia or Thailand to Zomia.

  86. robert capozzi

    Sorry, I have used Visa and passport as an aside. (Postings are delayed.)

    My main point stands. The EU does not have open borders. They have light border checks.

    CA and NV have open borders. Somalia and Zomia probably do, too.

  87. robert capozzi

    Hiding behind technicalities and technological glitches seems to me to be a poor way to pursue truth.

  88. Thomas Knapp

    “The EU does not have open borders. They have light border checks.”

    We were talking about the Schengen Area, not the EU (they’re not the same thing — only 22 of 28 EU states are among the 26 Schengen Area states).

    The Schengen area has open borders, without border checks (“light” or otherwise) among the states within it:

    Before the implementation of the Schengen Agreement, most borders in Europe were patrolled and a vast network of border posts existed around the continent, to check the identity and entitlement of people wishing to travel from one country to another.

    Since the implementation of the Schengen rules, border posts have been closed (and often entirely removed) ….

    The Schengen Borders Code requires participating states to remove all obstacles to free traffic flow at internal borders. Thus, road, rail and air passengers no longer have their identity checked by border guards when travelling between Schengen countries ….

    Traveling INTO the Schengen area from outside may entail rules and border checks. Traveling WITHIN the Schengen area does not.

  89. dL

    Hiding behind technicalities and technological glitches seems to me to be a poor way to pursue truth.

    chuckle… the one blaming technical glitches is you. Of course, I have no idea what technical glitches have to do with whining about the fact you can’t remember your own comments.

  90. robert capozzi

    Something that NAPists and even some Cosmotarians don’t seem to get is that the ability to cross state lines is not the same thing as crossing national boundaries. My sense is that the Normals recognize that national boundaries involve different sets of laws that govern civil society. These No Borders advocates find the Normals way of looking at these admittedly arbitrary lines as somehow odd, even though the vast majority recognize the utility of a set of laws to be necessary to facilitate domestic tranquility.

    When these NAPists say things like: Why should it be different to cross from WA to ID, versus WA to Canada?

    In the dorm room, this is a good question, actually. In conducting politics, however, it comes across as quite strange.

  91. Thomas Knapp

    It comes across as “quite strange” because we have short memories and short attention spans and tend to fall into the belief that because “their” government does something a particular way right now, it has always done that thing that way and every other government does that thing in a way at least resembling that way too.

    But there are in fact Americans alive today who can remember a time when a passport wasn’t required to enter the US from anywhere, and people younger than me who can remember a time when nobody gave much of a damn who wandered back and forth between the US, Canada, and Mexico, and when a presidential slate won a modern American election while advocating “open borders,” in those words.

    And anyone who can be bothered to do a little Googling knows that there are vast land masses in which significant numbers of nation-states haven’t “checked,” let alone limited, who wanders between them for decades, up to and including now.

    The idea that some thug with a badge should get to shine a flashlight up your ass every time you cross his gang’s turf line is “normal” (usual, typical, or expected) in this particular place and at this particular time. It is not “normal” in all places, nor has it been “normal” even in this particular place at all particular times.

    Of what use is the Overton Window if nobody’s willing to grab it by the edge and open the fucking thing instead of wandering around in the center of it hoping it magically moves on its own? The Republicans and Democrats certainly don’t hesitate to yank on its handle.

  92. robert capozzi

    tk: Traveling INTO the Schengen area from outside may entail rules and border checks.

    me: Thanks for the clarification. And, so, the Schengen area does not have open borders. We could say the border-controls are more open than many other nations. They might be tighter for those entering from outside the Schengen area….dunno. Doesn’t matter.

    Now, it might be that the ideal world would be a giant Schengen area. Or, better yet, global nonarchy.

    The Schengen area might be an interesting laboratory for liberalized international travel. What it doesn’t do is PROVE that a no-borders policy is optimal. Nor do I find it persuasive, even though I’m highly sympathetic to liberalizing this and most if not all aspects of civil society.

  93. Thomas Knapp

    “The Schengen area might be an interesting laboratory for liberalized international travel.”

    That would be RE-liberalized international travel.

    The idea that visitors, or even immigrants, should be “checked” — or halted — at nation-state borders is an experiment of the late modern era, and fairly late in that era. In the US, even in embryo, it is less than 140 years old, and in its current version more like 20 years old (the US started substantial and sustained cracking down on easy travel between the US and Mexico/Canada after 9/11).

    I’m not sure where it’s written that every recent nation-state development immediately becomes holy writ that has to be treated as the default presumption. When something has obviously failed in every respect, it should be discarded, not tinkered with.

  94. dL

    My sense is that the Normals

    dog whistling is usually reserved for a more general audience, Bob.

  95. dL

  96. dL

  97. robert capozzi

    tk: Of what use is the Overton Window if nobody’s willing to grab it by the edge and open the fucking thing instead of wandering around in the center of it hoping it magically moves on its own?

    me: Like Kokesh’s call for abolishing the federal government? Do you honestly believe that if he gets the L nod for 20 that that will lead the nation toward lessarchy? Or is it more likely that he’ll be almost completely ignored or a tremendous embarrassment?

    It does make sense to me to pull on the “window” from the edge of it. Being on the Moon, however, is a place where there’s near-zero political leverage.

    Calibration is an art.

  98. Thomas Knapp

    “Like Kokesh’s call for abolishing the federal government? ”

    No, like my call for giving up on fairly recent and obviously failed, immoral, and authoritarian border/migration control schemes in favor of a North/South America “Schengen Area” approach.

    As art, your version of “calibration” resembles finger-painting with feces.

  99. robert capozzi

    tk: In the US, even in embryo, it is less than 140 years old, and in its current version more like 20 years old….

    me: I do note that much has changed substantially in this timeframe. First, the welfare/education/health-care state has experienced explosive growth. Second, the barriers to long-distance international travel have fallen dramatically.

  100. robert capozzi

    tk: …a North/South America “Schengen Area” approach.

    me: OK, I’m open. Would your NSA SA require Canada to take a Bolivian family of 10 in as permanent residents, with full citizenship benefits, such as the appropriate provincial Medicare system, “free” public education, and other social services?

  101. Thomas Knapp

    —–
    OK, I’m open. Would your NSA SA require Canada to take a Bolivian family of 10 in as permanent residents, with full citizenship benefits, such as the appropriate provincial Medicare system, “free” public education, and other social services?
    —–

    Of course not.

    First of all, travel/migration is not “citizenship.”

    Secondly, I oppose such “benefits” in general, not just for immigrants.

    And thirdly, I’m a no particular ordinance. If doing the right thing on one front imposes burdens for doing the wrong thing on another front, that’s a problem for those who support doing the wrong thing on that other front, not for me — so it’s up to them, not me, to “solve” it.

  102. dL

    me: OK, I’m open. Would your NSA SA require Canada to take a Bolivian family of 10 in as permanent residents, with full citizenship benefits, such as the appropriate provincial Medicare system, “free” public education, and other social services?

    lessarchy==Stefan Molyneux with 2 days of sensitivity training

  103. robert capozzi

    TK,

    I get that you’re an NPO NAPist. Taking multiple extreme positions on associated issues that sound in one case hard-right and in another hard-left is not a good look. Politically, that’s a profoundly difficult positioning. Sliding the “Overton Window” in what is widely perceived as two opposing directions with among the MOST extreme positions at once requires a TON of patience for all but the truest of believers.

    Whether the SA is the “right thing” or not is not obvious to me one way or the other. I certainly agree that the right thing is always indicated as a general matter, but why that’s the case regarding travel and work in other nations strikes me as not obvious or self evident.

    My quick read on the SA is that the UK and Ireland are “opt out” participants in the SA. If I have that right, it seems that the UK is opting out of the SA and the EU with Brexit. Close?

    Your opposition to “free” public education and health care is duly noted. But I also note that your opposition has not yielded any results thus far in the US. If anything, there is a move among the Ds to clamp down on alternatives to public education. Sanders, iirc, wants to ban private and public charter schools.

    And, while you personally may oppose the idea of citizenship, your personal moral stance doesn’t seem to be having much/any effect.

    I’ve not looked at the SA all that closely, but it seems as if the ability to move into a nation-state does give migrants many benefits of coercive-tax-paid-for citizenship, correct? That’s led to some pretty significant static in the SA nations, yes?

    Issues are connected. They have implications. Being for open/no borders AND abolition of social services and public education does have a certain philosophical consistency, but both are maximally difficult to enact and have tiny, contradictory, largely non-overlapping constituencies.

    Now, if I have the NPO NAPist worldview correct, you would not condition your advocacy for a NSA SA on a treaty among nations. You would — and do correct me if I’m wrong — also be for the territory known as the “US” to unilaterally institute the terms of the SA in the US. Close? Further, you would NOT condition that on ANY other adjustments to the social service regime in the territory known as the “US,” right?

    I submit that calling for a NSA SA as a nod to the practical doesn’t sound very practical. It even feels a bit inauthentic, if your REAL agenda is to abolish the State (in whole or in part) by any means necessary.

  104. Thomas Knapp

    “Taking multiple extreme positions on associated issues that sound in one case hard-right and in another hard-left is not a good look. Politically, that’s a profoundly difficult positioning.”

    In the eyes of most, it’s not a “positioning” at all. Almost everyone is for policy X, against policy Y, etc., with little if any regard to how those policies interact.

    The difference between them and me is that I tie my positions on policy X, policy Y, etc. to a single constraint. Most people don’t.

    The difference between them and you is that they’re not as arrogant about assuming that there exists some kind of Betty Crocker recipe for “domestic tranquility” that includes an ounce of this, a pinch of that, etc. and from which any deviation is likely to make the cake fall. In fact, most of them would view such a recipe as, well, “maximally difficult to enact.” Especially since you can’t even be bothered to say what the ingredients are for your recipe in particular, except “not quite so much freedom as those other guys suggest.”

  105. robert capozzi

    TK,

    I grok that most Normals don’t think in terms positioning, but campaign strategists, pols, and the politically aware engage in some form of positioning to at least some extent. Positioning requires judgment, a sense of ripeness, a sense of what can sell in the current environment, what sorts of change will advance an agenda, etc.

    Even your one-dimensional, single-constraint approach involves positioning. For ex., you seem to be emphasizing the SA vs, say, advocating a unilateral (or a universal) no-borders stance. I’m guessing you are calibrating the sell-ability of a NSA SA, based on the precedent set by the European experience.

    I’m surprised that you think I have a “Betty Crocker recipe” for social change. Given my emphasis on ripeness and the “plausibly within 5 years test,” I can’t imagine how I gave you that impression. On many issues of the day, I tend to look at an issue from a variety of perspectives without taking a stance until I get a sense of what will sell, what seems fair in context, and what will likely promote net domestic tranquility.

    For ex., the issue of asking whether a person is a citizen on the census is a good example. Cosmotarians like Cowen and Mangu-Ward have different takes on the subject, and both arguments seem to have merit, to the extent I’m familiar with their views on the matter. It doesn’t strike me as unacceptably unpeaceful to ask the question, but I do worry that the state gathers too much information as it is. Could go either way on it, actually.

    My view of abortion is another good example. I’m OK with Roe, even though I don’t like the means that were used to arrive at that outcome. But, then, I’d be OK with a more pro-life stance if they were able to convince super-majorities that fetuses deserve protections similar to the born. Sometimes on some issues, we have no better basis for judgment than the popular will.

  106. dL

    For ex., the issue of asking whether a person is a citizen on the census is a good example… It doesn’t strike me as unacceptably unpeaceful to ask the question

    It doesn’t strike me as unacceptably unfair to ask if “lessarchy” is gibberish for klan.

  107. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza Curry is my favorite of the Green Party candidates listed on Wikipedia. I would say Dario Hunter is my second choice. I’m not a member of any political party (I do have 2 Libertarian Party bumber stickers on my 1996 Dodge Dakota though), but I do have to say that I will never join either the DemoCrips or ReBloodlicans, and I have no intention of ever voting for a major party candidate, ever, for any reason. The duopoly must go. No More 2 Party System.

    I have finally realized that the True Red Pill is realizing White Supremacy is a major, fundamental, undeniable problem, and that when Vinnie Paz says in his song “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train” that “The white man was a cannibal prayin’ to Satan,” he is absolutely correct.

    “The white man was the cannibal praying to Satan
    Hatred contempt a pity of patronization
    That’s the corner stone everything racism based in
    The Africans had a more advanced civilization
    Black was slave, master was white, rationalization
    50 million dead, that’s Western civilization”

    Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza Curry making her presentation at the Orange County Green Party event, “Calling All Rebels: The Moral Imperative to Revolt,” featuring Chris Hedges and also presentations by Greens Gayle McLaughlin and Jill Stein. (September 22nd, 2015, length – 8 minutes):

  108. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Sorry. That was the wrong link. Here is the correct one for Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza Curry:

  109. dL

    who is the commie?

  110. robert capozzi

    tk: …single constraint.

    me: I’m curious why you and perhaps other NAPists use this “single constraint” standard? It strikes me that most things in life don’t come down to any one single variable. What makes politics any different than other aspects of life.

  111. Thomas Knapp

    Well, by definition the imaginary group in your head (“NAPists”) would use that single constraint standard. It’s baked into the definition: Anything that doesn’t initiate force is acceptable, anything that does initiate force isn’t acceptable.

    That doesn’t map very well onto any particular “NAPist”‘s approach to electoral politics or policy made by deliberative bodies, though.

    Some “NAPists” are willing to be incrementalists, some are “abolition or I’m not playing” types (I’m the former).

    Some “NAPists” are no particular orderists, some accept an ordering/prioritization of issues and are willing to lay back a bit on X if they think it will help them get Y.

    Some “NAPists” fall into the calculation error and try to decide how many fewer rapes equate to how many more tax dollars, some of us understand that the range of issues is too complex and the forms of aggression to diverse to make commensurable for such calculation and just do the best we can.

    The “single constraint” standard isn’t complex and it only does one thing — it defines “good idea” or “bad idea” for the person who adheres to it. Other ideologies and parties use constraint rules too. They just tend to have more of them that are less fundamental. For the Jacksonian Democrats, the constraint was “does this or does this not get rid of the Bank of the United States.” For the early Republicans, the constraints were “does this or does this not prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories, does this or does this not advance a protective tariff, and does this or does this not lend itself to a federal program of public works.”

    For Republicans and Democrats today, one constraint would be, respective to the two parties, “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” There might be some dissenters in each party, but those dissenters are pushing against a constraint tide. Some form of single-payer healthcare is quickly becoming a constraint on the Democratic side. The constraints seem to be dropping on the Republican side because they have an incumbent president who turns on a dime and they don’t want to lose the next election. Once Trump is gone in 2021 or 2025, they’ll probably start building up new constraints from scratch immediately.

  112. George Phillies

    The Massachusetts party had its state convention. There was a straw poll. Kim Ruff won: eight to five (Vohra) to four (Kokesh) to one apiece for Abramson and Behrman.

  113. robert capozzi

    tk,

    I’m pretty sure that current day Rs and Ds don’t have a SINGLE constraint, but they do have a few litmus tests that shift over time.

    The 1850s Rs probably also didn’t have a SINGLE constraint. They DID have a contain-slavery stance, iirc.

    Yes, thanks for the microscopic analysis of the NAPist community. What holds them together is that they hold to only ONE constraint. And it leads to the optically contradictory positioning of being at once hard-left and hard-right.

  114. Thomas Knapp

    “Yes, thanks for the microscopic analysis of the NAPist community. What holds them together is that they hold to only ONE constraint.”

    Um, no. What defines them as a set is that they SHARE one constraint. There’s a difference.

  115. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Sure, NAPists share ONLY one constraint. Others may share several constraints, and allow for a range of positions that lean one way or the other.

  116. Thomas Knapp

    “Sure, NAPists share ONLY one constraint. NAPists may share several constraints, and allow for a range of positions that lean one way or the other.”

    Fixed, no charge.

  117. Eric Sundwall

    “Sometimes on some issues, we have no better basis for judgment than the popular will.”

    Lessarchist Shrugged?

    Ugh.

  118. George Phillies

    Advocacy of Free Trade goes back to the United Kingdom of 1846-1860. However, what William Gladstone actually said as a defense of free trade is “It is a mistake to suppose that the best way of giving benefit to the labouring classes is simply to operate on the articles consumed by them. If you want to do them the maximum of good, you should rather operate on the articles which give them a maximum of employment.”

    However, in 1846-1860 English manufacturing was the best in the world, though America had surpassed them in some fields. Free trade meant far larger markets abroad for English goods, and cheaper foodstuffs at home, meaning that the English labouring classes had more money to spend on their own manufactures.

    For precisely the same reason, the French have rigorous protections of their somewhat inefficient agriculture, namely it creates a maximum of employment.

    For the United States of 2019, our labor is relatively expensive, so in many areas our industries are not competitive with places where labor costs little. Gladstone’s rationale for free trade thus indicates for us that protectionism, not free trade, is to our advantage.

  119. robert capozzi

    tk: “Sure, NAPists share ONLY one constraint. NAPists may share several constraints, and allow for a range of positions that lean one way or the other.”

    me: I’d like that’d go:

    “Sure, NAPists share ONLY one constraint. NAPists may share several SUBORDINATE constraints, and allow for a range of positions that lean one way or the other. These subordinate constraints sometimes veil the master constraint, and others are reflect the individual NAPists strategic and tactical views.”

  120. robert capozzi

    missing the edit feature…

    me: I’d think that’d go:

    “Sure, NAPists share ONLY one constraint. NAPists may share several SUBORDINATE constraints, and allow for a range of positions that lean one way or the other. These subordinate constraints sometimes veil the master constraint, and others reflect the individual NAPists strategic and tactical views.”

  121. Thomas Knapp

    OK, so now we’re back to “group that exists only in Capozzi’s fantasies” as opposed to carefully defining sets of real-world existents. If you enjoy that game, feel free to play it, but I won’t.

  122. robert capozzi

    Well, I suppose I could adopt the thin/thick differentiator. I wonder if the term’d be less likely to trigger, which still sorta surprises me.

  123. Thomas Knapp

    If there’s any such set as “NAPists,” I suspect most of them would be “thin” rather than “thick.” But certainly not all of them.

  124. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    You have been going on and on about how the non aggression principle is bad, or won’t work, or how it’s holding the LP back. You keep making up new words or definitions to label the people who follow this philosophy but you don’t say why it won’t work except that according to you most people don’t believe in it.

    I’m beginning to think that you don’t understand what the non aggression principle is. Could you tell us what you think the non aggression principle is.

  125. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Yes, as I understand the Thins, that’s roughly equivalent to NAPists, which to me is the better term, in that it’s more direct.

    LD,

    Funny, perhaps you’ve missed that I have said many times that I appreciate and support the sentiment that the NAP expresses. I just don’t see how a political philosophy can be boiled down to one rigidly applied principle. It doesn’t work because nothing that I’ve seen in the human condition more broadly can be boiled down to one simple principle. And, given that so much of the civil society involves what the Thins call “initiation of force,” it doesn’t follow that a political party should dedicate itself to EXPLICITLY ending such force immediately or very rapidly. Even if that COULD happen, undoing the State is more like a bomb disposal operation. More care needs to be used, if only because a rash move could be a cure worse than the disease. Snipping the wires willy nilly could easily end up quite badly.

  126. Thomas Knapp

    “Yes, as I understand the Thins, that’s roughly equivalent to NAPists, which to me is the better term, in that it’s more direct.”

    Well, except for there being thick NAPists.

    Any rational definition of NAPist would include all those who consider non-aggression a valid constraint.

    Some of those would consider it the only constraint. They would be “thin” NAPists.

    Others would consider other, additional constraints necessary — no pineapple on pizza, five-second rule, whatever. Those would be “thick” NAPists.

  127. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    I see that I was right, you don’t understand what the non aggression principle is. It is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.

    Do you understand what ethics are and how they apply to real life?

  128. paulie

    Yes, as I understand the Thins, that’s roughly equivalent to NAPists

    No. One is a shared constraint. The other is the idea that other values can be ignored in as far as the libertarian coalition. I would not agree with the latter.

    it doesn’t follow that a political party should dedicate itself to EXPLICITLY ending such force immediately or very rapidly. Even if that COULD happen, undoing the State is more like a bomb disposal operation.

    It doesn’t have to follow. NAP is my ideal, but immediate or very rapid is not my preferred timeframe for the same reasons you mention.

  129. robert capozzi

    LD,

    Ethics are very often situational. So, for ex., I look at how much the State has grown and my ethical antennae tell me: Gee, this is one great big mess. I’d like to see this undone, but where to begin? Some Thins have said things like, “Let’s abolish Social Security” or “There’s a right to private nukes.” Both violate the NAP, according to some Ls.

    I can’t go to either place, because the likely outcomes of either applied Thinnism are a) worse than the status quo and b) so offensive to most people that advocating such views are almost certainly going to make the advocate politically radioactive. Some Thins advocate positions that do both a) and b). There are several such Thins currently vying for the L presidential nomination, for ex.

    By way of comparison, my sense is that most people have not adopted polyamory. The prevalent culture appears to be monogamy. Personally, I can see nothing obviously unethical about polyamory, but my sense is if one were dating, it would be wise to conceal one’s polyamorous desires until the right time to broach the subject.

  130. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Thanks, that helps me understand better. That would make you a Thick, if I’m understanding this correctly, even though you lean very heavily on the NAP when making political assessments.

  131. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you not understand what ethics are?

    I asked you if you knew what ethics are and how they apply to the real world and you evade the answers first by claiming that ethics change according to the situation, second by attempting to change the subject by claiming my ethical stance is wrong because your afraid what will happen or that you believe that most people disagree with it.

    I’ll give you another chance to see if you can learn to communicate better.

    The question I asked is a two part question.

    The first part is do you know what ethics are?
    The second part is how do they apply to real life?

    For the first part it’s OK to look it up in a dictionary.

  132. robert capozzi

    OK, so Thin/Thick seems not especially illuminating.

    How’s about Fundamentalists who use the NAP as their predominant political filter, regardless of the practicality of a position, and Ecumentalists, for Lessarchists who are more willing to take a variety of factors and considerations, especially the ability to sell an idea in the intermediate term in the public square?

  133. dL

    Lincoln Chafee: The party of peace: Why I joined the Libertarian Party

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/rhode-island/2019/07/19/the-party-peace-why-joined-libertarian-party/6syxdoJgnN04qcmJpAFwyH/story.html

    The Libertarian Party has 34 platform planks and a Statement of Principles that have been crafted and refined over the years. I would argue that the Libertarian Party is stronger on many important issues than either the Democrats or Republicans: protection of Fourth Amendment rights, opposition to capital punishment, opposition to crony capitalism, support for balanced budgets, opposition to cruel and unusual torture, support for free trade and, most important to me, “an America at peace with the world.” The Libertarian Party is also strong on LGBT rights and a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions and has an enlightened approach to the corrosive and failed war on drugs.

    Of the Libertarian Party’s 34 platform principles, I decided that I agree with most of them, disagree with two or three, and a half-dozen I’d need to study up on and think about it.

    So, Chafee disagrees w/ 2 out of 34…

  134. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    You have a habit of making up words or making up new definitions to existing words and that makes understanding what you write difficult. Because of this I want to make sure we are using the same definitions for our words and that is why I am asking if you understand what ethics are. The answer to the second part show me you didn’t even bother to look it up.

    I’m not talking about any specific set of ethics, I am asking if you understand what ethics in general are and how you think they apply to real life. I’ll help you out. Here is the answer to the first part from wikipedia;

    Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value, and thus comprises the branch of philosophy called axiology.

    Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.

  135. Thomas Knapp

    LibertyDave,

    Over time I’ve come to understand where Mr. Capozzi is coming from. It’s sort of the same failure that economists run into when they start assuming homo economicus.

    That is, in his attempts to define a set of human beings (“NAPists”) he makes assumptions about their behavior that don’t necessarily correspond to reality. There is no uniform rational behavior in philosophy or politics, any more than there is uniform rational behavior in economics.

    It does not follow from the fact that someone (a “NAPist”) defines their political position in terms of an ethical constraint (non-aggression) that that person won’t additional constraints, decide to sacrifice the constraint under some kind of emergent fear, incorrectly understand the constraint, etc., any more than someone who considers himself economically rational in principle will never suddenly decide to let his freak flag fly and drop acid while viewing Liquid Sky.

  136. LibertyDave

    TK, Thanks for jumping into the discussion. I always learn more when more people participate. I also have an idea where Mr. Capozzi is coming from and what he’s trying to say. He’s just not very good at communicating his ideas and that’s what I’m trying to help him with.

    In order to facilitate a discussion we need to agree on definitions. You all have been calling the NAP an ethical constraint. From what I can see ethics don’t constrain anything, no more than laws do. That’s why I called it an ethical stance. If you think ethics constrain then no wonder you don’t think they will work.

  137. Eric Sundwall

    “nothing that I’ve seen in the human condition more broadly can be boiled down to one simple principle”

    The Golden Rule? It may not be part of the “human condition”, but it has been a simple principle throughout Western history that boils things down pretty simply. It’s more than a simple reduction for the purposes of building an axiomatic pivot to justice in some systematic way. To wit:

    1. It’s positive form advocates the basic tenet – do unto others.
    2. The prohibitive form: don’t treat others in ways you would not like . . . um – duh?
    3. The empathy: wish upon others what you wish for yourself.

    The NAP is a tight and simple formulation. Giving it an “ideological process” and labeling the people who adhere to it as “NAPists” is unfounded. They don’t exist. If these non-existent ideological participants did exist, they are just as much part of a process of defining the good society based on historical understanding (more likely rhetoric), developing an Us vs. Them mentality and subsequently asserting the grand right or power to do so . . . if they wish to entertain the political process as a legit path to do so . . . I will grant RC a great deal of interaction and knowledge of many participants in a distant, more or less, forgotten past of the LP.

    I’d argue that your basic run of the mill Rothbardian anarchist isn’t obligated to carry the NAP cross into to the Incarnation of human peace, but could. Much like the “negative” atheist they can simply put the burden of proof of moral legitimacy on the low grade or high octane Statist and shrug. Explain why government is legitimate as an ethical construct. Fine. Here’s why I don’t believe so . . . hint: it’s more than rattling the NAP cage.

    Once one accepts the futility of the American winner takes all system, it’s easy enough to accept real marginalization of ANY third party and simply protest the shackles around your neck and ankles. This includes an absolute realism to the situation and even offers the possibility of a mature poise that media, voters and average people can consider as a decent effort that speaks truth to power. That has been my experience as an anarchist who has attempted influence real people with real alternatives to policies, philosophies and the piety of politics they so fervently breathe.

    But like the atheist, one simply has to accept as quaint rituals of Christmas as never ending in one’s lifetime. Best to embrace the absurdity like Sisyphus and smile on the way back down to the rock at the bottom of the hill.

  138. Thomas Knapp

    “You all have been calling the NAP an ethical constraint. From what I can see ethics don’t constrain anything, no more than laws do. That’s why I called it an ethical stance. If you think ethics constrain then no wonder you don’t think they will work.”

    The “non-” in “non-aggression principle” is the constraint. Those who hold to the principle treat the principle as constraint (“a limitation or restriction”) on what defines acceptable behavior.

  139. paulie

    That would make you a Thick

    Thick as a brick.

    even though you lean very heavily on the NAP when making political assessments.

    It’s my north star. I’m a gradualist, multi-prong approach including realpolitik, left leaning, no particular order, directional voluntaryist anarcho-libertarian. Among other things.

  140. paulie

    How’s about Fundamentalists who use the NAP as their predominant political filter, regardless of the practicality of a position, and Ecumentalists, for Lessarchists who are more willing to take a variety of factors and considerations, especially the ability to sell an idea in the intermediate term in the public square?

    Still not quite there. I’m both.

  141. dL

    TK, Thanks for jumping into the discussion. I always learn more when more people participate.

    Hmm, I think Bob is more along the lines of “Keep throwing shit up against the wall to see what sticks” in his quixotic need to legitimize the right wing tropes of the day with libertarianism.

  142. robert capozzi

    tk, pf, ld, and es,

    Great stuff! A few thoughts back…

    I absolutely LOVE the Golden Rule, and I try to apply in daily life as consistently as possible. But, interestingly, it is a VERY vague “rule.” It implores us to ask ourselves how we’d feel about our own behavior if the situation were reversed. DJT might be practicing his version of the Golden Rule, for all we know!

    As ES says: “The NAP is a tight and simple formulation.” The Golden Rule is quite loose. They are nothing alike in practice. The NAP is closer to the 10 Commandments, prescribing what cannot be done. But, of course, even with the 10 Commandments, there’s some nuance in how it’s interpreted.

    I get that there are strains within the strain of what I was calling NAPism, for now, Fundamentalist L-ism. I also get that PF sometimes sounds pretty Ecumenicalist. I suppose a person can be both, and PF’s a pretty rare case, in my travels. I remain open to even better labels that help us diagnose what I perceive to be a very wide gulf.

  143. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Thanks for the Liquid Sky reference! Wild stuff!

    But it’s not that I assume homo economicus. It’s more like I see Fundamentalist Ls as attempting to BE homo economicus, and often failing and not even realizing it.

  144. dL

    Well, except for there being thick NAPists.

    The Long/Johnson thickness circa 2008 lost some of its cachet after the Hoppe/Rockwell thickness arrived on the scene.

  145. dL

    The NAP is a tight and simple formulation.

    It actually isn’t so tight. The libertarian/anarchist tradition can’t even agree on whether something as fundamental as property is aggression.

  146. dL

    I see Fundamentalist Ls as attempting to BE homo economicus,

    wrong. homo economicus is a neoclassical economics straw man. Most libertarians, outside the few stragglers at GMU like Bryan Caplan, do not even subscribe to neoclassical economics.

  147. robert capozzi

    LD: You have a habit of making up words or making up new definitions to existing words and that makes understanding what you write difficult.

    Me: Over a decade ago, I concluded that the anarchist/minarchist framing, coupled with an ingrained NAP Fundamentalism, had stunted the growth of the LM and LP. I offered another way: Lessarchism. My view was that the question of whether no state or a nightwatchman state was the more desirable goal was silly and even counter-productive. Social change generally happens incrementally, punctuated with the occasional step function.

    No one has challenged my contention that one need not have a fixed destination to be an effective agent of change, and my sense is the lessarchism addition to the lexicon was not deemed threatening.

    What HAS been far more controversial is my diagnosis that the LP was founded by youthful, inexperienced Randian fundamentalists, and that they place what Harlos calls “depth charges” in the Bylaws to protect their handiwork forevermore. My analysis is that while their depth charges have been somewhat effective in maintaining a tight ideological leash on the LP, that leash also restricts its growth to a narrow subset of the lessarchist community (and those sympathetic to lessarchy) to only Fundamentalists and those willing to tolerate the puritanism that they enforce, some now from the grave.

    I find this arrested development tragic, in that my hypothesis is that lessarchy COULD become a significant, consequential force for positive, peaceful change. The good that COULD be done in changing the national dialog is significant and important. Anything’s possible, of course, but Fundamentalism feels self-defeating to me.

    Further, I believe that “peace” –broadly defined –is superior to “liberty” as a worthy pollitical value. This is why I mock the extremes of L fundamentalism, like those who believe in the “right” to private nukes and other outlier, fringe positions that one encounters among some Fundamentalists.

  148. paulie

    The Long/Johnson thickness circa 2008 lost some of its cachet after the Hoppe/Rockwell thickness arrived on the scene.

    I’ll stick with the original.

  149. paulie

    Also Hoppe/Rockwellianism was already on the scene. It was just never self-acknowledged thickness and still isn’t. According to them they are the epitome of purist libertarianism, even when they shill for Trump, Putin, a return to absolute monarchy, neo-biblical patriarchy, neo-feudalism, etc, etc.

  150. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    You’ve made the false statement that the non aggression principle is harming the libertarian party. You’ve offered no proof of this, only confusing rants. That leads me to believe that you don’t understand what the NAP is or what it’s supposed to do.

    When I asked if you knew what the NAP is you couldn’t answer the question. So I provided the answer that the NAP is an ethical stance.

    I then asked you if you knew what ethics are and how they apply to real life. Again you couldn’t answer the question.

    I then provided the definition of what ethics are and asked you to tell us how you think ethics apply the the real world.

    Each time you have evaded my questions and tried to change the subject or doubled down your rant against the NAP.

    This show me you are nothing more than a lying troll who has no interest in rational discussions.

  151. LibertyDave

    TK,

    Ethics only define what is acceptable behavior. And much like people themselves, each persons definition is different and like Mr. Capozzi states their definition can change depending on the circumstances.

    To claim that ethics constrain anything is just wishful thinking, much like the belief that prohibition actually prevents the activity that is banned.

  152. Thomas Knapp

    I’ve explained the meaning of “constraint” in this context to you. If I’ve not done so to your satisfaction, feel free to consult other sources (such as Nozick’s Anarchy, State & Utopia) for its usage. As long as you insist that it doesn’t mean what it means, you’ll be correct that it doesn’t do what I didn’t say it does.

  153. dL

    klan rally

  154. LibertyDave

    TK,

    Words are important for clear commutations. You used the words “ethical constraint” to describe the NAP because you think the word non in non aggression principle means constraint.

    The way you describe it, it is the entire non aggression principle that constrains what you believe a good actions are. The word non as it is used just means the opposite of, or not and has nothing to do with constraint.

    The use of these words implies that the NAP constrains bad actions or policies and feeds into Mr. Capozzi’s belief that the NAP doesn’t work, and this isn’t true.

    A better choice of words to describe the NAP is an ethical stance. The word stance as it is used here means “A position or point of view”

    This is the better word to use because ethical stances only define concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.

    Ethical stances aren’t use to constrain bad actions, they are used describe how you judge the actions of other people.

  155. dL

    Also Hoppe/Rockwellianism was already on the scene.

    The “paleo” stuff was on the scene in 1992, but unless you were paying attention to libertarian intramural sports in the 90s, you didn’t know “paleo” was a thing until the Ron Paul newsletters. When that hit, paleos began scrubbing “paleo” from their biographies. At the time, I don’t think anyone thought to counter Long’s thickness evangelism with a caveat this stuff could be expropriated and abused by the right.

    It was just never self-acknowledged thickness and still isn’t.

    I would disagree. Hoppe was educated in that Frankfurt school critical theory stuff under Jurgen Habermas and is self-consciously thick. Circa 2008, the HoppeBots did attack the Long/Johnson thickness argument with a claim that libertarianism is thin. But by 2014 or so, that began to change. They may not use the exact term “thick,” preferring instead the non-economical route of saying in ten sentences what could more concisely be expressed w/ one word: thick. And, of course, they now refer to thin libertarianism as LOLlibertarian

  156. dL

    You used the words “ethical constraint

    LibertyDave, I think you are confusing morals with ethics. NAP would be a moral constraint, specifically a constraint on what others may not do to you. Ethics, on the other hand, is a code of conduct. They are not the same things. You can have an ethical rules of conduct for immoral behavior(e..g, CBP rules of conduct for treating caged immigrants) and ethical violations for otherwise moral behavior(e.g., a physician self-medicating would violate the AMA ethical guidelines).

  157. dL

    The Golden Rule? It may not be part of the “human condition”, but it has been a simple principle throughout Western history that boils things down pretty simply.

    It sounds good, but as typically written, it wouldn’t pass muster in an entry level philosophy course. There are obvious counter examples, like say, sadomasochism. You would have to extend the rule with a mutual consent language qualifier.That broadens the rule’s applicability, but you lose the simplicity.

  158. robert capozzi

    LD,

    So, I admit to have a tendency to repeat myself in this IPR dialog, so I do try to not do so too much. However, you’re relatively new to this rodeo, so perhaps I’ve not made this point to you:

    I like the NAP as a sentiment. Generally, I like the idea that “anyone can do whatever ever s/he wants, so long as s/he hurts anyone else.” Specifically, however, for the NAP Fundamentalist, that implies things like “taxation is theft,” “roads should be private,” “legalize heroin,” etc.

    When one starts unpeeling this onion, and asking even more radical questions, things get murky. “Theft” implies “justly acquired property.” What is “justly” and what exactly is “property,” and do we really believe that everyone today has “justly acquired property”?

    Consider the current “justice system” in the US today. The claim is that it’s “blind,” but is it? Do we really believe that if, say, Jeffrey Epstein didn’t have the resources he does, would he have gotten his non-prosecution agreement in FL? Probably no, says I. Justice is not blind. Justice comes at a price. Rightful, and wrongful, property often comes at a price. Therefore, taxation is involuntary, but it’s not necessarily “theft.”

    There is an ethical “code of conduct” in politics, one that is not explicit. NAP Fundamentalists seem to want to assume this code of conduct away, and just chant certain Fundamentalist one-liners or their implications regarding the issues of the day.

    As a way to normalize this, I’ve offered the 5-year rule for public positioning. The narrative might go something like: Ls believe that maximizing peace and freedom is the way to go to cure what ails us. We propose X, Y and Z as real reforms to undo a bloated government, endless wars, and an out-of-control serveillance state.

    Fundamentalists, otoh, seem to take things like “taxation is theft” and “borders are arbitrary lines that should not be enforced in any way” into the public square, perhaps lightly varnished. This approach violates the rules of the game of politics, as played.

    Consider the possibility that you’ve confused morals and ethics, as others have noted. I, like you, have access to dictionary definitions, and to do so when it can be simply read into the record without wasting time. I prefer to challenge the First Principles my interlocuters embraces, and then to test them against the world as it appears today.

    Most if not all of the LP’s founders would have been familiar with the notion of “check your premises.” I don’t think they did a thorough job of it, and now the LP suffers from their First Mistake.

  159. dL

    Specifically, however, for the NAP Fundamentalist, that implies things like “taxation is theft,

    Capozzi:

    There is an understandable resentment of those who are taxpayers who are already profoundly overburdened by the cost of government.

    Taxation is theft is LOLlibertarian, unless, of course, it possibly entails a government transfer to an immigrant, then taxation is an oppressive slave state…oh, excuse me, a profound, resentful burden.

  160. LibertyDave

    TK,

    In reading your past comments I expected better then this, the definition I posted are from Merriam-Webster dictionary or sometimes Dictionary.com.

    What dictionary are you using that you don’t understand English? Or did no not bother to open a dictionary?

  161. LibertyDave

    dL,

    Much like TK, you need to start opening a dictionary. You say I’m confusing ethics and morals.

    Here is the definition of Ethics from Merriam-Webster, pay attention to definition #3

    ethic noun
    Definition of ethic

    1 ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
    2a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values the present
    b ethics, plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group professional ethics
    c : a guiding philosophy
    d : a consciousness of moral importance forge a conservation ethic
    3 ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)

  162. Thomas Knapp

    LibertyDave,

    A “constrain” is “a limitation or restriction” (Oxford Dictionaries).

    Your problem is not a mis-understanding of the term, but a mis-application of it. You seem to be thinking of it in physical, rather than moral, ethical, or philosophical terms.

    To grab a reasonable line from your ethics definitions, ethics is “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.”

    Someone who subscribes to the non-aggression principle accept non-aggression as a CONSTRAINT on what they may CHOOSE to do or support in accordance with their moral/ethical conclusion regarding aggression.

    If you prefer to add a word for your own comfort, Robert Nozick referred to that idea as “side constraint.” That is, a reservation against supporting X (in this case, aggression) when considering ideas or policies, made by choice.

    The non-aggression principle doesn’t constrain others. It constrains those who adopt it and act in accordance with it, because they choose to be constrained by it.

  163. robert capozzi

    LD: You’ve made the false statement that the non aggression principle is harming the libertarian party. You’ve offered no proof of this…

    Me: I cannot offer “proof,” but, then, I’ve never seen a “proof” that the NAP is “true” or “optimal” or anything else. There’s no “proof” of rights. As a matter of fact, I’m not sure that Descartes proved “I am.” It does make sense to me that “I seem to have thoughts and I seem to exist.” Or, perhaps, “I am not not, and everything else is indeterminate.”

    There are, however, serviceable constructs that most buy into, or there are persuasive ideas which stand a chance of becoming widely accepted. 1+1=2 is a serviceable construct widely accepted. Whether the world is a giant simulation had been a fringe idea that is moving toward the edge.

    TK wants to take ideas from the fringe of the Overton Window — sometimes from what would commonly be associated with the hard left, others from the hard right — into the mainstream as part of the LM. He can’t “prove” that that’s the optimal approach; I can’t “prove” that that approach won’t work or is even counter-productive. I’ve been unable to persuade him that his approach is unlikely to work, and he’s been able to persuade me of the virtue of his approach.

  164. Thomas Knapp

    “It does make sense to me that ‘I seem to have thoughts and I seem to exist.'”

    In order for anything to “seem” to you, you’d have to exist.

    That doesn’t prove anything about the nature of your existence — perhaps you’re just a brain in a vat, or a simulation in a computer receiving electrical signals that create the “seemingness,” but even for that to happen you would have to be something, i.e. to exist.

    Cogito ergo sum isn’t really correct when stated as “I think, therefore I am.” A better rendition would be “SINCE I think, it follows that there must be a me TO think.”

  165. Jared

    dL: “The Long/Johnson thickness circa 2008 lost some of its cachet”

    … That’s what she said.

  166. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    I have been reading IPR for about as long as it been here. I just don’t comment that much. And you repeating yourself is more an obsession not a tendency. Given your obsession about how the NAP is bad, leads me to believe that someone who claimed to follow the NAP must have peed in your beer.

    Your claim that the NAP won’t work because there are bad people who do bad thing and get away with it, shows me that you don’t understand what the NAP can and can’t do in real life.

    Also having access to a dictionary doesn’t mean you’ve bothered to read it. I haven’t confused morals and ethics, again read the dictionary, morals are ethics. And using the word interlocutors shows that you are just lazy not stupid.

  167. Jared

    TK: “That doesn’t prove anything about the nature of your existence — perhaps you’re just a brain in a vat, or a simulation in a computer receiving electrical signals that create the ‘seemingness,’ but even for that to happen you would have to be something, i.e. to exist.”

    A Humean or Buddhist might answer the self is just a bundle of impressions with no simple, continuous existence at all. Since “I” remains undefined (apart from it bearing some relation to thought), the Cogito fails to accomplish what Descartes set out to do. The idea of the self is not innate or a priori, and Cartesian mental substances are not proven to exist.

  168. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    Your statement that you don’t have to prove a statement of fact you made is true because you believe it’s true, and you ignoring any evidence that your statement is not true just goes to show how stupid you think everyone else is.

    As I’ve told other people, just because you believe it’s true doesn’t make it true. It just shows that you are ignorant of the truth. And your continued attempts to confuse or change the subject show that your ignorance is willful.

  169. paulie

    “The Long/Johnson thickness circa 2008 lost some of its cachet”

    … That’s what she said.

    In this case she wasn’t wrong.

  170. robert capozzi

    LD: Given your obsession about how the NAP is bad, leads me to believe that someone who claimed to follow the NAP must have peed in your beer.

    ME: Hmm, I’ve repeatedly told you that I like the NAP as a sentiment. Not sure how you conclude that my beer was peed in. I’m a NAP Fundamentalist in recovery. It just occurred to me over time that it is not an optimal basis for political change.

    LD: Your statement that you don’t have to prove a statement of fact…

    ME: Umm, no, I’m saying that it’s impossible to prove or disprove the NAP, Fundamentalism, or Ecumentalism are optimal.

    LD: …you made is true because you believe it’s true,

    ME: Right, it’s true for me. I’m attempting to persuade Fundamentalists that they should consider Ecumenicalism as the more likely approach to maximizing liberty (and peace) and minimizing state coercion.

    LD: …and you ignoring any evidence that your statement is not true just goes to show how stupid you think everyone else is.

    ME: Hmm, I’m sorry, you’ve not convinced me that I’m offering untruth to the Commentariat. I assure you I don’t find most of the Commentariat to be “stupid.” To the contrary. I just disagree with the Fundamentalist approach.

  171. robert capozzi

    tk: In order for anything to “seem” to you, you’d have to exist.

    me: Yes, that’s basically the view of the great Advaita philosopher Nisargadatta Maharaj’s as well. “Seeming” “seems” to imply existence of some sort. You are in good company here, and on just about the strongest ground I have found.

    Based on the recent Malice/Russell podcast, it seems indicated that I read Russell and perhaps Foucault. I appreciate Malice, the clever Fundamentalist of the anarchist persuasion, but he seemed to be having a hard time grokking Russell’s “how do you know?” rejoinders. I’ll be very impressed if the Post Modernists have outdone the far more ancient Advaita tradition.

    Malice just wouldn’t go “there.”

  172. Thomas Knapp

    Jared,

    I’m agnostic on whether or not existence is continuous — for all I know, two minutes ago I didn’t exist and all my memories are manufactured. I operate on the opposite assumption because existence seems to be continuous and connected. And whether or not it actually is, at the point where there’s a bundle of perceptions, something must be perceiving them.

  173. dL

    TK wants to take ideas from the fringe of the Overton Window

    the fringe of the overton window currently resides in the white house. And you haven’t put one inch of daylight between yourself and Trump in this thread. Double negative lessacharchist newspeak(“the census question is not un-peaceful”) is not daylight.

  174. LibertyDave

    TK,

    You have it backwards. Your the one who is thinking physical about this. Constraining is limiting or restricting, which implies one thing limiting another. Stance actually means an intellectual or emotional attitude. Which word better describes a philosophical idea.

    And your statement; “Someone who subscribes to the non-aggression principle accept non-aggression as a CONSTRAINT on what they may CHOOSE to do or support in accordance with their moral/ethical conclusion regarding aggression.” makes assumptions that are not true. That assumption is that people make rational decisions about what actions they take. Most peoples actions are more a reaction to how they feel at the moment rather that what they believe is good or bad.

    What actually restricts bad actions is what called a conscience. It is an inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action. Most people describe this inner sense as making them feel bad when they commit or see another commit wrong acts. And like the rest of our senses it is something we experience rather than something we control. Ethical stances are just what we use to describe what we already feel, they don’t control or constrain what we feel.

  175. LibertyDave

    dL

    The argument that morals and ethics are different because one can conflict with another doesn’t change the fact that they are both codes of conduct. And you pointing out the difference is just you evading the original question which is how do ethics apply to real life. So I change the question for you, how do codes of conduct effect the real world.

  176. robert capozzi

    As I’ve broken the chains of Fundamentalism, I’ve increasingly taken more seriously the importance of the idea “citizenship.” For the Fundamentalist, citizenship is basically meaningless. It’s a kind of ruse that statists use to maintain their plantation.

    To me, citizenship is an implicit agreement of those in a nation that, to maintain domestic tranquility, we are going to abide by a set of laws EVEN IF we don’t agree with some of them. (If someone wants “out” of the “deal,” I think Trump is wrong–they shouldn’t “go back.” Instead, I propose Harlos Nonarchy Pods, where the rare refusenik can secede onto his or her property.)

    Now, if we ever get to a near Zomia-like configuration, we can have another conversation. Until then, the rule of law seems serviceable enough, even if some laws are dysfunctional, and even if justice is not blind.

    If there’s a better workable alternative, I’d like to hear about it.

  177. dL

    As I’ve broken the chains of Fundamentalism, I’ve increasingly taken more seriously the importance of the idea “citizenship.” To me, citizenship is an implicit agreement of those in a nation that, to maintain domestic tranquility, we are going to abide by a set of laws EVEN IF we don’t agree with some of them.

    yeah, drop the lessatchist newspeak babble, and get to the meat of what you actually are. Right wing xenophobe.

  178. dL

    The argument that morals and ethics are different because one can conflict with another doesn’t change the fact that they are both codes of conduct.

    Morals are principles to form judgments of right and wrong. Ethics are rules of right conduct. Using ethics and morals interchangeably to refer to codes of conduct leads to the type of confusion evident in this thread.

    The AMA’s code of medical ethics is an example of a professional ethical code of conduct

    https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/code-medical-ethics-overview

    governing right conduct for doctor-patient relationships, patient consent, patient privacy, genetics, reproductive medicine, organ procurement, medical research and so on. It is objective, the source is external and each member of the AMA is obliged to abide by it at the penalty of sanction and/or expulsion.

    Now, you are not going to find 20 PDF documents for a NAP code of conduct. You won’t even find one. Because there is none. Individuals may indeed abide by a moral code, but any such code is highly subjective and personal. The moral code of the Shaolin priest, the moral code of the Quaker minister and the moral code of the pleasure-seeking libertine are about as far apart as one can get, but each nonetheless can be in harmony with the NAP. Obviously, the NAP is not a code of right conduct. The pleasure seeking libertine would be an anathema to the Shaolin priest. The 3 respective moral codes are only related by by a moral constraint of non aggression towards one another.

  179. robert capozzi

    I would like to hear how the census question is unpeaceful.

    It’s possible that the language in the Constitution was written at a time when slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person. The slave-heavy states wanted more representation, and this was the compromise arrived at. Seems kinda ugly to me. Nowadays, it’s not readily apparent that it’s correct to count non-citizens in the census, since non-citizens can’t legally vote.

    I’d also like to hear how acknowledging citizenship is somehow xenophobic. I don’t fear the foreign-born at all, actually. It’s just not obvious that they should be counted in the process of determining the number of MCs. There may well be a great reason for doing so, but I’ve not heard one.

  180. Thomas Knapp

    “I would like to hear how the census question is unpeaceful.”

    Requiring someone to give you information that’s none of their business on pain of a fine is a threat of violence and therefore by definition unpeaceful.

  181. Thomas Knapp

    “Nowadays, it’s not readily apparent that it’s correct to count non-citizens in the census, since non-citizens can’t legally vote.”

    The purpose of the census is to apportion congressional districts. That apportionment is on the basis of the number of inhabitants, not the number of citizens. The exclusory factor was “Indians not taxed.” Why? Because we fought a revolution over taxation with representation. A non-citizen may not get to choose his congresscritter, but he does get one.

  182. paulie

    Nowadays, it’s not readily apparent that it’s correct to count non-citizens in the census, since non-citizens can’t legally vote.

    Children can’t vote either, but are counted in the census. People who are disenfranchised by criminal conviction or judgement of mental incompetence are counted, coma patients are counted. And so on.

    I’d also like to hear how acknowledging citizenship is somehow xenophobic.

    There are a lot of households which contain both documented and undocumented people. A lot of those don’t answer the census at all if the citizenship question is on there; studies indicate about 10 percent. As a result congressional representation goes more heavily to districts which have fewer immigrants than it would otherwise and as a result anti-immigrant policies are more likely to pass and be implemented, and a lot of evidence has come out this is the exact purpose of the citizenship question.

    Another reason is that in the past census data has been used to round people up, for example during both world wars. It’s justifiable to fear that the current immigration hysteria will lead to census data being used to facilitate mass roundup and deportation later.

  183. robert capozzi

    tk: Requiring someone to give you information that’s none of their business on pain of a fine is a threat of violence and therefore by definition unpeaceful.

    me: When I was a newly minted Fundamenetalist in 1980, I might have had a similar reaction. But, yes, this is an argument against the census generally. If we’re going to have a census, which feels pretty practical, it seems reasonably benigh and appropriate to me. The Harlos Nonarchy Pod solves the census problem.

    pf: Children can’t vote either, but are counted in the census.

    me: Since they can’t vote, a case could be made that kids should not be counted for apportionment purposes, either. Recall that apportionment had racist purposes, so…..

    As for documented/undocumented households, 10% sounds high. Regardless, your argument is for NO census, it’s too intrusive. IIRC, they ask a lot of intrusive questions on the long form. If ones wife is undocumted, probably the best course of action is to say “single” if you want to continue to break the law. Or, if I had my way, declare yourself a Harlos Nonarchy Pod and secede.

  184. robert capozzi

    As anarchists, why are you guys concerned about “apportionment”? There should be no census! There should be no voting! There should be no appointionment! It’s all just statism!

    Right?

  185. dL

    Since they can’t vote, a case could be made that kids should not be counted for apportionment purposes,

    you might want to stop digging, Bob

  186. paulie

    If we’re going to have a census, which feels pretty practical, it seems reasonably benigh and appropriate to me.

    It’s far from peaceful. There are historical examples aplenty including in the US of census data being used to round up and even kill people en masse. There’s no reason to believe it could not happen again.

    The Harlos Nonarchy Pod solves the census problem.

    I don’t see what Capozzi Archy Pods have to do with it. A census is called for in the constitution which specifies that it would ask how many people live in a given household. By the logic of the 9th and 10th amendments no other questions are authorized, and that makes any government which pries into other matters out of bounds and sticking its nose way past where it belongs. The sole questions which the constitution authorizes is to apportion representatives and it’s on the basis of population, not voters. This was a deliberate choice and if it “feels” wrong to you there’s an amendment process in the constitution.

    As for documented/undocumented households, 10% sounds high.

    Again, that’s from actual studies and not just pulling a number out of my ass, and you may have misinterpreted what I said. I said that *of households with any undocumented people in them* about 10% do not reply at all if there is a citizenship question and that includes households with some citizens.

    IIRC, they ask a lot of intrusive questions on the long form.

    Yes, that one should go right in the trash. No one is or should feel under any obligation to answer them.

    If ones wife is undocumted, probably the best course of action is to say “single”

    Perhaps, but empirically a lot of people make a different decision, and also empirically this was the exact reason the citizenship question was included for the purpose of illegitimately gaining partisan advantage through the effect on the margin it would have on districting, all for the purpose of passing more and harsher anti-immigrant measures through future congresses, make it easier to confirm judges and justices more likely to decree it legal, etc, etc.

    Regardless, your argument is for NO census

    I could make one, but haven’t. My actual argument is above.

    Feel free to declare a Capozzi Archy Pod panopticon surrounded by a dome; no one will come in or out without permission and everyone will be fully surveiled at all times so there wouldn’t be any secrets to keep.

    That’s neither a libertarian idea nor even a constitutionalist one. Under either of those standards the citizenship census is a no go. I have no idea why you would defend it; I would think you would know better honestly. We’ve never had a question like that and it comes at a time when roundups and deportations are on the rise and the rhetoric keeps intensifying. Even much of the duopoly opposes it and sees the danger yet you don’t. Sad.

    Recall that apportionment had racist purposes,

    Yeah. So does the citizenship question.

  187. Thomas Knapp

    —–
    As anarchists, why are you guys concerned about “apportionment”? There should be no census! There should be no voting! There should be no appointionment! It’s all just statism!

    Right?
    —-

    So you’re noticing people concluding what they’re concluding instead of what the models in your head hath decreed they shall conclude. That’s valuable information to file away and remember the next time you’re tempted to trust the models instead of the people.

  188. paulie

    As anarchists, why are you guys concerned about “apportionment”? There should be no census! There should be no voting! There should be no appointionment! It’s all just statism!

    Right?

    There are many different levels and variations of statism. I’m not neutral to the content and conduct of the state for the remainder of time it exists, which I don’t think is news to you or anyone who has read very many of my comments. And I don’t care that much whether voting continues to exist as long as it does not have much power over my life. If the state evolves into a LARP national association of parliamentarians and government reenactors, I don’t have a problem with it. Stay out of my wallet, my ass and my “personal space” and those of other people and I don’t care what it does tbh.

  189. robert capozzi

    pf: There are historical examples aplenty including in the US of census data being used to round up and even kill people en masse. There’s no reason to believe it could not happen again.

    me: Oh, absolutely. There is definitely a case for no census when extremely negative outcomes are possible.

    pf: By the logic of the 9th and 10th amendments no other questions are authorized, and that makes any government which pries into other matters out of bounds and sticking its nose way past where it belongs.

    me: Yes, IF the census were to only include citizens and perhaps their children, OR if the census was only used for headcount purposes, OR if apportionment only included citizens, these adjustments would probably require an amendment to the Constitution. My point is: as a matter of principle in the context of a republic, apportionment arguably should be limited to citizens only. In the context of nonarchy, no State is justified.

    pf: *of households with any undocumented people in them*

    me: Thank you. I missed that. 10% sounds plausibly in that subset.

    pf: all for the purpose of passing more and harsher anti-immigrant measures through future congresses, make it easier to confirm judges and justices more likely to decree it legal,

    me: Oh, sure. The Trump Administration and the R’s motives are a different question. In fact, when this issue hit the news, I was of course conflicted. OTOH, the notion of determining how many people are citizens seems reasonable. OTO, the Rs motives are, shall we say, deeply suspect. My practice is to first discern truth (or at least relative truths) in the abstract, and then consider things like motives and agendas.

    That can piss off the highly partisan, because I can see the merit in multiple aspects of both sides. J/W was making this point, too. Ecumenicalist Ls — were they to become relevant — could the folcrom for a more transpartisan approach. I think JA is already starting to fill this role. It also triggers Fundamentalist Ls, whose context is min/nonarchy.

    But, in the abstract, from a lessarchist perspective, counting citizens might make sense.

    pf: empirically this was the exact reason the citizenship question was included for the purpose of illegitimately gaining partisan advantage through the effect on the margin it would have on districting,

    me: Was it the “exact reason”? Are you sure? I seem to recall some R donor making that point, but while the Rs are in fact quite often the “stupid party,” I was under the impression that they had a different rationale.

    pf: That’s neither a libertarian idea nor even a constitutionalist one.

    me: Right, it would require a change to the Constitution. Probably so would a new Nonarchy Pod institution, to allow refuseniks to drop out of civil society. I’m thinking outside the box when offering these ideas.

  190. robert capozzi

    tk and pf,

    You guys often talk about appeals to the left, yes? Well, what better way to appeal to them then to point out that the “counting persons” clause is a vestige of slavery?

    Possible game changer….

  191. robert capozzi

    How do the Feds workaround this: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.”

  192. robert capozzi

    pf,

    You’re displaying another Fundamentalist tendency I’ve noticed: Over-application of slippery slope arguments.

    Goes in this case something like:

    a) Censuses have been used elsewhere to conduct mass slayings.
    b) Therefore, all censuses are evil, since they are prone to a slippery slope.
    c) In the meantime, IF we continue to have a census, it should be “constrained,” as a means to avoid the possibility of mass slayings.

    I can’t say you are “wrong” to fear the slippery slope, but it’s not obvious to me that the census will necessarily usher in mass executions. It feels like a severe over-reaction. The census is a practicality in the context of a republic. IN that context, is there a better way to determine representation?

  193. Thomas Knapp

    “as a matter of principle in the context of a republic, apportionment arguably should be limited to citizens only.”

    As a matter of principle in this republic, no taxation is allowed without representation. That was one of the rallying cries that led to the revolution which created this republic, and that was clearly the intent in framing the constitutional context of the census to count “inhabitants,” not “citizens,” for purposes of apportioning representation.

  194. robert capozzi

    TK,

    If one cannot vote, one is not “represented”, I wouldn’t think. It’s an interesting question about whether or not everyone vote. 12 year olds? They pay some taxes, too. Those who have not obeyed the law and are “undocumented.”? Tourists? The more the merrier?

    Consider the possibility that you are engaging in Slippery Slope thinking. Or maybe I am, doubling down for effect!

  195. Thomas Knapp

    “If one cannot vote, one is not ‘represented.'”

    Non sequitur, according to the principle the founders stated.

    One of the biggest rallying causes of the American revolution was that Parliament was levying taxes on Americans without giving the American states representation in Parliament.

    If England HAD given the states representation in Parliament, only white property-owning males would have been able to CHOOSE those representatives, but they would have been deemed to “represent” everyone in those states.

    After the revolution, when framing the US legislative branch, everyone got “represented” whether they liked it or not, except for “Indians not taxed.” Even African-American slaves, who most manifestly could not vote, were counted for “representation,” albeit at only 3/5ths the apportionment of whites. And non-citizen Latinos in e.g. Texas and California got full counting for “representation” as well as time went on.

    I’m not saying I agree with that principle, but that was the principle. Congressional districts were apportioned on a head count, not on citizenship status, and every head was deemed “represented” whether the hand attached to that head got to cast a ballot or not.

    And, absent constitutional amendment to either make non-citizens another “non-taxed” category or to just deprive them of representation in contradiction to the original principle, that’s how it still is.

    I’m not saying I agree with the principle that it is “representation” that legitimizes taxation, but that was the principle being used.

  196. LibertyDave

    TK,

    I have never studied the field of philosophy. Until a couple of weeks ago the most I new about morals and ethics was what every high school graduate knew, just a base definition. So when I decided to look into Mr. Capozzi’s claims on the non aggression principle every place I looked it states that the NAP is a “Ethical Stance”. No one other than the people here were calling it a “Ethical Constraint”. From what I read Ethical stances are a method to determine if an action is right or wrong.

    When I asked you the question; As the NAP is used to label all actions good or bad, how are they constraining or limiting? You replied that ethics constrain the choice of actions people make. When I looked up what constrains the choice of actions people make, what I found was people called that a conscience, not an ethical stance.

    Your response was to call me Humpty Dumpty and now I’m confused. What does Humpty Dumpty have to do with ethics, or are you just being facetious?

    After all I just repeating what I have read and trying to understand it. If you would like to help me out, great. If not you can kiss my butt, I didn’t ask you to jump into the discussion.

  197. Thomas Knapp

    “What does Humpty Dumpty have to do with ethics, or are you just being facetious?”

    It’s not about what he has to do with ethics, it’s about what he has to do with language:

    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”

    “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

    “When I asked you the question; As the NAP is used to label all actions good or bad, how are they constraining or limiting? You replied that ethics constrain the choice of actions people make. When I looked up what constrains the choice of actions people make, what I found was people called that a conscience, not an ethical stance.”

    The NAP as a constraint doesn’t label actions good or bad. It labels actions bad. As a constraint, it works like this:

    For a libertarian who considers non-aggression the single overriding moral principle of political interaction, the first question is:

    Does the action that someone just proposed amount to, or include, aggression, aka the initiation of force?”

    If it does, the principle AS CONSTRAINT requires that libertarian to oppose it.

    If it doesn’t, that libertarian might still oppose it for other reasons (but refrain from attempting to forcibly stop others from doing it, as that would also be aggression).

    And, of course, when the moral rubber meets the road of real life, things start getting complicated. Duress, hypocrisy, attempts to calculate outcomes in situations where there’s going to be SOME amount of SOME kind of aggression no matter what, etc. come into play.

    But a principle (or an “ethical stance”) as a constraint is merely an evaluation tool: Does this or does this not violate the principle in question? If not then pass, if so then fail.

  198. paulie

    Oh, absolutely. There is definitely a case for no census when extremely negative outcomes are possible.

    In the meantime, we could settle for actually not violating the federal constitution and limiting it to the one and only question it is allowed to ask for the purpose of apportionment. This is not that hard. Why are you having a hard time with it?

  199. paulie

    IF the census were to only include citizens and perhaps their children, OR if the census was only used for headcount purposes, OR if apportionment only included citizens, these adjustments would probably require an amendment to the Constitution.

    Asking any question besides how many people live at a given address would. Is there something you do not understand there?

    My point is: as a matter of principle in the context of a republic, apportionment arguably should be limited to citizens only.

    Follow the constitution, amend it through the process it provides for amendment, or stop pretending we have one. Again this is not that difficult.

  200. paulie

    Was it the “exact reason”? Are you sure?

    Yes, look it up. It was explicitly in memos. I don’t feel like finding the links again but have read them. So yes, I am sure.

  201. dL

    I’m not saying I agree with the principle that it is “representation” that legitimizes taxation, but that was the principle being used.

    A census is a population count, counting everyone. That’s what the applied usage means, everywhere, historically and now. Except, of course, in apartheid states. South Africa, for example, grossly undercounted the African population, if it even counted it at all. “Taxation and representation” is a complete red herring, the type of diversionary blather Bob likes to troll with to cover for some of his fringe positions that he likes to pretend are mainstream. Outside of Trump’s base, of course.

  202. paulie

    You’re displaying another Fundamentalist tendency I’ve noticed: Over-application of slippery slope arguments.

    LOL K. Says the guy who keeps talking about private nukes and a hundred million immigrants a year?

    You keep trying to act like the only alternative to census long forms and citizenship questions is not having a census. Does having a census which is limited to asking how many people live at any address not compute to you?

    It’s really not that much of a reach. In this country, within the last century, we had two wars when census data was used to round people up and put them in concentration camps. We had “operation wetback” involving mass deportation. Right now we are in the early stages of rounding people up, putting them in concentration camps and deporting en masse. The current president has expressed support for “operation wetback” and his ex wife said he had a book of Hitler speeches as his nightstand reference. All over the world we have had cases where concentration camps led to mass slaughter. Is it really that hard to see happening?

  203. dL

    I have never studied the field of philosophy. Until a couple of weeks ago the most I new about morals and ethics was what every high school graduate knew, just a base definition.

    Interchanging morals and ethics is commonly done. Not that big of a deal.

  204. robert capozzi

    tk: Non sequitur, according to the principle the founders stated.

    me: Yes, thanks, I grok what the founders meant in ways similar to how you do. It’s not, however, a non sequitur, just a challenge to what the founders intent was. I’m open to doing so with the LP and with the Founding Fathers. Are you? 😉

    That was the rhetoric of the 1770s. That was adjusted in the 1780s, by SOME of the SAME people, I might add. Then and now, there is a desire among lessarchists to seek a more perfect union. The considerations became thicker, in that things like domestic tranquility were introduced as political values.

    Currently, I would say that non-voting immigrants are not represented. They are counted for the census, however. Being counted doesn’t rise to the level of “representation.” I suspect most of them immigrated KNOWING that they would not be represented, so that seems fair enough to me.

    pf: Follow the constitution, amend it through the process it provides for amendment, or stop pretending we have one. Again this is not that difficult.

    me: It seems you have a problem taking Yes for an answer. Yes? 😉

    When the issue of asking citizenship in the census came up, it didn’t strike me as unreasonable in principle. It would, however, require a change to the Constitution census requirement, taking away from the intent of counting SLAVES and toward counting citizens-only.

    In practice, however, we’re largely in alignment that the Rs motives appear corrupt and partisan.

    That there is precedent for asking more than one question (how many persons live here?) muddies the waters. If it can be deftly handled, I’d see a JA calling for tweaks to the Constitution to correct for the handiwork of slavers. He might add to that a call for a tweak and clarify to birthright citizenship as well. (I have no position on what the tweak might look like.)

    Of course, I’d like to see him be for the Dreamers and for liberalized immigration policies and beefed up protections for taxpayers. If he’s for NO borders, I probably stay home, because that is an extreme non-starter. And I trust he can finesse his position on abortion. And that he knows about the next “Aleppo” and where he keeps his tongue!

  205. paulie

    There were people around then who were neither slaves nor citizens. Immigration was a thing then too. And they were counted.

  206. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    I’m certainly open to challenging the founders. But I have different criteria than you.

    Your criterion seems to be something called “domestic tranquility,” which I haven’t read as particularly well-defined. The most isolationist of the old Communist regimes (e.g. Albania under Hoxha) seemed to be reasonably “tranquil” domestically. I’m unaware of much public tumult, anyway. They also weren’t getting into military quarrels that didn’t concern them, especially on the other side of the planet. But I wouldn’t have liked living in one.

    My criterion is “hold the US regime to the Constitution when doing so means fewer and less far-reaching encroachments on individual freedom.”

    I’m OK with overthrowing the Constitution entirely in favor of a freer society (but hopefully without much if any violence), but while it’s in force, I intend to make the best uses of it I can. When the DC regime does something anti-freedom that is constitutional, I will still object, just not on constitutional grounds. When it does something anti-freedom that isn’t constitutional, I’ll attempt to hold them to their own supposed rules.

    In the context of the census, it allows a head count. I don’t particularly LIKE even that much, but it’s constitutional. Anything beyond a head count isn’t constitutional, so I’m with Jefferson:

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

    If they want to ask more questions than that, let them get 2/3 of both houses of Congress to propose, and 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify, an amendment.

    Even then, I would still resist any question beyond a head count.

    Current (unconstitutional) federal law requires me to answer all the questions the census asks. And I follow that law.

    To the question “how many people live in this household?” I answer with an accurate number because while I find that question noxious, answering it picks my pockets/breaks my leg not very much (unless the numbers were used to, say, forcibly move populations by number rather than some other criterion for a distribution more desirable to the state — e.g. “Florida is too crowded, let’s round up 100,000 people and move them to Alaska” — which I suppose could happen but which seems unlikely)

    To all other questions, I answer “none of your business,” because history says that those other questions could definitely be — HAVE BEEN — used to pick pockets, break legs, etc. (up to and including internment in a concentration camp or even worse if something about the respondent bothers “national security” bureaucrats).

    I suspect I would be happy in a United States where the federal government closely followed the Constitution and required the states to do the same per e.g. the 14th Amendment. Maybe even happy enough to decide that I’d rather spend more time on guitar and less time on political agitation. But I certainly don’t hold the document sacred and unquestionable.

  207. robert capozzi

    tk and pf,

    The relative domestic tranquility of Albania is hardly what I value politically. I value maximizing individual liberty while maintaining and improving domestic tranquility. As I see it, peace and freedom are two sides of the same coin.

    The third factor, of course, is what issues do those things in a politically viable way. What are the edgy issues that one can say in the public square and not come off like a kook. The 5-year rule seems about conceptually correct way of arriving at the edge, but I’m open to better, more serviceable, rules of thumb.

    I’d like to see JA as the L candidate doing just this, improving on the progress made by J/W, despite the glaring warts of 16. Here’s another one I’ve been thinking of of late:

    To address the global climate change threat, why not have taxes/fees for polluting that would be paid out as a UBI/citizens dividend? While there are some risks to advocating this, I believe it’s a transpartisan approach that solves a few problems at once.

    Likely Fundamentalists piss all over this idea, even though it’s really quite apparent that the sky and climate are a shared, unownable resource, at least through the intermediate term.

    The big problem would be: Who gets the dividend? A tourist from the Czech Republic staying in a Holiday Inn in Hackensack? An unregistered migrant from Guatemala? A Siberian who immigrated legally with his parents?

    While there are risks, and while even the US is not immune from harsh treatment of immigrants, there does seem to be some kind of standard for who votes, who gets the benefits of citizenship, and who might be eligible for a UBI.

    PF, yes, I double-down on the Fundamentalist tendency to apply slippery slopes. I do it for effect, and to shock the Fundamentalist mind out of its silo. It’s just something I do, although it’s not been especially successful, to date. Fundamentalism is a powerful — if unworkable — system of thought, a very tough nut to crack. It took me a decade of political dormancy to unwind my mind to the point where I could consider another approach: lessarchy. It’s hardly perfect, and it’s still not worked out (and maybe will never be), but it’s what I have to offer.

  208. robert capozzi

    tk: Your criterion seems to be something called “domestic tranquility,” which I haven’t read as particularly well-defined.

    me: A fair criticism. Generally, it means incremental changes to cause an inflection in the political trajectory with a special consideration for the most vulnerable (citizens and legal immigrants). Fundamentalists are prone to mocking fairness, but I believe it’s important to play fair in politics and policy, and have compassion for the least fortunate. You might say I’m a bleeding-heart L.

    It’s fair, in my view, to let the Dreamers stay, for example. Some kind of UBI might be a way forward, for example, but the conditions have to be set appropriately. While the US empire is unfair to taxpayers and (often) those who are killed by US forces overseas, it might not be entirely fair to those under the US umbrella to exit too precipitously.

    At this point, it’s all fairly case-by-case.

    Isn’t that how the world generally works? Things evolve. Circumstances change. That sort of thing. One-size-fits-all ideologies generally don’t end well, especially if they come to power!

  209. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    You write:

    “Some kind of UBI might be a way forward, for example, but the conditions have to be set appropriately.”

    If it’s conditional, it’s not universal. IIRC, you were an advocate for some kind of “citizens dividend” long before UBI became a hot issue, but while closely related, they aren’t the same thing. If it’s “universal,” the condition is “are you here?”

  210. robert capozzi

    pf: Says the guy who keeps talking about private nukes …

    me: Was I hallucinating when I’ve heard numerous Fundamentalists take precisely that position?

  211. robert capozzi

    tk: If it’s conditional, it’s not universal.

    me: True, in a sense. It’s true that if a resident of Windsor, CN, fills up in Detroit once, I don’t think they should get the dividend/UBI, true. Neutral within a broad and clear condition, or something. If you have a snappier definition, I’m all ears.

  212. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    I’m not worried about a “snappier definition,” and I’m not criticizing your musings versus UBI. I’m just pointing out that a basic income scheme that isn’t universal isn’t a universal basic income scheme.

  213. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Right, which is why citizen’s dividend is the more accurate term. Yang’s freedom dividend works OK as well.

  214. robert capozzi

    And, to perhaps explode a Fundamentalist’s head, we might have to accept that the momentum toward “free” healthcare is pretty much inevitable. The UBI/Citizens Dividend might be a way to buy at least catastrophic coverage, perhaps Medicare/aid or even federal employee’s plans. Yes, none of this is explicitly or even implicitly in the Constitution, but that’s not stopping the FedGov to go well beyond its remit. The pre-existing condition alone is just too radioactive an issue to fight, at least for the foreseeable future. Nor is a hospital’s “right” to turn away emergencies.

    If a person doesn’t want to buy government-facilitated insurance, should they have a medical emergency, their UBI/CD could be garnished. Indeed, it might be appropriate to garnish for other things, like child support.

    This doesn’t mean that an Ecumenicalist wouldn’t agree with Fundamentalists on the need to liberalize healthcare and insurance in any number of ways. Buying across state lines. Perhaps some tort reform. Increased reliance on charities. Etc.

    Entering the Public Square just saying No to everything because of a single “constraint” ensures political oblivion UNLESS and UNTIL the hoped-for “vanguard” reaches critical mass. Of course, PF may well think that’s just around the corner. Perhaps I’ve a blindspot on the matter, for I’m not seeing it. Maybe in another 50 years….

  215. LibertyDave

    dL,

    I’ve read your articles about the difference between morals and ethics. It sounds like the difference is their claim of origin and who they apply to, not what they are or what they do. From what I’ve read the biggest difference is that morals apply to the individual and ethics apply to specific groups. This doesn’t change the fact that morals and ethics are the same thing. A moral standard can be used as an ethical stance and an ethical stance can be used as a moral standard.

    So your claim that the NAP is a moral standard and can’t be used as an ethical stance is a load of crap. And since we are talking about the NAP as it applies to the Libertarian Party it is appropriate to call it an ethical stance.

  216. Thomas Knapp

    “Entering the Public Square just saying No to everything because of a single ‘constraint’ensures political oblivion UNLESS and UNTIL the hoped-for ‘vanguard’ reaches critical mass.”

    Entering the Public Square just saying No to everything isn’t something that anyone does. Any constraint, including a single one, means saying no to some things and yes to others, depending on how they fare on constraints tests.

    Right now, Republicans enter the Public Square every day saying No to government funding of abortion.

    Right now, Democrats enter the Public Square every day saying No to any substantial government restrictions on abortion.

    Most parties have multiple, changing constraints tests, and at any given time they’ll be firmly saying No to things that don’t pass those tests.

    People who consider the non-aggression principle a constraint say no to policy proposals that they believe violate that constraint.

    They don’t necessarily say yes to everything else (they all have other priorities of their own as well).

    Nor do they necessarily all agree on whether X passes or fails the test.

    And some of them attempt (in the name of realpolitik) to introduce a “calculation” element into matters so that they can justify adding “lesser” violations of the constraint in return for subtracting “greater” violations of the constraint.

    It just so happens that the non-aggression constraint is the principle the Libertarian Party organized itself around, and that it takes that constraint seriously when it comes to policy.

    That doesn’t make for a small tent, any more than “nothing that allows the expansion of slavery into new states/territories” made for a small tent for the Whigs, Free Soilers, Liberty Party vets, etc. who formed the Republican Party.

    Presumably if chattel slavery had survived for more than a decade after that party’s formation, they still would have stuck by that constraint when fighting the policy issues of the day, and different ones would have applied the constraint differently while they would have tolerated diversity on, say, whether to toll the Erie Canal or who should be appointed Postmaster General.

    There’s a lot less evidence for a “NAPster” cult answering to your description than there is for Cult of the Omnipotent State answering to mine.

  217. robert capozzi

    tk: I’m certainly open to challenging the founders

    me: Does this include the Fundamentalist founders of the LP? Or were the rules they put in place beyond reproach?

  218. Thomas Knapp

    Well, I’ve challenged them before — Nolan on the meaning of the pledge, Hospers on his endorsement of Bush, etc. (I tried to be gentle on that challenge since I strongly suspected, and still suspect, that he was senile and simply signed something put in front of him as “by” him), etc.

    If by “challenge” you mean “eternally and ineffectually gripe that they made it difficult for me to undo what they did instead of going and finding our founding something more to my liking,” not so much.

  219. LibertyDave

    TK,

    I glad you realized that I’m not like Mr. Capozzi, someone who makes up new definitions to words to rationalize their beliefs.

    And it appears that you attempted to answer my question to Mr. Capozzi with your last sentence describing ethics as an evaluation tool.

    But this seems to me to be more an answer to how ethics do what they do, not what ethics are supposed to do for the Libertarian party

    What ethics do is they let people know what to expect when dealing with that group. Mr. Capozzi claims that the NAP as an ethical stance doesn’t work.

    Since the NAP has been used as the ethical stance of the LP the LP’s message and policies have mostly remained consistent with the ethical stance. That means that Mr. Capozzi is lying when he claims that the NAP doesn’t work. As a matter of fact the point that the NAP works so well is the basis of his other lie.

    His next lie is that using the NAP as an ethical stance is harming the LP by driving people away because we won’t change our ethics on the whims and fears of the majority. If the NAP was driving people away then the membership of the party would be decreasing as as far as I’ve heard the party membership has been growing since the party was founded. And the two major parties that have appeared to abandoned all ethics have be losing members.

  220. Thomas Knapp

    “it appears that you attempted to answer my question to Mr. Capozzi with your last sentence describing ethics as an evaluation tool.”

    I didn’t describe ethics as an evaluation tool.

  221. dL

    From what I’ve read

    You stated earlier that haven’t read anything on the subject until two weeks ago, so I assume you have conducted some sort of interim research to back up your previously uninformed contention, which I’m gathering you now think has been confirmed. It is a fortuitous thing indeed for uninformed opinions to be quickly confirmed by research. I would be interested in your research citations.

    And since we are talking about the NAP as it applies to the Libertarian Party it is appropriate to call it an ethical stance.

    Is there some sort of NAP code of right conduct handbook for LP members that I’m unaware of? I know there’s a pledge to sign(or check), and I signed it, but I didn’t get the ethics handbook. Apparently, LibertyDave got the handbook, but I didn’t . Now some might view that as unethical behavior by the LP for failing to disclose terms for who or may not receive said code of ethics, or that there is even such a thing as a code of ethics one is signing up for. Surely, LibertyDave, after all his recent research, is not conflating the LP pledge with a code of ethical guidelines for proper conduct.

  222. robert capozzi

    ld: Since the NAP has been used as the ethical stance of the LP the LP’s message and policies have mostly remained consistent with the ethical stance. That means that Mr. Capozzi is lying when he claims that the NAP doesn’t work.

    me: Oh, well, sure, the NAP works VERY well as a leash. It has pretty much not worked at all as the basis for actual political change.

    If there’s a NAP Heaven, I might get in based on my personal behavior, but surely I won’t get into the Upper Room to sit with Ayn, Murray, Sam, and Dave. Way too open-minded and willing to consider other paths toward liberty and a freer society. I’m way too libertarian to be a libertarian, or something! 😉

    Sorry I didn’t make that clear to you.

  223. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Yes, the Rs and Ds have single-issue litmus tests, ones that shift over time.

    The Ls have one GIGANTIC litmus test that has remained unchanged since the founding by the exuberant, youthful Fundamentalist Founders. Perhaps as I creep nearer to death, it’d be nice to see some actual progress.

  224. robert capozzi

    tk,

    I do believe the word-choice of “universal” in UBI is as an alternative to something like “non-means-tested,” which is kinda cumbersome and not exactly sexy.

    Branding is often different from “precise 1920 meaning of the word.” I note that Fundamentalists often go running for the dictionary when in dialog. I certainly used to.

    I’d say it’s not the best look.

  225. Thomas Knapp

    —–
    I do believe the word-choice of “universal” in UBI is as an alternative to something like “non-means-tested,” which is kinda cumbersome and not exactly sexy.
    —–

    Typically, when I see someone arguing for a UBI, they make very clear that by “universal” they actually mean “universal” or something close to it. Not just non-means-tested, but everyone within a broadly specified population. The most narrowly I’ve seen it defined as “universal” is limiting it to adult residents, and most UBI advocates I’ve talked with have problems with the “adult” qualifier (although they might consider a smaller amount for minors, sent to their guardians as part of a whole-household check).

    While I have problems with basic income schemes in general, I’m with dL who points out that any “universal” basic income would quickly start getting less and less “universal.”

    Presumably the first and least sympathetic group to lose it would be prisoners.

    Then they’d start garnishing it for mandates, probably child support first because “deadbeat dads” are an easy group to pick on, even though it’s supposed to be a “basic” income that keeps you alive first and foremost and even though the kids would presumably be getting a check themselves.

    Then the schemes to tie it to civic duty would start popping up. “Yes, a ‘Universal Basic Income’ for everyone who’s completed two years of national service.” “Yes, a ‘Universal Basic Income’ as long as you’re registered to vote and don’t fail to vote two general elections running.” “Yes, a ‘Universal’ Basic Income with a dollar for dollar deduction on all funds transferred to persons in foreign countries or on our handy-dandy list of people we’ve accused of [insert list of crimes here].”

    It’s called “Universal” because it’s meant to be understood as universal (and most of its advocates probably honestly mean that), not as a replacement for “non-means-tested.”

    But if there’s going to be a “basic income” scheme, I’d just as soon have the warts on it tussled out in advance. It wouldn’t sell as well that way, but it would be more honest.

  226. dL

    While I have problems with basic income schemes in general, I’m with dL who points out that any “universal” basic income would quickly start getting less and less “universal.”

    Everything you said but it would start out with those felony convictions and child support default disqualifiers. It would also mandate real ID verification for recipients. I imagine it would probably also entail mandatory randomized drug testing to maintain eligibility. Obviously, further eligibility requirements would be tacked on later(e.g, The Cruz/Cotton Facial Recognition Initiative to Disqualify Anyone Participating In Assemblies Disrespecting the Blue Act).

    That being said, I don’t see it being implemented anytime soon, if for no other than reason than it would compete with the income transfer scheme we have now: Social Security. A lot of entrenched interests there. UBI would be seen as skewed toward the young whereas SSI is obviously skewed toward the old. I read these wonks chirping about phasing out Social Security, and I just have to chuckle. Good luck.

  227. dL

    Perhaps as I creep nearer to death, it’d be nice to see some actual progress.

    Things are progressing nicely to pretty much every issue stand you have taken in this thread.

  228. LibertyDave

    dL,

    The code of right conduct for LP members is the pledge. Sorry it is only one rule and doesn’t require a handbook to give it’s members. And the LP did not fail to disclose the terms, they have you sign (or check) saying you agree to it.

    Let me be clear on what I’m saying; The LP pledge is an ethical stance for proper conduct for achieving political or social goals that you agree to follow when you join the LP.

  229. Thomas Knapp

    “The LP pledge is an ethical stance for proper conduct for achieving political or social goals that you agree to follow when you join the LP.”

    The opposite, actually. It’s certification that one agrees that one, and only one, thing is IMPROPER conduct for achieving political social goals.

  230. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Thanks for clarifying. One of the great benefits of being a Ecumentalist L is that I don’t have to be tethered to what is “typical.” I can synthesize good ideas coming from anywhere, re-purpose them, consider (importantly) the sell-ability of the synthesized idea, and see if it sticks.

    UBI is itself a bit grandiose, as “typically” offered. What I’m suggesting is an experiment that begins to address real concerns in what I hope is a thoughtful, creative way. Charging pollution fees/taxes in a gradual manner over time begins to address the concerns over climate change, which I happen to believe are probably real risks. Even Fundamentalist Ls have really not come up with an argument that says there’s a “right” to pollute the air, except from full-blown Randroids, who believe pollution is “just” dirt in the air(!).

    Turning around and paying those fees out as a dividend addresses the concern that the poor will be disproportionately hurt by pollution fees. Whether it is paid to citizens, residents, or children would be a matter to negotiate. I can probably buy something like: Adult citizens get the full dividend; legal residents, children, and prisoners get half a dividend.

    I could imagine it would start small in the first year, and rise over time.

    There’s something to like and dislike about such a scheme from any number of perspectives. I don’t think one could sell it that a tourist from Turkistan who rents a car in Carnarsie for a week deserves the dividend. Just doesn’t seem fair to me, and the claims on such a dividend need to be fairly straightforward.

    My biggest concern is that the poor who drive long distances or consume disproportionate amounts of energy could actually harmed financially. I’m not sure if there’s a way to correct for this, though. That’s why it’s important to do this gradually.

    Garnishments for free-riding medical care and child support may or may not make sense. It feels fair to me, but I’m open to a counter.

    Yes, there are risks. I sure wish GJ offered something like this over the FAIR tax. Should JA come over, I wish he’d consider it. I’m fairly sure the no-name Fundamentalists would not embrace anything close to this, trapped as they in the NAP construct. Such a proposal might trigger a lot of smoke coming out of their ears! 😉

    Unfortunately, the scholars and analysts in the LM seem to largely be either outright climate-change deniers (as I recall the LvMIers are) or apologists for the petroleum industry (as the cosmotarians tend to be). Maybe the Niskanenites might do the work on such a concept.

    Even on Fundamentalist grounds, I just don’t see how there’s a “right” to pollute. Some Cosmotarians even suggest maybe it’s a good thing that the Earth is warming, who are we to say. I say that sounds awfully reckless and irresponsible.

    This is an edgy-yet-centrist approach that is at once unconventional yet reasonable, IF properly structured.

    It could be a game changer, rebranding Ls as pro-environment (but not wackos), pro the “little guys and girls.”

  231. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    Your so funny, ignoring history to claim liberty has never worked for political change. And then claims to be ‘open-minded and willing to consider other paths toward liberty and a freer society when you claim that liberty doesn’t work. Every argument you make you say it’s to dangerous to allow bad people the same freedoms, so we need to give up everyone freedoms so the government can make you feel safe from the bad people.

    You are to much of a coward hiding behind the bullies called government for you to be libertarian.

  232. robert capozzi

    LD,

    You seem to be an EXCELLENT person to ask: Is there a “right” to pollute, to spew byproducts into the atmosphere, or not?

  233. dL

    Let me be clear on what I’m saying; The LP pledge is an ethical stance for proper conduct for achieving political or social goals that you agree to follow when you join the LP.

    Surely Shirley, I would be interested in that reading list that you researched that would persuade you to conclude that a membership pledge ==ethics.

  234. C. Al Currier

    “You are to much of a coward hiding behind the bullies called government for you to be libertarian.”– Liberty Dave
    They way I see it, anyone that contributes money to the LP is a libertarian. You can be cowardly, stupid, hypocritical or be all bass-ackwards with political beliefs. You can even misspell libertarian.
    Only the ones running for political office need to meet any standards such as bravery, smarts and integrity.

  235. dL

    Charging pollution fees/taxes in a gradual manner over time begins to address the concerns over climate change

    that would be a pigouvian tax, the objective of which is to address a negative externality by a reduction in consumption. Obviously, a pigouvian tax could never be the source of a guaranteed income because the whole point of the tax is to reduce consumption of the thing being taxed, leading, of course, to the revenue from the tax –> 0.

  236. dL

    It’s true that if a resident of Windsor, CN, fills up in Detroit once, I don’t think they should get the dividend/UBI, true.

    Why would a UBI regime be mailing out a check to a residential address in Windsor. Canada? Obviously, a check would require a valid residential address. Proof of residency. That would be it.

  237. robert capozzi

    I prefer to think of this as a DIVIDEND, not a guarantee. The dividends would fluctuate, depending on collections of the Spewing Fee (pollution tax). It would be unreasonable and unpeaceful to attempt to reduce all Spewing overnight. It would allow for a transition over time.

    PF, when he’s in his die-hard Fundamentalist mode, is concerned about any sort of registration of any kind. What if someone doesn’t have an SSN? What if someone lives in an RV? How about the homeless?

    The Windsor tourist is another example of my tactic of anticipating and then doubling down on outlier objections from Fundamentalists. Any sort of “proof” is verboten from a strict NAP/constraintist perspective, if I have them scoped reasonably accurately.

  238. Fernando Mercado

    Unrelated to the comments above, but just need some thoughts for an article.

    1. An updated list of my first article for the 2020 Green Party Candidates
    2. A brief article showing the latest Green Party Presidential Debate
    3. An article talking about George Galloways announcement for his run as an Independent in the West Bromwich East constituency in the Next UK Elections

    Which one sounds more interesting?

  239. paulie

    PF, when he’s in his die-hard Fundamentalist mode, is concerned about any sort of registration of any kind. What if someone doesn’t have an SSN? What if someone lives in an RV? How about the homeless?

    It has nothing to do with hardcore fundamentalist. Many people in this state and others have no ID, rarely if ever use SSN or do not have it, move around a lot to where they don’t have a stable physical and mailing address, and/or do not have a bank account and current ID, thus can’t easily cash checks.

  240. paulie

    Poor folks and or non-whites especially, but not only. And if you a pay a dividend only to citizens you are screwing over tourists, foreign businesses doing business here, immigrants who are not yet citizens, even people passing through on the way from Mexico to Canada or wherever.

  241. paulie

    Then there’s the administrative cost and all the errors that creep in. The temptation to make it more complicated over time like the tax code to incentivize and punish different things. The temptation to use it as punishment for not paying tax, not paying child support, not paying court fees and fines. Tying it to a social credit score. And more. How about getting people used to the idea that they get something for nothing from govt or that they can live A-OK without working as they see more and more of their neighbors do so?

  242. paulie

    .

    1. An updated list of my first article for the 2020 Green Party Candidates
    2. A brief article showing the latest Green Party Presidential Debate
    3. An article talking about George Galloways announcement for his run as an Independent in the West Bromwich East constituency in the Next UK Elections

    2, 3 and 1 in that order. Or do all three if you can.

  243. paulie

    Unrelated to the comments above, but just need some thoughts for an article.

    This is the open thread. There is never a need to be related to comments above.

  244. paulie

    Gotcha. I was just addressing that first part separately in case anyone, including lurkers, has similar concerns. Ever.

  245. paulie

    Seconded. I only meant that an article about the debate would be more interesting than an update of the listing of candidates, if I had to choose. Please do all three if you can.

  246. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas Knapp wrote:

    As a matter of principle in this republic, no taxation is allowed without representation. That was one of the rallying cries that led to the revolution which created this republic, and that was clearly the intent in framing the constitutional context of the census to count “inhabitants,” not “citizens,” for purposes of apportioning representation.

    Actually, Madison’s notes on the Constitutional convention shed light on the point of the lower house and apportionment, including in reference to the 3/5 compromise.

    The lower house was intended to apportion representation to states on the basis of property. At that time it was hard to count property, so population was used as a reasonable proxy. 3/5 was used because slaves were approximated to be 3/5 as productive as whites. People were productive and contributed to the total economic value of each state regardless of citizenship.

    Obviously we all would disagree with those rationales now, but that was the history of it.

  247. robert capozzi

    pf: Then there’s the administrative cost and all the errors that creep in.

    me: All systems have errors, public and private. Happens all the time. But iirc the SSA has low administrative costs. Yes, there are people who won’t be eligible for a dividend because they are homeless or refuseniks. Maybe if there’s a small income stream for citizens, some may make different life choices to get their share.

    pf: How about getting people used to the idea that they get something for nothing from govt or that they can live A-OK without working as they see more and more of their neighbors do so?

    me: I guess some can live on Yang’s $1000 a month idea, but I’m thinking something more like $200-$300 a month, or better still $600-900 quarterly, again like a dividend. That’s gas money and maybe some food.

    While it could become a Christmas tree, the BIG difference is that externalities are dissuaded and the funds are paid back to (nearly) everyone. And, oh, yes, the planet might be saved.

    We can’t have that!

    Perhaps the better term is Heretic, not Ecumenicalist! 😉

  248. dL

    While it could become a Christmas tree, the BIG difference is that externalities are dissuaded and the funds are paid back to (nearly) everyone. And, oh, yes, the planet might be saved.

    It’s economic nonsense to fund a guaranteed income from a pollution tax. The point of the tax is to reduce the pollution. So to keep the “guaranteed” in guaranteed income, the left hand taxes the pollution output while the right hand subsidizes its production. That would be killing the planet.

  249. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    Your plan to fix climate change by using taxes/fees for polluting then giving the money to citizens of the US will do nothing stop or fix the problems caused by climate change. All you will be doing is allowing big companies to bribe the government so they will be able to harm innocent people by polluting their property or the air they breath. And the government which is the biggest polluter will be exempt from the tax.

    If you believe that people are putting to much CO2 in the air then do something about it and plant a tree. Trees use solar power to take CO2 out of the air and replace it with oxygen.

    You will never solve the worlds problems by trying to control what people do. All you will do is enslave the world.

  250. dL

    It has nothing to do with hardcore fundamentalist. Many people in this state and others have no ID, rarely if ever use SSN or do not have it, move around a lot to where they don’t have a stable physical and mailing address, and/or do not have a bank account and current ID, thus can’t easily cash checks.

    It’s why I mock the notion of “social justice” in a papers please national security state.

  251. robert capozzi

    CM,

    Actually, apportioning by property might be a good way to apportion. States that were more freedom-oriented would contribute more to the commonwealth; states that blocked wealth-creation would receive less. But that would be more than a tweak to the Constitution, and thefefore far more difficult.

  252. robert capozzi

    LD,

    No, the government would NOT be exempt from paying the Spew Fee, is how I see it. With its scale, the government would be in a good position to shift away from Spewing faster than most individuals and private institutions, actually.

    Dissuading polluting strikes me abundantly sensible. Take your argument up with Pigou!

  253. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    If you tell the government that is has to give each citizen money for polluting, where is the government going to get that money? The government only has two options, take the money from the citizens then give it back to them or print the money out of thin air. Seeing how the government already does this, how is it going to discourage polluting?

    And how is it dissuading private businesses from polluting when you are giving them a free pass from paying for any damages they cause when they pollute. Because they’ve already paid there pollution tax?

    Are you really this much of an idiot? The only way to dissuade people from harming others by polluting it to make them restore the damaged they caused.

  254. George Phillies

    On the same topic of a sound libertarian economic stance, as opposed to Austrian crackpot economics:

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/07/john-maynard-keynes-national-self-sufficiency-1933.html

    Keynes wrote:

    I sympathize, therefore, with those who would minimize, rather than with those who would maximize, economic entanglement among nations. Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel–these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national.

  255. Jared

    The geolibertarian ideal would be no taxes except the land value tax on ground rents, Pigovian taxes on industrial pollution, and severance taxes on natural resource depletion. Local governments collect from individuals, states tax the localities, and the federal government taxes the states. These taxes fund government at all levels, and whatever surplus revenue remains is distributed equally as a no-strings-attached dividend to registered adults who can show proof of residency. Non-citizens should be eligible, in my opinion, but tourists should not. The only other condition I could see being applied is if there’s a lien on a property whose owner owes back taxes. Maybe this dividend doesn’t meet the strict definition of a UBI/BIG, but it’s close enough that the label would be more helpful than misleading to a general audience.

  256. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I ask again: From your perspective, is there a “right” to pollute, to spew whatever one wants into the atmosphere?

  257. robert capozzi

    LD: If you tell the government that is has to give each citizen money for polluting, where is the government going to get that money?

    Me: Jared seems to get my point, but it may well be a concept new for you, so let me try again. The government would not give money for polluting. It would TAX (assess a fee) for polluting and pay it back almost immediately (quarterly) in the form of a dividend.

    LD: The government only has two options, take the money from the citizens then give it back to them or print the money out of thin air.

    Me: It would be the former. It would be paid back to all citizens (possibly residents, too) equally.

    LD: Seeing how the government already does this, how is it going to discourage polluting?

    Me: Nope, not even close. Currently, the government TAKES unequally and SPENDS unequally. What I’m suggesting is a different paradigm. Tax polluters who pollute the most and all polluters to the extent they pollute. Those tax receipts would be paid out quarterly to (nearly) everyone equally.

    This:

    a) Doesn’t hurt the poor, and probably helps them disproportionately.
    b) Would start small, and possibly be expanded over time.
    c) Dissuades pollution by making it more expensive to pollute, and thereby incentivize polluters to shift toward cleaner energy consumption
    d) Addresses the uber risk of climate change

  258. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    There is no ‘right’ to pollute. If you pump harmful chemicals into the air you are responsible for any damaged caused. The problem with carbon dioxide is how much is to much. And how to remove the excess from the atmosphere.

    Your solution will do nothing to effect climate change. In your imagination you think that the government will collect money from the people who pollute and give it to everyone. How does taking money from polluters and giving to to everyone equally restore any damage caused by pollution.

    Your claim that a carbon tax will dissuade anybody is a load of crap. The carbon tax idea was developed between big business and government to give them a free pass to pollute and put their smaller competitors out of business. A business who has paid their carbon tax can’t be held liable for any damage from the carbon they spew. How is that going to stop them from pumping carbon into the air.

    And the government will be exempt from the tax. If the government taxes itself it will just raise other taxes to pay for it, which means that the government will never pay for the pollution it causes.

    Your solution to climate change only address half the problem. If their is to much carbon dioxide in the air then to remove the excess you need to plant more trees. That’s all trees do is use solar power to remove carbon dioxide from the air and replace it with oxygen. As long as mankind keep cutting down trees and not replanting then stopping industrial sources of carbon dioxide will do nothing to stop global warming.

    As I’ve said before, if your worried about climate change then plant a tree. Quit trying to use the force of government to pad your pockets at the expense of people who are actually damaged by pollution.

  259. robert capozzi

    LD: If you pump harmful chemicals into the air you are responsible for any damaged caused.

    Me: Sure. But how could that POSSIBLY work in court?

    LD: The problem with carbon dioxide is how much is to much. And how to remove the excess from the atmosphere.

    Me: True. What I’m pointing to is taxing the negative externality (pollution) to incentivize less polluting.

    LD: How does taking money from polluters and giving to to everyone equally restore any damage caused by pollution.

    Me: Umm, it discourages polluting. Most who’ve studied economics understand that people respond to incentive and disincentives, pursuing less costly alternatives. Read up on internalizing externalities.

    LD: Your claim that a carbon tax will dissuade anybody is a load of crap. The carbon tax idea was developed between big business and government to give them a free pass to pollute and put their smaller competitors out of business. A business who has paid their carbon tax can’t be held liable for any damage from the carbon they spew. How is that going to stop them from pumping carbon into the air.

    Me: Extraordinary! Evidence?

    LD: And the government will be exempt from the tax. If the government taxes itself it will just raise other taxes to pay for it, which means that the government will never pay for the pollution it causes.

    Me: Technically, you are partially correct. Government can shift its consumption patterns. They probably don’t purchase buggy whips any more, either!

    LD: As I’ve said before, if your worried about climate change then plant a tree.

    Me: Boy, I sure hope you’re being facetious here!

  260. dL

    Dissuading polluting strikes me abundantly sensible. Take your argument up with Pigou!

    You didn’t answer the question. How are you going to guarantee income sourced from a pollution tax when the point of the pollution tax is to dissuade polluters from polluting? No pollution, no guaranteed income.

  261. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Is there going to be live coverage on IPR? This just popped up in my YouTube feed:

    LNC Meeting Austin Sat AM ( currently 5 watching, started 7 minutes ago)

  262. Eric Sundwall

    In the American system of single plurality districts, protest is the only viable action for third parties. Ain’t no CAPOZZISTS gonna optimally Overton that grok in Schengan in any game changing retreat from Cogito Ergo Sumland.

  263. robert capozzi

    Lord help me. Dividends are not guaranteed. Imposing a fee/tax doesn’t abolish pollution, it disincentivizes it.

  264. robert capozzi

    ES,

    I’m not sure you’ve PROVEN that plurality systems are necessarily not viable for third parties, have you? I agree it’s tougher to break through, but it HAS been done. But let’s say you’re correct. It doesn’t follow that therefore we should have a political party that “protests” from the hard right and hard left simultaneously. Is there any reason why such a party can “protest” by offering a reasonable third way? Why must the LP be a vehicle for NAP Fundamentalism? Why can’t the protest be for plausible changes to the social order that could be enacted within 5 years or so?

    Single-issue protests about bazooka toting rights, 9th month abortions, and abolition of all Cabinet-level positions not enumerated in the Constitution are fair game, of course. But why should there be a party that embraces all 3?

  265. dL

    Lord help me. Dividends are not guaranteed.

    UBI is a guaranteed income, not a dividend.

    Imposing a fee/tax doesn’t abolish pollution, it disincentivizes it.

    Again, how does one guarantee income from an activity that is being taxed for the social cost of its negative externalities? The economic purpose of the carbon tax is for consumers to conserve energy or switch to less carbon-intensive fuels. When that happens, the guaranteed income goes away. An obvious political failure. And an unpalatable one at that.

  266. dL

    I’m not sure you’ve PROVEN that plurality systems are necessarily not viable for third parties, have you?

    French sociologist Maurice Duverger did, ~ 70 years ago.
    Duverger’s Law: single-member district plurality systems produce a two party system.
    https://kenbenoit.net/pdfs/Benoit_FrenchPolitics_2006.pdf

    An iron clad principle of political science. Sundwall is correct. The only caveats are
    (1) disintermediation has created some opportunities in localized races where the major parties don’t always run candidates
    (2) doesn’t necessarily preclude an independent or third party candidate from winning a major election. But that rare anomaly is entirely a function of the candidate and the candidate’s wallet. And such a victory does nothing to establish the party. Jesse Ventura and the Reform Party would be exhibit A of that.

    dL’s Law: A libertarian candidate capable of financing a major election victory doesn’t need the Libertarian Party.

  267. robert capozzi

    In concept, a small experiment in a citizens dividend would not end pollution tomorrow. It shares some common aspects of a UBI, but it would not be a guarantee. It would be a dividend, which can fluctuate. It might evolve into a full blown UBI down the line. The fees would be small in the first few years, then grow as negative externalities are disincentivized gradually.

    Laws don’t have exceptions, last I checked. Propensities are not laws.

    But even if it’s completely impossible for a third party to rise, it still does not justify NAP Fundamentalism, and the LP’s simultaneously hard right and hard left stance. Why be a political party? Why not be a connected network of 501c4s. Such as: Ls for Private Nukes and Ls for Nuclear Abolition. Some Fundamentalists can contribute to both, reasoning that nukes are inherently aggressive OTOH but that if States have nukes, for now so should individuals OTO.

  268. Chuck Moulton

    This is the first LNC meeting I haven’t followed live in a long, long time. I mostly didn’t bother because IPR appears to be dead, so there was no place to comment or commiserate with others. If there is a new place for liveblogging LNC meetings, please let me know.

    I look forward to reading the minutes.

    All I can discern so far is the executive director seems gung ho about killing the LNC business list moving it to Google, where it is much harder to follow who is saying what, sort sensibly, search, etc. It’s pretty much the death of LNC transparency and no one on the LNC seems to care.

    This move would increase the work necessary to compose my vote charts by at least a factor of 100, so I will have to rely on the secretary’s minutes without the ability to check her work for mistakes in the future. And who know what nonsense the LNC will do once it becomes overburdensome to follow them.

  269. paulie

    I was busy with being secretary at my state exec com in person meeting (the first since convention) and did not get a chance to liveblog. There’s an archived video, or has been for the past few dozen meetings, so I’ll try to watch it when I can and blog it but it obviously won’t be live. I asked for people to blog in my place, here, in IPR email group, various FB groups etc, and got no takers. Chuck is among many people who can post IPR articles/threads, and I have a join link up top for anyone else who wants to sign up.

  270. George Phillies

    The LNC ED also appears to have been a large part of the proposal to pay Sarwark for full-time fundraising, a proposal that went down roughly 5-9-3, if I follow Caryn Ann on Facebook correctly.

    We aslo have the sad news for us though not her that Lauren Daugherty is departing as fundraising lead person.

  271. paulie

    ?Joe Bishop-Henchman?
    to
    Joe Bishop-Henchman, LNC Member (At-Large)
    Admin · 10 hrs

    Austin LNC meeting post-mortem:

    This was a tough meeting. As of this week, our solo fundraising staffer Lauren Daugherty is moving on professionally, and this meeting was where we had the responsibility to chart out what we do next.

    So what did we do?

    (1) We changed organizational priorities to focus on fundraising for the first time, directing the executive director to hire a senior director and one to two associates or contractors by November 15, 2019. Mr. Longstreth (Region 1) and I helped sketch out this major change in institutional focus – we may have never prioritized fundraising as much as we now do – and it earned unanimous support from LNC members. This is a big goal of mine – if we are to have a Libertarian America, we need Libertarian caucuses in the House and Senate and state legislators holding the balance of power, and for that we need 1000s of Jeff Hewitts, and for that we need marketing and campaign and ballot access and litigation strategies, and for that we need fundraising to be a priority. LNC fundraising is actually at least seven different jobs – online, direct mail, identifying major donors and getting meetings with them, securing gifts at those meetings, stewardship and renewals, events, and LPStore. One person cannot do all of those things, and until we acknowledge that we need a team to do all those things well, we will leave money and growth on the table. We acknowledged that. I expect the job descriptions to go up and out soon.

    (2) We designated Whitney Bilyeu, our region 7 representative, as interim fundraising director in the meantime. Every LNC member, including me, is eager to help Whitney succeed, and we are all grateful at her deciding to step up.

    (3) We did not approve a proposal to hire our chair, Nick Sarwark, as a contractor at $75 an hour up to 40 hours per week through November, with a goal of raising $200,000 in that period. I voted for it. I’ve heard both sides for several weeks. There are issues with compensation, reporting, and accountability that I don’t take lightly, and I don’t hold it against anyone who opposed it on those grounds. But Mr. Sarwark was effective at raising over $100,000 in his Phoenix mayor’s race, the areas where Ms. Bilyeu is weakest are where Mr. Sarwark is strongest, and generally I think the LNC doesn’t take enough calculated risks. I was willing to take this risk and re-evaluate it in November based on the clear metrics in the proposal. But, as I noted, it did not pass.

    (4) We began the process of reorganizing how we do oversight, exploring specialized committees on key priority areas like fundraising, the budget, marketing, membership growth, and campaigns/candidates, to help with strategic planning and support our staff’s execution. The current LNC structure makes us all generalists, and results in key areas getting consistently neglected and our staff pulled in different directions. Done right, this best practice of functioning large boards can mean we have institutional champions for our key priorities. It may also nudge LNC voting criteria to be more about which priority a candidate can help most with, and not just about being an ambassador to defend a constituency. I am grateful for the unanimous vote to move forward on this initiative.

    (5) We approved $6,000 in event and travel expenses for Apollo Pazell’s Libertarian Frontier Project, a key project in building up promising candidates and winnable races in the mountain west. The $6,000 was offset by reductions elsewhere, preserving our 2019 balanced budget.

    (1)-(3) above was intense: 5 of our 10 divided roll call votes at the meeting related to those matters, and the ongoing debate drifted toward the personal. My main goal was that we did not leave Austin without the matter resolved, one way or another, with both long-term direction and short-term actions covered, and that did happen. For me, it was a lot of running around nudging things forward and being in a lot of hard conversations. While no one got everything they wanted, the result is a clear and promising direction for the Party.

    Our budget meeting will be in November in Miami. We will need to find about $150,000 to guarantee ballot access for our presidential ticket – much less than in previous elections but still a sizeable amount of money. We will be working with our executive director to do performance reviews and begin moving staff compensation up to competitive levels. We continue to roll out improvements to the CRM database used by our affiliates. And we are continuing planning the 2020 (and 2022!) convention, including ramping up the bylaws, credentials, and platform committees. This meeting showed that even under an intense, intense debate, your current LNC is able to reach results to move the Party forward. I’m proud to be a part of it.

  272. paulie

    I was busy with being secretary at my state exec com in person meeting (the first since convention)

    First in person, and it was up in Huntsville. Ended up passing out on the couch. Our other monthly meetings have been phone conferences. Sorry, I can’t take minutes on two meetings at the same time and only one is an actual responsibility of my office; signing up to post articles here is not the same as a promise to post any particular article. I will continue to cover future LNC meetings as best I can if I am not busy doing something else I can not get out of at that same time.

  273. robert capozzi

    CM: It baffles me why any supposed libertarian would suggest a new tax.

    ME: Because the system of property rights used in the US and, as far as I know, elsewhere does not address the ubiquitous and essential biological need for reasonably clean air. Because the free-rider problem in the air remains unsolved. Because there is a growing risk that the planet is being changed due to this the unsolved dilemma. Because of course this would be advocated in tandem with significant spending cuts, starting with the military and corporate welfare spending. Because I view natural resources as a kind of commonwealth, and I’d like to see Ls reconsider the Lockean model. One cannot mix labor with the air that I can see. Because I’d like to set the precedent for something closer to Friedman’s negative income tax. The last number I saw was the government spends something like $40,000 per person, and I’d like to see much of that returned to taxpayers in the intermediate term. Because I’d like to see glaring negative externalities internalized. Because I remember how bad the air smelled before lead was abolished from gasoline, and lead is a known carcinogen. Because there are other carcinogens in the air due to human-made pollution. Because it makes sense to me that taxing externalities is more market-oriented than a regulatory approach. Because I’m open-minded, and I sometimes find that counter-intuitive solutions work better. Because I have no investment in unworkable dogma. Because even NAP Fundamentalists reluctantly acknowledge that there is no “right” to pollute.

    And because I’ve not heard a better idea. Care to share one?

  274. George Phillies

    “…exploring specialized committees on key priority areas like fundraising, the budget, marketing, membership growth, and campaigns/candidates, to help with strategic planning and support our staff’s execution….”

    As was proposed by the Clean Slate LNC campaign, twenty years ago. Read about it at CMLC.org. Or read our book Libertarian Renaissance, the update. It’s great to read that progress is finally being made in this direction.

    As a minor correction, the idea of paying Nick to do fundraising was entirely due to teh Executive Director, Mr. Fishman.

  275. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    You should quit lying about you being libertarian. It’s obvious you don’t believe in liberty. Every Idea you share involves taking away someones liberty, not giving people more liberty. Your open-minded to everything but liberty. And you have heard a lot of better ideas, you just won’t consider them because they involve liberty.

    Your belief in freedom only applies to you, for everyone else you have abandoned the NAP for two stances that have cause the most misery in the world. Might make right, and the end justify the means.

  276. dL

    ME: Because the system of property rights used…blah,blah,blah

    You still haven’t addressed the economic nonsense of using a pigouvian tax to fund a guaranteed income. Oh, you equivocated, claiming you really meant “citizen’s dividend,” before equivocating again that a citizen’s dividend need not stay a citizen’s dividend, that it could scale up to a “full blown UBI.” So, I gather that if one calculated the social cost of green house gas emissions and assessed this as a carbon tax(that was tacked on to, say, one’s utility bill) to be redistributed as a citizen’s dividend, and if X% of the population were thusly incentivized to finance the purchase of solar panels rather than pay the tax, the “full blown UBI” response to the declining citizen’s dividend would be to outlaw solar panels and pass a massive new Trump subsidy to the coal industry to increase green house emissions to guarantee new UBI carbon taxes to offset the previous decline in carbon taxes under the citizen’s dividend. Got it.

  277. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    ME: Because

    All of this nonsense has been refuted in responses to you over and over again. But even if your idea were a good one and would lead to a society with more liberty (which it wouldn’t), the fact remains that who controls the legislature and basic public choice theory shows us your supposedly good plan would get warped into something horrible AND any current taxes or spending programs your idea supposedly replaces will stay in place — or best case scenario be repealed then put back into place a few years later because people are used to them. So you are just doing backbreaking marketing work for a new tax and spend scheme, dragging the “libertarian” brand through the mud in the process. No thanks.

    Try proposing some libertarian ideas rather than always shilling for big government and dumping on liberty.

  278. Chuck Moulton

    re: Joe Bishop-Henchman’s summary…

    A more active and specialized committee structure (in line with George Phillies’ idea for decades) would be a huge step forward.

    $75 / hour for the chair sounds absurd to me. The money raised for his campaign is not comparable to what can be raised for the LNC. 1) it wasn’t a one man show; his campaign manager Evan McMahon did a lot of work, 2) people are often more willing to donate to campaigns than to the party, 3) his campaign over-promised and under-delivered, saying he would make the run-off and had great chances of winning even though many of us told him he was delusional — I suspect he burned some donor bridges. When Redpath was chair and ran for U.S. Congress (or was it U.S. Senate) he did not burn donors was unrealistic promises. An effective fundraiser needs to be credible. I’m a big Sarwark fan for the way he runs the LP and chairs meetings and speaks for the party, but that doesn’t mean I believe he is God’s gift to fundraising.

    The fundraising goals are over-ambitious and will fail. We should aim to increase our budget and revenue, but the notion that it will grow exponentially overnight or that we’ll have caucuses in every legislature is ridiculous.

    Fundamentally if the LNC wants to raise a lot more money, then it needs to start doing things exciting to donors and having successes to show for it. This LNC (and prior LNCs) don’t do that. They ignore low hanging fruit and squander money on hopeless projects.

    Case in point: sending more money to Apollo for a project that bankrupted us before and we’re not ready for yet.

    In contrast, in Pennsylvania on a shoestring budget we are electing a ton of libertarians. Our goal is to have more elected Libertarians in PA than in the rest of the country combined, and I suspect we will achieve it. National has been missing in action this project. If we had $6,000 two months ago, we would have elected at lease 300-500 Libertarians to partisan office this year in PA (and this is not an IOE/JOE year). Instead we’ll only elect 50-100 with the money coming out of a handful of activists’ pockets.

    Wes Bennedict has been a hero helping us out. So far all I’ve seen from his replacement is Dan Fishman wants to pay the chair $75 / hour and kill the email list.

    I hope eventually the LNC stops chasing unicorns and is realistic about what is achievable and the most effective uses of money.

  279. Chuck Moulton

    And btw, even though it’s a good idea to have a robust active committee structure, that won’t actually accomplish much as long as staff continues to undermine (to be charitable) or sabotage (to be uncharitable) them. Case in point: the so-called “membership committee” is champing at the bit to call lapsed members inviting them to rejoin, but staff refuses to give them access to such lists.

    These budget crunches are self-inflicted wounds. Staff hates volunteers, as do many on the LNC who denigrate free help as “unprofessional”. When you throw money away on wasteful projects, don’t support cost-effective projects, and turn away fundraising help, it’s no wonder that there is a chronic budget shortfall.

    We have similar problems at the state level. I’ve spent 15 years voting against hail mary projects only to be overruled in PA, VA, etc. Then when it comes time for the important stuff such as electing candidates or ballot access we find little money left in the state party bank accounts. Generally the people who have been around 5+ years vote the way I do… we’re always overruled by the newcomers who think they know better and believe their silver bullet will be the breakout moment for the LP.

  280. Thomas Knapp

    Would taxation still be theft if it was assessed/collected as an on-the-spot, known-beforehand fine for force-initiating activity?

    If we stipulate to 1) pollution as aggression and 2) carbon emissions as pollution, that would seem to be the most relevant question for non-aggressionist libertarians vis a vis a carbon tax.

    A carbon tax would not itself constitute direct restitution to the victims of said pollution. On the other hand, it would disincentivize that pollution and presumably reduce its incidence. Instead of just continuing to do the things they’re doing, companies would look for ways to reduce the tax they have to pay by producing less pollution.

    I don’t have a strong opinion on (2) above, but given a stipulation to it, I do find the question interesting.

    RC’s critics, however, are right to point out the logical disconnect between a pollution tax and his “citizens dividend.” If the carbon tax WORKED to reduce carbon production, it would produce continually diminishing revenues. So you wouldn’t want to link any program to it that you didn’t also expect to require continually diminishing funding. And as soon as people got used to getting a check from Uncle Sugar every month, they’d riot in the streets at any suggestion of reducing the amount of that check.

  281. robert capozzi

    LD: Every Idea you share involves taking away someones liberty, not giving people more liberty.

    Me: Gee, you don’t think that cutting military and corporate welfare spending are pro-liberty? If so, please try to avoid the personal insults and hyperbolic rhetoric and just explain your view. I’d really like to know! Perhaps my understanding is incorrect, and I’d appreciate an actual insight.

    And, if you’d be so kind, tell us why disincentivizing pollution involves “taking way someone’s liberty.” You’ve already said there is no right to pollute, haven’t you?

    If your answer is civil lawsuits, where everyone sues everyone for their part in generating and releasing toxins and planet-threatening levels of CO2, I’d like to hear if there’s legal precedent for how the courts could handle such a situation, or even a legal theory of how this would be accomplished.

    CM: …refuted in responses to you over and over again.

    Me: Funny, I’ve never heard one, except one which I’ll address below. I’ve not even heard anyone try, actually. I would LOVE to hear one, because I love truth, especially if I am mistaken. Instead, I hear attacks, which generally tells me that my interlocutor has something to hide, and s/he knows it and is desperately trying to hide his or her errors. Hasn’t that been your experience as well?

    I’m curious: Has Friedman’s negative income tax been “refuted,” too?

    CM: would get warped into something horrible

    Me: Now this critique is definitely a good one. It is definitely a risk, so thank you. Noted.

    I also note that NAP Fundamentalism “warped” into an ugly creature, too, in the form of RP1’s newsletters, and Cantwell’s crying Nazi routine. The seeds of failure are often buried in a weak, untested idea based on a glaringly incomplete and unworkable premise.

    Oh, well, July 2019 comes to an end and this chapter in Fundamentalist avoidance tactics once again comes to a close. Meanwhile, the Rs and Ds get uglier and more fascistic (in slightly different shades) by the day….

  282. robert capozzi

    As for the destinationalist concerns for the day when a citizens dividend peaks because aggregate pollution levels and the attendant revenues turn down, first, that’d be a high-class problem to have.

    Perhaps by then the Frankel Singularity would be upon us. Perhaps by then charitable giving would replace most of the State. Perhaps by then the ever-shrinking State would fund a negative income tax or SS would cover everyone. Perhaps the geoist notion of ground rents would become workable and widely accepted.

    First things first.

  283. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The reason I’d like to see something like a carbon tax linked to a dividend is because I’d like to see free markets aligned with the interests of the masses. Rather than giving the money to Washington, I’d rather give it directly back to the people. It’s partially a political calculation, a way to challenge paternalism in a direct, tangible, consequential way.

    I’d like to cut out the middle man.

  284. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    If a carbon tax “worked,” the revenues it produced would begin dropping immediately. Some businesses would immediately install equipment or change production methods to reduce their emissions. Others, finding it not possible to do those things and still profit by producing whatever they produced, would close up shop. And still others would, in trailing fashion, reduce their emissions over time.

    So unless a program financed by it was financed at a small fraction of its projected revenues, that program would immediately begin facing reduced revenues. And any kind of guaranteed income scheme would not be a small, cheap program.

    I’m not trying (in this post) to argue against either of your two projects. But trying to fund the one with the other would simply be a non-starter.

  285. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    My strong preference for anything like a carbon tax would be for the revenues it generated to be used on the problem it’s aimed at, whether that’s finding ways to sequester existing excess carbon in the atmosphere, or to counter-act warming with things like orbital shades to reduce sunlight penetration, or whatever.

    Others would prefer a tax of that type to be used as “general revenues” — which I would be fine with, IF that meant that as the revenues declined, so would state spending.

  286. robert capozzi

    tk,

    I doubt the shift would happen immediately. If there was a new gas tax of $0.50, I would not run out and get an electric car. If the tax escalated each year, I’d be thinking about maybe my NEXT car might be electric. it would depend on how my budget was looking and how much of a premium an electric car might go for.

    We — the market — would decide on the speed the changeover proceeded at as circumstances evolved.

    Mostly, again, I’d like to see the conversation change, and for Ls to come in from the fringe to the edge.

  287. Thomas Knapp

    “I doubt the shift would happen immediately. If there was a new gas tax of $0.50, I would not run out and get an electric car.”

    No, and neither would most people. But most people would reconsider their plans to drive 500 miles each way to visit relatives next month. And many others would go chat up co-workers who lived nearby to discuss car-pooling, or start walking or biking to work if the distance was reasonable, or park the Dodge Ram they already have and drive it only when absolutely necessary versus the Prius they also already have. Gas sales would drop immediately.

    A carbon tax would not be passed without discussion, or passed and take effect the next day. Companies would have time to prepare for it. Large producers of carbon would look at how much e.g. new scrubbers for their smokestack scrubbers would cost versus the tax and act accordingly. Companies would look at whether they could continue to produce flip-flops that sell for $2 a pair and make a profit while paying the tax, or whether the price would have to go up to $3, and if so whether enough of them would sell to be a profitable enterprise. By the time the tax took effect, its prospective revenues would already be in decline. Which, if reducing carbon emissions is the goal, is a great thing — but if bringing in revenue is the goal, not so much.

  288. LibertyDave

    rober capozzi,

    Wishing for something is not the same as advocating for that thing. In all the ideas you’ve shared not one of them would cut military or corporate welfare spending. And when other people share ideas to cut military or corporate welfare spending you call us crazy because in your mind its not feasible or the right time.

    As far as the carbon tax goes you are just repeating the lies the governments are spreading so that they can have more control over business. The carbon tax will not disincentive pollution, it only shifts the problem to another area. It will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

    And as far as your claim of planet-threatening levels of CO2, that whats called fear mongering. There has been up to 5 time the current levels of CO2 in the air in the past and the planet is doing just fine. There is plenty of time for a solution to be found with out giving control of business to government which has be shown to be incompetent at everything it has attempted except using force.

  289. robert capozzi

    tk: My strong preference for anything like a carbon tax would be for the revenues it generated to be used on the problem it’s aimed at, whether that’s finding ways to sequester existing excess carbon in the atmosphere, or to counter-act warming with things like orbital shades to reduce sunlight penetration, or whatever.

    me: I might go for that, too, although I’m not a big fan of government solutions! Perhaps the funds could be paid to companies that suck out more toxins and carbon from the air, but, I dunno, I’d rather focus on disincentivizing harmful behavior.

    A further thought: I’m also open to the idea of replacing all tariffs with an “international spewing fee.” This fee could be assessed on products produced in nations that allow for unrestricted spewing. This probably should follow a few years of a national spewing fee, to work out the kinks. The fee might be low against French products and high on Chinese products.

  290. robert capozzi

    LD,

    Sorry, I’ve long advocated cutting government spending, and I believe we should start with corporate welfare and international military spending especially. How much, how fast, and from what specific line items: I’m open.

    Again, I don’t believe that there’s a “right” to pollute. You’ve agreed! The icing on the cake is that climate scientists believe that the reason the Earth is in a secular heating trend, and, yes, that concerns me. But my focus is on pollution, first and foremost.

    I advocate — in concept — a pollution tax, not a carbon tax, per se. It may well take the form of a carbon tax in that pollution comes part and parcel with carbon emissions, as I understand it.

    I’m unfamiliar with your claim that there have been periods where there was 5x more carbon. After a volcano eruption? Source? The point, as I understand it, is that EVERY DAY people spew shit into the atmosphere. I’d like to see that curtailed and reversed for many reasons.

    Do you remember when gas was leaded? The stink alone was noxious. Atomistic Fundamentalists might say that any one person burning leaded gas isn’t a problem, and that’s all that matters. I find this hyper-individualistic stance tin-eared and missing the forest for the trees. The CUMULATIVE effects were devastating, and I for one am glad it was stopped.

    Perhaps you want a return to those bad old days?

  291. Thomas Knapp

    I consider Delaney one of the two or three most interesting Democratic candidates (the others would be Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel). He’s doing good work pointing out the problems with “Medicare for All,” and I viscerally like “labor oriented” Democrats. And it was nice to see someone get Elizabeth Warren irate over the fact that perhaps not everyone in America wants Elizabeth Warren to run every aspect of their lives.

    Unfortunately, I think we’re going to end up with Biden, Warren, or Biden/Warren. But don’t bet money on that. I’m very good at predicting general election results, and terrible at predicting primary winners.

  292. George Phillies

    “There has been up to 5 time the current levels of CO2 in the air in the past and the planet is doing just fine. ”
    More nonsense from our party’s loonytarian wing. A sea level 300 feet higher is nto doing fine for human civilization. Outside THIs above 140 degrees means death for anyone without air conditioing.

  293. George Phillies

    Meanwhile, back at the LNC, the National Director floated the idea of paying the National Chair to do full-time fundraising, which he could only do if he were paid for full time work. With auren Daughterty’s departure, somethign needed to be done. For historical reasons — read Funding Liberty — the idea might have been inauspicious. However, the vote and discussion did reveal what the LNC thinks of the need to raise money.

    Meanwhile on the Presidential front, the question is whether a real libertarian can build up enough steam to keep the nomination in the party, or whether we are going to have as our Presidential candidate another Republican reject lower on the Barr-Johnson mold.

  294. robert capozzi

    tk: No, and neither would most people [buy electric cars immediately].

    me: It’s August, but don’t forget that the citizens dividend would offset the spewing fee for most. The heaviest polluters would bear the burden/opportunity of shifting away from polluting activities to cleaner ones. I suspect utilities and heavy industry would have great incentives to retool.

    And, the more I think about it, that’s why adding in an international spewing tax would also be important to level the playing field as much as possible.

  295. dL

    More nonsense from our party’s loonytarian wing.

    (1) the scientific burden is on those to demonstrate that climate change is more than a zero sum game
    (2) if it is more than a zero sum game, the political burden is to drastically scale back the world’s greatest polluter–the us military–rather than to embark on some carbon tax boondoggle to offset the social cost of the extinction level negative externality that would be the United States military
    (3) there is additional political burden to convince skeptics of just how heads of state who are threatening each other with nuclear holocaust–and who exhibit no inclination to abolish the extinction level threat that is WMD–can be trusted to handle the extinction level threat of climate change

  296. dL

    hmmm….

    same thing I said about that supposed CBO estimated 5 trillion dollar surplus over 10 years pimped back in 2000 election that never materialized. I imagine these 10 year CBO forecasts of carbon tax dividends will follow the same fate.

  297. dL

    No, and neither would most people.

    One would hope a public policy to address a supposed extinction level event would change public behavior. If an asteroid was detected to hit earth in, say, 30 years, one would think that the asteroid tax would be used to build the earth space defense system instead of being redistributed away as a citizen’s dividend.

  298. robert capozzi

    False analogize much? An asteroid is a single object. The threat of climate change is ubiquitous and from billions of sources. One is the US military.

    Let’s play with that. Say the NPO Fundamentalist fever dream comes true, and the US military is abolished tomorrow. All their polluting activities are ended. That may well help a bit in theory, although the economic dead-weight loss would likely allow for more productive uses of those resources. However, those more productive uses generally means more polluting and carbon producing activities.

    This fever dream represent a pause in carbon emissions, but of course this fever dream is:

    a) Definitely not going to happen (barring the onset of the Frankel Singularity, where anything is possible)
    b) Has some other rather profound risks associated with it if it were possible.

  299. Thomas Knapp

    “Say the NPO Fundamentalist fever dream comes true, and the US military is abolished tomorrow”

    Or say that you got your terms and definitions straight.

    No Particular Orderism implies neither support for, nor opposition to, any particular goal.

    What it means — ALL it means — is that if the No Particular Orderist desires both Goal X and Goal Y, he isn’t going to cooperate in holding one hostage to the other (“we shouldn’t do X until we’ve done Y”).

    A No Particular Orderist could support both a 10-million-troop US military and the elimination of food stamps. As a No Particular Orderist, he wouldn’t say “well, we’re at 7 million troops and that’s just going to have to do until we get those food stamps eliminated.”

  300. robert capozzi

    As for CBO forecasts, again, we’re talking DIVIDENDS, not SURPLUSES. Public companies that pay dividends do 5-year forecasts as well, but the CFO knows that the forecast is their best guess. If trends change, they sometimes make adjustments. Sometimes, the performance improves, the dividend might be upped. Sometimes, it goes the other way.

  301. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Sure. Probably clearer to say NPO Fundamentalist Abolitionist.

    Thanks.

  302. Krzysztof Lesiak

    FYI: Mr. Don Blankenship is no longer affiliated with the Constitution Party of West Virginia. He was previously a Republican and temporarily registered with the CP last year in an attempt at a second chance…
    FW Whitley One of the problems with „how” the national CP operates is this nearly paranoid concern they have about keeping their „secret” back room deal making. What’s the sense of that proverbial lamp under a basket? Politically, it is one of the dumbest damned deals I have ever had the misfortune of witnessing. What a plan. „Let’s handicap ourselves for 20 months, and then start.” https://twierdzachicago.wordpress.com/2019/08/02/former-idaho-constitution-party-chairman-comments-on-don-blankenships-departure-from-the-cp/

  303. dL

    False analogize much? An asteroid is a single object. The threat of climate change is ubiquitous and from billions of sources. One is the US military.

    It is not a false analogy. Although the source of the ELE in each instance is different, the consequence of the ELE is the same, and, in each instance, a solution is being proposed to prevent/offset the ELE. If we scan up the comments, we note you were babbling about “counter-act warming with things like orbital shades.” The analogy holds. Indeed, the logical fallacy would be to dismiss your “orbital shades” idea simply on the basis that “the threat of climate change is ubiquitous and from billions of sources” and that such big tech solutions can only be proposed for threats originating from outer space.

  304. dL

    the US military is abolished tomorrow. All their polluting activities are ended. That may well help a bit in theory, although the economic dead-weight loss would likely allow for more productive uses of those resources. However, those more productive uses generally means more polluting and carbon producing activities.

    This is complete nonsense. It’s trivial to spot the logical fallacy: the more productive an economic activity, the greater the negative externality of its social cost. Fail. I usually only encounter this drivel from anarcho primitive fundamentalists.

  305. dL

    As for CBO forecasts, again, we’re talking DIVIDENDS, not SURPLUSES

    We are talking about tax receipts, Bob. The surplus didn’t materialize because the tax receipt forecasts were not valid, in part because of the forecasts did not foresee the economic recession that hit in 2002. Dividends would be distributed from the carbon tax receipts. If the tax receipts forecasts are wrong, then the dividend outlays will not match the forecasts.

  306. LibertyDave

    When I said there has been up to 5 time more CO2 in the past I didn’t say it would be good for people or that people where even around at the time. What I’m saying is that CO2 won’t destroy the world. Also climate change isn’t even an extinction level event. If nothing is done by the government, mankind won’t die out.

    I am saying that if you put the government in charge of fixing the problems of climate change then more people will die.

    To claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the only what to fix an excess CO2 problem is ignoring another method of reducing CO2. Plants and trees take CO2 out of the air and replace it will Oxygen. The more CO2 in the air the faster plants will grow.

    So if you want to reduce CO2, do something useful and plant a tree. 95% of the mass of the solid matter in trees comes from CO2 out of the air. This will do more to reduce CO2 than any carbon tax scheme run by the government.

  307. robert capozzi

    Dividends are paid from receipts. If the receipts are down, the quarterly dividend is lowered. If receipts are up, the quarterly dividend is raised. The SSA might hold a small cushion to even out the payments seasonally.

    TK mentioned orbital shades. I’ve not heard of the concept previously. I just searched this thread, and I don’t see ME mentioning shades, candidly.

    This is why I find you exhausting. If the past is any indication, you will change the subject again. Only one time do I recall your acknowledging a blatant error.

  308. robert capozzi

    LD,

    OK, so, what was the market response to lead in the air?

    I suspect you are probably correct that climate-change alarmist are overstating the threat it poses. My sense is that there is a threat, but humans can adapt, but I certainly can’t say that with certainty!

    What I can say is there’s no “right” to pollute. What I can say is that pollution includes toxic substances. What I can say is I’ve never heard of a workable market solution that curbs polluting the air. What I can say is that regulating lead out of gas made life more pleasant. What I can say is I’m persuaded that it’s better to tax negative externalities than to regulate them. What I can say is I’d rather see paid out to citizens than into government coffers.

    Reforesting might work. I do believe that’s actually happening now, iirc, at a slow pace. I don’t believe it’s happening fast enough, in part because the benefits to planters have almost no direct pay-off. I think a more direct approach is indicated.

  309. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    We are not talking about lead in the air. We are taking about your greedy idea to use a carbon tax to fund a UBI.

    If a company is actually pumping toxic amounts of chemicals in the air then they will be stopped and they will pay damages to the neighbors who proved they are harmed by these chemicals. This happened in Portland Oregon. A glass company was pumping toxic chemical in the air from their glass furnaces. When it was discovered the company was shut down until they could prove that the furnaces were no longer polluting and they had to pay damages to the neighbors that were harmed.

    Also the levels of CO2 we are talking about with climate change are not toxic. The health effects of CO2 at 5 times the levels of today are complaints of drowsiness and poor air.

    The complaints about CO2 are not that it’s toxic but that if nothing else changes then the CO2 will trap to much heat and the planet will get to hot to live on. The problem with this reasoning is that nothing ever stays the same. Everything is always changing. What I do know is that if we let the government become involved in fixing this problem then the problem will get worse not better.

  310. George Phillies

    “1) the scientific burden is on those to demonstrate that climate change is more than a zero sum game
    (2) if it is more than a zero sum game, the political burden is to drastically scale back the world’s greatest polluter–the us military–rather than to embark on some carbon tax boondoggle to offset the social cost of the extinction level negative externality that would be the United States military
    (3) there is additional political burden to convince skeptics of just how heads of state who are threatening each other with nuclear holocaust–and who exhibit no inclination to abolish the extinction level threat that is WMD–can be trusted to handle the extinction level threat of climate change”

    1) A. That’s economics, not science. B. that’s been done; sea level change and parts of the planet beoming uninhabitable.

    2) Claim is false. A third of our CO2 output is private automobiles. Military is much smaller than that.

    3) Your claim that current nuclear stockpiles is an extinction level threat is false. World leaders are decidedly not threatening each other with them. Also, you are changing the topic, by attacking a solution I did not propose.

    Readers familiar with our party’s lonnytarian wing will recognize these lines being parroted over and over.

  311. Thomas Knapp

    “Your claim that a third of our CO2 ouput is private automobiles is also false acording to the EPA. According to them only 14% of green house gases come from transportation. And that’s all transportation, not just private automobiles.”

    The EPA statistic and George’s claim are not incompatible, because carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas.

  312. LibertyDave

    Thomas Knapp,

    85% of greenhouse gasses is CO2. Even if 100% of automobiles is CO2 then the percentage of CO2 from automobiles is only 16.5% of all CO2 emitted, which is still about half of what George claims.

    Exaggerating this much is lying to people to scare them into believing what you want.

  313. dL

    1) A. That’s economics, not science. B. that’s been done; sea level change and parts of the planet beoming uninhabitable.

    George, you need to look up the definition of a zero sum game. A zero sum game does not preclude sea level changes or geolocation uninhabitability. It simply means gain or loss of utility is counter balanced by the losses or gains of utility.

    2) Claim is false.

    Claim is true. The claim is taken from the scientific paper, “Hidden carbon costs of the “everywhere war”: Logistics, geopolitical ecology, and the carbon boot?print of the US military” published in the Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.
    https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/tran.12319

    3) Your claim that current nuclear stockpiles is an extinction level threat is false.

    This counter claim is nonsense, and I’m surprised that a professor of physics would try to pass this off as a rebuttal. The combined nuclear stockpile of the world”s governments is 15,000 warheads. If these warheads were simultaneously exploded in a mass MAD event, 1/2 the earth’s population would immediately be terminated. The remaining 1/2 would die a slow miserable death in nuclear winter climate change dystopia.

    World leaders are decidedly not threatening each other with them.

    Readers familiar with our party’s lonnytarian wing will recognize these lines being parroted over and over.

    I’m pretty sure points (1) & (3) originate with me. Feel free to cite the libertarian space where these points are tired talking points. Point (2) originates in the mainstream journalist space, largely because of the scientific paper cited that was picked up, as a simple google search will verify.

  314. dL

    “Your claim that a third of our CO2 ouput is private automobiles is also false acording to the EPA. According to them only 14% of green house gases come from transportation. And that’s all transportation, not just private automobiles.”

    Google tells me 30% of US GHG are from transportation, which include more than than just automobiles. Globally, the transportation figure is ~ 15%, roughly the same as livestock. Dr. Phillies attempt to cite the US automobile domestic figure to disprove that the US military is the single biggest polluter was a lazy rebuttal.

  315. Matt Cholko

    Chuck Moulton’s comments in this thread serve to remind me of why he needs to get back on the LNC. Chuck is experienced, reliable, and realistic, among other things. He understands what’s going on seemingly better than some of the people on the LNC that are going through it.

    I’ve mentioned to Chuck privately that I think he should run for an LNC position next year. I think it is time for me to start encouraging him publicly……

    Chuck, consider this my first public plea – please run for an LNC position next year.

  316. Jim

    robert capozzi “even NAP Fundamentalists reluctantly acknowledge that there is no “right” to pollute.”

    That is true, but there can be a general societal agreement not to prosecute your neighbor for the air pollution emitted by his lawn mower in exchange for your neighbor not prosecuting you for roughly similar levels of pollution. The only prosecuted violations would be against those who pollute far in excess of the generally tolerated amount. Excessive pollution levels could be set by courts or statutory law, take your pick.

  317. Jim

    robert capozzi “And because I’ve not heard a better idea. Care to share one?”

    The only way to reduce CO2 emissions without wrecking the economy is through technological advancement. The last dollar figure I heard for a tax on carbon emissions amounted to something like a $2 / gallon tax on gasoline. That would strangle economic growth and countries that are choked off economically tend not to do much technological advancement. Taxing carbon output might, in the long run, actually cause more total carbon to be released.

    It isn’t quite commercially viable yet, but we are close enough to one obvious technological breakthrough that I don’t think anyone ought to be particularly worried about global warming from CO2 emissions.

    At some point in the next few years they are going to start putting photovoltaic paint on electric vehicles. EVs might have a lot of drawbacks right now, but once they have the ability to refuel themselves – for free – while parked in the driveway, they are going to start selling like hotcakes. I’d be shocked if they weren’t out by 2025.

    Back in 2017 the IMF came out with an estimate for a fast and slow adoption rate of EVs. They went 25 years out, so to 2042. In the slow adoption rate, 36% of the US would be driving EVs. In the fast adoption rate, 93% of the US would be doing so. Supposing 93% of the US was using EVs (and a smaller, but still substantial portion of the rest of the world), an enormous source of CO2 emissions would vanish. Transportation accounts for 29% of carbon emissions in the US (the 14% figure cited above is global.) 80% of transportation emissions are from non-train land vehicles. Back of the envelope math – .29 x .80 x .93 = 21%. A 21% drop in carbon emissions is huge.

    I believe that is likely, and to the best of my very limited knowledge, it is not being accounted for in climate models. I realize it is beyond the 18 month and 12 year “drop dead” deadlines to severely curtail CO2 emissions being touted by certain people, but I think the rate of adoption will be more rapid than anything they had dreamed.

    Now start adding up what happens when more and more buildings start using photovoltaic paint or photovoltaic panels. That will take another chunk out of CO2 emissions, this time from electrical generation. Trump’s tariffs are currently holding that back. Billions of dollars worth of solar installation projects have been canceled because of that moron.

    Solar power electrical generation became cost-competitive with coal in 2013 and natural gas in 2016. Coal has already fallen as a source for electrical generation in the US from 50% in 2007 to 34% in 2017. That’s how fast it can be replaced. In 20 years there might not be a coal plant left in the US.

    In 2015 when, even without subsidies, it became cheaper to build a new solar or wind power plant than a new coal or natural gas power plant. In 2017 more solar electrical generating capacity was added globally than all forms of fossil fuel electrical generating capacity combined. By the early 2020s it will be cheaper to BUILD a new solar plant than it will be to continue OPERATING existing coal plants.

    Natural gas will probably stick around longer than coal because there are still some technological obstacles to overcome. Like how solar only generates electricity during the day and there is limited capacity to store it for use during the night. Or how to work on transmission lines when the power can’t be turned off because every building is keeping the lines active. But those are fixable problems.

  318. Jim

    LibertyDave “85% of greenhouse gasses is CO2.”

    95% of greenhouse gasses are water vapor. CO2 is 3.6%.

    85% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are CO2.

    As I understand the process, the fear is that an increase in CO2 will warm the air a little bit. But warmer air holds more water vapor, and it’s the additional water vapor that would cause the vast majority of global warming.

  319. robert capozzi

    Me: However, those more productive uses generally means more polluting and carbon producing activities.

    Me clarifying: This doesn’t mean that (the impossible) abolition of the US military will lead to even more net pollution being generated. It only means that pollution won’t be replaced by private non-polluting activities. Aggregate polluting levels from (the fever dream) military abolition might well tick down, but the substitute economic behavior will generate some replacement pollution.

  320. robert capozzi

    LD: We are not talking about lead in the air. We are taking about your greedy idea to use a carbon tax to fund a UBI.

    Me: YOU may be talking about a carbon tax and UBI. I am suggesting a pollution tax to fund a citizens dividend, which shares some common aspects of a carbon tax and UBI, but are not the same. How many times do I need to explain that?

    I bring up lead in the air because it illustrates the problem. There used to be lead in gasoline, and that led to a situation where all/most were aggressing on all. This was, in a sense, a tragedy of the commons. You don’t seem to get that we all need reasonably clean air for our health, but that while any one lead-burning car emits trivial amounts of lead, when all cars did, it led to a very unhealthy situation. Get the idea now?

    LD: Also the levels of CO2 we are talking about with climate change are not toxic. The health effects of CO2 at 5 times the levels of today are complaints of drowsiness and poor air.

    Me: Again, I’m not JUST talking about CO2. There are still actual toxins being emitted from smokestacks and tailpipes. We — I thought — agree that no one has the “right” to emit toxins into the atmosphere. Have you changed your mind on this? I haven’t.

    Now, ON TOP OF THAT, climate scientists have agreed that rising levels of CO2 has led to climate change. Climate change could lead to significant disruptions in human life on Earth.

    I’m reframing the climate change debate one hears. I’m making it principally about pollution and polluting activities. I’m pointing out that the L response one hears forgets that there are no Lockean property rights in the air.

    You are responding with right-wing and fundamentalist L talking points that avoid the fact that the air is not property.

    LD: The complaints about CO2 are not that it’s toxic but that if nothing else changes then the CO2 will trap to much heat and the planet will get to hot to live on. The problem with this reasoning is that nothing ever stays the same. Everything is always changing. What I do know is that if we let the government become involved in fixing this problem then the problem will get worse not better.

    Me: Right, I’m not making the climate-change alarmist argument. Instead, I’m acknowledging that climate change is a risk, and a human-made disruption to life on Earth. Do you see the difference? Yes, everything always changes. You keep repeating that everything the government does is bad, and yet you blithely avoid the leaded gasoline example. Do you really want to argue that the phase-out of leaded gas made things worse?

    If so, I disagree. I would have preferred a Pigouvian tax on leaded gas to the regulatory solution, but I’d still say the outcome was positive.

    If you are saying that Ls should support the spewing of lead into the air, I would say you should seriously reconsider your stance.

  321. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    Your the only one here who is advocating allowing the spewing of lead into the air with your greedy plan to allow companies to pay a fee (bribe) to government so they can pollute freely.

    Any your idea won’t even fix the damage caused by the pollution because you want a share of a citizens dividend (cut of the bribe) and the only fair way to do that is to divide it evenly between citizens.

    We are not as stupid as you think we are. Just because we don’t support your greedy idea doesn’t mean we want to allow people to pollute freely. You really should quit pretending to care about other people. Your not very good at it.

  322. robert capozzi

    J: The only prosecuted violations would be against those who pollute far in excess of the generally tolerated amount. Excessive pollution levels could be set by courts or statutory law, take your pick.

    me: Paying it back as dividends to citizens serves the same purpose. Heavy polluters would be net spew-fee payers. Light polluters would be net spew-fee dividend reapers.

  323. Thomas Knapp

    I don’t support the carbon tax or a “citizens dividend” UBI, but I find the “greedy scheme to allow pollution” argument kind of strange.

    Usually, libertarians will argue that taxation results in less of the thing being taxed. That’s one of the arguments against the income tax, and especially one with “progressive” rates — it discourages working and earning more. Even libertarians who are willing to put up with taxation as such argue that it is bad things, not good things, which should be taxed.

    A tax on the release of pollution in the atmosphere would presumably result in less pollution released into the atmosphere.

  324. robert capozzi

    LD: Your the only one here who is advocating allowing the spewing of lead into the air with your greedy plan to allow companies to pay a fee (bribe) to government so they can pollute freely.

    me: Well, there aren’t many here, so I would not draw any conclusions about the sellability of a pollution tax/citizens dividend. It seems that even TK is sorta open to the idea, and GP might be as well. I don’t call for the spewing of lead, and I’m really not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I would not advocate reversing the regulations against lead; I’d keep those in place. My point was that if it were 1970, I’d probably advocate instituting a gradually increasing lead-gas tax to get it out of the air. I would tax/impose a fee on EVERYONE — companies and individuals — who are polluting the air, and it would only go to the government for a few months. Quarterly, all citizens would be reimbursed all the proceeds.

    LD: Any your idea won’t even fix the damage caused by the pollution because you want a share of a citizens dividend (cut of the bribe) and the only fair way to do that is to divide it evenly between citizens.

    Me: Really not sure what you mean here, LD. I do advocate that the dividend would be shared evenly, that’s true. The environment is iirc self-healing. The idea is to disincentize ongoing and increasing pollution (and carbon) and thereby incentivize NON-polluting or LESS-polluting technologies. With a greener tech shift, the damages done to the environment and the people would abate.

    It strikes me as a really bad idea to try to end ALL pollution tomorrow, for what I’d think would be obvious reasons.

  325. George Phillies

    “ibertyDave “85% of greenhouse gasses is CO2.”

    95% of greenhouse gasses are water vapor. CO2 is 3.6%.

    85% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are CO2.

    As I understand the process, the fear is that an increase in CO2 will warm the air a little bit. But warmer air holds more water vapor, and it’s the additional water vapor that would cause the vast majority of global warming.”

    Well, no, The water absorbtion lines are saturated. That’s why CO2 is an issue. An interesting comparison is a window in winter. Replacing double with triple glazing reduces heat losses. That’s more water. Closing the window that was slightly open does far more even though the effort is less. That’s water and methane.

  326. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    I’m not “open to” a carbon or “spewing” tax or to a UBI or other kind of “citizens dividend” scheme. I just engage them on arguments that are different — and, I think, better — than some people do.

  327. LibertyDave

    Thomas Knapp,

    I thought that libertarians argue that taxation is theft, not that it reduces any activities.

    Taxing something may cause less of an activity for a short time until people figure a way around the tax. Usually by pushing the taxed item into the black market. But it never works to control an activity.

    I don’t know of any libertarian that support using taxation to control what people do, other than robert capozzi. And as we can tell from his comments he’s lying about being a libertarian.

  328. Thomas Knapp

    “I thought that libertarians argue that taxation is theft, not that it reduces any activities.”

    We argue both.

    Just like we argue both that it’s wrong to violate the right to keep and bear arms AND that “gun control doesn’t work” if the goal is to reduce violent crime.

  329. LibertyDave

    George Phillies,

    Where are you getting your numbers? From what I’ve read water vapor varies depending on location and time of day. And nothing I’ve read corroborate the numbers you are using.

  330. Eric Sundwall

    RC: I’m not sure you’ve PROVEN that plurality systems are necessarily not viable for third parties, have you?

    ES: Hard to “prove” anything in the social sciences (I do have a degree in poli-sci and history btw), but I would extend an invitation to read Steven Rosenstone’s “Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure”. Most of the focus is on Presidential politics and the “political science” of it taps out in 1992. Still, if Richard Winger still gets out to IPR for informational purposes, he might confirm that James Madison was quite fearful of English factions and the subsequent Electoral College and local systems of single plurality districts was a result. Thus, the two strongest factions tend to dominate. Of course, I do appreciate Darcy Richardson’s “Others” work and see the quality effort in the late 19th Century by earnest political combatants to at least try and very often succeed. Modern examples tend to pale in comparison. But ok . . . let’s continue (even though July is over).

    RC: But let’s say you’re correct. It doesn’t follow that therefore we should have a political party that “protests” from the hard right and hard left simultaneously. Is there any reason why such a party can “protest” by offering a reasonable third way? Why must the LP be a vehicle for NAP Fundamentalism? Why can’t the protest be for plausible changes to the social order that could be enacted within 5 years or so?

    ES: Thank you for the acknowledgement of the premise. 1.) Candidates in third parties are free to run and think however they will, shrug. I’m surmising that the simultaneously hard right and hard left is a critique generally of LP candidates? I’d ask for demonstration or examples, rather than providing a simplistic general assunption that can’t be proven. There is no reason a candidate “protesting” couldn’t develop and offer a “third way”. I’ll also assume some “lessarchy stone soup” on your part and won’t ask what.
    2.) Not sure I agree that the LP is a “vehicle for NAP” fundamentalism. I’m watching the Republican rejects walk into local LP meetings in NY with some hope. Some of the old LP guard, whom I’d argue aren’t “fundies” are protesting a bit about other items, but haven’t heard NAP come up once . . . so there’s my anecdotal offer of evidence. All the CDLP folks I know who remember Rothbard at the table are gladly taking their social security checks now or have retired from their State jobs. Shrug.
    3.) My recommendation for “protest” is pretty simple. Pick 3. 1.) The “Wars” (illegal foreign interventions and Drug), 2.) Federal Reserve and pick your 3.) favorite other issue, mine was ballot access. It’s that simple. But don’t expect to win, ever. It’s naive, silly and embarrassing. If you do, great. Good luck at those local town boards or meaningless committee assignments if you make it higher up the food political food chain. I’d resign immediately.

    If you want to “win” . . . join a main party and start your Fabian Society. Implement your your 5 or 50 year plan accordingly. Whatever. The NAP-ists don’t exist. If they do, they are not very influential, imho. I’m off to enjoy August like the hard working self-employed anarchist I’ve always been. Which means all work and the statists get a lot of it, while I protest their bloody wars, bureaucracies and babbling.

  331. robert capozzi

    J: The only way to reduce CO2 emissions without wrecking the economy is through technological advancement. The last dollar figure I heard for a tax on carbon emissions amounted to something like a $2 / gallon tax on gasoline.

    Me: Yes, and a way to boost technological advancement is to begin to penalize spewing. It gives innovators incentives to bring greener tech to market, and give incentives to businesses and consumers to adopt these greener tech solutions. My sense is phasing a spew-fee allows for the market to make adjustments to the more virtuous social order.

  332. Jared

    LD: “I thought that libertarians argue that taxation is theft, not that it reduces any activities.”

    The citizen’s dividend traditionally is a companion proposal to ground rent taxation. Land supply is inelastic. The market cannot produce more to meet growing demand with a rising population. Land value capture actually frees up land, driving down real estate prices, by reducing or eliminating the incentive for speculators to hold it out of use. Since a landholder is not rightfully entitled to a greater-than-equal share of market value from the natural commons, the rental value of land may be justly collected to provide necessary government services. Is ‘most’ taxation theft? Yes. Are ‘most’ taxes inequitable? Yes. Do ‘most’ taxes distort markets and create deadweight loss? Yes. But there are exceptions. What’s more, the land value tax is exceedingly difficult to evade, even for the wealthy and well-connected, while its environmental and social benefits are icing on the cake.

  333. robert capozzi

    LD: I thought that libertarians argue that taxation is theft,

    Me: Yes, Fundamentalist L very often say that. Former Fundamentalist-now-Ecumenicalist Ls like myself are more radical, and consider the word “theft.” “Theft” requires “non-ill-gotten property.” Since anyone paying attention recognizes that much of what is called “property” IS ill-gotten.

    So, if we’re interested in being more accurate, I find the more accurate bumpersticker statement to be “taxation is force.” That seems like a truer.

    Then an adult might recognize that we’re highly likely to have taxation for the foreseeable future, and that ending taxation tomorrow might well be a cure worse than the disease. So, if we’re going to have some level of taxation, wouldn’t it be better to tax bads like pollution than goods like income. I go a step further and suggest that it would be better to return those revenues to citizens rather than leave it to the discretion of DC.

    It is a different paradigm than the one that Fundamentalists have been banging out for 5 decades. I see no indication that you understand what I’m suggesting as a different path to maximizing individual liberty. Your bumperstickers are not going to persuade me, particularly because I’m QUITE familiar with those bumperstickers. I used to buy-into them!

  334. robert capozzi

    ES: haven’t heard NAP come up once

    Me: What’s said in meetings or what’s said online could be different from what the MOTIVES of what I refer to as the NAP Fundamentalists. (Again, I’m open to a more accurate term.) I certainly see a lot of Fundamentalist thinking here on IPR, even if the term “NAP” is used or not. NAP “constraintist” Fundamentalists like TK and PF use the NAP (or ZAP) as the foundation for their political views. Both are quite a bit more nuanced and sophisticated in how they apply the NAP/ZAP than LD appears to be.

    I totally concede that there appears to be a significant element in the LP who are Ecumenicalist OR who are just confused Rs.

    The difference between the Fs and the Es is that the Fs have the Bylaws, SoP, and Platform on their side. They use the works of a handfull of youthful Fundamentalist Founders as a bludgeon to maintain fealty to the NAP Fundamentalist “roots” of the party.

  335. Thomas Knapp

    I’m not sure what the alternative to “fundamentalist” would be, but it clearly doesn’t mean what you’re using it to mean.

    A “fundamentalist” is “a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of script in religion.”

    Even setting aside the religious element, which I agree is applicable to politics as well, you’re using it to mean anyone who uses principles as foundations for their political views, even if they do so in a “nuanced” way. Which pretty much makes everyone in politics a “fundamentalist.”

Leave a Reply

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