Tom Knapp is a declared candidate for the Libertarian and Boston Tea Party 2012 Presidential nominations. He’s also still listed as an IPR writer. He hasn’t posted any entries here since July, but does continue to read and comment here. Article excerpt posted to IPR by Paulie. Disclaimer: I’ve tentatively endorsed Knapp, at least out of the currently declared candidates.
Excerpt:
We’ve got to get past the notion that government is the engine driving the economy. It isn’t now, and it never has been. FDR’s New Deal — which Obama’s “public works” plan echoes — probably added at least five years or more to the Great Depression. Hopefully we’re not counting on another world war to pull our fat out of this fire.
Wayne Root and I agree on a lot of things, including the necessary foundation of a real “stimulus” program and a real economic recovery — reducing the expense, not increasing the spending power, of government.
We agree on some of the details, too. For example, I wholeheartedly support Wayne’s call for a 2009 income tax “holiday.” As a matter of fact, I worked with 2008 pre-nomination presidential candidate Steve Kubby to craft and promote such a “holiday” last year.
On other details we disagree, and I want to explore that disagreement. But first, a disclaimer:
I don’t oppose any of Root’s suggestions for tax cuts. I’ve never met a tax cut I didn’t like. When Root advocates cutting capital gains taxes, offering business tax credits for new hires, flattening taxes to lower rates, etc., I can only say “yeah! Cut, cut, cut!”
That said, if we are going to select only some tax cuts from the menu of all possible tax cuts (instead of just ending taxation, which I’d do if I could snap my fingers and make it so), I do disagree with Root’s argument for cutting “from the top down.” His tax cuts are concentrated on the “supply side,” and his “flat tax” proposal is even specifically and intentionally “regressive” (your rate goes down as your income goes up).
I prefer a “bottom up” tax-cutting regimen which provides a tax cut for all Americans. If we stick to the current rate regime, that tax cut gets proportionally smaller as income increases, but everyone gets a cut.
Paulie, sorry I was so oblique. “Just gotta poke around” is a nice way of saying “life is for learning. We don’t have all the answers, but we’re looking for clues.”
Politically, I’d say that applies, too, for Ls. We have certain values, principles, and ideas, but we kid ourselves if we have ALL the answers. Sometimes Ls — myself included — have a propensity to assert that OUR way is “right” and everyone else is “wrong.”
Ah – good point, I agree.
Why not acknowledge that we non-ZAPsolutists are “big-L Libertarian”? Technically, you’d not be conceding that we are ZAPsolutist, which is your ideological definition of who is and who is not L.
Does THAT work?
If your dues are current (including life members), or if you have signed the pledge and not renounced it, you are by definition big L.
Also, anyone who has registered big L in states which permit it, regardless of their ideology.
can’t seem to embed, so here’s the apropos Rodney King link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pbyi0JwNug&eurl=http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-grpj&p=rodney%20king%20utube%20can%27t%20we%20all%20&feature=player_embedded
Thought this might be apropos:
susan, actually, I’m pretty sure it’s not reached “obsessive” levels, but thanks for the feedback.
you are a leader of a significant caucus in the LP. that makes you an emblem.
were I in your shoes, I’d take this opportunity to explain my view, as a means to persuade others to your position. instead, you deflect my inquiry.
that sounds like stonewalling, which is of course your prerogative. it is an undisputed fact that you’ve publicly refused to acknowledge that I’m an L. I highlight this as itself emblematic of the LP’s dysfunction: lack of respect for differing approaches to liberty and libertarian politics.
what are you so afraid of? if you, as Paulie suggested, don’t believe non ZAP-solutists are L, have the decency and respect to tell us WHY we don’t make the cut in your book. we’re adults, we can take it!
@65
Bob, your obsession is showing.
I suggest you stop trying to define what you think I believe and worrying about my relations with other Libertarians, which are just fine, thanks.
No, I don’t expect that everybody’s going to join hands with me and sing Kumbayah or something. (Shudder.)
🙂
I was however taken aback when someone who I agree with 80+% of the time lumped me in with “our (i.e., the radicals’) enemies.”
Yes, that’s always unpleasant; I certainly understand that. The same thing has happened to me, and I am sure it will continue to happen. We have a lot of passionate people, and some aren’t very careful of their speech.
I just think that by focusing on that so much (you’ve been saying this preemptively defensive ‘but I guess that makes me the enemy’ thing AT LEAST for several weeks) you’re doing neither yourself nor the movement any good.
For what I am trying to do here — both politically and professionally — I need as many friends as possible.
I beleive that could be called the Human Condition 🙂
*My* enemy, is the State, not Bob Barr, the Radical Caucus, or anyone else.
w00t!
Slept on it, and I have a suggestion for Susan and those ZAPsolutists who won’t call non-ZAPsolutists “libertarian.”
Why not acknowledge that we non-ZAPsolutists are “big-L Libertarian”? Technically, you’d not be conceding that we are ZAPsolutist, which is your ideological definition of who is and who is not L.
Does THAT work?
Paulie, sorry I was so oblique. “Just gotta poke around” is a nice way of saying “life is for learning. We don’t have all the answers, but we’re looking for clues.”
Politically, I’d say that applies, too, for Ls. We have certain values, principles, and ideas, but we kid ourselves if we have ALL the answers. Sometimes Ls — myself included — have a propensity to assert that OUR way is “right” and everyone else is “wrong.”
poke around – Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 :
beat about, beat the bushes, burrow, delve, dig, explore, feel around, feel for, forage, frisk, fumble, go through, grabble, grope, grope for, hunt, look around, look round, look through,
nose around, poke, pry, pry around, research, root, scrabble, search, search through, smell around
What other meaning(s) do you suggest?
Paulie, hmm, I wonder if “just gotta poke around” is hidden meaning for us Ls.
I would love love love for the peeps in the LP the more artsy ones ( u know who u are) to have a camp at Burning Man.
I think Starchild has been doing that. Monopoly (the game) camp, or something like that.
Id love to “petition” the crowds at any show:) m
The Dead are touring this year but almost all the dates are out East . only 2 , 1 in Cali and 1 in Colorado are listed for the West Coast.
Im hoping if things go well they announce a 2nd leg of the tour our West . id like to go for around 3 weeks or so maybe slightly longer.
I would love love love for the peeps in the LP the more artsy ones ( u know who u are) to have a camp at Burning Man. Its just so damn expensive these days
And even if ya behave – ya get high just wandering thru the clouds – er, crowds.
Yeah. Not like that ever happened to me or anything.
😛
ive worked the Phish lots too , usually setting up my November Coalition display.
Ive head the Panic tour is alot of fun!!
We might should do something like that this summer…
Interesting. Presents several different perspectives in one…
@ 51 – Steve said . . .
“I tried petitioning at one. Big mistake. People are from ALL OVER!!
Besides, there was to much to do….”
Yeah – try petitioning HempFest! ;o) And even if ya behave – ya get high just wandering thru the clouds – er, crowds.
ive heard the panic tour
Ive been to the Meadowlands . I went the last year they toured , I think Dylan may have opened then too . Although I always get them mixed up.
ive worked the Phish lots too , usually setting up my November Coalition display.
Ive head the Panic tour is alot of fun!!
Who can go to just one?
True dat.
I tried petitioning at one. Big mistake. People are from ALL OVER!!
Works good for MPP email list “petitioning.” I think I was getting about 80 people an hour. Validity (that is, legible email addresses that actually worked) was in the 60s – not great, but not horrible when compared to colleges and grocery stores (average in the 70s) – especially given that a lot of people were tripping their
ass off. Also, paranoia about getting on lists was rampant. But we still got a lot of love.
Besides, there was to much to do….
That’s what made it fun.
🙂
Lots and lots.
Mostly in the 80s. Busted my foot jumping from the stands to the field at Giants Stadium at a show once (Dylan and Dead ’89).
I worked a bunch of Phish parking lots for MPP emails all over the country in ’04. Picked up a small caravan of dead/jamheads and we also worked on some initiatives, crashed with their friends in different states, and saw different bands they liked in different cities, etc.
ever been to one Paulie?
Who can go to just one?
I tried petitioning at one. Big mistake. People are from ALL OVER!!
Besides, there was to much to do….
PEACE
Lots and lots.
Love Wharfrat!! and Shakedown Street which is what they call the parking lot at show .
ever been to one Paulie?
Well, just ONE more from the “story of my life” department.
But then that’s it, I promise.
Youtube videos are addictive, like cocaine…
Last one from the Dead, that’s a lot like me and mine….
This one sounds like several events in my life…
A song about where I grew up…metaphorically, anyway…
you need some Grateful Dead:)
By request
*My* enemy, is the State, not Bob Barr, the Radical Caucus, or anyone else.
Exactly.
No, I don’t expect that everybody’s going to join hands with me and sing Kumbayah or something. (Shudder.) I was however taken aback when someone who I agree with 80+% of the time lumped me in with “our (i.e., the radicals’) enemies.”
For what I am trying to do here — both politically and professionally — I need as many friends as possible. I have no axe to grind, no particular agenda. However, being fairly new, I don’t know a lot of the history, I don’t know the dynamics. I am willing to admit I over reacted.
I don’t really need — nor do I seek — anyone’s particular approval to be the kind of libertarian I am. *My* enemy, is the State, not Bob Barr, the Radical Caucus, or anyone else.
Sure, I’m inclined towards any therapy that involves music.
you need some Grateful Dead:)
who BTW are touring this summer
paulie, your succinct summary works for me. it’s quite true that I’m not a ZAPsolutist, but I once was. It no longer works for me. it seems apparent that it doesn’t work for the majority of the LP.
my sense is that susan “tolerates” non ZAPsolutists in the LP, but I’m suggesting if we REALLY want to work together, I suggest we torque up the love and put aside the suspicious glances. maybe we need a little Lenny Kravitz, Let Love Rule group therapy 😉
I feel like I should be slipping dollar bills in their garters…
I’m sure they would appreciate it, especially since many of them are single mothers, or soon will be.
😛
Why not rationalize that I’m an L because I’m in the LP?
Robert, I think we need to recognize that there are at least two different definitions of “libertarian” at work here. One is an adherent of the non-initiation of force principle, which is illustrated in this video:
The other is something like “someone who wants to make government smaller”.
Of course, there are many other definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
And links therein provides a good overview.
(This is mostly for the benefit of other people who may be reading, since I’m sure you are well aware of all this).
For a mass participation political party, I think it makes sense to cast a fairly broad net in how we define libertarian. Otherwise, the party has little short- or medium-term hope of growing to the point of political relevance. This is not to say that it can’t get a lot further than it has thus far – a lot of the problems with lack of growth have to do with lack of outreach attempts and other procedural, nuts and bolts stuff.
Even a very radical, ZAPsolutist party could, I think, be a lot bigger than the LP is at present with sufficient discipline and effort on the part of its members. If it was not for the personality pathology we are trying to address with the would-be civility/King caucus, a well-organized radical libertarian effort could make up for the limited popularity of its appeal through inspiring its members to far greater and coordinated individual efforts than larger and more moderate parties make – basically, the strategy used by socialist sect parties, etc.
I see some value in a larger, less absolutist libertarian party, which tries to unite everyone who agrees within very broad parameters. It would still have significant difficulties within a winner-take-all system which any new or alternative party would have, regardless of ideology.
At the same time, I see value in a radical caucus within the party, fighting to keep the party from losing all focus and becoming something like the Reform Party, a catch-all for political dissatisfaction with the status quo for widely incompatible ideologies.
I think that your disagreement with Susan as to whether you are libertarian boils down to differing definitions of the term that you each use.
I think both the broad and narrow definitions have validity in different contexts.
susan, I don’t feel I’m bickering with you. sorry if you feel otherwise. I truly cannot imagine how you could possibly not recognize me as a L.
Civility and respect doesn’t mean we don’t have differences of opinion. But your refusal to accept that I — a TAAAList L — reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I’m anti-war, anti-DOMA, pro-choice, fer chrissakes.
Why not rationalize that I’m an L because I’m in the LP? I guess I find your position on this matter utterly mind blowing, truth be told.
“save the cheerleader…save the world
works for me”
I feel like I should be slipping dollar bills in their garters…
Paulie , if its not the get-high-on-pcp-then -run -from -the -cops caucus then forget it:)
Only with you by my side, babe.
Paulie , if its not the get-high-on-pcp-then -run -from -the -cops caucus then forget it:)
eternal internal bickering gets us absolutely nowhere.
Which is why you should consider giving up your ridiculous quest to have me say exactly what you want me to say about you.
Rodney King Caucus?
explain please , not who rodney is , I know that:)
Civility Caucus was another name suggested (by Brian Holtz, I think, but if I remember correctly he later clarified that he does not want to formalize the effort).
I think that the aspect of Rodney King’s life being referred to is the quote, “can’t we all just get along?” – rather than, say, taking police officers on high speed chases while drunk on malt liquor, getting gang-beatings from cops,
committing robberies, or going on celebreality rehab and sober living house TV shows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King
As far as the civility/King caucus…adapted from an email today, taking out personal references…
There is an incessant, overly nasty, pathetic chest beating and primitive struggle for alpha male status that unfortunately pervades and ruins the movement for liberty. (This does not exclude some who do not have male plumbing and hormones, and perhaps as a result redouble their aggressiveness in such struggles to make up for it).
I generally regard quite a few people as being correct on most issues, and admirable in theirr willingness to devote considerable energy in trying to do something about them.
We all have some differences on some issues of ideology, strategy and tactics. I can only hope we all learn to put them in more perspective,
vis a vis the powers that be, with whom we agree far less than with any of each other. Let’s resolve to treat each other, and such differences as we do have, with more respect. Otherwise, we doom the struggle for liberty, because what sane person wants to be in the vicinity of people
who treat each other this way?
I think the ultimate problem here is that we are all frustrated in being unable to right the many deeply felt wrongs of the world, and in our frustration often lash out at the only people who will listen – each other.
But it’s not doing us any good at all. Quite the opposite.
I hope you all acknowledge that some differences exist among us, but that we can still work as allies on many other things. The cause of liberty is too important to take second place to infighting, (marginal) social status seeking, factionalism, perfectionism, and one-upmanship.
There may well be things we can all accomplish if we try to work together where we can, and accept that differences exist where we can’t,
as opposed to running each other down and accomplishing far less.
I’m learning this the hard way, in contradiction to my natural instincts, and don’t by any means claim that I have achieved these goals – but I do
hold them out, and recommend them to all of you as well.
I’m not sure whether this effort really needs formal structure, but it does need to be made, and spread, consciously.
We can’t get much done if we focus most of our energy on fighting each other.
Or something like that.
I should have known that! maybe if i had thought a little longer:)
lg, rodney king — after having his head bashed by the police — was interviewed on tv, and he said “can’t we all just get along.” not only was the substance of what he said compelling, HOW he said it was moving.
eternal internal bickering gets us absolutely nowhere.
Rodney King Caucus?
explain please , not who rodney is , I know that:)
susan, you appear to not understand, my ego (and I) could care less whom you choose to respect or not. it’s my opinion that those who choose to disrespect and judge others have self respect issues…Golden Rule, psychological projection, and all that.
But I’m confident, Susan, that you will someday get on board the Love train. The ride through Strawberry Fields is a blast.
Hugs all around.
I’ll help with that Rodney King caucus as soon as we have at least three members (me and two more).
I look forward to the day when we can be co-chairs of the Rodney King Caucus.
N.E.V.E.R. in. my. lifetime. (posthumous chairmanship – now *there’s* a good idea!).
I am for civility. I am for comradeship. I’m for having as many freedom-loving folk as possible active in the LP. But I am not interested in extensive hand-holding of every fragile ego who cannot engage in vigorous discussion (and, yes, disputes) without wasting time. energy, and emotion on constant reassurances of my faith in them as libertarians. This is exactly the point I was making to VG, and the point you seem to have missed.
susan, what was it you said about being “puerile”? 😉 as I said — in case you missed it — I don’t care that you don’t consider my views to be L. I was at once applauding your tentative steps toward inclusiveness, but encouraging you to hold higher the big-tent banner. I look forward to the day when we can be co-chairs of the Rodney King Caucus.
hate to be so pointed, but you have refused to acknowledge that I am an L, despite the fact that I fully recognize that you are L.
Poor Bob.
susan, agreed. it’s rare when any member of the various sub-schools of Lism refer to another sub-school suggest another L is the “enemy,” although charges to that effect HAVE been made.
what is more common is to refer to fellow Ls as “libertarian,” the quotes suggesting that there’s something incomplete or insufficient about another L’s positions or approach.
then there are Ls who won’t acknowledge that another is in fact an L. hate to be so pointed, but you have refused to acknowledge that I am an L, despite the fact that I fully recognize that you are L.
in truth, you are entitled to your opinion, and I don’t take your opinion personally, but I do think the movement and party would far more effective if we began to display a more flexible definition of who our comrades for liberty are, starting with whom we consider to be L.
I just think it’ll take a long while to get there. I guess I am really a bad radical after all. Maybe I really am “the enemy.” Oh well I have been called worse in my day.
What is UP with all the whining? Who has called you an enemy, let alone ‘the enemy’? Good god, peoples; don’t be so damn sensitive. You’re going to have disagreements re: strategy (and even philosophy) with your allies – that doesn’t mean that they view you as the enemy, or that they are -your- enemies.
If you keep thinking (and saying) that your allies think of you as the ‘enemy’, you will convince yourself it’s true. I’m afraid you’re already way far along this path, since I’ve seen you say this same sort of thing over and over. Why not try positive thinking – or just focusing on the discussion rather than your feelings – for a while, and see what results that yields?
Sorry to sound impatient, but I’m not sure what you want to come out of all your ‘my allies think I’m the enemy because I don’t agree with them on everything’ talk. It’s completely non-productive. Actually *anti*productive.
Andy 14
That is my end state too. I just think it’ll take a long while to get there. I guess I am really a bad radical after all. Maybe I really am “the enemy.” Oh well I have been called worse in my day.
There is simply no popular consensus for shutting down all — or even most — or even a large portion — of the government tomorrow. A spending freeze — a hard freeze — might happen. Repeal of the 16th amendment — might happen.
Then it becomes a question of the least injurious, least damaging way to fund the government as it is wound down over a period of x years. Now because I don’t believe x=1, there are places in the Movement I am not welcome. I guess I have to live with that.
LPbuster sez “I want to live in a more libertarian nation. But that is very different from saying I want to live in a completely libertarian one. I don’t want starving people on the streets, I don’t want more people unable to get medical care and I don’t want more people unable to go to college”
You don’t have to change a thing to find starving people on the streets. You might have to look for them, or notice them when they are visible.
You don’t have to change a thing to find people who are unable to afford medical care. Visit your local municipal or county hospital to find some of them.
You don’t have to change a thing to find people who are unable to afford to go to college.
So, don’t change anything, and you won’t live in a completely libertarian country.
Now, you say you don’t want to see more of those things you list. If you wait a few months, though, you’ll see more of them, and it won’t have anything to do with a more libertarian country. Next year, there will be way more of those things you list.
The question is not whether you would want to live in a country with more problems like you list. The question is whether, given the power, given a magic control panel with buttons you could push that would change everything instantly without transition, would you push the button to eliminate the income tax, eliminate payroll taxes, and eliminate every government program not specifically authorized by the constitution?
If you had the power, would you push the button that caused all of the enumerated rights, and all of the rights not enumerated, in the Bill of Rights, to be enforced, and all laws, agencies, and regulations that infringe on these rights to disappear?
Ignore, just for the moment, the consequences you imagine from doing these things. Don’t worry about it – you don’t really have any such buttons to push.
Just consider whether you would push the buttons mentioned. Would you be willing to push those buttons, and rely on human ingenuity, human kindness, and human zeal for doing the right things, to handle all the consequences you imagine would come about?
If you say no, then please explain why not.
If you say yes, then you should be aware that you are a radical libertarian. The radical libertarian wants to push those buttons, knowing that to do so means no longer relying upon the previous generations of ingenuity, kindness, and zeal to address those problems the old way, the socialist way, the government-based approach.
The radical libertarian believes that there are better solutions to all the problems you imagine, and is willing to find them. He’s willing to work hard, recruit people, contribute time and money, invent new things, start new companies. He’s just not willing to wait until all the world’s problems have already been solved ten or twelve times over before saying that it is time to push those buttons.
You might not be a radical libertarian. You might be a gradualist. An incrementalist. A moderate. You might even be a neo-conservative war mongering Republican. But if you are ready to push some buttons and see what comes next, that’s cool too.
I still favor scrapping the entire system and replacing it with nothing.
+1
“I still favor scrapping the entire current system and replacing it all with a carbon tax.”
I still favor scrapping the entire system and replacing it with nothing.
Incidentily, the government currently brings in enough revenue off of investments to operate the government without any taxes. See the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports of local, state, and federal government entities (visit http://www.CAFR1.com and http://www.taxretirement.com for more details). This is not to say that I want the government to operate anymore as I’d like to eliminate as much government as possible, I’m just indicating that there is no need to have any taxes to fund government right now.
http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.html
http://c4ss.org/
Tonally and strategically, I prefer Knapp’s approach. I’d suggest a FICA tax holiday is even a more direct bottom’s up approach. It’d also be better for slowing the growing unemployment rate.
I agree.
By “these people,” I was referring to the anarchist wing.
By “these people,” I was referring to the anarchist wing.
Too bad Libertarians are stuck in fantasyland as it will always keep the idea on the sidelines. Here’s a snippet from one of Dan Carlin’s postings. It’s a bit long, but he’s right on and much more in-tune with the reality of implimenting what these people hope to accomplish.
“I always say that I consider myself a person who wants to make sure freedom and liberty are kept in the front of our minds always as we forge these new 21st century policies and such (and believe me…for the most part these American bedrock ideals are not even on the radar of those creating these systems! Just forcing them to be paid attention to would be a massive improvement from how much attention they receive today!)
I want to live in a more libertarian nation. But that is very different from saying I want to live in a completely libertarian one. I don’t want starving people on the streets, I don’t want more people unable to get medical care and I don’t want more people unable to go to college (and I know libertarians do not want this either…but the onus is on them to explain how their ideas won’t make these problems worse. If there are, for example, lots of hungry people on the streets and none of the theoretical groups/individuals/foundations/corporations/charities that many libertarians feel would handle these problems instead of taxpayers actually steps forward and deals with the problem…whose job is it to feed those people or see that they aren’t dying in the streets? Nobody’s? What happens, for example, when the diseases they get start spreading to the rest of us? Or when they start stealing our stuff to keep themselves fed?).
I often hear that if we could switch to a libertarian fantasy world tomorrow that there would be a painful transition/adjustment period followed by a bettering of things as market (and nature’s) natural sticks and carrots began to manifest themselves in peoples lives/decisions/fortunes.
Of course this overlooks the reality of the revolution that would overthrow that government from all the people that thought this a better idea than living (or dying) through the aforementioned transition phase.
I love liberty. I have been screaming about it and defending it on the airwaves, in newspapers and speeches for more than 20 years. But I like to think that I can improve things in regards to freedom in measurable and real ways. This requires me to deal with the current sky color. I believe my approach has a better chance of working than those who would argue for policies like the Gold Standard (which I might like in some respects) or getting rid of programs like Medicare and replacing it with nothing. I just don’t think those ideas will go very far (and yet, liberty and personal freedom continue to be nibbled away while libertarian debating societies howl about the loss—no offense guys).
I like to think of it as the practical approach to increasing (or slowing the rate of decrease) the freedom of Americans. I have had libertarian folks call me a cop-out for this…but I am just not hardcore enough to buy into the whole message.”
Tonally and strategically, I prefer Knapp’s approach. I’d suggest a FICA tax holiday is even a more direct bottom’s up approach. It’d also be better for slowing the growing unemployment rate.
CP Paulie sez: They clearly need to be saved. Let us prey.
save the cheerleader…save the world
works for me
I thought it was “save the cheerleader…save the world”?
I still favor scrapping the entire current system and replacing it all with a carbon tax.
But it could not be an “in addition to.” It would have to be “in place of.”
Kill the Code… and Save the World.