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!

162 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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