You can read the original article at Kn@ppster here.
Dear platform committee members and prospective 2016 national convention delegates:
Plank 3.4 of the party’s national platform, titled “Free Trade and Migration,” reads:
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
I urge the platform committee to recommend, and the delegates to adopt, an amended version of this plank. In this letter, I will first offer arguments regarding the need for amendment, then possible ways of constructively amending the plank.
Argument #1: The current plank is susceptible to authoritarian misinterpretations
Recently I have encountered party members who interpret the final clause of the existing plank — “[W]e support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property” — to countenance collectivist authoritarian measures relating to immigration and “border security.”
On a plain reading, that interpretation seems perverse and perhaps even willfully abusive of the language. The clause is clearly intended to refer to individual “foreign nationals” who are known to be criminals or terrorists or to carry infectious diseases. Nonetheless, there are those who believe that the clause can be used to justify policies the Libertarian clearly does not support, such as the mass exclusion of entire national, ethnic or religious groups, on the claim that some non-trivial percentage of people answering to those broad descriptions support e.g. the Islamic State.
The language of the party’s platform should be as clear, unambiguous, and immune to misinterpretation as possible. The current plank fails on that count.
Argument #2: The current plank is less libertarian than many actually existing state systems
The current LP platform plank on immigration calls for a system that is less libertarian than the actually existing border systems of the European Union’s Schengen Agreement area, the United Kingdom’s Common Travel area, the CA4 Border Control Agreement area, the Russia/Belarus border and the India/Nepal Border. All of these areas boast, both de facto and de jure, “open borders.”
The Libertarian Party should never find itself in the position of demanding that the the US government act so as to keep America less free than other countries.
Argument #3: It is not the job of the Libertarian Party to propose exceptions to its own principles
The purpose of the Libertarian Party, as listed in its bylaws, is “to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles.” The bylaws also offer several examples of how the party might go about accomplishing that purpose.
Neither the Statement of Principles nor the laundry list of possible activities includes “proposing the kind of authoritarian policies that America’s non-libertarian parties already do a fine job of proposing, passing and implementing.”
Even accepting, purely for the sake of argument, that some authoritarian policies could be justifiable, it is not the job of the Libertarian Party to propose or support those policies. That’s what we have Republicans and Democrats for.
Conclusion: The current plank on immigration is clearly broken and must be amended or discarded. Fortunately, a number of plausible paths forward are available for the platform committee to recommend and the convention delegates to adopt. Here are four possibilities:
Possible Solutions
The quickest and easiest fix to the problem with the current immigration plank would be to amend its final sentence out of the current plank, which was adopted in 2006:
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
Alternatively, we might reinstate one of the previous two platform planks.
The 2002 and 2004 platform plank on immigration reads:
We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality and welcome all refugees to our country.
Prior to that, going at least as far back as 1996 (I cut my research off at the 20-year point), the party’s platform plank on immigration reads as follows:
We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Finally, the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus’s draft immigration plank (which is still in committee and may change by convention time) reads:
We hold that one of the basic core principles of a free market, is the freedom to move about voluntarily, as such borders are artificial barriers to trade and movement. You cannot have a free market with a closed or restricted border.
We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Iron Curtain” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of nationality, race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, and declare a full pardon for all people who are in the country without government permission.
There might be other suggestions worthy of consideration, but any of these four would address the problem of the existing plank and return the Libertarian Party to a clear, unequivocal and most importantly libertarian immigration position. Again, I urge the platform committee to recommend, and the convention delegates to adopt, new and non-defective language for this plank.
Yours in liberty,
Thomas L. Knapp
NOTE: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO “SIGN” THE ABOVE LETTER YOURSELF AS A SUPPORTER, CLICK HERE.
I’ll see you in the octagon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0VdFi8p_wM
Langa, glad to be of service for you and your ratings systems. I hope it brings you great clarity and joy.
I agree with Phillies more than RP1, but I would not say Phillies is “more” L than RP1.
I would say the fact that you agree more with Phillies proves that he’s less libertarian than Ron Paul!
Well, as long as it’s not a pentagon…
L: you are also denying that there can even be varying degrees of liberty?
me: There’s a difference between “advocating” and “being,” yes? Some might say that that state of liberty is achieved only in statelessness. Others may say that liberty is a social order in which “certain unalienable Rights” are secured by governments that derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed….” Surely there can be other definitions, all of which involve substantially less government than the US currently has.
Advocacy has an even wider dispersion. Some advocate abolition of certain (or, very rarely, all) government functions immediately. Some over time. Others call for large percentage reductions. Others less so.
I’d call anyone who holds these views to be fellow travelers. I can’t imagine how anyone would have the arrogance to say that any fellow traveler is more or less L. OTOH, certainly we as individuals agree with some others more, and others less.
I agree with Phillies more than RP1, but I would not say Phillies is “more” L than RP1.
L, claiming > stating an opinion.
you’re testing me > trying to understand your perspective, and challenging things you say that don’t make sense to me
“attacks” > patented rhetorical two-step,
“employing” = using
cah: Chuck you already conceded the point with your point that one could be more “radical” which is how we are using “more libertarian.”
me: Who is “more radical”:
-Marx or Locke?
-Stalin or Hitler?
-Long or Caplan?
-Capozzi or Knapp?
Quantifying the unquantifiable leads to one long blind alley…
Happy holidays everyone…
Thanks, and happy holidays to you, too!
Either a person advocates for liberty or he doesn’t. Your own chosen definition makes that point clear as day.
So now, in addition to claiming that no one can be more libertarian than anyone else, you are also denying that there can even be varying degrees of liberty? So, I guess that means that either everyone is 100% free, or else everyone is a total slave. Is that really your position?
==So, if you would be so kind, please go through and clear up all of these ambiguities for me, and then we can continue our conversation. Thanks!==
Hope that helps:)
LOL
Langa, thanks for your link on “more L.” The first cite is an essay from FEE: “America Isn’t Getting More Liberal — It’s Getting More Libertarian.”
If you would actually take a few seconds to go further down the list, you would find that many of the links involve comparisons of who is more libertarian, which policy is more libertarian, etc.
You are claiming that there is a continuum of libertarian-ness. I am testing your assertion. You are not responding, and instead employing ad hominem attacks.
Claiming? But there are many different kinds of claims. There are logical claims, insurance claims, homesteading claims, and so on. What kind of “claim” are you talking about? Also, when you say you’re testing me, what kind of “test” are you giving me? A blood test? A lie detector test? A pregnancy test? There are many kinds of tests, and some kinds may even test multiple things at once. You will have to be more precise. Furthermore, I’m not sure exactly what kind of “attacks” you think I’m employing, or how I’m “employing” these attacks. There are terrorist attacks, heart attacks, etc. And “employing” can mean “using” or maybe “compensating financially” or several other things. If, for example, you are claiming that I am paying terrorists to attack you, I vehemently deny that assertion. Of course, that may not be what you are saying. It’s just so hard to tell, with all these different words, and all their possible meanings. It’s all just so confusing! So, if you would be so kind, please go through and clear up all of these ambiguities for me, and then we can continue our conversation. Thanks!
Chuck you already conceded the point with your point that one could be more “radical” which is how we are using “more libertarian.” You just have a feelz objection (I know you don’t characterize it that way, but it is what it amounts to) to that phrase. Those damn radical triangles!
Happy holidays everyone… whatever you celebrate or don’t.
No Paulie, a time waster is a hexagon. You can’t be “more hexagon” – don’t be silly.
A time waster is a person or thing that wastes people’s time. Is it possible to have a time waster that’s a bigger time waster than another time waster, say one that wastes more time and/or makes more people waste time, or are all time wasters equal wastes of time?
langa wrote:
Chuck Moulton wrote:
langa wrote:
I’m really not sure if you’re trying to troll or doing it by accident.
By your own definition:
Either a person advocates for liberty or he doesn’t. Your own chosen definition makes that point clear as day.
You are using South Park underpants gnomes logic.
Where is step 2 where you are supposed to make a logical connection between step 1 and step 3?!! Hint: if you keep repeating non sequiturs, it doesn’t make them any truer.
cah: There is no spoon.
me: Yup. Take the red pill!
CAH brings up “pain.” It’s an excellent illustration. Pain seems to be on a continuum…paper cut to gunshot wound.
And yet pain thresholds vary and are completely subjective. Consider, too, the masochist, who enjoys pain. Pain is pleasure, further blurring the meaning of pain.
_________
Langa, thanks for your link on “more L.” The first cite is an essay from FEE: “America Isn’t Getting More Liberal — It’s Getting More Libertarian.”
In that case, there is a list of public opinion polls on specific prevalent attitudes. The author connected those dots and concluded that — all things considered — Americans are GENERALLY becoming more libertarian than liberal. That makes sense.
That’s WAY different than Bryan Caplan’s so-called Libertarian Purity Test. It would be better named The Agree with Bryan Caplan Test. Many of the questions are ridiculous; and many of the questions I cannot answer, since they are highly speculative and don’t take into account context. Many of the questions I can only answer “maybe.”
_____________
L: You have no interest in using words to communicate. Instead, you would rather play silly games.
me: I’m sorry you feel that way. It appears that I use words. I assure you I use them to communicate, not to play games.
My sense is that you are locked in a Plato’s Cave of your own making. Look down at the shackles. They are unlocked!
You are claiming that there is a continuum of libertarian-ness. I am testing your assertion. You are not responding, and instead employing ad hominem attacks.
But that’s OK. I’ll give you another chance to prove your point. Hopefully you’ll see this as a fair, illuminating question:
Since you believe there is a continuum of L-ness, who is the MOST L libertarian, and what is your formula to pronounce him or her as the MOST L? Please prove that whatever formula you offer is the most valid formula.
And, as the inventor and most thoroughgoing advocate for Harlos Nonarchy Pods, do I win the crown of Most L? If not, why not?
You have the floor.
Matt Cholko> This discussion is totally absurd.
The participants are getting something out of it. I can’t say I am getting much out of it. I hope the participants are learning something.
This discussion is totally absurd.
Well, half of it is. 😉
You’re taking the defining characteristic of a binary thing…
But it’s not a binary thing. That’s the whole point. If it is, then why is it so often discussed as if it weren’t? Example: Google search for “more libertarian” [exact phrase] results in 184,000 results.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=%22more+libertarian%22+&oq=%22more+libertarian%22+&gs_l=hp.13..0i30l3j0i5i30l4j0i8i30l2.1759.8443.0.11266.20.20.0.0.0.0.277.2572.0j14j1.15.0….0…1c.1.64.hp..7.13.2151.0.DZ1xNDXFLgY
Is that really how you want to use the language?
No, it’s how you want to use language. In fact, your last two posts are a good example of what I was discussing earlier. You have no interest in using words to communicate. Instead, you would rather play silly games. You fancy yourself as being profound, but you’re actually juvenile, like the six-year-old who keeps asking “Why?” over and over, ad nauseam.
This discussion is totally absurd.
And I point to the obvious flaw… your logic could apply to larger or smaller… thus all body parts are the same size.
There is no spoon.
Pointing to things that cannot be placed on a spectrum does not disprove that some things are on a spectrum.
THAT is totally absurd.
Pain: distressing feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli.
Nothing is more painful than another.
QED.
Yes, that is totally absurd.
Beliefs fall upon things that are on a spectrum. You theoretically COULD be MORE absurd.
langa wrote:
That’s ridiculous. You’re taking the defining characteristic of a binary thing, and trying to convert it into a spectrum with no foundation.
female (n) — of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs
Therefore whoever bears more children is “more female” under your logic. Any female who bears less children is “less female”.
male (n) — a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man
Therefore whoever has more testicles or a larger penis is “more male” under your logic.
Totally absurd.
“Your thought box is far too restrictive, simplistic.”
Words? Mean things? Oh, the humanity!
L: In other words, the existence of gray does not in any way preclude the existence of black or white, no matter how often you attempt to conflate them.
me: Sure, there’s black, white, and gray. Although there are shades among the shades. When does black become gray?
Since I advocate Harlos Nonarchy Pods, I could — using your categorization system — be MORE L than MNR was. (I assume) Stalin wanted the State to wither away. That makes him more L than Ron Paul.
Is that really how you want to use the language?
Feels like torture. Your search for a precise calibration has gotten stuck in a linguistic house of mirrors.
L: it seems plainly obvious that if Person A advocates more liberty than Person B (for instance, in the slavery example above), then Person A is more libertarian than Person B.
me: It may SEEM “plainly obvious” to YOU. To me, it’s just that one L advocates more liberty than another.
And then you need to consider what we mean by “advocates.” As a theoretical asymptotic anarchist, I might be amongst the MOST L on the planet. As an applied lessarchist, I may be amongst the LEAST L.
I advocate Harlos Nonarchy Pods now. In a sense, this makes me MOST L, since it would allow any to secede onto his or her own property.
There’s also the nettlesome problem of what is liberty? Is Foldvary’s version of liberty any more accurate than Block’s, or less?
Your thought box is far too restrictive, simplistic.
For some reason you have the notion that “better” or “worse” things need to also be called “more libertarian” or “less libertarian”. I don’t understand why you feel that need. It tortures the language for no apparent gain — and a substantial loss, as evidenced by its application to make many people feel marginalized and unwelcome in the Libertarian Party.
I would say you are the one who is torturing the language. As I just pointed out to Capozzi, words have meanings. In the case of libertarianism, see here, for example:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarianism
According to that definition, a “libertarian” is a person who advocates liberty. Thus, it seems plainly obvious that if Person A advocates more liberty than Person B (for instance, in the slavery example above), then Person A is more libertarian than Person B.
Your arguments to the contrary basically come down to, “No, because I said not”, which is not an argument, but an assertion, and “That definition might hurt some people’s feelings”, which is like telling a child that babies come from a stork — you’re sacrificing truth to avoid awkwardness.
Problem is that words are often not generally understood. … And, of course, words often have multiple meanings.
There you go again, with your patented rhetorical two-step, where you take an obvious fact (very few words have totally unambiguous meanings), and use it as a springboard to reach absurd conclusions (words have no fixed meanings at all).
The fact is that, for the vast majority of words, using them in certain ways is almost universally recognized to be correct (e.g. Murray Rothbard was a libertarian), using them in other ways is almost universally recognized to be incorrect (e.g. Joseph Stalin was a libertarian), and using them in still other ways will elicit debate, as there is no clear consensus (e.g. Rand Paul is a libertarian).
The existence of the third category does not in any way preclude the existence of the first two categories. In other words, the existence of gray does not in any way preclude the existence of black or white, no matter how often you attempt to conflate them.
pf, the Moulton Rule applies to all ideologies.
Another question for Chuck and anyone who agrees with him on this:
Is it also in your opinion meaningless to say one conservative (or conservative view) is more conservative than another conservative (or conservative view)? Can one liberal/progressive (or view) be more liberal/progressive than another? Can one authoritarian be more authoritarian than another?
So the US government/political order is not any more libertarian than North Korea’s, since neither one is libertarian? Sorry, we disagree fundamentally here.
paulie wrote:
No. Those positions are not libertarian.
tk: To win what?
me: IOW, I advocate that a L candidate runs with positions that were attractive enough to enough voters that voters will at least say something like, “Gee, those Ls make a lot of sense.” Now, I’d say the common reaction to Ls is something like, “Well, I agree with Ls on some things, violently disagree with them on others, and they are utopian extremists.”
jp: You’re kidding, right?
me: Ah, nope.
pf: I don’t see a position of reducing monopoly government *by* less than 1% (and opposing anything more drastic) as being just as libertarian ad reducing it *to* less than 1% of its current size.
me: As or more L is meaningless. However, the less than 1%er stands a chance of being taken seriously by voters. Reducing to less than 1% is not.
Barring, of course, the onset of the Frankel Singularity, after which all things are possible.
I haven’t changed the question. Would you say someone who wants to double the size and scope of government is more libertarian than someone who wants to quadruple it? My answer is still yes. If you narrow it to a single issue say is someone who wants to double the income tax more libertarian on that issues than someone who wants to increase it by 1,000%? Still yes. Is someone who wants to ban non-government ownership of some guns more libertarian on that issues than someone who wants to ban all guns? Still yes. And so on.
You all are changing the subject again. There is a difference between on the one hand a position on a single issue (which may be libertarian or not) and positions on many different issues (which if some libertarian and some not can amalgamate to a spectrum like the Nolan chart).
Let’s see if going in the opposite direction removes unnecessary emotional baggage from the equation. Is a person who is a complete 0/0 totalitarian less libertarian than someone just barely outside the libertarian quintile, say 60/60? I would say yes. What do the people who claim that libertarian is an on/off switch say?
Paulie,
==I don’t see a position of reducing monopoly government *by* less than 1% (and opposing anything more drastic) as being just as libertarian ad reducing it *to* less than 1% of its current size.==
It isn’t. The assertion by Chuck makes no sense. It is a position in the libertarian direction until the cut is made then it ceases to even be in the libertarian direction while those who want more remain libertarian in their goals. I guess triangles become non-triangles. Or perhaps that analogy is fatally flawed. I pick the latter.
Chuck,
I think you just proved my (our) point. And playing a semantical bait and switch.
==A “libertarian” position is neither cardinal nor ordinal. There is no ordering… no greater than, no less than, no equal to. They are all just “libertarian”.==
That is sheer ipse fixit which you go on to disprove…
==A position can be more “radical”===
Of course. That is what we are calling “more libertarian” being more “radical” says the same thing. It is radical in a direction. The libertarian direction if that is the subject. It isn’t possible to be radical in a non-spectrum. It also isn’t possible to be “radically triangle” either btw which is just a further demonstration of the failure of that analogy.
==it can be “better” or “worse”===
Better or worse judging by…. a consistent libertarian position in this context. Otherwise there is no such thing.
== To call it “more libertarian”, “less libertarian”, or “equally libertarian” is nonsensical.===
To call a top-dotter to be the same as a 70/70 is nonsensical. They are both libertarians on a spectrum. One has views that are further northward. If one holds sheerly libertarian values as one’s judge of desirability, a top-dot position is better. If one brings other values into one’s libertarians that mediate that, a 70/70 may be better. I find your whole wrapping up of self-worth and identity into whether one is just as libertarian as another person quite odd. It isn’t a contest. I find particularly odd from a utilitarian point of view which explicitly brings other values into play and may determine that the most “libertarian” position isn’t the “best” one.
RC said: ” I don’t know how you got the impression that I don’t think Ls should say anything controversial.”
You’re kidding, right?
I don’t see a position of reducing monopoly government *by* less than 1% (and opposing anything more drastic) as being just as libertarian ad reducing it *to* less than 1% of its current size.
“I advocate playing politics to win, even if the chances are slim.”
To win what?
L: I care about using words in the way they are generally understood, as doing so facilitates communication, rather than silly semantic one-upmanship.
me: Right. Problem is that words are often not generally understood. L is probably now generally understood to mean “Ron Paul.” Few understand it to mean “NAP.” That’s my guess.
And, of course, words often have multiple meanings.
L: This, coming from someone who constantly urges libertarians to avoid saying anything controversial, as doing so might (allegedly) alienate the masses.
me: Oh, Lord forgive, I have truly failed! 😉
I don’t know how you got the impression that I don’t think Ls should say anything controversial. To the contrary!! A 3rd party or a 3rd ideology is inherently controversial.
I do draw a distinction between being edgy > challenge the status quo
and being fringy > challenge the CotOS.
RP1 took some pretty ballsy positions against foreign adventurism, and he stood out and got attn.
That was productive. Unfortunately, he had so many skeletons in his closet, the effort was mixed and largely unsuccessful.
So much of it has to do with delivery. Shit, Trump is illustrating this in spades. With some luck, he too will be unsuccessful.
I advocate playing politics to win, even if the chances are slim.
I’d say that anarchists are the ones who want to play semantical games, taking positions on the fringe, where the chances of near-term success are virtually zero. Even though anarchists often advocate transitional-ish proposals, the semantics of whether those proposals are NAP-consistent or not using literalist interpretations is the phenomenon that I call out. Again, I only find the NAP useful as a statement of sentiment, not a rule to assiduously abide by.
langa wrote:
A “libertarian” position is neither cardinal nor ordinal. There is no ordering… no greater than, no less than, no equal to. They are all just “libertarian”.
A position can be more “radical”, it can be “better” or “worse”. To call it “more libertarian”, “less libertarian”, or “equally libertarian” is nonsensical.
For some reason you have the notion that “better” or “worse” things need to also be called “more libertarian” or “less libertarian”. I don’t understand why you feel that need. It tortures the language for no apparent gain — and a substantial loss, as evidenced by its application to make many people feel marginalized and unwelcome in the Libertarian Party.
All those positions are libertarian.
But are they equally libertarian?
In fact, several states and countries freed slaves incrementally through gradual manumission compensating slave owners, and contemporaneously I would have supported such policies as libertarian and substantial improvements over the status quo.
This is true, but beside the point, as I explained to RC when he said the same thing:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/12/thomas-l-knapp-libertarian-national-convention-2016-an-open-letter-on-borders-and-immigration/#comment-1283637
I learned my lesson a while ago. Play silly Capozzi games, win silly Capozzi prizes.
That’s probably good advice. But I enjoy occasionally sparring with RC. It’s kind of like playing computer solitaire. It’s pointless and unproductive, but it can still be a fun way to kill some time.
What’s so funny to me is that a L cares about what is “generally understood.” Isn’t there a long list of myths that are “generally understood” that Ls reject?
Again, your poor reading comprehension rears its ugly head. If you go back and carefully read what I wrote, you’ll see that I don’t care about the sort of “conventional wisdom” that you are talking about. Rather, as I said, I care about using words in the way they are generally understood, as doing so facilitates communication, rather than silly semantic one-upmanship.
Why worry about what is generally understood, and instead radically pursue the truth no matter where it leads?
Highly recommended.
This, coming from someone who constantly urges libertarians to avoid saying anything controversial, as doing so might (allegedly) alienate the masses.
I think focusing on a certain core group of issues is smart strategy, not a smart Platform. But as a separate position/strategy statement of a Party – a wise move.
Of course I would than have concerns about whether opportunities that arose outside of that strategy would be squandered, defeating any attempt at no-particular orderism.
Moulton> However, I would support a program of 10 issues rather than 5.
The modest number of planks of the BTP appealed to me. Same thing when it came to the Ron Paul “We Agree” number of planks (four).
http://www.votenader.org/weagree/
Short Attention Span Theater isn’t defeated by more planks.
Perhaps off topic (or not) I think Robin Koerner below has a good point.
“As Sanders and Trump Push the Right Buttons, the Liberty Movement Must Wake Up”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/as-sanders-and-trump-push_b_8144332.html
“And the most effective feelings to reflect back in politics — and especially non-mainstream politics — are feelings of injustice that are not being adequately addressed by the political establishment.”
Robin Koerner was recently on the Lions of Liberty podcast. Trump and his persuasion technique was discussed with uncommon intelligence.
http://lionsofliberty.com/2015/12/21/168/
Correction: It was not the Hunt article. It was the Griggs one.
And here the reader can revisit this same discussion:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/10/ryan-griggs-the-anti-libertarian-republic-austin-petersen-rejects-individualism/
Do a word search for “triangle” and “breasts” and the same points that will be made here were already made there. And I am sure will be made in countless threads to come.
Which is now (my fault as much as anyone’s) a distraction from Tom’s push to amend the Platform.
Chuck,
==There are many different types of triangles. All are triangles. None is “more triangle” than another. There are many other shapes that are not triangles. The analogy is direct and on point.===
Actually not once again because you are presuming something with a rigid ontological definition. We can go back and copy and paste our dozens of prior posts on this on the Hunt article thread. Which I am more than happy to do. More than to endlessly reinvent the wheel.
==I fail to see how a circle would be a better analogy than a triangle. There are not many different type of circles with varying angles.==
It was referring to the nature of your argument. It is circular.
==I got an 800 on my math and an 800 on my verbal SATs.==
That is pretty awesome. Congratulations. But I never insinuated you were stupid or ignorant (in fact I never doubted your abilities and knowledge) –unlike your jab at me. Just wrong on this point.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
There are many different types of triangles. All are triangles. None is “more triangle” than another. There are many other shapes that are not triangles. The analogy is direct and on point.
I fail to see how a circle would be a better analogy than a triangle. There are not many different type of circles with varying angles.
Caryn Ann Harlos:
I wasn’t sure how else to interpret the question of whether there is a point when a shape ceases to be a triangle.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I got an 800 on my math and an 800 on my verbal SATs.
langa wrote:
All those positions are libertarian. In fact, several states and countries freed slaves incrementally through gradual manumission compensating slave owners, and contemporaneously I would have supported such policies as libertarian and substantial improvements over the status quo.
Again, you confuse “libertarian policy” with “better policy”. Two policies with regard to the same issue can both be libertarian, yet one can be a better policy than the other.
Chuck,
==No, it is destinational. The last sentence precludes certain libertarian destinations, such as open borders.==
I do not believe it does. It can be abused to do so. But I think it states something already implicit…. credible threats can be repulsed. That is true for everything not just borders.
This is though where I think the whole thing breaks down into common ground. It reminds me of the videos I was watching today on the abuse in certain social justice circles of the subject-object distinction. The subject can easily be made the object and vice versa.
==I’m sorry, I had assumed familiarity with math.===
I do have familiarity with math. I had presumed a good faith not to insinuate I was stupid or uneducated. I got a 690 on my Math on my SATs and a 710 verbal (IIRC). I was in the pre-engineering gifted magnet program at my school. I suck now pretty much at calculations, but I understand math. That was really low.
==A shape ceases to be a triangle when it is not a polygon with 3 sides.===
Presuming your analogy is at all valid and dealing with things that have a definitional ontological nature rather than a spectrum. Your argument does have an analogy in geometry though… it is called a circle.
==Hope that helps.==
Likewise.
Tom Knapp wrote:
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
No, it is destinational. The last sentence precludes certain libertarian destinations, such as open borders.
“However, I would support a program of 10 issues rather than 5.”
I don’t have any problem with that in principle, but my own preference is for three program points (I wrote “maximum of five” into the BTP’s bylaws to provide for those who wanted more than I preferred).
Politics is Short Attention Span Theater. The fewer issues addressed, provided they are well-picked to correspond to the three biggest issues people are thinking, talking and worrying about, the better.
If I were writing a program for this election cycle, I think the two big issues to include would be war/terrorism and immigration. I could see the third issue being any number of other things.
Robert Capozzi wrote:
Odd that “constitutionalists” would spearhead it, as immigration restrictions have no foundation in the U.S. Constitution.
Tom Knapp wrote:
I support this approach.
However, I would support a program of 10 issues rather than 5.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I’m sorry, I had assumed familiarity with math.
A shape ceases to be a triangle when it is not a polygon with 3 sides.
Hope that helps.
L: The idea that anarchists should bite their tongue and avoid making these arguments, simply because doing so might upset some minarchists, strikes me as ridiculous.
me: Wow do I ever agree with this! By all means, advocate anarchy til the cows come home if you feel that’s the best path to your goal. Definitely you should “upset” minarchists; if their skin is that thin, fuck them!
Hold high the banner, damn the torpedoes!!!!
Organize to smash the state!!!*
* Notice, though, that your 0.1% support might make achieving your goal a mite difficult.
Scrolling is always an option.
cah, is this your version of the Donald Trump School of Rhetoric: Insult your “opponent” and unilaterally declare “victory”?
You may note (if you care to pay attention) that you and Langa don’t even have agreement among your fellow anarchists on this matter.
But, yes, I do cop to being “silly” at times. I’ve found the hot pursuit of truth involves the paradox of taking nothing very seriously and taking things very seriously.
Time is most definitely precious. Reject untruth now! Why wait!
langa,
I learned my lesson a while ago. Play silly Capozzi games, win silly Capozzi prizes.
Time is precious.
L: generally understood to operate on a continuum.
me: Yet ANOTHER calculation problem. Generally understood by whom? Where is your evidence that this is generally understood? Has there been a series of polls over time testing what is “generally understood”?
You may find such thinking in your circles. Certainly we see such a concept is generally accepted on lewrockwell.com.
What’s so funny to me is that a L cares about what is “generally understood.” Isn’t there a long list of myths that are “generally understood” that Ls reject?
Like:
* The minimum wage helps the poor.
* Lincoln freed the slaves.
* FDR ended the Great Depression.
* The US is a super-power that should police the world.
Etc.
Why worry about what is generally understood, and instead radically pursue the truth no matter where it leads?
Highly recommended.
You seem to insist that your labeling system is superior to Moulton’s for Moulton. Is that a fair characterization?
We’ve been over this before. You use words as tools for playing silly semantic games. You, therefore, simply make up meanings as you go along. I, on the other hand, utilize words to communicate. Therefore, I use them according to their commonly accepted meaning. I do not simply pretend that they mean whatever would be convenient, as you (and apparently Chuck, at least in this case) seem to do. The word “libertarian” is, at least in the context of American politics, generally understood to operate on a continuum. One often hears debates over who is more libertarian, which policy is more libertarian, etc. Furthermore, this conception makes sense, for the reasons explained above and on other threads (by Caryn, Paulie, and myself, among others).
So, given that this definition is both common and logical, it stands to reason that those who reject it should bear the burden of proof for explaining why their definition is superior. I do not think that either you or Chuck have come anywhere close to meeting such a burden of proof. Instead, all you have offered are assertions and hand waving. In Capozzi’s Land of Linguistic Nihilism, that may cut it. In the real world, unfortunately for you, it does not.
L, I do believe it’s safe to say that there are “calculation problems” all over the place!
It seems obvious to me that we are all individuals and we don’t have 100% agreement on anything. As individuals, we get to choose whom we consider to be a fellow traveler. We also get to choose what label we use for ourselves and for others.
You seem to insist that your labeling system is superior to Moulton’s for Moulton. Is that a fair characterization?
I would also say that, if it was a real choice, freeing 10% is preferable to freeing none.
Obviously, I agree, but that really has nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the analogy, which is that there are degrees of libertarianism, and it’s not just a “yes/no” binary option, as you and Chuck seem to believe.
I am with Moulton and Capozzi on the simple fact that direction and destination are not the same thing.
I don’t think anyone said they were the same thing. I know I didn’t say anything close to that. What Caryn said (and I agreed with) is that it makes no sense to talk about direction, unless you have a destination in mind.To continue with the geographical analogy, if I were looking for the Fountain of Youth (think “Libertopia” — or as close to it as possible), I would need to know what state it was in (as in which social/political system would be most conducive to “Libertopia”) before I started figuring out which direction to go. If it was in Alabama, I would need to go west. If it was in Florida, I would need to go south. If it was in Tennessee, I would need to go north. If it was in South Carolina, I would need to go east. But in any case, I would need to know where it was before I started worrying about how to get there.*
*This also demonstrates why I dislike the idea that anarchists should just pretend to be minarchists until we get to minarchy. From Georgia, I would need to go west to get to either Texas or Colorado, but I might well choose a different route to get to Colorado, that did not involve going through Texas at all. The same is true of politics. The route to anarchy may very well never “pass through” minarchy, and there are plenty of arguments in favor of anarchy that are not really arguments in favor of minarchy, or certainly aren’t as strong when used to advocate minarchy as they are when used to advocate anarchy. The idea that anarchists should bite their tongue and avoid making these arguments, simply because doing so might upset some minarchists, strikes me as ridiculous.
L: Some members wanted to free 10% of the slaves, others wanted to free 50% of them, and the rest wanted to free all of them. Are you guys really going to claim that all three of those positions are “equally” libertarian?
me: Not a very helpful analogy. The better one would be determining what approach would be employed to actually free the slaves. Good thoughts are nice, but if they are not actionable, they remain between the ears, of no real use to anyone except the thinker.
I would also say that, if it was a real choice, freeing 10% is preferable to freeing none.
And, for this conversation, the better question would be are we slaves today, effectively enslaved like the chattel slaves of 1850?
Plumbliners and others say Yes, as I understand it. I say No.
Caryn,
Since you agree with the proposal, I’m not going to expend effort trying to convince you that you don’t understand it. That just sounds like it would be counterproductive.
Tom,
I know we agree on much. But your proposal isn’t directionalist– or only is to the point that the two views have much common ground. It is destinational.
I don’t think the final sentence even fits in these categories … or it is an alternate destination. I don’t see direction as being relevant here much if at all.
I am with Moulton and Capozzi on the simple fact that direction and destination are not the same thing.
I am in Florida. If I want to get to Texas, I have to go west.
West is direction. Texas is destination. I can go west but not as far west as Texas. I can go west, but further than Texas.
I would be happy with a destinationalist immigration/borders plank that calls for open borders, but I know other people wouldn’t be.
I am not happy with the current plank, which has a destinationalist final sentence that falls far short of open borders.
I’d be willing to settle for a directionalist plank that leaves the question of a role for the state out entirely, such as the current plank minus the final sentence.
==I agree. But I would add that, even from the beginning, before any of the slaves had actually been freed, the position that they should all be freed would still be “more libertarian” than the other two positions would be.==
Yes it would be because it would never cease being libertarian not matter what the state of the law was.
But to your question, equally important, would the person who achieved their goal of 50% all of a sudden become “not libertarian” on the day after success if they didn’t want any further. In a yes/no system that makes no sense. In a spectrum it makes perfect sense. As long as someone is moving towards the libertarian goal, they are on the scale of being a libertarian on that issue. Once they stop, they are not, and the only person that remains consistently libertarian as slavery falls is the one who wants none.
I agree. But I would add that, even from the beginning, before any of the slaves had actually been freed, the position that they should all be freed would still be “more libertarian” than the other two positions would be.
I can’t for the life of me figure out where you got the fuck-silly idea that I might make any such claim.
From this sentence, written by you:
“I am with Capozzi and Moulton on the relationship between direction and destination.”
And especially when combining that with Chuck’s other statements on this issue, e.g. the bizarre “triangle analogy” that he loves.
However, perhaps you can clear up any confusion I might be having with a clear, yes or no response to this simple question: Is advocating anarchy a more libertarian position than advocating minarchy?*
*Note that this question is being asked without regard to platforms, big tents, hurt feelings, or any other such baggage.
Langa,
I think you mixed Tom in with a different lot.
But to your question, equally important, would the person who achieved their goal of 50% all of a sudden become “not libertarian” on the day after success if they didn’t want any further. In a yes/no system that makes no sense. In a spectrum it makes perfect sense. As long as someone is moving towards the libertarian goal, they are on the scale of being a libertarian on that issue. Once they stop, they are not, and the only person that remains consistently libertarian as slavery falls is the one who wants none.
“Are you guys really going to claim that all three of those positions are ‘equally’ libertarian?”
Not only would I not make any such claim, I can’t for the life of me figure out where you got the fuck-silly idea that I might make any such claim.
I’m interested in how far CM, RC, and TK are willing to go in their defense of this binary, “yes/no” conception of libertarianism. Imagine there was an LP in 1850. There was a debate on the platform, involving the plank on slavery. Some members wanted to free 10% of the slaves, others wanted to free 50% of them, and the rest wanted to free all of them.
Are you guys really going to claim that all three of those positions are “equally” libertarian?
A point of agreement.
tk: You have no way of calculating whether or not what feels like a downward slope leads to a net gain. So the most pragmatic course is to resolutely take the upward path.
me: There is not a way to make such a calculation in a mathematical sense, agreed. It instead requires a subjective judgment.
For ex., I might consider increasing pollution taxes as a trade-off for other taxes. Depending on the specifics, I might support such a shift because I’d rather tax a “bad” over a “good.”
You may well not be willing to make such a judgment and take such a risk. Perhaps most Ls would agree with you.
It’s one of the reasons I’m not in the LP.
And that’s OK.
Tom,
==I’m seeing your point — at least a little. There’s obviously a continuum of destinationality.===
I would agree there… there is an overlap over the two statements. One solid end of the destinational side is the SoP.
But, I would disagree a bit here…
==The existing platform plank on immigration is more clearly destinational in that it overtly bars movement toward “open borders” by approving of a state power to “control … entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”===
I think you meant directional… but this shows how fuzzy things are. It is destinational if we think state power over such things is our goal. But the SoP precludes that, so it cannot be. It can only be an incremental concession. Or is it? Is it the “control” or is it “the state”? Everything we say always carries with it the implicit exception of the right to repel credible threats and dangers, be it by private property owners or an existing state. You (and I) want though a clear open borders statement. Which is nothing but destinational.
==
I still think that’s the way the LP should do things. For one thing, it provides for maximal big-tentness and allows anarchists and minarchists to co-exist continuously. Real ones, that is. ==
I find the maximal big-tentness thing a smokescreen and distraction. I will write on that at some future date. The “big tent” idea ends up simply being a small tent for moderates to feel good about. It is an illusion.
I firmly believe in a strong “implementation” plank that would mirror your BTP statement. To me that is the way to include everyone who is moving in the direction and makes the acceptance and welcome explicit thus achieving the goals of an *actual* big tent. It also leaves the National Party and the affiliates wide berth and nimbleness to pursue actual transitions and increments without danger of making the increment the goal and losing the vision.
I have to say though Tom, if you really wanted just directionality you could not support what you are proposing. It is not big-tent in the way commonly formulated (which I reject), it is excluding those who wish more controls than you do while still allowing more freedom than absolutely closed borders. Of course I think you are right in your open borders position. And I think it is a good example of showing the vacuousness of the idea that there isn’t a “more libertarian” position or not. Which of course requires a destination to make that comparison— this destination will always pop up, not matter how zealously its detractors play Whack-A-Mole.
I do not get the whole angst that destinationalism will have to cause the Party to take the side of anarchists or minarchists. It successfully did not through decades of destinational platforms. The party need only say what it says in the SoP. Any existing state must not violate rights. And that is true as far as it goes. The anarchist and say the Randian minarchist both think their positions satisfy that… and they can argue about it when that’s all there’s left to argue about. Is that perhaps an ambitious concession? Yes. But one I think is reasonable and gives a direction and a destination allowing some dispute over precisely what that destination will look like. To stretch the bad analogies further, it gives the neighborhood, it will get you there, but you might need to walk around a bit to decide upon the perfect house.
PS: thank you for reminding me of the BTP statement… that truly is a perfect expression of the implementation position I have.
Reply Comments
“Ever hiked a mountain? There are times when the trail goes sideways, even down a bit. The path is still UP the mountain, but for a stretch it’s possible that the fastest, most efficient way up is down!”
But, as I demonstrated way back when first you tried that one out as an excuse for refusing to endorse actual incrementalism, you’re hiking the mountain blindfolded. You have no way of calculating whether or not what feels like a downward slope leads to a net gain. So the most pragmatic course is to resolutely take the upward path.
tk: Bob exposed himself as a fake “incrementalist lessarchist” when he quailed from actually endorsing incrementalist lessarchism without the possibility of morearchist exceptions.
me: I don’t see it that way.
Ever hiked a mountain? There are times when the trail goes sideways, even down a bit. The path is still UP the mountain, but for a stretch it’s possible that the fastest, most efficient way up is down!
cah: It doesn’t say, we support only the reduction of forcible interference with rights – we support it being gone.
me: Harlos Nonarchy Pods solve the problem!
It’s not really force if you have the option of dropping out!
cah: The whole SoP is destinational. The platform is to implement the SoP.
me: Kinda sorta. The SoP implies a destination, although it’s done in an often cryptic manner. The non-NAP-initiated may find some of the language attractive, not recognizing that the implication of the language is either anarchist or hyper-minarchist, with no real discussion about the full implications of such a speculative goal (in a developed nation with government fused with civil society).
The platform — if read in context of how it came to be the way it is — represents a mish-mosh of previously approved language. That’s because most of the platform was abolished and replaced with nothing in Portland in 06, IIRC. It was embarrassingly short and lacking comprehensiveness, so Holtz proposed a methodology to at least have SOMETHING on paper to give outsiders a flavor of what L means and as a general guide for the party.
I don’t think anyone thought or thinks the platform as constituted is a good representation of L-ism. It just represents the best that that Platcomm could assemble, given the deep divides in the LP.
TK: Oddly, though, Capozzi seems to be defending the destinational final sentence of the existing plank instead of standing with me in calling for that destinational sentence to be deleted, leaving only the directional material.
ME: IIRC, the constitutionalists on Platcomm spearheaded the sentence: “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”
That I think was one of the few new sentences added to the current platform. I think the word that triggered them was the word “unrestricted” in the previous sentence: “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”
Whether any of this is really directional or destinational…I’m just not sure. It might be somewhere in between. Personally, I’d probably come at these questions from an entirely different direction.
Caryn,
I’m seeing your point — at least a little. There’s obviously a continuum of destinationality.
The existing platform plank on immigration is more clearly destinational in that it overtly bars movement toward “open borders” by approving of a state power to “control … entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”
With that sentence amended out, it is more fuzzily destinational in that it only bars “unreasonable” state control over people crossing the gang’s turf lines, with reasonable/unreasonable left undefined and open for continuing debate.
But I’ve been around the directionality/destinationality problem before, as when I proposed the LP switch to a directional platform (The World’s Smallest Political Platform) and handle destinationality in increments with a biennial program of specific policy proposals. That was the basis of the Boston Tea Party.
BTP Platform:
“The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose.”
Then, every two years, we would adopt a program with a maximum of five specific policy proposals for near-term implementation and no intimation that those proposals represented any kind of “final settlement.”
I still think that’s the way the LP should do things. For one thing, it provides for maximal big-tentness and allows anarchists and minarchists to co-exist continuously. Real ones, that is. Bob exposed himself as a fake “incrementalist lessarchist” when he quailed from actually endorsing incrementalist lessarchism without the possibility of morearchist exceptions.
I would love to see how you defend that your (and my) open borders position isn’t purely destinational. Unless you are going to place it in the whole framework of the entire sphere of Liberty – but that would be contrary to what Chuck and I were disputing which is whether planks – by definition taking chunks out out of the whole Liberty picture – should be destinational or not. Chuck appeared to agree your proposal WAS destinational. He recognized that is why I called him on supporting it. And he said that he would support it only because “we people” (meaning people like you and me presumably) keep insisting on putting destinational bombs in the platform so he might as well choose his preferred bomb.
Tom,
Where they cross is a territory so large that to deal with the ends as if they were the whole is futile. Which is what Chuck is doing and you sometimes *appear* to do. Your proposal is utterly destinational yet you say it is directional. The parsing makes no sense.
The whole idea of direction and destination is quite amorphous indeed. You can squint at one and see different things. Without a doubt, the SoP is destinational however. And that controls.
To have a politics that is “libertarian” is destinational… It is to the destination of maximal liberty. And liberty is also a direction.
Chuck would like it to just be a direction but the SoP precludes that as does our preamble – but the preamble doesn’t require a 7/8 vote. It doesn’t say, we support only the reduction of forcible interference with rights – we support it being gone. It doesn’t say we deny the right of government to excessively violate rights and as they as they tone it done, we’re chill. Not at all. It is absolutely destinational— which implies approval for any movement in the direction of that destination. The preamble is even stronger IMHO.
No amount of strained analogies changes that.
“It is a mistake to say the two are exclusive.”
Which is why I didn’t say that. They are not INHERENTLY mutually exclusive. But neither are they the same thing, and it is possible to TREAT them exclusively.
Tom,
The only final goal that needs to be left unstated is the existence of the state itself- yet there is a destination state crafted on that in the SoP- any govt existing must not violate rights. Let the anarchists and minarchists then argue which of them accomplish that destination- but make no mistake- it is a destination. I find your distinction to be without a difference. The whole SoP is destinational. The platform is to implement the SoP. What you are calling directional and destinational in your proposal is arbitrary. It is most definitely destinational- open borders. In order for this to be directional only it must not state anything other than the desire to support anything that opens the market. As a directional plank, the current one is fine.
It is a mistake to say the two are exclusive.
You keep stating that Chuck, but that doesn’t make it correct unless you have a point where your triangle ceases to be triangle as you do in your libertarian example.
I am with Capozzi and Moulton on the relationship between direction and destination. The former can be identified without reference to the latter (if you want a basis in theory for that claim, read Ayn Rand’s theory of universals in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).
And, in fact, if the LP wants to get back on track with the Dallas Accord, that’s how the platform should address issues — in terms of direction rather than ultimate outcome, since the latter will inherently write out either the anarchist or minarchist faction.
Oddly, though, Capozzi seems to be defending the destinational final sentence of the existing plank instead of standing with me in calling for that destinational sentence to be deleted, leaving only the directional material.
cah: And the direction must have a goal or there is no direction.
me: This makes no sense. Let’s test it.
I am a lessarchist. I advocate that the government be smaller in all ways.
I don’t have a utopian goal of anarchy or minarchy. As a Hayekian, I recognize these things evolve, and that I don’t have enough information to decide whether anarchy or minarchy is preferable.
Based on results, I will die way before minarchy is even approached. If everything breaks right, a combination of technology breakthroughs and a wider acceptance of lessarchism might lead to a noticeably smaller state, maybe 1/8th or so by 2030.
As one who draws great insight from the Tao (MNR said Lao Tzu was the first L), there is the notion of getting in the flow in order to bend the flow. To accept what is, but to do one’s best while here to achieve incremental improvement.
There’s also great line, “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” Lao Tzu grokked centuries ago the notion of false precision. Who knows what the penultimate virtuous civil society looks like?! It’s futile to define it.
Now, tell me why my lack of a specific goal lacks direction.
I note that this subject has come up before, and the deontological set have not been able to answer the question. This “direction requires a specific goal” idea is dogma, an assumption that — so far — falls apart under mild scrutiny.
Your analogy is ridiculous. You are comparing libertarian to a word that operates very differently. As I’ve already stated repeatedly, the most analogous concept would be “triangle”. An equilateral triangle is not “more triangle” than an isosceles triangle; they are both just triangles.
And the direction must have a goal or there is no direction.
This is a great point.
Imagine if I, living in Georgia, insisted that California was no further west than Texas. My argument would go like this, “No. Neither California nor Texas is ‘more’ west than the other. They are both simply west. To get from here to Texas, you go west. To get from here to California, you go west. So, you see, there’s no difference. Plus, don’t you know that it’s just plain rude to tell a Texan that they’re not a ‘real’ Westerner?”
Pretty silly argument, huh? Now, replace “Georgia” with “the status quo”; “Texas” with “minarchy”; “California” with “anarchy”; and “west” with “libertarian” — voila! That’s exactly the same argument Chuck keeps making.
RC, that joke was just terrible
cah: I doubt that a minarchist IF he found himself in an anarchist society in which rights were protected just as well or better than a minarchy would want the state simply for the sake of having the state.
me: How would s/he know unless s/he experienced minarchy? As TK claims there are anarcho places (albeit largely undeveloped ones by US standards), those could be experienced now (apparently), but are there minarcho places now to also experience?
Perhaps a sliver of land on the Uzbekistan/Tajikistan border, where a lost Zoroastrian has claimed a de facto minarchic nation has existed for 3 months, funded by limestone powder crushed from the former village hall building, funding one constable/justice of the peace? 😉
Somewhat seriously, as a lessarchist, if an anarchic “state” did what you say, I’d be fine with it.
Paulie,
==Vanishingly few radicals are trying to kick moderates out of the LP. Unless you mean that having an LP that actually articulates libertarian positions has that effect.==
You hit on something important. The moderates claim that having a position more radical than theirs excludes them but then somehow state then the platform should be moderate…. and that somehow doesn’t exclude radicals. Which is why I support affirming direction and destination. It welcomes everyone as far as they wish to go. I would point out to Chuck that even giving a direction already is exclusionary in some sense because there must be a justification for that direction and it will lead to the same idea: one can be more or less libertarian in that justification. Taxation for instance… if the income tax is theft… then supporting some income is supporting some theft… no matter how nice a bow one puts on that package. The no-income tax person is more libertarian on that issue than the little income-tax person. IF the direction is to reduce… more reduction is more libertarian.
== To be fair, I think it’s only a minority of moderates that are trying to kick radicals and/or anarchists out of the LP as well. ===
I don’t think it is a majority to be sure. I do think it is almost a mere majority. I get it frequently enough to be deeply troubled. Some of it is just hostility… others are outright declarations of longings for excommunications.
===Most of us are OK with coexisting unless and until we get to a level of government where our disagreements are anything but theoretical.===
This is true to a point. Most moderates do not support having an explicit statement though that an anarchist end goal is an acceptable position. They are fine with anarchists working with them as long as we agree to submit to their belief in the necessity of the state until we get to the jumping off point. I think we can remain much more neutral on that point as a Party and agree as a Party that we are working towards minimizing the state down to basic functions as a common goal without stating that the state must exist. Which is not even something that requires anarchism to accept. I doubt that a minarchist IF he found himself in an anarchist society in which rights were protected just as well or better than a minarchy would want the state simply for the sake of having the state.
Chuck,
==No, it doesn’t… as long as “consistently libertarian” is defined as “consistently moving in the direction of liberty”.===
And the direction must have a goal or there is no direction. Again not mutually exclusive. Unless you believe in divesting someone of their “libertarian” label on a position once they reached their 50% cut or whatever. That might hurt their feelings.
==However, you define “consistently libertarian” as “consistently anarchist”, so with that definition, yes, it does make it unwelcoming.==
And you continue to misrepresent my position vis a vis the LP. I have never advocated that the LP adopt an explicitly anarchist position. I understand the minarchist argument for the existence of the state and accept the proposition that such issue should be left indeterminate. The actual minarchists are not consciously adopting an unlibertarian position, they make a libertarian argument for it that is consistent with libertarianism.. I believe some of their conclusions are wrong, but I understand the argument’s internal claim to consistency, and recognize vis a vis the LP, the historicity of the legitimacy of that position. The historicity is a big factor by the way. We are speaking of LP Libertarianism and not libertarianism writ large. Will there be some fuzzy issues with this? Of course. I don’t believe life or ideology is ever quite that simple no matter how fervently you wish to paint me that way.
==Anyone who supports a moderate libertarian position on any issue reads the platform and sees that it contradicts their position… they are defined as “un-libertarian” on that issue by the One True Libertarian Position (TM) gospel as written in the libertarian bible, spoken by Rothbard on the holy mountain to his prophet and written down as the word of God for all to marvel at. This is why we can’t have nice things.==
Channeling Capozzi I see. If the Platform explicitly endorses transitions then it absolutely doesn’t. But the moderate is not as libertarian on the position, true. That’s just the facts, regardless of feelings. If it bugs someone so much to not be as libertarian on a certain position, they should become more libertarian. It seems you wish to parse out between libertarian direction and libertarian goal. I don’t have much of an issue with doing that actually. Going from 100% to 90% control, both the moderate and the radical will be identical in libertarian direction. They are not identical in libertarian goals. I believe the platform should point to both and welcome all who are willing to go in the direction as far as they wish.
==And yet we see you advocate that the platform should list the One True Libertarian Position (TM) on everything (the platform should be lengthier in terms of number of planks and detail, encompassing every question under the sun), while at the same time wanting to remove the abortion plank.===
I want to remove the abortion plank for the sake of unity. I find it falls within the same category as the existence of the state. Something that very very consistent and good faith libertarian arguments can be made for. I think the pro-abortion ones ultimately fail, but the framework in which it is made is a striving for libertarian consistency.
And nowhere did I say everything. Your extremist framing of my words is duly noted. I believe it should on the issues on which there is very clearly and historically a clear Libertarian position vis a vis the LP and its principles. (and the SoP, which I think absolutely is …. side constraints as it were on the Platform…. explicitly allows for both minarchism and anarchism, thus any idea that I would support only anarchism as a Platform items is ill-founded)
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
No, it doesn’t… as long as “consistently libertarian” is defined as “consistently moving in the direction of liberty”.
However, you define “consistently libertarian” as “consistently anarchist”, so with that definition, yes, it does make it unwelcoming.
Anyone who supports a moderate libertarian position on any issue reads the platform and sees that it contradicts their position… they are defined as “un-libertarian” on that issue by the One True Libertarian Position (TM) gospel as written in the libertarian bible, spoken by Rothbard on the holy mountain to his prophet and written down as the word of God for all to marvel at. This is why we can’t have nice things.
And yet we see you advocate that the platform should list the One True Libertarian Position (TM) on everything (the platform should be lengthier in terms of number of planks and detail, encompassing every question under the sun), while at the same time wanting to remove the abortion plank.
Vanishingly few radicals are trying to kick moderates out of the LP. Unless you mean that having an LP that actually articulates libertarian positions has that effect. To be fair, I think it’s only a minority of moderates that are trying to kick radicals and/or anarchists out of the LP as well. Most of us are OK with coexisting unless and until we get to a level of government where our disagreements are anything but theoretical.
==This is exactly what the LP is doing. Radicals and moderates are trying to kick each other out. I think it is colossally stupid; however, if those are the only choices I’m given, then I have to vote for the radical positions.==
*Some* are. I am not. You keep creating this black/white narrative that is a strawman, at least to the people here. Yes some of those exist on both sides. Moreso on one than the other, and hint, it ain’t the radicals.
Chuck,
==I don’t see any incompatibility between those two statements.===
I do, as explained.
==I’m an anarcho-capitalist. I take radical positions, including strong support for open borders. I also want the Libertarian Party to be a big tent party welcoming to all libertarians.===
Having consistently libertarian positions doesn’t make it unwelcoming. Particularly if it adopted the “implementation” plank I support.
==I want to see a platform that is directional, not destination. Destination platforms make those who want a different libertarian destination feel unwelcome.===
“Feeling” unwelcome is often a choice. You are making those who don’t favour that “direction” unwelcome. That is not a valid argument IMHO in any event. I want a libertarian platform that supports moving in the libertarian direction. You see these as somehow exclusive. They can be. They don’t have to be. The 2004 monstrosity (the format was hideous) showed it could be done, though done badly at that time.
==As long as all of you people…===
Ahhh… you people. Love it.
== insist on having a destination platform (and shooting the LP in the foot in the process)====
Not mutually exclusive. And I think not having an endgame is shooting the LP in the head in the process….
== I too might as well support my destination. I’m not going to waste time crafting planks or serving on committees, but I’ll vote in my own interest.===
That is understandable, and I understand your comments better, thank you.
==This example is even starker though: the existing language excludes an open borders position, so deleting that sentence would make the plank more directional, less destination. Therefore my advocacy is not only for the more anarchist position, but also for the more directional position at the same time.==
I really don’t think it does. I think it can be misconstrued that way. I don’t find open borders to be an anarchist position. It is consistent with anarchy, not exclusive to it. The only position that is exclusive to anarchy is “no state” at all.
Chuck Moulton wrote:
Here’s the most direct and relevant analogy I can think of to make my approach clear:
Suppose my homeowner’s association decides to vote on whether to make the neighborhood whites only or blacks only. I think that’s really stupid. I would vigorously campaign not to have such a vote — I want people of any race to be allowed to live in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, no one listens to me. Everyone insists on restricting the neighborhood. The only decision on the table is whites or blacks. I’m white, so I would have to vote for the whites, in hopes I won’t be kicked out of the neighborhood.
This is exactly what the LP is doing. Radicals and moderates are trying to kick each other out. I think it is colossally stupid; however, if those are the only choices I’m given, then I have to vote for the radical positions.
Cartn Ann Harlos wrote:
I don’t see any incompatibility between those two statements.
I’m an anarcho-capitalist. I take radical positions, including strong support for open borders. I also want the Libertarian Party to be a big tent party welcoming to all libertarians.
I want to see a platform that is directional, not destination. Destination platforms make those who want a different libertarian destination feel unwelcome.
As long as all of you people insist on having a destination platform (and shooting the LP in the foot in the process), I too might as well support my destination. I’m not going to waste time crafting planks or serving on committees, but I’ll vote in my own interest.
This example is even starker though: the existing language excludes an open borders position, so deleting that sentence would make the plank more directional, less destination. Therefore my advocacy is not only for the more anarchist position, but also for the more directional position at the same time.
Well, if you think they’re a waste of time, don’t waste your time on them. Everyone else’s time is theirs to waste.
More total waste of time platform debates.
“Generally, anarchy and democracy seem incompatible to me.”
Anarchy is simply the absence of monopoly political government, aka the state. How people choose to govern themselves in that absence is up to them, and will vary from group to group. The Rojavans chose Murray Bookchin’s radically democratic anarchism (they chose it because their nearly-worshiped leader, previously a Marxist-Leninist, converted to it in prison in Turkey and suggested they try it out — IIRC, he’s still in prison).
Bookchin is not unknown to the LP, I understand. Apparently he and Rothbard held a public debate at an LP convention in the 1970s in Boston.
Chuck,
I would also add this because it seems to be in conflict with what you just said above. Earlier you said:
==I don’t say that because I oppose a radical plank; I say it because I support a radical plank.===
I agree with you. But that doesn’t jive with your most recent statement.
I actually support an “implementation” plank that indicates we support any true increments and transitions to more liberty that gives moderates grounds to propose less than the most radical position and still be kosher without attacks btw.
I don’t keep score, TK. I did read your words “Bookchinist anarchist principles” and that doesn’t sound like “direct democracy,” although maybe it is. Generally, anarchy and democracy seem incompatible to me.
“I guess you dispute the Wiki characterization of ‘Rojava’ as ‘a society based on principles of direct democracy, gender equality, and sustainability.'”
You’re not a very good guesser, are you?
Jill,
I hesitate to joke since some people will take this seriously.
I think the Platform could just be “Dear State: Go away.”
<< will wait for someone to birth a cow.
Chuck,
==Cutting the income tax by 50% is also a libertarian position. Neither is “more libertarian” than the other — that is nonsensical. One is more anarchist than the other.===
Here we go again. One cannot more “anarchist”— one is anarchist or not. Unlike libertarian in which there is a spectrum of which I argue the logical end point of “purity” is anarchism, but purity may not be the best position.
To say cutting the income tax by 50% is not less libertarian philosophically than ending it entirely is nonsensical. Unless you are to say that the libertarian position of cutting it once achieved is no longer a libertarian position since things for you are either on or off, without any gradations. That 50% is just as ideal as zero. Or the libertarian ceases to be libertarian on that issue once that achieved.
Actually our platform is directional already as made clear in the Preamble. I do think end-game positions should be stated clearly as well.
Robert Capozzi wrote:
I favor a platform that is directional, not destination: more liberty, less government. There are many libertarian positions on any given issue… the platform ought to be broad enough to encompass all possible sollutions. Open borders is a libertarian position. Substantially liberalizing immigration policy allowing a lot more people in with less bureaucracy is a libertarian position too. Eliminating the income tax is a libertarian position. Cutting the income tax by 50% is also a libertarian position. Neither is “more libertarian” than the other — that is nonsensical. One is more anarchist than the other.
Unfortunately, most libertarians insist that the platform provide a destination — and that it be their destination. They want to be able to point to the platform and say anyone who disagrees with plank X is taking an un-libertarian position on that issue. So radicals fight for a platform that excludes moderate positions and moderates fight for a platform that excludes radical positions. It is highly contentious and involves a lot of arguments and bad feelings every convention. This is why we can’t have nice things.
I’ve learned over the years that I can’t stop libertarians from fighting like cats and dogs, arranging themselves into a circular firing squad. That’s the main reason I give the platform a wide berth. Que sera, sera.
Sorry, tk, I should have said ” (since there aren’t any, aside from pockets in third-world places, which generally only last for a short time).”
Placid Somalia is no longer. Serepentine stateless areas in remote places seem to me uninstructive and inapplicable to western post-industrial civil societies.
I guess you dispute the Wiki characterization of “Rojava” as “a society based on principles of direct democracy, gender equality, and sustainability.”
Capozzi, in conversation with Thomas Knapp: “Or, are you maybe going all Alex Jones on us, perhaps claiming that San Bernadino didn’t happen, that it’s another false flag operation or somesuch?”
This was a local event. A friend of a couple I know well died. I’ve read a few places where this has been written off as a staged event, but it does appear that people died.
What I’ll say about this is that 14 people died. I really, really hope the investigation is ongoing. Thomas is right that the postings on FB have been debunked, and the talk is very strong that the Pakistani couple were handcuffed, and lying face down in the SUV already dead when the vehicle was located. That’s a significant departure from what the MSM told us. Also, there were three very good witnesses who reported three large white men in military garb going into the facility just before the shooting started.
I wish everyone would wait until there is a reasonably strong awareness of what happened before making a proclamation of who did it. I kept waiting to hear about a manifesto, but so far, there isn’t one.
And no one needs to bother with the “tin foil hat” jokes simply because I think the death of 14 people deserves to be investigated. That doesn’t phase me at all.
Dr. Feldman at 6:12: Thanks for answering my question. Re: My preference for the platform would be 1.00: “Liberty. That is all.”
I like that quite a bit. Brevity can be a god thing. I would add two words, however: “Liberty for everyone. That is all.”
Or, maybe four words: “Liberty and peace for everyone. That is all”.
==Feels contemptuous to me.==
The pigmentation of certain kitchen accessories seems pretty apropos here.
“Just how big would the peacekeeping mistakes be in a stateless society (since there aren’t any)”
Actually, as we’ve discussed before, there are a number of them (one that seems to be developing a post-Westphalian-nation-state governance model based on Bookchinist anarchist principles, Rojava, also happens to have successfully fought back the Islamic State, which is an encouraging development).
In terms of domestic tranquility in stateless societies, there was a point in time when Mogadishu was rated as less violent — in other words, more domestically tranquil — than St. Louis, Detroit or Chicago.
tk: Determined people with material means go where they like. ….Security theater is not security.
me: Yes, there is no guarantee that screening and otherwise making it difficult to operate within the commonwealth in an undocumented manner will be 100% effective. Absolutely.
Murder has been illegal for centuries, yet murders still happen. Legalizing murder in light of that fact seems like a weird response to me. And probably most of humanity.
tk: Sure. Big ones, even. But probably not as big as mistaking the state for a set of “domestic tranquility institutions.”
me: Now THERE’S quite an indictment! It begins to reveal the regard that many anarchists have for non-anarchist Ls. Feels contemptuous to me.
And let’s be clear that we are talking about two highly speculative alternative universes: Just how big would the peacekeeping mistakes be in a stateless society (since there aren’t any) and what would the world be like if virtually everyone believed that the state is NOT a set of DT institutions.
Re: everyone else is an authoritarian by anarchist standards
In its most literal sense, that is true. But literalness is a poor way to cover one’s tracks that such is not how it is usually used or used here.
Just like all non-anarchists are in fact statists. It is not how the term is used – wooden literality aside.
There is a general meaning and sense of statist and authoritarian in libertarian circles in their use and that is how they are being used.
But then the force is taken out of such an illegitimate attack on the source.
“Any domestic tranquility institution is going to make mistakes”
AND NONE of those mistakes will ever rise to the level of par with the mistake of creating said “domestic tranquility institutions” in the first place… Institutions like the DHS who is able to use secret evidence in secret courts to cart off kidnapped victims to secret prisons using the excuse: “War on Terror” as if, somehow, that makes it OK to burn the rights and protections spelled out in the Constitution. I find it laughable that there is talk of “evidence,” conveniently where no actual evidence exists, YET, like in the Ross Ulbricht case, this non-evidence is able to be used in order to further other charges which have little to no chance of actually sticking..
Now, it is brought up about this woman regarding the workplace violence case, which has yet to be decided in a court of law, that this woman was writing about Jihad. Meanwhile the FBI is saying the opposite… This case, all by itself, should demonstrate how dangerous a place we live in when policies enable these sorts of things to continue to occur.
We should all be HORRIFIED…
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
steve m
No interest in extreme misstatements of what I said.
“I’d like to hear more, as I’ve seen reports that Malik was posting on Facebook her support for violent jihad in years prior to her entry to the US. If this is so, and since Facebook postings are public, it strikes me as possible that if screeners could flag such postings and possibly exclude such a person from entering the US, since that could be deemed a credible threat.”
If Malik wanted to get into the US and had the material means to travel, no action taken by “screeners” could have “excluded” her from entering the US. Determined people with material means go where they like. The difference a “screener” authorization or prohibition would have made would have been the difference between her getting on a 747 and catching a movie on the way, or running an infinitesimal risk of being caught by one of the roving government gang patrols coming in some other way. Security theater is not security.
As a side note, here’s US FBI director James Comey’s statement on the reports you’ve seen: “So far, in this investigation we have found no evidence of posting on social media by either of them at that period in time and thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom. I’ve seen some reporting on that, and that’s a garble.”
“Or, are you maybe going all Alex Jones on us, perhaps claiming that San Bernadino didn’t happen, that it’s another false flag operation or somesuch?”
Nice try, no cigar.
“Any domestic tranquility institution is going to make mistakes”
Sure. Big ones, even. But probably not as big as mistaking the state for a set of “domestic tranquility institutions.”
sm: Robert, so how long after ending US wars of aggression does it take for a Libertarian administration to bring down our own iron curtain?
me: Interesting, though heavily loaded hypothetical you offer. First, I don’t foresee a L administration any time in the foreseeable future, especially given the extremism embedded in the foundational docs and among many in the LM. Second, I’m not sure what you mean by an “iron curtain,” but I’m guessing you mean something like “immigration controls.”
As a general matter, I am for allowing for as much immigration as possible. I am also for prudent checks of immigrants to screen for ones who represent possible damage to US domestic tranquility. I think it would be wise to minimize spreading of certain contagions; to deny entry to convicted criminals or otherwise dangerous people. I am open to denying immigrants access to US taxpayer subsidization of some social services, although I can’t give you specifics on what that might look like.
I am open to other ways of looking at any or all of these matters, but I maintain that, no, I don’t think anyone can go anywhere with anything. I view nations as kind of commonwealth, and its citizens as shareholders, though my default position is that governments should govern least. Least does not exclude none at all, but I can’t envision at the moment what none at all might look like, given the sweep of history and the current state of travel and military technology.
“Dr. Feldman: Would you like to take a stab at writing a plank for the next convention re: immigration? Your views seem to be different than the rest of us here.”
Craftng platform planks is not a strong interest of mine. My preference for the platform would be 1.00: Liberty. That is all.
As far as the current immigration plank:
“We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”
My suggestion would be to change “a credible threat” to “a clear and present danger.” I think that would be a step in the right direction. I would also like to see the plank remove the power of government to facilitate as well as to obstruct movement of immigrants, and to empower the individual citizens and private voluntary organizations to sponsor and make the decisions and be accountable..
Robert, so how long after ending US wars of aggression does it take for a Libertarian administration to bring down our own iron curtain?
tk: What I believe is that reality should always be accepted rather than rejected. Since AQN (whatever that is) or ISIS sympathizers CAN’T be restricted from visiting and/or immigrating to the US, any claims that a policy has that effect are false and just cover for authoritarianism for authoritarianism’s sake. Belief otherwise is, to use your descriptor, bat-shit crazy.
me: OK, now we are getting somewhere.
“Can’t” is quite a statement. I’d like to hear more, as I’ve seen reports that Malik was posting on Facebook her support for violent jihad in years prior to her entry to the US. If this is so, and since Facebook postings are public, it strikes me as possible that if screeners could flag such postings and possibly exclude such a person from entering the US, since that could be deemed a credible threat.
In the case of Malik, that assessment would be correct, yes?
Or, rather than “can’t be restricted,” did you mean to say “can’t restrict all” jihadists from entering the US? There I’d agree with you.
Or, are you maybe going all Alex Jones on us, perhaps claiming that San Bernadino didn’t happen, that it’s another false flag operation or somesuch?
As far as reality is concerned, there are several classes of would-be immigrants who non-authoritarians might generally agree pose threats to US domestic tranquility, such as jihad sympathizers, convicted criminals, mental patients, and those with certain illnesses. You may believe that they should not be excluded from entry, but then you are an anarchist, so the concept of “entry” is, in your mind, false, since borders are just artificial lines that gangs patrol.
Most don’t see borders as you do, including — I suspect — most non-anarchist Ls.
When you wrote: “Nonetheless, there are those who believe that the clause can be used to justify policies the Libertarian clearly does not support, such as the mass exclusion of entire national, ethnic or religious groups, on the claim that some non-trivial percentage of people answering to those broad descriptions support e.g. the Islamic State.”
In my case, I don’t read the language to be that broad. If it were, I would not support it.
Note, too, the earlier sentence: “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.”
Note especially “not be unreasonably constrained….” I find this to be supportable language as well. What is reasonable or unreasonable is, of course, subject to interpretation.
Personally, it sickens me that the USG has chosen to wage endless wars in the Middle East. I opposed them. I stipulate that much of the jihadist terrorism we are seeing in the US and Europe is being provoked by unjustified foreign wars, especially Iraq II. I support exiting Iraq and Syria. Still, I certainly don’t justify the terrorist acts like San Bernadino, but I don’t believe that anyone can go anywhere. I strikes me as reasonable to exclude to the extent possible people coming to the US who pose potential risks to my neighbors and fellow citizens.
Could that lead ICE to exclude people who would in fact be peaceful additions to our Merry Band of Americans? Yeah, sure. Any domestic tranquility institution is going to make mistakes, even non-monopoly ones. That’s reality, since to err is human.
Does my support for some screens make me an “authoritarian”? I’d say no. Then again, I note that anarchists essentially believe that ALL non-anarchists ARE authoritarians, by definition.
It’s fair game to consider the source.
Caryn Ann Harlos,
so if the powers that be state their should be a law against scratching your butt with your right hand the Libertarians should respond with a plank saying that we believe it is up to the individual to decide which hand they scratch their butt? if they want to scratch their butt at all?
I think we should design our platforms based upon what we think is important and not just as a reaction to what the other parties are doing.
Those are some of the incentives, but not all of them.
Think about San Bernadino and try again.
Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/12/thomas-l-knapp-libertarian-national-convention-2016-an-open-letter-on-borders-and-immigration/#comment-1282198
How about a limit of 200 words per plank? Beyond that, the person proposing must take a shot of tequila for every ten words over the limit. If they can manage to read the plank back in its entirety, in understandable English, after taking their shots, the plank is adopted automatically.
That’ll just create some really long paragraphs.
I would like to propose a tax. For each paragraph beyond the first paragraph of each plank of the Libertarian Platform. The individual making the proposition should have to send to Paulie a bottle of quality single malt scotch.
Mark
==appears to be nothing more than a sop to the neocons in the Party to get them to support the plank.==
Yep. Legitimate individual threats are already covered, be they immigrant or otherwise.
“If these 7-19% were asked: Would you vote for a candidate who believes that AQN or ISIS sympathizers should not be restricted from visiting and/or immigrating to the US? (Do you believe that, btw?)”
Of course not. What I believe is that reality should always be accepted rather than rejected. Since AQN (whatever that is) or ISIS sympathizers CAN’T be restricted from visiting and/or immigrating to the US, any claims that a policy has that effect are false and just cover for authoritarianism for authoritarianism’s sake. Belief otherwise is, to use your descriptor, bat-shit crazy.
tk: came up with answers ranging from 7% to 19%….Let’s assume the lower number. Ah, never mind then — it’s only an unrepresented constituency 7 times as large as the LP’s usual presidential vote.
me: C’mon Tom, you’re a better analyst than that. Just because there may be something like 10% of the pop who believe that anyone can go anywhere doesn’t compare with prez votes.
Why? Because most voters don’t vote based on one issue.
If these 7-19% were asked: Would you vote for a candidate who believes that AQN or ISIS sympathizers should not be restricted from visiting and/or immigrating to the US? (Do you believe that, btw?)
My guess is if asked that way, that 7-19% shrinks right quick.
Of course, it’s my contention that Ls suffer in the Public Square not because they take 1 or 2 extreme positions, but they take several, many of which are non-starter positions for otherwise sympathetic-with-L voters. L candidates and the LP, IOW, self marginalize by taking so many extreme positions that seem contradictory.
tk: While there may be legitimate disputes as to what “libertarian” means, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean “not whatever there’s evidence that the vast majority doesn’t want.”
me: Agreed. And, of course, I’ve not suggested that. Sorry if I (somehow) gave you that impression!
I’m more inclined to advocate positions that the vast majority don’t find to be bat-shit crazy, however. I’d definitely be inclined to advocate a package of positions that significant minorities found to be good ideas and generally the right direction to go.
Do you see the difference?
You can find all kinds of reasons to be an authoritarian collectivist if that’s what you want to be. And all kinds of places to be one, too. But no amount of irrational kvetching is going to make an authoritarian collectivist position into a libertarian position. – – Thomas L. Knapp
Nothing needs to be added to this statement. PERFECTLY PUT!~
Tom,
according to European Federalist thought, the EU is modeled on the United States, so we already have within the US part of North America the freedom of movement guaranteed in Schengen,
If you want a NAFTA like agreement on immigration with Canada and Mexico, that might be a viable proposal. If you want to model it on Schengen, then you have to include a provision that American employers can hire Canadians or Mexicans, but they cannot hire immigrants from Europe, Asia or Latin America unless there are no US citizens, no Canadians and no Mexicans qualified for the job.
That is why I say the Schengen Agreement is not more libertarian than current US immigration policy.
Tom,
New York has a seat on the Platform Committee, as it has in past years.
I will urge our representative to support deletion of the last sentence which, at least to me, appears to be nothing more than a sop to the neocons in the Party to get them to support the plank.
It is at best superfluous and at worst antithetical to the message of the rest of the plank.
Jill,
No doubt that the vast majority of people do not even think about it. But some do, and some make a choice. Neither of those should be relevant to the state. If a woman decides to partner with a woman, it is no concern of the state’s whether that is quite simply the way she and could nt be otherwise or if she drew a name out of hat. It isn’t their business.
Now… when it comes to influencing social change and behaviour… it is very relevant to point that any prejudice of bigotry on something inherent to a person is pretty irrational. And that of course is undoubtedly the vast majority. But I know people who state otherwise for themselves.
Paulie,
Exactly.
Gene,
I’m not sure what you mean by “factual problem.”
I pointed out that US immigration policies are less libertarian than those in the Schengen area. They are.
If the US was party to a North American, rather than European, version of Schengen, its borders would be open to citizens of Canada, Mexico, and most or all of the other 38 North American polities. They aren’t.
Without dealing with the proper approach to immigration, I have to point out a factual problem in Mr Knapp’s open letter. He says “The current LP platform plank on immigration calls for a system that is less libertarian than the actually existing border systems of the European Union’s Schengen Agreement area…”
The European Union has open borders within the EU, but not open borders with the rest of the world. As stated on Wikipedia “The Schengen Area operates very much like a single state for international travel purposes with external border controls for travellers entering and exiting the area, and common visas, but with no internal border controls.”
Other rules of the EU show that the internal open border coexists with restrictions on immigration into the EU and restrictions on employment of people who are not citizens of EU countries. Under EU rules a company in any member state must give preference in employment to citizens of EU members over immigrants or resident aliens from outside the EU. If you want to implement EU style “open borders” we already have that between states of the union. You would have to further propose that employers could only hire non-citizens if no US citizen were qualified for the job.
The other border agreements you mention are probably restrictive in similar manners in regards to immigrants from non-signatory countries, but I don’t have time to research that.
Thanks TLK. That’s more like what I would have said if I felt up to getting into it.
Oh, did I say “the LP’s usual presidential vote?” Sorry, I meant “the LP’s best presidential vote.” If the criterion is the “usual” LP presidential vote, then that unrepresented constituency is still only about 20 times as large.
I can’t for the life of me why we would bother pursuing an unrepresented constituency that a) agrees with us and b) is many times as large as our current voter base. So by all means, carry on.
While there may be legitimate disputes as to what “libertarian” means, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean “not whatever there’s evidence that the vast majority doesn’t want.”
The percentage of the US population that wants open borders is certainly a minority. I was surprised at how hard it was to find polls that ask questions from which one could plausibly infer how large that minority is, and came up with answers ranging from 7% to 19%.
Let’s assume the lower number. Ah, never mind then — it’s only an unrepresented constituency 7 times as large as the LP’s usual presidential vote.
That’s the wrong question. But since you asked, yes, I have seen that there is a significant niche market for the open borders position that the LP should pursue, and nothing to indicate that it has suddenly disappeared. I don’t feel like getting into this, or anything else, but I’ll stand by what I said.
pf: Sounds like a personal problem.
me: Aren’t they all, ultimately?
All “problems” are perceptual and therefore a function of an individual’s definition of what a “problem” is.
Still, I’ve seen no evidence that vast portions of the populace want open borders, perhaps especially now after San Bernadino. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
cah: LOLOLOLOL. Yep.
me: Ya know, again as a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, I’m pretty sure that you think you are absolutely correct and that 99% of the dogma is settled law in all matters involving “the” L position.
I responded substantively to TK with the response that most of humanity would recognize is closely approximating a true statement, and — apparently because it falls outside the construct — it is just ignored. Your prerogative, but a pretty darned transparent one.
Again, the only thing that could come close to being “the” L position is what is in the platform. This, btw, is a situation where even the plumbline-keepers-of-the-true-faith don’t agree, as many in the Rockwell crowd contest this open-border theory that a few IPR commenters maintain is the One True Way.
Admittedly, a charming approach in its own way, but hardly convincing.
Sexual identity and sexual behavior are different in that respect.
I certainly know that there is a spectrum of sexuality between being completely heterosexual and completely homosexual, but I still think the use of the work “choice” is inaccurate in most cases.
Being gay makes life more difficult for many people in many ways, but I understand it isn’t something they feel any ability to control. I don’t think most people living the gay life believe they made an actual “choice” to be gay, much as I never made a “choice” to be with men.
Exactly. Both orientation and preferences play a role.
Is that even sporting at this point?
Paulie,
==At most it means they are somewhat bisexual, as I think most people actually are.===
I agree with that much to the horror of many.
When it comes to inner realities and descriptions of self, I don’t care to tell people what they are. Whether or not someone chooses to honour the extreme ends of that as seen on Tumblr is a freedom of association thing. Personally I take people’s self-descriptions (if they choose to make them) about their relationship choices at face value. If they say they have always felt a certain way or they chose this or that or whatever, I respect that.
What bothers me about the “you can’t choose” idea is that we are saying that IF someone chose they somehow have a lesser right than someone who didn’t. My assertion is that autonomy is autonomy. If I choose to flip a quarter that is my business.
As a practical matter.. I think getting rid of the last sentence is the best we can really hope for. And even that is probably optimistic, as I think our main struggle will be to keep something worse than what we have now from being passed. I am all for having the longer platform as an alternative for candidates and states who want to use it. One problem with having a detailed platform is that it makes references to events and agencies that become outdated and do not always get updated with the times. That was one of the criticisms Brian Holtz used against us in 2008, since the effort to restore 2004 did not address outdated references that persisted in the 2004 platform and were even more outdated by 2008.
Tom,
==I included that as a flat assertion for the sole purpose of baiting you into one of your speeches about how nothing means anything. And it worked.===
LOLOLOLOL. Yep.
At most it means they are somewhat bisexual, as I think most people actually are. Someone who is primarily straight can have gay sex, just like people who are primarily gay can and do have straight sex. It happens a lot more than a lot of people realize, since society has an unhealthy obsession with labeling people as straight or gay and insisting they be one or the other all the time.
Detailed? Comprehensive?
tk, congratulations.
I wouldn’t say nothing means anything. The language the Ls who wrote and approved the current plank you object to meant something to them. You just don’t like what they meant.
Why over-complicate things?
Bob,
No, I didn’t mean to italicize the word “libertarian.” I included that as a flat assertion for the sole purpose of baiting you into one of your speeches about how nothing means anything. And it worked.
Paulie,
LOL…==Long winded? Wordy? Verbose?===
I am actually in favour of more so looking for something a bit more positive:)
Jill,
I know people who say they are heterosexual and chose some otherwise relationships because there were other factors or simply because they wanted to. Who am I to say what they are? Am I to call them a liar for claiming they are heterosexual? That isn’t my business. The actress from Sex in the City that plays Miranda said the same thing IIRC. The fact is it isn’t my business.
Is that at all common? Probably not at all. But I am not going to deny other people’s claimed realities.
tk: That’s a separate issue from any particular objections you might have to the libertarian position on immigration and borders.
me: Did you mean to italicize “the” L position? Because in so many ways this is the nub of a fundamental disagreement. I’d maintain there is no such thing as “the” L position. Or I could say that the LP’s platform is “the” L position, which you object to.
And that’s fine. What I will call you on is your apparent belief that YOUR position is “the” L position. Strikes me as arrogant.
Personally, I’m more interested in good ideas, ones that work, not ones that are dictated or even implied by a theoretical construct, especially one that is highly unsellable and probably unworkable.
Good point, Thomas, Perhaps I did misinterpret what he said.
The comment being discussed was from yesterday at 16:06. I think I did interpret it wrong.
Jill,
I don’t see that Dr. Feldman’s statement is different than, for lack of a better term, “the libertarian mainstream.” If you perceive it that way, it may be because he’s focusing on the subsidy/sponsorship side and noting that in addition to the state not obstructing immigration, it should not be actively facilitating immigration either. It should just not be involved in immigration, period.
Capozzi at 7:28 Re: San Bernardino shootings–
The couple that the Mainstream Media told us within a few short hours killed those 14 people consisted of a man who was born, raised,and educated here, and an itty-bitty woman who came here on a fiancee visa. They didn’t sneak across any border anywhere.
Re: sexual preference: the whole “choice” thing is moot. If someone chooses sexual relations with someone of their own gender, they’re gay. Straight people don’t do that.
Dr. Feldman: Would you like to take a stab at writing a plank for the next convention re: immigration? Your views seem to be different than the rest of us here.
Long winded? Wordy? Verbose?
And this,
===Apparently you don’t see my point. My point was that no-particular-orderism is not anti-incrementalism, nor is it anti-prioritism, nor is it endstate-constructism (those are the three implied objections you offered to it).===
Yep. I get so tired of these canards from people who should know better that I just move on.
When someone doesn’t- well that’s different. Been speaking with people lately who were surprised to learn that the “purists” don’t oppose increments. Apparently we all fight against them as much as the state. Which of course was news to me. I love educating those who just don’t know our actual positions.
In case this got lost in all this, count me in to support this effort at convention.
Tom,
LOL I am very familiar with the thick v thin libertarian debate — I wasn’t using the terms in that way. (I’m about as thin in my libertarianism as they get)– so good point, need different terms here. Any suggestions?
sm: You are correct we should also stop bombing and militarily occupying other countries.
rc: Agreed. And in the meantime?
I am pretty sure the Libertarian Party Platform also has planks against bombing and militarily occupying other countries. In the meantime we should work on sweeping Libertarians into office so the entire platform can be implemented.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Bob,
Apparently you don’t see my point. My point was that no-particular-orderism is not anti-incrementalism, nor is it anti-prioritism, nor is it endstate-constructism (those are the three implied objections you offered to it).
That’s a separate issue from any particular objections you might have to the libertarian position on immigration and borders.
tk, yes, I see your point. At a time soon after Paris and San Bernadino, it feels tin-eared to me to be advocating open borders. Crazy people — home grown and immigrants — are conducting jihadist attacks in America and against US allies.
It strikes me as prudent to maintain and even increase vigilance against such senseless attacks in the name of domestic tranquility. Checking for potential jihadists strikes me as a reasonable response.
Close the border to some or all? No. Violate 4A protections of US citizens? No.
Of course, I don’t buy the construct that anyone can go anywhere* with anything, which is the construct that informs many plumbliners.
_____
* except private property
“I hear the NPO standard, but it feels deeply dysfunctional to me. Almost always, the world works in increments and priorities. Government policies shift based on trends and (perceived) needs.
“Pressing for endstate constructs with equal intensity renders a vanguard movement utterly ineffectual.”
Re-read what you wrote. None of your stated objections to “the NPO Standard” are objections to No Particular Orderism. They’re all objections to other things.
Also, note to Caryn: In separate posts above, you call for a “thicker” platform in one case and assert that the platform is too “thin” in others. You SEEM to be referring to e.g. word count and number of points and so forth with those terms, but I suggest you stop using those terms to mean those things. If you don’t understand why, try googling “thin libertarianism” and “thick libertarianism.”
sm: You are correct we should also stop bombing and militarily occupying other countries.
me: Agreed. And in the meantime?
cah: No Particular Order The removal of one harmful government policy should never be held hostage for the removal of another, as this throws self-imposed barriers in the path of liberty and removes potential pressures for change. For example, saying that borders may be opened only after welfare is eliminated is unacceptable; the proper position is to push for both changes. Should we succeed in achieving open borders only to find that welfare burdens are increased, this should be used as an additional argument to abolish welfare.
me: I hear the NPO standard, but it feels deeply dysfunctional to me. Almost always, the world works in increments and priorities. Government policies shift based on trends and (perceived) needs.
Pressing for endstate constructs with equal intensity renders a vanguard movement utterly ineffectual. Holding high the banner from the fringes may well be psychologically rewarding, bathed in a sanctimonious sense of “purity,” but then ask yourself, What do you have to show for such positioning?
Instead, consider setting priorities where the State can be rolled back opportunistically. Nothing breeds success better than success.
Robert C,
You are correct we should also stop bombing and militarily occupying other countries.
L: However, and this is the key point, allowing the government to restrict immigration is an immoral and ineffective “solution” to this problem. The only way to keep the “bad immigrants” away is by removing their incentives to come here (e.g. ending the Drug War and the welfare state).
me: Those are some of the incentives, but not all of them.
Think about San Bernadino and try again.
Chuck,
We have gone the opposite way. The Omissions clause didn’t stop that statement. Listing broad calls for abolitions and naming the worst offenders goes a long way.
I mean, are we really opposed to the FEC? Our silence doesn’t mean approval, but doesn’t mean disapproval either.
Our Platform is too thin on too much.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I disagree. Trying to list the libertarian position on any conceivable issue makes the platform too long to be a useful document. Liberty is too broad a concept for that. That’s why we have the omissions clause.
LP Platform:
But IF people wanted to make a choice… their business. I don’t think it is anyone’s business why someone has the partner(s) they have.
I agree.
Steven,
==what does the federal election commission have to do with free trade and national boundaries?===
This topic came up on the LNC list regarding election laws. And something to the extent of “are we really against the FEC? It doesn’t say so in the Platform” was said. Which instantly converted me to the fact that a detailed platform is desirable.
But IF people wanted to make a choice… their business. I don’t think it is anyone’s business why someone has the partner(s) they have.
Regarding “orientation” vs. “preference” — I actually think the most accurate term might be something like “proclivity” that suggests a natural inclination, which is beyond the realm of conscious choice, but also capable of changing and evolving over time, almost like tastes.
Paulie,
==There’s nothing oxymoronic about anarchists organizing, as long as its voluntary. Anarchy usually presupposes voluntary organization, voluntary rules and even voluntary hierarchy.==
THAT
I get cancer whenever it is suggested otherwise.
Jed,
==If the Radicals plank is added, I would hope they would change “sexual preference” to “sexual orientation.” I will sign Mr. Knapp’s letter.==
I will bring that to their attention. Or will add it as a note for the final pass through which might be better since that phrase probably appears more than once. Thank you for pointing that out. Though I think there is a place for preferences as well…. because people can do what they wish.
Chuck,
==It was an observation of every convention I have attended: Radicals fail to organize at all; or they manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by alienating their allies through injection of poison pills into good proposals (like submitting platform planks that are novels). ==
Once again, I didn’t submit anything to PC that was a novel. I did submit two things however… and they were not. The lengthy platform cannot be restored until we have more (if we ever do) of a majority. I am an idealist. I am not a fool.
==And then instead of owning up to their lack of organization or terrible strategic blunders, they scream about all those terrible moderates who didn’t vote with them. Par for the course.===
Ahh this mythical screaming that I have never seen though I am surrounded by radicals in my circles. I hear them blaming themselves. Nice narrative you are inventing though.
I blame us too.
Chuck,
==Radicals would have a much easier time amending the platform if they got on the platform committee than lobbying the platform committee. 4 platform committee members can join together in a minority report. Some stated have yet to appoint a platform conmittee representative — and that appointment may be of someone out of state.==
I tried in the states I had a chance. I didn’t succeed. They had qualified candidates in their own state, which obviously should be preferred to an out of state appointee. There is one state I have left to try though.
==Generally moderates manage to keep radicals from even getting 4 people on the platform committee (because radicals don’t seek out the state appointments, whereas moderates do)… I doubt this year will be any different.==
I sought them.
Paulie, another saying goes…
“Climbers of the World, Untie!”
ops ah just a second let me get that right.
Ianga well of course I think we have restricted the use of drone missile strikes in the USA
I forgot to add, in the list of incentives that should be removed, the constant wars that make terrorists want to come here.
Are there “bad immigrants” that I (and, I suspect, nearly everyone else) would prefer not to have coming here? Yes.
However, and this is the key point, allowing the government to restrict immigration is an immoral and ineffective “solution” to this problem. The only way to keep the “bad immigrants” away is by removing their incentives to come here (e.g. ending the Drug War and the welfare state). Until those things are done, any proposed “solution” (including a Berlin-style wall) will fail, and will have the side effect of turning America into even more of a police state than it already is.
By the way, I strongly prefer the ’96 platform language (but, then again, I’m with Caryn in preferring a more detailed platform generally).
There’s nothing oxymoronic about anarchists organizing, as long as its voluntary. Anarchy usually presupposes voluntary organization, voluntary rules and even voluntary hierarchy.
classic oxymoron “Anarchists of the World, Unite!”
or as the founder of the Alaskan Alpine Club would say about organizing climbers….
“its like trying to herd cats.”
so Chuck, based upon this conversation and the Michigan LP Facebook conversation, would I be correct in paraphrasing your generalities as…
Radical’s write and Pragmatics organize?
I agree with Chuck, in that the plank needs to be concise, if it is to have any chance of passage. Further, it needs to be concise if we want anyone to give a shit about it. Few people read the LP platform at all. Damn near nobody is going to read a three paragraph plank that (undoubtedly, at that length) contains a bunch of philosophical stuff that must be translated to make sense to the average Joe.
Lets just eliminate the last sentence of the current plank. I’ll actively lobby delegates to support such a move.
Chuck Moulton wrote:
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
It was an observation of every convention I have attended: Radicals fail to organize at all; or they manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by alienating their allies through injection of poison pills into good proposals (like submitting platform planks that are novels). And then instead of owning up to their lack of organization or terrible strategic blunders, they scream about all those terrible moderates who didn’t vote with them. Par for the course.
Good luck with that.
Platform wordsmithing is not my conparative advantage. I focus on bylaws.
Radicals would have a much easier time amending the platform if they got on the platform committee than lobbying the platform committee. 4 platform committee members can join together in a minority report. Some stated have yet to appoint a platform conmittee representative — and that appointment may be of someone out of state.
Generally moderates manage to keep radicals from even getting 4 people on the platform committee (because radicals don’t seek out the state appointments, whereas moderates do)… I doubt this year will be any different.
what does the federal election commission have to do with free trade and national boundaries?
If the Radicals plank is added, I would hope they would change “sexual preference” to “sexual orientation.” I will sign Mr. Knapp’s letter.
As far as that last sentence, the concept is already implicit everywhere. Credible threats are aggression, aggression can be repelled. We don’t need to single out immigrants.
I would support deletion of that last sentence as a compromise. But ultimately I would like our platform to be much thicker.
After all, how would we know that we are against the FEC?
He did. As a compromise, but he stated his preference for a radical proposal that was more concise. Instead of railing upon those who are working on their own caucus platform, why not propose one here. I did just that. I took the LPRC proposal and distilled it.
But I favour a return to a more detailed platform in toto so I don’t really mind longer ones. Though he is right a long one will not get passed presently. I hope for the day when we stop thinking a twitter-style statement is better.
I believe Chuck did propose going for eliminating or replacing the last sentence that reads…
“However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”
And I will point out, that when it is so abbreviated then you have some wondering if we are really against the FEC because “it doesn’t state it.” If you follow LNC-votes, you know this was a real discussion point.
Chuck,
===I don’t think radical and concise are mutually exclusive.===
Where did I say they were?
== If the submitted plank is radical and wordy, it will fail.==
Amend it to be more concise. I did in my post above.
==Therefore, if the idea is to actually amend the platform, developing a wordy plank is a waste of everyone’s time.===
I stated the goals as I understood them above. For candidates and for the caucus. I don’t know who this “everyone” you speak of is. This is for a voluntary group. It certainly isn’t wasting mine. I am on the LPCO’s Platform committee… for that group, I am aiming for ruthless brevity. But that is not a specific interest focused caucus. The role of caucuses IMHO is to prepare and put forth these detailed items.
== If the idea is to act like you’re fighting the good fight while making strategic decisions designed to lose so you can play the victim and whine that the party hates radicals, then full steam ahead: you’re on the right track.==
And just wow…. that is a complete aggressive turn from what I stated. The idea was for an internal caucus document and for candidates. If people wish to submit things from that, they may. Some proposed planks are much more concise. I think that voluntary group can make its own goals. Asking for this plank was Tom’s free action. He asked, it was given to him.
== I don’t say that because I oppose a radical plank; I say it because I support a radical plank.==
Then propose one rather than tearing down someone else’s.
I personally DO NOT support the abbreviated nature of our current Platform and many don’t. Claiming that because we won’t fall into line on that train that means we are “playing the victim” is intensely circular. I am merely stating my position. And I don’t believe it is doomed to fail if enough people are persuaded to change. That’s how things work.
FWIW I am don’t hate our current Platform either. I think it is thin. But I became a Libertarian solely by reading that Platform. So I have a very fond place in my heart for it and the wordsmithing in it is generally stellar. If I understand correctly Mattson is responsible for the wording, and she is good if that is the case.
I don’t think radical and concise are mutually exclusive. If the submitted plank is radical and wordy, it will fail.
Therefore, if the idea is to actually amend the platform, developing a wordy plank is a waste of everyone’s time. If the idea is to act like you’re fighting the good fight while making strategic decisions designed to lose so you can play the victim and whine that the party hates radicals, then full steam ahead: you’re on the right track. I don’t say that because I oppose a radical plank; I say it because I support a radical plank.
Andy,
===The only peaceful people are libertarians, so crossing borders ONLY APPLIES TO LIBERTARIANS, it does NOT apply to socialists, communists, and theocrats.==
Ahh freedom for me but not for thee?
Wow.
Do you even hear yourself? So should you be able to shoot those misguided libertarians who live on the border and those that actually own property (reminder again, you don’t own the country) that let these awful terrible nonlibertarians in? Wait don’t answer… I fear you will actually say yes.
Feel free to set up your conditions on property you own.
Jill, I am tired of playing around the edges. I go for the the proposal by the LPRC- substantially.
However to answer Chuck’s question, we are not spinning our wheels blind to any reality we favour the wholesale redoing of the entire platform. And if enough radicals have their way it could be done.
But… more importantly,the material written by the LPRC committee is for the use of the Caucus and radical candidates primarily-it is not trying to be a replica of the current one–length or otherwise. People may use it to suggest to the PC if they wish but that isn’t what it was done for, in my understanding. Just as some states have much longer platforms.
I would also state that for submission for PC (and not for internal use by the LPRC), the radical proposal can be tightened up. And it might even for the LPRC, as Tom noted it is still in committee. This discussion might persuade them to do just that in final review.I expect the entire LPRC platform will get tighter in the final pass.
Yes the reality is that the current direction and platform is watered down. That doesn’t make it inevitably permanent. The LP appears to be growing more moderate and less relevant and meaningful as a result (I say appears because I am going by limited knowledge as a relatively new person). If I thought that decline inevitable, I would leave now and save myself a lot of heartache. I don’t see it as inevitable, and don’t see compromise by radicals to be very fruitful either.
I would be pleased, however, if striking the last sentence were accomplished. But I am of the mind to ask for upfront what would we really want. And I want a radical immigration stance. I won’t start with a compromise, then you end up with nothing.
** the LPRC proposal could be tightened to read to make it more concise for PC submission.
We hold that one of the basic core principles of a free market is the freedom to move about voluntarily, as such borders are artificial barriers to trade and movement. Frees markets cannot exist with a closed or restricted border. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of nationality, race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.
Anyone in the Orlando area have crash space for someone coming from Alaska to join the verbal fracas at the convention? Send a note to P.O.Box 983, Haines, Alaska, 99827.~bill, LP class of ’72
I am strongly in favor of open borders and see the same problems with the current language as Tom Knapp.
However, the reality is all existing platform planks are of a roughly similar length, the convention delegates continue to soundly reject substantially longer planks and favor the existing length, and as a result any proposal that substantially increases the length of this plank will be overwhelmingly rejected regardless of what it actually says.
Therefore, I think simply eliminating the last sentence is a good course of action. Amending the last sentence by substituting a new sentence of similar length would also fly. Wholesale replacing the plank with a book length treatise is a waste of time and effort… it will spectacularly fail. I don’t understand why the radical caucus (or any other entity) would spin its wheels blind to that reality.
We have a separation of Church and State. I support separation of immigration and State.
It should not be a role of government to deny, obstruct, facilitate, or welcome the immigration of refugees.
It should be a right of every American citizen to sponsor as few or as many immigrants as they choose and take responisiblity. Spousal and family relationship requirements should be dropped from current sponsorship policies. Employment, healthcare, and education of immigrants should be a responsiblity of the immigrants and the individual citizen sponsors and private, voluntary organizations.
Jill,
I happen to think that’s the most likely option, too.
For one thing, it has the advantages of simplicity and brevity versus the longer 1996 and Radical Caucus planks (although the 2002-2004 plank is also nice and concise).
For another, it leaves the phrase “unreasonably constrained” intact, which in turn does leave room for arguments about what constitutes “reasonable” versus “unreasonable” constraint.
One of the arguments I get concerning radical planks in general in the LP platform is that they “marginalize” us. I didn’t address that in the “open letter,” but I might as well do so here now.
The LP is already “marginal.” For example, in presidential elections, our outlier “successful” candidates manage to knock down around 1% of the vote.
In 2001, when the LNC was massaging a resolution that basically said nothing substantive against the US invasion of Afghanistan, I supported (as an alternate on the LNC) a strong statement against that invasion. Then-LNC-Secretary Steve Givot put the “marginalizes us” argument to me. I pointed out that 20% of the American public opposed the invasion, that that 20% was unrepresented by the major parties, and that that 20% represented 40-60 times the usual LP presidential vote.
A party does not move from “marginal” to “mainstream” by offering pale copies of the existing major party positions. It does so by creating its own market niche and gathering in voters whose views aren’t already represented by the major party positions. “Open borders” may not be a majority, but it’s a lot bigger voting bloc than our existing base, and we’re the only ones with a real claim to those votes, if we have the testicular fortitude to exercise that claim.
Or we can just sit at the back of the room waving our hand in the air and whining “us too! We’re for that too!”
I agree with Paulie that Molyneux isn’t someone whose opinion I value.
I appreciate this effort to repair the immigration plank. I anticipate some resistance from the convention body, and because of that I think the most likely choice to be acceptable from Tom’s 4 choices above would be to strike the last sentence of our existing plank.
It’s a real shame that anyone still takes anything Molyneux ever says even half seriously.
“What percent of the anti-immigration-freedom advocates in question are philosophical libertarians? The answer to this question is none — ‘libertarian when I feel like it, authoritarian when I don’t’ is a whim, not a philosophy.”
There, fixed that for ya.
Agreed fully with TLK and CAH.
“Caryn Ann Harlos Post author
December 18, 2015 at 13:24
Thomas L. Knapp: Against Stockholm Libertarianism”
How is not wanting socialists, communists, and theocrats from foreign lands coming to this country, getting on welfare, fraudulently being sworn in as “American citizens” (I say fraudulently being sworn in as American citizens, since they have to swear an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution,” yet many of them hold views that are at odds with this Constitution, which means that they either lied under oath, which is perjury, or they did not understand what it was they were swearing an oath to “protect and defend” when they went through the Naturalization process), becoming registered voters, and then voting for more socialist welfare programs, gun control, and other expansions of state power, Stockholm Libertarianism?
The very same “Libertarians” who pitch a shit fit if a non-libertarian like Bob Barr comes in the Libertarian Party, yet they openly advocate for socialists, communists, and theocrats from foreign lands to come to the USA where they disproportionately suck up welfare money at higher rate than the general population, and where they can achieve political power after they are fraudulently made American citizens.
Libertarians are supposed to be for “peaceful people crossing borders,” NOT for non-peaceful people crossing borders. The only peaceful people are libertarians, so crossing borders ONLY APPLIES TO LIBERTARIANS, it does NOT apply to socialists, communists, and theocrats.
Sure, immigrations can be a wonderful thing, IF the immigrants in question adhere to libertarian principles.
Since Tom mentioned the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, of which I am a part, I will put up one of the Radical Caucus’ key points:
No Particular Order The removal of one harmful government policy should never be held hostage for the removal of another, as this throws self-imposed barriers in the path of liberty and removes potential pressures for change. For example, saying that borders may be opened only after welfare is eliminated is unacceptable; the proper position is to push for both changes. Should we succeed in achieving open borders only to find that welfare burdens are increased, this should be used as an additional argument to abolish welfare.
Andy,
==What percent of these immigrants in question are philosophical libertarians? The answer to this question would be the exact number that I’d be willing to support.==
Ahh so you favour deportation of the non-libertarians already here too?
Nice lockstep you require.
I don’t favour the “support” of anyone. Including the finest libertarians.
== prefer the immigration policy of The Libertarian Zone==
Feel free to do so on your own private property. You don’t own the country. I am fine with them being here.
What percent of these immigrants in question are philosophical libertarians? The answer to this question would be the exact number that I’d be willing to support.
I prefer the immigration policy of The Libertarian Zone (which is basically people signing contracts agreeing to adhere to libertarian principles, and if they violate the contract, they face penalties, which could include deportation/exile from The Libertarian Zone):
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/
Thomas L. Knapp: Against Stockholm Libertarianism
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2007/06/against-stockholm-libertarianism.html
Stefan Molyneux: 62% of Illegal Immigrant Households on Welfare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjjSG705Inc
^^^THAT
It amazes me that all the squirming around an actual libertarian position can be used to justify nearly anything if consistently applied.
I would prefer someone to just say, I am not a libertarian on this issue.
Andy,
You can find all kinds of reasons to be an authoritarian collectivist if that’s what you want to be. And all kinds of places to be one, too. But no amount of irrational kvetching is going to make an authoritarian collectivist position into a libertarian position.
I have added my support
Stefan Molyneux: The High Cost of Middle Eastern Refugees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI0CJreiS1U
Signed petition and commenting to subscribe.