In addition to writing for IPR, Brian Holtz is a former state committee member and repeat candidate for public office in California, holds a seat on a town board, and was the prime author/compiler of the current Libertarian Party platform. This first appeared at Libertarian Intelligence. Additional ideas for a St. Louis accord are discussed by Robert Capozzi, Gary Chartier and others in the comments on Libertarian Party debate: Asymmetry and the Dallas Accord. This refers to St. Louis, the site of the next Libertarian Party national convention in 2010, and the Dallas Accord, which was a previous informal truce between anarchists and minimal government advocates in the Libertarian Party.
Too much time and effort is wasted in the Libertarian Party rehashing debates about
- the definition of libertarian
- the mission of the Party
- minarchism vs. anarchism
- the meaning of the Pledge
- what the Platform should say about the proper role of government
It should be clear by now that neither “side” can (or should) use the Party’s foundational texts — SoP, Platform, and Bylaws — to impose their side’s answer on the other. It’s time to declare these texts a demilitarized zone for LP factionalism. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Party — i.e. a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates — does not agree with:
| Reformers who say: | Radicals who say: |
| The mission of the LP is to elect Libertarians. | The mission of the LP is to advocate abolition of the monopoly authority of the State. |
| Anarchists are not libertarians. | Minarchists are not libertarians. |
| Minarchists are better libertarians than anarchists. | Anarchists are better libertarians than minarchists. |
| The LP should defend the the authority or necessity of the State to protect individual rights. | The LP should deny any authority or necessity of the State to protect individual rights. |
| Libertarian candidates should never advocate anarchy. | Libertarian candidates should never say a flat tax or “fair tax” is better than the status quo. |
| LP members should not have to pledge support for the goal of banishing force initiation and fraud from human relationships. | The Pledge requires LP members to oppose any tax on any activity at any rate for any reason. |
| The LP should take no position on abortion, foreign intervention, and immigration. | Principled libertarians should not disagree about what constitutes aggression. |
(In the above, “minarchist” means one who advocates a state with only the authority to protect each individual’s right to his life, liberty, and property.)
So instead of endlessly rehashing the debates between the opposing statements above, we should try to say something about these topics that could be endorsed by a 2/3 NatCon majority — and even by big-tent reformers and big-tent radicals. Something like this:
The Party’s purpose is to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles by uniting voters who want more personal and economic liberty behind the electoral choices that will most move public policy in a libertarian direction. The Party’s ultimate goal is to banish force initiation and fraud from human relationships. The Party does not claim to know how close our society can come to this ideal, but we are united in our conviction that governments must never add to the amount of aggression in the world. Principled libertarians can disagree about how best to reduce aggression or even about what can count as aggression, but we are united in defending the full rights of each person to his body, labor, peaceful production, and voluntary exchanges. Principled libertarians can disagree about whether every function of government can be performed by the free market, but we are united in opposing government’s growth beyond the protection of the rights of every individual to her life, liberty and property. Principled libertarians can disagree about how best we may each serve the cause of freedom, but we are determined to build a Party that welcomes and unites all those who want more personal and economic liberty. We defenders of freedom are too few, and the enemies of freedom are too many, for us to indulge in seeking heretics in our midst, rather than awakening allies across this freedom-loving land.
TPW? That site still exists?
Michael Seebeck // Aug 18, 2009:
“Sex” is not a condition of being….”
—— Mike, there are times that you are absolutely brilliant. I agree with pretty much every thing you mentioned. That said, there are time a commentator does not want to repeat the primary word or phrase ad infinitum.
—— I usually start out with my preferred word [gender] and then wander into the other synonyms later [sex]. Also some synonyms are just more attention gathering of the effort [SEX]!
—— Like Third Party Watch, this site is so necessary to at least leave a paper trail much less put dents into the Establishment Duopoly. Like TPW, the over whelming element is passion. It is so neat to see some intelligence and logic added to the mix.
I believe the spirit of the St. Louis accord is in the right place, and I support that. The minutiae of the wording and so forth is something that can be hammered out along the way.
I’m not sure that presenting it in terms of trying to characterize the different factions and what they’re all doing wrong did much besides put people on the defensive, which makes them disinclined to consider what is actually in the accord, and that’s a shame because the IDEA is sound.
I’m all for building coalitions both within the party and with like-minded outsiders, and I think an accord like this, provided it’s not being crafted with the intent of harming or marginalizing any specific person or group within the party, is a good start.
Absolutely. I agree completely on the importance of decentralization (which enables the all-important exit option). And only in the last couple years have I come to appreciate this insight that minarchism and anarchism become nearly indistinguishable under sufficiently high magnification.
The article was interesting. I do believe there is room for anarchist and minarchists to work together. I think what is key to both systems is a commitment to liberty (voluntary government/less coercion) as well as a decentralization of power. If we can move things from federal to state, from state to local government, and from local government to local community and individuals that’s a good thing. If you had a localist (municipal level) minarchist committed to voluntary association I would have a hard time telling the difference between them and an anarchist. I used to label myself anarchist but I think the term of not helpful at this point within society. I support greater liberty (voluntary associations), greater equality, decentralized governance, and less hierarchy within society. I support taking power back to the people directly instead of putting it within impersonal mechanistic entities, that includes states, corporations, etc.
Now on the economic level I am for free markets and do believe conceptually in private property, but I’m more from the mutualist persuasion then the Lockean. I do believe increased democratic workplaces via worker cooperatives is a good thing, though I’m not opposed to capitalistic businesses per sa. Is there room within the libertarian party for mutualists? I believe there is.
jf, no, the Accord doesn’t change the ByLaws, but such a Resolution DOES clarify the LP’s purpose. ByLaws changes entail more parliamentary hoops.
Melty,
“Sex” is not a condition of being. “Gender” is. It’s simply using the proper term in the proper manner.
“Sex” is an action. (Alternatively, it’s a question, with the best answer being , “Yes, now!” :D)
“Same-sex marriage” applies to all non-open marriages, because it becomes always the same sex. 😀
“Same-gender marriage” applies to two persons of the same gender getting married.
The stupidity in the gender terminology comes in, for example, when people object to the term “manhole cover” as being chauvanistic, when all they need to do is simply call it what it is–a sewer lid. Common sense simply says, “FAIL” on those things.
Gary Chartier wrote,
John @85: do you think the 54-word mission statament @34 succeeds in avoiding even an oblique reference to the anarchist-minarchist debate.
Yes, I like your draft. I was speaking in general to those who want to include the Arch/Min debate or the electoral/educational debate into the mission statement.
Ditto for the state-free platform language @72 (whatever you think of the rest of the platform)?
The platform is another issue. If a new mission statement is adopted by the delegates it would replace the current “purpose” statementw in the LP bylaws. It would be the starting point for any subsequent strategy and subordinate tactics. At that point I would argue that the LP should not have a party platform. The platform debate is another venue for the Arch/Min debate
Individual candidates can and should have platforms. The delegates at the national, state and local conventions could determine if candidates and their platforms conform to the mission of the party and if the candidates have any chance of implementing their platforms if elected..
I’m in favor of as large a party as possible, but if “Big tent” means having an ambiguous mission statement then no.
Matt @86: Amen!
John @85: do you think the 54-word mission statament @34 succeeds in aavoiding even an oblique reference to the anarchist-minarchist debate? That was the goal, at any rate.
Ditto for the state-free platform language @72 (whatever you think of the rest of the platform)?
jf, actually the Accord doesn’t say anything about strategy. It merely clarifies who can be in the tent.
Who runs strategy is a function of who’s on the LNC.
John, then you should be in favor of completely state-neutral platform language and a big-tent party. Only once that is implemented can all sides get along.
Until these things are re-implemented, the LP will continue losing ground.
Robert Capozzi wrote,
“The active draft Accords under consideration make explicit that there are different approaches to liberty.”
That is why they are no good. As agreed above they won’t stop infighting. They also won’t allow for a single strategy within which the LP can plan, organize and execute. The “accord” should only include precise specific measurable goals. No words should be used that require further definition.
The ultimate goal of the LP is not 100% membership or 100% harmony among members as to which tactics best serve the strategy to achieve the mission.
The mission of of the LP should be and is the reduction of “government” interference with the life, liberty, and property of the individual.
Anarchists say this should be zero and minarchists don’t think zero can be achieved.
This argument should not be included in the mission statement even by oblique reference. 99% of the public will neither understand or be attracted to vote for a party whose major interest is internal debate.
If the LP is successful in halting, then reducing the size, scope and cost of government while maintaining the confidence of the, it can then further reduce government back to the size it was in 1980, 1950, 1930, etc.
Even if the LP is wildly successful it will probably take several generations to get back to pre-1930 levels. All on this blog will be long gone. It is only then that the general public will be able to participate in discussions about how much “government” can be eliminated.
Libertarians who want to can continue debating this issue as much as they want but it should be offline and not upfront. It is as unproductive as Congress holding hearings on the validity of string theory.
po: If someone wants to be a jerk toward the anarchists, an accord won’t stop them.
me: agreed. The Accord wouldn’t stop the uncivil from plying their dysfunction on fellow Ls.
It would make it more difficult for members of one school of L-ism to assert that another L approach is “not L” BASED ON THE PARTY’S FOUNDING DOCUMENTS. The active draft Accords under consideration make explicit that there are different approaches to liberty. So, if an uncivil (or just concerned) L were to begin savaging the position of another L, the accused could simply respond, “My views are well within the St. Louis Accord.” The accuser might persist, but his or her ad hominem attacks would be more easily seen as unprincipled and uncivil, and therefore easier to dismiss.
I see that you shortened down 3.2 in your proposal, Gary, and I think it’s a real improvement. Incidently, I’m a minarchist.
The 2008 Platform is far better than the massive and clunky 2006 version, but still, more should be done with it, and “shorter is better” is a good rule of thumb.
I think of “health care” as short for “taking care of one’s health” which would mean eating right, exercising, . . .,not things others do to you.
In political contexts, the catchphrase “healthcare” is code for “you need the government to take care of your health for you.” To not be so framed, I’d choose such wordings as “socialized Medicine”, “nationalized Medicine”, or “government-run Medicine”, or my own loaded term “state-sponsored Medicine.”
Throughout Modern English, “gender” was just another word for “sex” and they were used interchangably, except for in reference to masculine and feminine and neuter pronouns. Then feminist acedemia adopted “gender” about forty years ago for exclusive usage to disambiguate sex from social roles in their acedemic writing. Then emerged the hideous beast Political Correctness (itself a euphemism for “euphemism”) thirty some years ago, which transformed “gender” into a euphemism, bringing us such convolutions as “transgender” which for me obfuscates “transsexual” and “transvestite”, and “gender-neutral restroom” which means “shithouse”. For the plank, I would say “sex choice” says it all.
I see these catchphrases and euphemisms as statism lurking in the background. I focus on just these two because these are the ones that appear in the LP Platform.
Melty @79: I guess when I hear “health care” I just think of the services provided by hospitals, physicians, nurses, surgeons, physical therapists, etc.; the state doesn’t come to mind. Do you think “medical care” would have a different flavor?
Again, I don’t think of talk about “gender” as euphemistic–I see it as a way of emphasizing the contingent character of people’s assumptions about links between behavior-in-general, choice of sexual partner, and anatomy. I’m guessing that talk about “gender identity” was supposed to make us think about trans folk of various sorts, whose self-presentations and self-understandings may not be reducible to their choices of who to have sex with or how to do so. Is there a cleaner way of capturing this, do you think?
Again, my goal here wasn’t to try to fix all of the problems in the platform–there are many–but just to suggest language that didn’t seem statist (both because I’m an anarchist and because I’d like to boost the prospects for an accord). I’d be pleased for phraseology that didn’t suggest to anyone that the state’s lurking in the background–without making statists feel in any way compelled to adopt my way of thinking.
Yes, Gary, I was talking about the original cuz of the mislink.
As I see it, “healthcare” is a word loaded with presupposed legitimacy of government, being a euphemism for “socialized medicine.” To repeat “healthcare” is to support “socialized medicine.” (Some do not accept that there is such “black magic” within catchphrases, but I strongly believe in it.) I see use of “healthcare” as good strategy for the ruling parties, and defeatist for Libertarians, yet it appears in the Platform more than once, and even in a plank title.
“. . .gender, or gender identity . . .” adds nothing to what’s already said right before it, which is “Sexual orientation, preferences, . . “. Here “gender” is used, and redundantly so, as euphemism for “sex”. It should simply say “Sexual preference . . .” or else simpler yet, “Sex choices . . .”. (Some do not accept that euphemism is unlibertarian, as I assert.)
I see rejection of euphemism and statist loaded words, and invention of libertarian loaded words as great opportunities for us to develop a distinctive sound when we talk, such that we’ll project a libertarian identity immediately distinguishable from Dem/Rep party talk.
An accord can help build a more broad coalition against jerkism (in either direction), though.
That’s the real point, in my opinion, and the value behind such a thing. If we can implement a state-neutral platform and build an accord which is agreed to by a broad base of people, endorsed by reformers, radicals, and anarchists alike, then we will have a much easier time defending a status quo that enables us to build a big-tent LP.
mdh: @62 – Tom, I strongly disagree. “Big government interventionists” are not a part of such an accord because they fundamentally are not libertarians.
I’m trying to be generous of spirit, and not be accused of seeking a purge, 🙂
Robert @ 57, okay I’ll buy what you saying.
Do you have the Dallas Accord on file that you could share with us? I have googled it, but haven’t found it.
BTW we had a nice weekend event and plan on more of the same next weekend out among the people offering real world Libertarian solution.
Scott, try Word then.
PO, debate will happen, and I certainly don’t wish to curtail people’s freedom of speech.
Often, the critiques of those who want to build the party and run for office come from Ls who cite founding documents as “proof” that one school of L thought is correct and other schools are sellouts, uninformed, etc. With an Accord, those of us who’d like to advance liberty can be shielded (to some extent) from being savaged internally from an interpretation of the founding documents that does not allow for other paths and strategies to liberty.
I note that much of the intra-Party squabbling is based on the informal “Dallas Accord.” Some say that the party is in violation of the Dallas Accord currently.
I’d like the St. Louis Accord to formalize and update the Dallas Accord, so that the counterproductive carping would abate.
OK, how odd: I posed a link to the HNN rather than to the draft platform language. Which makes me think Melty’s comment had to do with the original language rather than mine. Sorry for the confusion. Here’s the proper link–
http://liberalaw.blogspot.com/2009/08/proposal.html
Peter, that’s not reasonable however when we have a platform that excludes some people who would (and have!) been some of our best and most active members. The problem is that if we adopt internal policies that are exclusive of some libertarians, we lessen our ability to grow the party by however many people the excluded group encompasses.
For example, if we were to insert platform planks endorsing slavery, but only of black people, we would likely alienate potential members who happen to be black. Likewise, when verbiage exists which excludes anarchists, we lose a large potential group of members, many of whom are activist young people who already agree with libertarian ideals.
The point of building a big-tent party is to create a party that is less exclusive and more welcoming to people from any sphere of life or liberty they may be, without excluding anyone who would support us in our mission, which is, at its core, to shrink government. Some of us want it shrunk more, others less, but we all want to shrink government and that is what our true mission is.
Melty@65–I’m confused. How does any of this language presuppose the legitimacy of government? “We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.”
Why is language about “gender identity” vapid?
@62 – Tom, I strongly disagree. “Big government interventionists” are not a part of such an accord because they fundamentally are not libertarians. Brian is somewhat incorrect when he uses minarchist and reformer interchangeably and also when using radical and anarchist interchangeably, but the point is that such an accord should be between libertarian minarchists and libertarian anarchists.
There’s a difference between building a big tent and building a big tenement. 😉
po: While the party can define what it means to be a Libertarian, unless an application/interview process is introduced, it’s kinda moot.
me: It appears you’re misunderstanding the purpose of the Accord. It’s NOT intended to be a litmus test. It’s intended to allow different strains of L thought to co-exist within the party structure. The Accord is an antidote to harsh litmus testing, by broadening the working definition of what an L is.
mdh: Unfortunately, it will have to be changed as a part of the implementation of this agreement in such a way that positively precludes any and all references to a proper role of the state.
me: This condition doesn’t work. The Accord should be a standalone process. As a TAAAL-ist, Hayekian, Taoist L, I find many things in the platform and SOP sub-optimal. If we condition negotiations on documents OTHER THAN the Accord, we’ll get hopelessly bogged down.
The beauty of Resolutions is the pass with majority-votes in Conventions. They are more easily adjusted in out-years.
As for platform, I say “health care” (2.9) is “language that presupposed the legitimacy of government”, and “. . . , gender, or gender identity. . .” (1.3) is vapid.
Let the liberventionists rally round the Liberventionist Republican Caucus. Now more than ever the Libertarian Party needs to make liquidation of empire a central theme. Our lame slogan should be tossed, and replaced with a strong one that’s got the word “peace” in it. There’ll be no increase in freedom without it.
Melty@61: thanks. 🙂
Matt@60: I think you’re right that the glittering generality of a mission statement can seem less satisfactory if the corresponding platform is flawed.
With your comment in mind, I offer an example of what might perhaps make sense to do with the platform language here:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/114846.html
Blogger and I haven’t had a good relationship this evening, so, as I post this, some pagragraphing kinks have yet to be worked out, and my introductory remarks are truncated. I hope to fix this problem with a formatting update tomorrow morning.
This isn’t the platform I’d have written from scratch, but I’ve generally avoided the temptation to alter it in light of my own biases. Rather, the idea has been, in general, to retain as much of the 2008 platform as possible while removing language that presupposed the legitimacy of government, and without inserting or altering language in a way that tipped the scales in favor of anarchists. I’ve hoped that everything in the platform could be assented to by both sides, but readers will be best able to judge that for themselves.
Take a look and judge for yourself whether you think this approach is likely to be helpful. If so, please contribute to its improvement as a tool for improving party effectiveness and integrity.
I disagree with Brian’s fundamental premise, which seems to be:
Anarchists = Radicals.
Reformers = Minarchists.
NOT!
As a radical and minarchist, I resent Brian spinning me into having to pick either one side or the other.
Anarchists and Minarchists and Radicals are mostly on the same side, in the same faction.
It’s the Big Government Liberventionists that are the problem.
Because you can’t have Libervention (i.e., imperialism) without Big Government.
I’d be more open to an accord if the two sides were more honestly identified. One that called for a big tent to include both LP factions: Anarcho-Minarchist Radicals and Big Government Liberventionists.
I prefer Gary’s super-short version. Terse is good.
As an outspoken anarcho-libertarian, I’m with Brian on this. I believe that Brian’s statement creates opportunities to grow the party without alienating either anarchists or minarchists or whomever else. I am sure there will be some disagreement, but overall I have no problem with this statement and I hope that the rest of the LP Anarchist Caucus will join me in supporting this agreement.
“The Party’s ultimate goal is to banish force initiation and fraud from human relationships.” is a statement which I am especially fond of, in fact. It goes beyond just the realm of politics and makes a statement that I can really get behind. That goes above and beyond anything I expected to see in such a statement as this and I applaud it.
Furthermore, I believe that the LPWV will endorse this in whatever fashion we deem necessary.
Now to the nitty-gritty – the platform, as it stands now, is an affront to anarchists in the party. Unfortunately, it will have to be changed as a part of the implementation of this agreement in such a way that positively precludes any and all references to a proper role of the state. We may all have different ideas what the proper role of the state is (some may feel it’s to invade foreign nations, some may feel it’s only to provide cops and judges, while others such as myself feel it’s to wither and die as quickly as possible!) but to enshrine any such thing in the platform is counter to the goal of creating a big-tent Libertarian Party which welcomes anarchists and minarchists alike.
Therefore I ask, Brian, how do we go about implementing this? You have my full support.
“We have never had 600 elected Libertarians. I don’t have all the old numbers available, but I can tell you that in the past LPHQ staff has publicized the number of PUBLIC OFFICIALS the Libertarian Party had, which included appointed officials.”
I recall that the Libertarian Party peaked back in the early 2000s with around 600-650 elected & appointed officials. It has obviously been down hill since then.
mhw, I don’t believe I’ve suggested anything anyone does is per se useless. I’m rather suggesting that — from a big-picture perspective — Ls spend a lot of time debating theory rather than organizing, running for office, agitating for change BECA– USE there was a flaw in founding documents and how they are interpreted.
Here’s another analogy: There are some corporations that are well run, have good products, good staff, etc. However, previous management had burdened the company with financially choking junk bonds. Unless CURRENT management can exchange those junk bonds for some other form of capital, the company will be saddled with a level of debt service that will hamstring the company from growing beyond its current levels. It might even be force to liquidate divisions or assets that it would not otherwise sell.
It’s my contention that there are LOTS of Ls right now — people who want less government and more economic and personal freedom — but who do not buy some of the specific political theories that motivate some of the founding documents’ take on aggression and coercion, for ex. The application of those theories leads some Ls to say that those Ls who don’t buy those theories are not actually L, but are merely fellow travelers or perhaps sell outs.
A St. Louis Accord, then, would lift the junk bond and its attendant debt service from the LP, allowing us to move forward and be a far more effective force for liberty.
Robert @ 61 writes; “If the dog chasing its tail metaphor doesn’t work for you, perhaps consider the digging ditches and filling them up metaphor. One can “work hard” in such an endeavor, but it goes nowhere, near as I can tell.”
Robert yesterday I talked to a friend who is with another group in Oregon where I once was active with the LP. The Oregon LP has gone from about 900 members since 1999 to about 200 at best today.
My friend’s organization has grown considerably in that time frame. Today they have a monthly mailer that goes out to 4000 people. Her group is specifically involved with issues related to cannabis.
The LP in Oregon used to work closely with them, but since the late 1990s has steered clear of the issue.
I get the impression that there are people in the LP who believe that if it gets too big then they won’t be able to be in charge.
Robert please be specific. What are we working at that is useless?
When I copy my comment from WordPad and paste it into the comment box, when it gets posted the double spaces after periods get decreased to one space, and my paragraph line feeds go completely away. Do I need to triple space after periods, and use double line feeds for paragraphs?
Scott Lieberman
“Michael Seebeck // Aug 16, 2009 at 2:00 pm
At one point, Scott, we had TRIPLE that number, (2003) and the highest elected office (not counting LP-GOP hybrid Ron Paul) was a county sheriff (Bill Masters, CO). Rather than ask “Why don’t we have more?” you should ask yourself, “WTF happened to lose 2/3 of our electeds?”
**************************************************************************************
Bill Masters is still in office, and the Libertarian Party nationwide has something like half a dozen other Libertarians in county level offices. LPHQ staff is currently working with the State Chairs to update the consolidated list of Elected Libertarians. I am **hoping** that LPHQ can get that list on the http://www.LP.org web site by Halloween (without any tricks!)
We have never had 600 elected Libertarians. I don’t have all the old numbers available, but I can tell you that in the past LPHQ staff has publicized the number of PUBLIC OFFICIALS the Libertarian Party had, which included appointed officials. I am working with LPHQ staff to make sure that from now on, we will always have the number of elected officials on our web site, so our members can see how we are progressing towards our Mission Statement [yes Ms. Hogarth, that is your cue 🙂 ]
My rough memory tells me that our high water mark for ELECTED officials was around 260. So yes, we have fewer than that now, but it is more like a 20% decrease, not a 65% decrease.
Now, back to my personal engineering project, which is my yard irrigation.
At one point, Scott, we had TRIPLE that number, (2003) and the highest elected office (not counting LP-GOP hybrid Ron Paul) was a county sheriff (Bill Masters, CO). Rather than ask “Why don’t we have more?” you should ask yourself, “WTF happened to lose 2/3 of our electeds?”
I have no desire or intention to run for any public office at this time. I’ve been there and done that already (remember #4 above? That lone libertarian was ME!), and it isn’t my thing. My bullshit meter tilts too easily to be an elected official or a candidate, and as I like to say, the NAP requires me to leave the bulldozer and blowtorch at home when they’re not in the shop. I also don’t have that level of time (I’m out of the house at work or commuting 13 hours a day) or money to dedicate to what I would consider to be a serious and impacting campaign. To me, family is much more important. So I do what I’m better at, which is building infrastructure and doing nuts-and-bolts stuff, trying to clean up others’ mistakes and building on the solid parts–stuff I *can* do with what limited resources I have.
I’m an engineer, so I engineer things. I’ll leave the bullshit artistry to the Wayne Roots of the world. His type has always had a hard time selling to people like me anyway–must be that tilting bullshit meter again.
Quite frankly, there’s no public office in America that’s ready to handle it if I got elected, and even more so for voters–I make way too much sense and don’t feed them any political spin bullshit. I also question the bases they assume. They don’t know how to handle that, because they’re used to hearing what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.
mhw, no, I wasn’t. I WAS suggesting that fixing the party’s internal understanding of what it is and recognizing that all collective action requires latitude and flexibility for the individual is vital to the organization’s prospects and effectiveness.
If the dog chasing its tail metaphor doesn’t work for you, perhaps consider the digging ditches and filling them up metaphor. One can “work hard” in such an endeavor, but it goes nowhere, near as I can tell.
es, your comment begs the question: what is this role you suggest, and who assigned it to us?
Even if some internal peace is adequately hammered out amongst contentious factions, it doesn’t change the fundamental role a third party (in this country) faces at every turn. Looking at that role (and accepting it) is more important than any attempt at cursus honorum or ‘hustle’.
@46 Robert are you telling me the St. Loius Accord is going to make it possible for Libertarians to do nothing and still be successful?
I was suggesting that getting out there and off your butt is what is needed.
BTW we had an excellent group of people out in our booth yesterday and will have the same today.
“Michael Seebeck // Aug 15, 2009 at 10:23 pm
As for commenting, write it out in Wordpad, then copy and paste it in–oldest trick in computing–goes back to the days of longhand writing before typing it up on the manual typewriter.”
I used your method to type this comment. I still wish IPR was using a blog template that had larger preview panels, but yes, Wordpad is a good way to edit comments that are longer than a couple of sentences. Thank you for that tip, Mr. Seebeck.
**************************************************************************************
“I was illustrating successful lobby efforts that the party has done that I know of first-hand, without electing a single person. It *can* be done, and it *should* be done.
You also completely missed the point about building political legitimacy and credibility within the halls of power at ALL levels. It matters, a lot more than you realize or give weight to. It goes beyond getting appointed or elected to Podunk Municipal Whatever-it-is District, too. We don’t do that for the LP by relying on another organization–we do it for OUR brand name.
MS”
Most of us, including me, would LOVE to be electing Libertarians at the Federal and State levels. However, even Jesse Ventura was a mayor before he got elected Governor.
Doing activities like lobbying your local City Council and the like can increase liberty in your area, if you are successful. But since we are a POLITICAL PARTY, shouldn’t we be focused on getting our guys and gals into office, so we don’t have to continually lobby to get what we want politically?
If the non-electoral grass-roots activism path really did lead to electoral success, why does the Libertarian Party only have 210 elected officials nationwide after 38 years of local and state level activism? I think the answer is obvious – we have so few elected officials because the membership elected Party Leaders who have not made electing Libertarians a priority. Running 220 Libertarians for Congress so we can claim we ran for a majority of Congressional seats is a lot easier than trying to get 220 Libertarians elected to City Councils across the country. The National Libertarian Party can’t do much legally to help City Council candidates, but the National LP can at least create an atmosphere which rewards and encourages State Libertarian Parties to increase their number of elected officials.
Mr. Seebeck – our State Chair has told me you are doing great things in your area for the Libertarian Party. It sounds like you would make a great elected official. I suggest you check out the Special Districts that you can run for, and run for one of them. Your county registrar of voters might even let you plug in your address and do that on-line.
Or, apply for a City or County Board or Commission. Planning Commissions can take 15 hours per week, but most of the other Commissions only require about 2 hours per week. And yes, I did serve on the San Jose Advisory Commission on Rents for 4 years, so I am not asking you to do something I haven’t done myself.
Mhw: Three words are important; hustle, hustle, hustle.
Me: A dog chasing its tail hustles, too. The LP IMO needs to stop chasing its tail. Since at least 1980, when the LP and L-ism started to break through and become a major political movement, the party has been mired in squabbling over ideological definitions and, to a lesser extent, management integrity and competence.
The St. Louis Accord is designed to create a sense of tolerance among the various schools of L-ism inside the LP.
Or we can chase our tails and continue playing more-L-than-thou for another 30 years….
Scott,
It isn’t a case of “can-you-top-this” on activism. If you think of it that way then you missed the point entirely. You should reread what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote. I was illustrating successful lobby efforts that the party has done that I know of first-hand, without electing a single person. It *can* be done, and it *should* be done.
You also completely missed the point about building political legitimacy and credibility within the halls of power at ALL levels. It matters, a lot more than you realize or give weight to. It goes beyond getting appointed or elected to Podunk Municipal Whatever-it-is District, too. We don’t do that for the LP by relying on another organization–we do it for OUR brand name.
As for commenting, write it out in Wordpad, then copy and paste it in–oldest trick in computing–goes back to the days of longhand writing before typing it up on the manual typewriter.
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Seebeck.
******************************************
“Michael Seebeck // Aug 15, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Point #1: The LP worked with the GOP-controlled CO Legislature to enact Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform, which prevented simple property seizure from drug arrests in favor of proving by trial the property was actually used in the crime. That was in 2002.
Point #3: The LP worked with pet owners here in CA to kill AB1634, a most egregious pet ownership restriction bill that was the most controversial in state history, drawing out thousands of pages of opposition letters, breaking fax machines, overloading voice mail and email boxes, pitting grassroots vs. AR PETArds, and even getting Lassie himself involved in the fur on the hill. That was 2007-8.
Point #4: It was a lone LP candidate that defeated a blank-plan public school bond to the tune of $46M because he alone told everyone voting it was a bogus deal, and even the President of the school board admitted the numbers were pulled out of someone’s ass. And he did it on $50. That was 2001.”
***************************************
Mr. Seebeck:
Again, I am not criticizing any of the above.
However, there was no need to have a POLITICAL PARTY do any of the above. In fact, it is probably better to form a
single-purpose political committee to do the above activities.
***********************************
“Point #5: Norm Westwell, year-in and year-out, tirelessly.
MS”
I might have contributed money to Norm’s first or second campaign for School Board – I forget if I did or not. Regardless – isn’t Mr. Westwell able to do much more to move public policy in a libertarian direction now that he is an elected official?
“Point #2: The LP worked with the Greens and Democrats to defeat a GOP-proposed bill that would have gutted and killed third parties in CO. That was in 2003.
MS”
I did not intend to cover every single jot and tittle with my original comments.
Yes – political parties should, to the extent legally possible, lobby for or against bills that affect their right to participate in elections on an equal footing with the Democrats and the Republicans.
“C4L doesn’t exist to lobby. It exists as a vehicle to try to influence the GOP internally, and public relations/fundraising, nothing more. MS”
I bet there are non-Republicans who participate in the Campaign for Liberty. I think it is correct to classify them as a lobbying organization.
“Downsize DC doesn’t do squat at the state or local level. In fact, there are very few libertarian organizations that lobby at the state level, and even then only on certain things, specific areas like MMJ or same-gender marriage licensing and benefits from the state. Even less so at the local level. None of them are running candidates or doing general libertarian-based activism or lobbying. WE ARE!
MS”
You are partially correct. I agree that there could be MORE organizations who lobby for freedom at the local level. But that does not change what I have said in my previous comments.
“I’m still waiting for a LP Reformer to indicate they are actually doing anything to move public policy in a libertarian direction. The LP Radicals I know are actually doing that. Witness Starchild for example, and his efforts in SF on the prostitution initiative (Prop K) recently.
MS”
I did not want to get into an “I do more activism than you do” fight with anyone.
But, since Mr. Seebeck seems insistent on challenging my libertarian activism history:
1. I have lost count of the number of Libertarian candidates I have contributed money to who have WON their election. It is probably around 15. That might be a record.
2. I was partially responsible for getting a majority for 2 years on an elected Resource Conservation District in my county.
3. Brian Holtz blames, I mean, acknowledges me for getting him interested in running for the Water Board position that he now occupies.
4. I gave something like $500 to the two Operation Breakthroughs in California. Those projects elected something like 30 Libertarians to public office, at a cost that I think was around $3000 per elected Libertarian. I don’t have the time to look up the exact figures.
I really wish this blog let you preview your comments before posting them! I make too many typos when the preview box is 1.5 by 3.5 inches!
BTW we need the national party and the state parties to provide the support for the people doing this and that means adequate websites and brouchures, etc. for starters.
@ 37 Scott writes: “I am still waiting for an LP Radical to tell me why the Libertarian Party is a better vehicle for non-electoral political activity than organizations such as the ones I just mentioned.”
Scott please define “non-electoral political activity”.
I just spent a few hour at an outdoor event and will do so again tomorrow. Next weekend I will spend Saturday and Sunday doing much of the same and I spent a few hours getting ready for these events.
Having spent a good deal of my life in sales I can tell you that to be sucessful you can’t wait for the customers to come to you. You have to go to the customer.
What we are doing is introducing the customer to the party and its ideas in this case. The amount of knowledge that the average American has about politics in this country is pretty limited. To overcome that we have to hustle.
We need to write letters to the editor, send out press releases, work with other groups, print newsletters, lobby city hall and the state legislatures, have booths at indoor and outdoor events; i.e. gun shows, farmer’s markets, gay pride, hempfest, etc. Recruit, recruit & recruit. and a host of other work is involved.
Repeat after me; “I will not wait twenty-one months until the next election cycle rolls around. I’m going to get out today and hustle.”
Three words are important; hustle, hustle, hustle.
No, Scott, my conclusion is not incorrect. It is based in past experiences.
Point #1: The LP worked with the GOP-controlled CO Legislature to enact Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform, which prevented simple property seizure from drug arrests in favor of proving by trial the property was actually used in the crime. That was in 2002.
Point #2: The LP worked with the Greens and Democrats to defeat a GOP-proposed bill that would have gutted and killed third parties in CO. That was in 2003.
Point #3: The LP worked with pet owners here in CA to kill AB1634, a most egregious pet ownership restriction bill that was the most controversial in state history, drawing out thousands of pages of opposition letters, breaking fax machines, overloading voice mail and email boxes, pitting grassroots vs. AR PETArds, and even getting Lassie himself involved in the fur on the hill. That was 2007-8.
Point #4: It was a lone LP candidate that defeated a blank-plan public school bond to the tune of $46M because he alone told everyone voting it was a bogus deal, and even the President of the school board admitted the numbers were pulled out of someone’s ass. And he did it on $50. That was 2001.
Point #5: Norm Westwell, year-in and year-out, tirelessly.
Where were these other libertarian groups you mention? Nowhere to be found. The LP did the lobbying efforts on behalf of the libertarian movement, and nobody else.
Where were YOU, Scott, on #3? Nowhere to be found.
C4L doesn’t exist to lobby. It exists as a vehicle to try to influence the GOP internally, and public relations/fundraising, nothing more.
Downsize DC doesn’t do squat at the state or local level. In fact, there are very few libertarian organizations that lobby at the state level, and even then only on certain things, specific areas like MMJ or same-gender marriage licensing and benefits from the state. Even less so at the local level. None of them are running candidates or doing general libertarian-based activism or lobbying. WE ARE!
I’m still waiting for a LP Reformer to indicate they are actually doing anything to move public policy in a libertarian direction. The LP Radicals I know are actually doing that. Witness Starchild for example, and his efforts in SF on the prostitution initiative (Prop K) recently.
What you don’t seem to get, Scott, is that this is POLITICS 101 I’m talking about–stuff that the LP should have started doing in 1971, not 30+ years later. So why, Scott, are you dissing doing the fundamentals? Those other organizations aren’t doing us any favors, so while we can and should work with them, we should not RELY on them, and we should be doing our own heavy lifting as well.
Clearly a political party exists to elect people to government positions. This is why so many libertarians did not believe in 1972 that The Libertarian Party was a good idea.
For one thing, we felt that there were not enough libertarians to be effective in mounting political campaigns, let alone electing anyone.
At the same time, without changes in popular attitudes about government, libertarians elected to office would face the same pressure to support government programs that affects the bipartisan politicos.
Since we have a Libertarian Party, indeed it must make electoral campaigns a focus. Mentioning other activities – advocating the Libertarian position on policiy issues, lobbying etc – is an attempt to come up with something the LP could be good at, since it has not been very good at electing people to office.
I would rather hear about Libertarians putting on or taking part in a legalize marijuana rally, than hear about someone elected to a water board.
“I am still waiting for an LP Radical to tell me why the Libertarian Party is a better vehicle for
non-electoral political activity than organizations such as the ones I just mentioned.
SL”
************************************
“Wait no longer. Walter Block specifically addressed that issue.
You can find Block’s article in the October 2008 California Freedom (page 5):
http://www.ca.lp.org/cf/CF-200810.pdf
TS”
*************************************
That was a nice try, Mr. Sipos.
However, Dr. Block only gives two reasons why the Libertarian Party is a good way to educate people about freedom. His second reason is not even a reason – it does not in any way suggest that a political party is better than the Campaign for Liberty or other organizations for educating people about liberty.
The first reason Dr Block gives – that most people only pay attention to politics during elections – assumes far too much. It assumes that Libertarian political campaigns are a
COST-EFFECTIVE means of educating people. He does not prove that this is the case. He also assumes that the general population even wants to be educated about politics during elections. No amount of wishing by Dr Block or anyone else will change the fact that most people vote because they like the way a candidate looks or they like the emotional milieu that that candidate can create with his or her speeches.
Like it or not – political campaigns are not, and can not, educate the general population about anything. Campaigns are designed to sell a particular person to the general public. The best salesperson usually wins.
On the other hand, when we elect a Libertarian to a local office, we can relatively easily measure their affect on freedom by checking how they vote. If you just run for Congress to “show the flag”, you have absolutely no effect at all on how the winner votes while in they are in office. The only effect you will have is that the incumbent will say just enough libertarian stuff to capture an additional 1% or 2% of the vote, but then after he or she wins they will go back to voting the exact same way they did before the election.
Please don’t misquote me by saying I think educating the public about libertarianism is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time to promote freedom through lobbying or through talking to students or by other means of freedom-oriented activism.
I am just saying that there are other organizations that are much better suited for educational or lobbying purposes than the Libertarian Party.
I am still waiting for an LP Radical to tell me why the Libertarian Party is a better vehicle for
non-electoral political activity than organizations such as the ones I just mentioned.
Wait no longer. Walter Block specifically addressed that issue.
You can find Block’s article in the October 2008 California Freedom (page 5): http://www.ca.lp.org/cf/CF-200810.pdf
“Michael Seebeck // Aug 15, 2009 at 11:10 am
Had you been in Visalia you would have heard my little speech on how we can influence public policy in a libertarian direction–the ultimate means to achieve a free society, remember–NOW, or at least a lot sooner, without electing people, through a concentrated lobbying, coalition, and physical presence within the legislative halls. That effort takes time and people, and it builds a reputation for the Party in a positive manner, and it also benefits our candidates if done properly. This is the type of stuff serious political efforts are made of and is the type of stuff that the LP sorely lacks at the national level and at a lot of states.
I want to do what the socialists have been successful at, which is influencing public policy away from the ballot box and right at the source of the policymaking. ”
************************************
Mr. Seebeck makes an excellent point, but I think his conclusion incorrect.
Organizations already exist that do exactly what Mr. Seebeck wants the LP to do.
The current “hot” organization is the Campaign for Liberty. Another good organization is Downsize DC. Both of these groups do EXACTLY what Mr. Seebeck is saying the LP should do.
*********************************
from the Campagin for Liberty FAQ page…
The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4)
non-profit organization. It is essentially a tax designation. There are many different tax categories for political organizations, each with its own pros and cons. In our case, the pros include having no limit on the amount that individuals may donate, while cons include a restriction from endorsing political candidates. Those who would like to donate to an organization that can support political candidates should donate to a Poltical Action Committee (PAC) such as the Liberty PAC.
********************************
If you want to lobby incumbent politicians, then you can do that thru Downsize DC.
In other words, why force a poltical party to duplicate the work of other organizations? I am still waiting for an LP Radical to tell me why the Libertarian Party is a better vehicle for
non-electoral political activity than organizations such as the ones I just mentioned.
The Libertarian Party currently has about 210 elected officials nationwide. The reason that number is so low is precisely because the leadership of the party at the national and state levels is so divided about what the Mission of a political party should be.
It is very difficult to get Libetarians elected to Federal and State level offices. However, it is pretty easy to get Libertarians elected to water boards and maybe even some school boards. Just ask Brian Holtz, who got elected to his local water board because there were fewer candidates than seats available.
So, the argument that it is very difficult for Libertarians to win partisan offices right now is not really relevant. We can win many
non-partisan offices right now, with the money and volunteer time that we already have avaiable. All it takes is a leadership that encourages the membership to run for winnable offices.
Gary, I think you nailed it. 😀
Kevin, creating win:wins is QUITE a common MO these days. In all walks of life.
John @30: again, agreed—shorter is better. So here’s a counterproposal at 58 words.
As members of the Libertarian Party, we are committed to increasing personal and economic liberty for everyone. We seek to:
*defend the rights of all people to their bodies, their labor, and the fruits of their voluntary exchanges;
*reject and undo aggression; and
*pursue peaceful alternatives to aggression.
We welcome everyone who seeks more freedom into our Party.
Scott,
Political power is attained many ways. Getting people elected is only one way, and the most visible.
However, over history those who have had the most political power aren’t necessarily the elected ones. For every Romanov there’s a Rasputin, for every Bush there’s a Rove, and for every Madison there’s a Jefferson. They work through influence and advice behind the scenes, leaving the camera and crowd work to others.
It’s really a question of public credit and legacy, which is really a question of ego. Those who want the limelight to feed their ego are usually the ones you don’t want in front of the camera, and unfortunately are the ones who get elected.
Look at our own American history and you’ll see how over generations the Socialists have infiltrated political thought and policy, without ever electing anyone.
So, Scott, the question for you is this: are you content with quoting dictionaries and the continued trying and failing to use a political party to achieve partisan electoral success, or are you interested in a more robust effort to use a political party for its intended purpose to achieve real political power?
Me, I choose the latter.
Being stuck in only failing to elect people in partisan races has been a major problem since the LP’s inception. People like Winger have been working to level the ballot access playing field as part of that, to their great credit, but in the meantime we lose the battle of exposure and money, and in doing so we lose elections. Time is not our ally on that battlefront. Our partisan candidates right now serve only as flag-wavers for the Party, despite their best efforts. That’s nothing against them or their efforts except cold, hard reality.
So why does everyone need to fight that battle?
We all don’t.
Had you been in Visalia you would have heard my little speech on how we can influence public policy in a libertarian direction–the ultimate means to achieve a free society, remember–NOW, or at least a lot sooner, without electing people, through a concentrated lobbying, coalition, and physical presence within the legislative halls. That effort takes time and people, and it builds a reputation for the Party in a positive manner, and it also benefits our candidates if done properly. This is the type of stuff serious political efforts are made of and is the type of stuff that the LP sorely lacks at the national level and at a lot of states.
I want to do what the socialists have been successful at, which is influencing public policy away from the ballot box and right at the source of the policymaking. Not the socialist rhetoric, but their tactics, because they work.
It’s a lot easier to concentrate efforts to influence 120 legislators and a governor, or 535 Congresscritters and a President, than several million people, isn’t it?
The struggle within the LP is to simply get to a point where these things can happen, and the impediments to even getting to that starting point are WHY the whole LNC has had a bad reputation in libertarian circles. If the leading faction at the LNC pulled their heads out, cut the factional crap like they did with Keaton, Wrights, LaBianca, et al, and actually focused on gaining real political influence and power, we’d be a lot better off and maybe even getting somewhere.
I’d love to see the day in Sacramento where we have 120 LP lobbyists, one for each office, and even better so if those LP lobbyists just happened to be our own candidates for those offices! Ditto DC with their numbers, as well as every other state capital, county seat, and city hall in the nation.
We get there and we truly have the political power we desire, and the means and manpower to make our end goal.
Carpozzi, just because you didn’t doesn’t mean others didn’t within that group.
robert capozzi // Aug 14, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Kevin, check your premises. Are there really “sides” in the LP?
=====================
K- Yes, there currently is. The members of the LRC have taken the effort to create a side, therefore sides now exist.
======================
And if there are something approximating sides, which one is “winning” and which is “losing.”
=================
K – In any such situation the side that is winning is gaining positions of authority within the organization and displacing the officers of the side they chose to oppose.
In addition it is the side that makes the gains in getting it’s agenda adopted as official goals, see the LP Platform changes the last couple of conventions. The LRC is winning.
======================
My perspective is different. Liberty is losing. Liberty stands a better chance of winning if the LP were to become more effective and influential. A St Louis Accord would allow the several strains of L thought to co-exist in one party, and thereby remove a major obstacle to our success.
It’d be a win:win.
=======================
K – The hippies died out after the ’60s and this kind of thinking was shown to be unworkable in the real world. Very idealistic, but unworkable in the real world.
I would further edit Gary Chartier’s mission statement @28 to:
“Our mission is to effectively increase personal and economic liberty while defending the full rights of all people, and implementing voluntary alternatives to the use of coercive force.”
I think the mission statement should be kept as short as possible. If there is a need to explain the evolutionary process, that can be done in other position papers and/or commentary that do not require delegate approval. There could be different consenting opinions from minarchist and anarchist factions.
It is not necessary to include phrases such as “we will engage in the electoral process” or “engage in public education”. All of these things would be assumed by most, if not all, people as natural functions of a political party.
“The Free Dictionary
political party: an organization to gain political power”
_____________________________
“allwords.com
political party: a political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power within a government”
___________________________
Before you start tapping away on your keyboard and accusing me of being a power hungry Republican because I dared to quote the dictionary, remember that the current Mission Statement of the National Libertarian Party mandates that our elected officials move public policy in a libertarian direction.
Why are so many Libertarian Party members continually trying to redefine the meaning of the term “political party?” into something totally different than its dictionary defintion?
Scott Lieberman
RC@27: no argument that you don’t accomplish anything via avoidance behavior. Real issues have to be addressed. I just think the best mission statement is one you can sing.
So, let’s say we drop all the references to advocacy. If I understood Mike’s suggestion @13 re. the options I floated, a version that took account of that suggestion might look something like this:
The mission of the Libertarian Party is to unite voters who want more personal and economic liberty behind electoral choices that will effectively move public policy in a libertarian direction. The Party’s ultimate goal is to banish aggression from human relationships. Despite strategic and philosophical differences, the Party’s diverse members are united in the conviction that it can never be just to add to the amount of aggression in the world. They share a commitment to defending the full rights of all people to their bodies, labor, peaceful production, and voluntary exchanges; to rejecting and undoing governmental and private aggression; to pursuing peaceful alternatives to the use of aggressive force; and to welcoming into the Party all those who seek greater freedom.
I like this. But it still feels too long to me. It’s 122 words long; here’s an eighty-eight-word version:
As members of the Libertarian Party, our shared mission is to unite voters behind electoral choices that will effectively increase personal and economic liberty. Despite strategic and philosophical differences, we are committed
–to defending the full rights of all people to their bodies, their labor and its products, and the fruits of their voluntary exchanges;
–to rejecting and undoing governmental and private aggression;
–to pursuing peaceful alternatives to the use of aggressive force; and
–to welcoming into our Party all who seek more freedom.
gc, my feedback is shorter is always better, so long as all the major points are covered.
I have no problem with advocacy being included in the Accord, so long as electoral activities are specifically cited.
I do note that at this time the LP’s only “advocacy” activities at the national level are press releases and blogs. As we can see on IPR, these efforts have received quite a bit of criticism here. In theory and at this time, I view “advocacy” activities are mostly part of “recruiting.” The LP is too small and under-resourced to be an effective advocacy/lobbying organization, except perhaps on very narrow subjects like election-law reform.
MS, the LRC had nothing to do with the Mary, Angela, Lee or Steve situations. I’m the Chair of the LRC’s PAC, I’d know. I certainly had nothing to do with any of those events.
Carpozzi, I never said anything about sinister motives–your words, not mine. All I said is the truth–they are losing momentum (and they’re not dormant, they’ve just gone into the anti-radical camp under a different flavor and continued their efforts), and every time they try something stupid (smearing Mary, persecuting Angela, trying to bounce Lee, the LaBianca situation, etc.), they lose even more. That’s just the facts. You can claim the LRC is a big tent, but a mile-wide tent with a 1-foot tent pole is impossible to stand up in, no matter what circus is in town.
By way of rough analogy when not dealing with actions of government, murder is generally considered worse than crimes such as rape and kidnapping, which are in turn worse than property crimes.
Expanding somewhat: the relative importance of the broad axes.
The worst thing government can do to violate someone is to kill them, the next worst is to take away their liberty, the least bad of the three is to deprive them of property. Thus, of those who agree on 2 of 3 axes, I have the least qualms with those with whom I disagree primarily only on economic issues, the second least qualms with those with whom I disagree primarily only on social issues, and the greatest qualms with those with whom I disagree on peace issues.
Of course, that is given all things being equal.
In practice, a more important factors is which issues that person considers most important and does work on. And, of course, there are other additional factors.
Two general observations:
1. I think shorter is better.
2. An interesting difference between the language Brian and I have suggested, a difference on which no one seems to have focused much, is that I think advocacy ought to be an explicit component of the party’s mission. Brian’s proposals focus specifically on the electoral arena. I can see sensible arguments both ways. Any observations about the relative merits of a broader versus a narrower focus?
JT, let me clarify. I agree that Ls would continue to engage in spirited dialog on a host of issues if an Accord was adopted.
A St Louis Accord merely aims to recognize and respect that the LP embraces a range of thought on how to achieve liberty. No one “camp” can legitimately claim that their approach MUST be the dogma of all Ls.
In short, Michael, you may be seeing sinister motives that are simply not there.
We should all give each other the benefit of the doubt more often.
Could be a positive step though.
MS, the truth is the “LRC” has never discussed the idea of a St Louis Accord. I’m confident I personally came up with the idea several months ago on my own, sharing the idea here on IPR.
No one except Paulie was initially interested. I did a draft Accord about a week ago, mostly in reaction to ongoing disagreement over the informal 1974 “Dallas Accord.” I find that disagreement to be highly dysfunctional, and I’d sincerely like to find common L ground.
My draft seemed to get some interest, mostly from Gary. Then Brian did his draft, which on balance I think is better than mine. Gary’s ideas have a lot of merit, too.
Other than one offline email I sent to Brian encouraging him to promote his draft AFTER he posted it, there’s been no LRC communication on the Accord. I did post one message on the LRC board about Brian’s draft Accord, and no one has responded as yet.
In short, Michael, you may be seeing sinister motives that are simply not there. The LRC — which, at this point, is largely dormant — has been from Day One about a big tent.
OK, that explains it better. Thanks, will fix.
paulie, anybody who pays their $25 to the LPCA is a state central committee member. It really doesn’t mean much except that their $25 means they can run for party office and attend the state convention.
“State central committee” implies paid membership. “State Executive Committee” implies elected leadership. “State Committee” means nothing.
Robert: “A St Louis Accord would allow the several strains of L thought to co-exist in one party, and thereby remove a major obstacle to our success.”
Maybe. Maybe not. Personally, I doubt that any formal “accord” would change much. I’d bet that the radical and moderate libertarians would continue to argue with and insult each other regardless, whether we’re talking about within the LP or the broad libertarian movement. That actually happens in any ideological organization or movement, not just the libertarian one.
MS
paulie @4: No. Executive Committee is an elected subset of the state central committee who elects them.
I still don’t see how “state committee” fails to cover both.
paulie @7: like so-called pro-war libertarians?
I’m willing to work to some extent with groups with which we have a broad concensus on 2 of 3 general policy areas:
-those on the left who are in broad agreement with (at least marginal) libertarianism on peace and civil liberties issues, but tend to disagree with a smaller-government direction on economic issues
-those on the antiwar right who tend to agree with making government smaller on economic issues and foreign policy/military spending, but wish to use increased state force in favor of their favored social norms.
-Logically, ‘liberventionists’ are in the same grouping as far as my degree of cooperation.
Since government tends to gravitate towards whatever proposals any group has for making it bigger, no matter how many other proposals the same group has for making government smaller, all these groups are to some extent enemies of liberty. However, I’ll work with them where I can, on the issues we agree on.
To an even lesser extent, this would even be true with those who wish to make government smaller on only one of the three broad policy areas (economic, social, military/foreign).
paulie @4: No. Executive Committee is an elected subset of the state central committee who elects them.
paulie @7: like so-called pro-war libertarians?
Kevin@8: LRC wants an accord because they’re losing momentum and they know it, and if they were dominating they wouldn’t need one. I think you had that statement backwards, or at least it wasn’t very clear.
Gary @9: Add the last sentence from II onto I and I think you’ve got it.
Robert,
I agree.
Kevin, check your premises. Are there really “sides” in the LP? And if there are something approximating sides, which one is “winning” and which is “losing.”
My perspective is different. Liberty is losing. Liberty stands a better chance of winning if the LP were to become more effective and influential. A St Louis Accord would allow the several strains of L thought to co-exist in one party, and thereby remove a major obstacle to our success.
It’d be a win:win.
I am hopeful that this draft (or something close to it) of a St Louis Accord can be introduced and passed as a Resolution in convention. It might be further strenthened if we can get many state chairs to sign on, sitting LNCers, and others like Barr, Badnarik, Marrou, Bergland, Clark, Nolan, etc.
IMO, this effort could not be more important to the viability of the LP.
To further muddy the waters, I offer three more possible versions, two drawing on the language Brian has suggested and one representing a minor revision of language I floated earlier:
I. The mission of the Libertarian Party is to unite voters who want more personal and economic liberty behind electoral choices that will effectively move public policy in a libertarian direction. The Party’s ultimate goal is to banish aggression from human relationships. Despite strategic and philosophical differences, the Party’s members are united in the conviction that it can never be just to add to the amount of aggression in the world as well as in their commitment to defending the full rights of all people to their bodies, labor, peaceful production, and voluntary exchanges and to welcoming into the Party all those who seek greater freedom.
II. The mission of the Libertarian Party is to maximize liberty and minimize coercion through advocacy, education, and participation in electoral and other political processes. The Party’s diverse members share a commitment to rejecting and undoing governmental and private aggression and to pursuing peaceful alternatives to the use of coercive force.
III. The mission of the Libertarian Party is to maximize liberty and minimize coercion through advocacy, education, and participation in electoral and other political processes. The Party’s ultimate goal is to banish aggression from human relationships. Despite strategic and philosophical differences, the Party’s members are united in the conviction that it can never be just to add to the amount of aggression in the world as well as in their commitment to defending the full rights of all people to their bodies, labor, peaceful production, and voluntary exchanges and to welcoming into the Party all those who seek greater freedom.
Looks like the LRC has come to be because many LP members, I suspect many on the inactive status list, have had enough of the failures produced by the anarchist faction.
My estimate of the situation is that for the LRC faction it is total domination or nothing. Aorganization / faction that came into being jsut to make really major changes would not want an accord.
Equally why would an organization / faction that is being very succesful in it’s efforts to gain domination want to reach an accord?
Reaching an accord is something the losing side wants in an effort to buy time so that they may regroup and restart their efforts for domination.
if the enemies of freedom are the heretics in our midst, then they will undermine the efforts. Hence the problem that creates the need for any accord in the first place.
I think the enemies of freedom are those who seek to make the regime bigger, not those who seek to make the regime smaller.
BH: Principled libertarians can disagree about whether every function of government can be performed by the free market, but we are united in opposing government’s growth beyond the protection of the rights of every individual to her life, liberty and property.
MS: Too minarchist for the anarchist taste. They would say, as Brian mentions above in that table, that government has no role in protecting those rights since it is an aggressor against them.
P: Not necessarily. I also oppose government growth beyond dictating what everyone eats for breakfast; if given the choice, I’d still prefer to make my own decisions on lunch and dinner, even if breakfast does get monopolized.
But even that is overstating the case, since it is not something government already claims jurisdiction over.
OK…but anarchists won’t like this one, because they’ll state that government itself by existing adds to the amount of aggression in the world.
I’m an anarchist, and I didn’t read it that way (although I see how it could be read that way). I understood it to mean add to the amount of aggression that currently exists rather than what could theoretically exist without a coerced monopoly on force.
However, Brian is not currently a state executive committee member, only a state central committee member.
I think “state committee member” covers both, no?
Wonderful way for Brian to frame the argument the way he wants it to be. Expect others to disagree with that framing shortly below.
However, Brian is not currently a state executive committee member, only a state central committee member. That might want to be clarified.
Technical stuff aside,
Breaking it down, sentence by sentence, with no implied statement on my own POVs:
OK…that covers both candidates and issues, which is good.
Is that the Party’s ultimate goal, or the libertarian movement in general? I think the latter is more accurate.
OK…but anarchists won’t like this one, because they’ll state that government itself by existing adds to the amount of aggression in the world.
Try “voluntary exchanges and relationships”. More robust.
Too minarchist for the anarchist taste. They would say, as Brian mentions above in that table, that government has no role in protecting those rights since it is an aggressor against them.
OK, until the rubber hits the road, as the next sentence and the long history of infighting shows…
Carpozzi would love this line, but if the enemies of freedom are the heretics in our midst, then they will undermine the efforts. Hence the problem that creates the need for any accord in the first place.
Keep in mind that I admit to generalizing here, and I have heard these arguments before in various places.
I prefer a simpler platform:
“No matter what level of small government one advocates for in the libertarian movement, including none, we all agree that right now it is far too much in actual practice, and we agree to work together to reduce or eliminate it in order to achieve the stated goal of Liberty. We also agree that essential to Liberty is the promotion of personal responsibility of each individual in every aspect of their lives, and that we agree to promote it not only through our words, but through our actions.”
Thomas, try
http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/01/25/take_the/
“Radicals who say: Anarchists are better libertarians than minarchists. [or] Minarchists are not libertarians.
As a minarchist, who’s considered a radical, I’ve yet to meet an anarchist who says any of the above. They may exist, but I’ve not met them.
Anarchists and minarchists are friends and natural allies against “liberventionsts” who advocate going abroad in search of monsters to destroy.