Comments on: Ruwart on The Steve Kubby Show, 04/28 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:05:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-588587 Thu, 01 May 2008 18:26:49 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-588587 Yes, it was in fact *precisely my point* that our 3 candidates (self-)promoted as "radical" -- Ruwart, Kubby, and Smith -- are deafeningly silent on these 6 very real pieces of platform language that here on Earth *radicals* -- not moderates -- are proposing that the LP include in Denver in its 2008 platform. Thank you for suggesting that these three campaigns score a collective *0 for 18* on defending the most controversial parts of the platform they claim to want to "restore", but my case is in fact not quite that strong. As I told you above, Kubby is arguably on record about two of the issues, one of which (pollution) he even brought up unprompted in his show with Alex Peak. And as I suggested above, Ruwart is on record for 3 of the 6, but as far as I know you're right that she's not trying to defend that record at all. The only controversy of these 7 that we reformers can take credit for creating is the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to subpoena witnesses. I've been on a one-man crusade to confront zero-aggression absolutists with this issue ever since I was on the 2005 LPCA Platform Committee. It's a cool issue -- a big glowing chunk of kryptonite that makes radicals trip over their capes trying to run away. Radicals, and their 2004 platform, claim to support the entire Bill of Rights, but trying to get them on the record on this issue is like pulling teeth. Susan Hogarth even banned my post that tried to ask about it on the LPradicals forum. This is an area of libertarian theory for which these allegedly "principled/radical" candidates apparently just don't want people to know where they stand. I'm not at all suggesting that any of these candidates emphasize any of these seven issues. I just want to know where they stand. If you think you know, then quote them. For each of these three candidates, I'll donate $25 to their Liberty Decides account for each issue on which you (or anyone else) can quote their campaign web site taking a clear written stand. I'll also count quotes from any past publication of theirs if its something that their campaign site says accurately reflects their current positions. I'm just trying to find out about the current libertarian principles of the candidates who have taken a strong stand on what the LP Platform should say. (I suspect you'll agree that Phillies' waffling about the merits of the 2004 platform arguably don't meet this standard.) By contrast, it's very likely that you're preparing another eleventh-hour fact-filled hit piece on Root (and maybe Barr) about their past positions and past associations, just as you did with Gary Nolan a week before the 2004 convention. I want to go on record now as pre-emptively defending you if you confine yourself to verifiable facts. But please dispense with this notion that it's OK for our "principled/pure/radical" candidates to hide their positions from the delegates if those positions are too embarrassingly radical to figure "prominently" in their campaign strategy. Why should the delegates vote for a "principled/pure/radical" candidate who won't stand up to the reformers who criticize their precious 2004 platform as extremist? Don't any of these candidates have the "spine" that Susan Hogarth says the LP needs? Yes, it was in fact precisely my point that our 3 candidates (self-)promoted as “radical”—Ruwart, Kubby, and Smith—are deafeningly silent on these 6 very real pieces of platform language that here on Earth radicals—not moderates—are proposing that the LP include in Denver in its 2008 platform. Thank you for suggesting that these three campaigns score a collective 0 for 18 on defending the most controversial parts of the platform they claim to want to “restore”, but my case is in fact not quite that strong. As I told you above, Kubby is arguably on record about two of the issues, one of which (pollution) he even brought up unprompted in his show with Alex Peak. And as I suggested above, Ruwart is on record for 3 of the 6, but as far as I know you’re right that she’s not trying to defend that record at all.

The only controversy of these 7 that we reformers can take credit for creating is the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to subpoena witnesses. I’ve been on a one-man crusade to confront zero-aggression absolutists with this issue ever since I was on the 2005 LPCA Platform Committee. It’s a cool issue—a big glowing chunk of kryptonite that makes radicals trip over their capes trying to run away. Radicals, and their 2004 platform, claim to support the entire Bill of Rights, but trying to get them on the record on this issue is like pulling teeth. Susan Hogarth even banned my post that tried to ask about it on the LPradicals forum. This is an area of libertarian theory for which these allegedly “principled/radical” candidates apparently just don’t want people to know where they stand.

I’m not at all suggesting that any of these candidates emphasize any of these seven issues. I just want to know where they stand. If you think you know, then quote them. For each of these three candidates, I’ll donate $25 to their Liberty Decides account for each issue on which you (or anyone else) can quote their campaign web site taking a clear written stand. I’ll also count quotes from any past publication of theirs if its something that their campaign site says accurately reflects their current positions.

I’m just trying to find out about the current libertarian principles of the candidates who have taken a strong stand on what the LP Platform should say. (I suspect you’ll agree that Phillies’ waffling about the merits of the 2004 platform arguably don’t meet this standard.) By contrast, it’s very likely that you’re preparing another eleventh-hour fact-filled hit piece on Root (and maybe Barr) about their past positions and past associations, just as you did with Gary Nolan a week before the 2004 convention. I want to go on record now as pre-emptively defending you if you confine yourself to verifiable facts. But please dispense with this notion that it’s OK for our “principled/pure/radical” candidates to hide their positions from the delegates if those positions are too embarrassingly radical to figure “prominently” in their campaign strategy. Why should the delegates vote for a “principled/pure/radical” candidate who won’t stand up to the reformers who criticize their precious 2004 platform as extremist? Don’t any of these candidates have the “spine” that Susan Hogarth says the LP needs?

]]>
by: Thomas L. Knapp http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-588483 Thu, 01 May 2008 17:11:27 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-588483 Earth to Brian: Of the 7 items on your list, 0 of them figure prominently in any "purist" presidential campaign. They're being discussed vis a vis presidential politics at the instigation of, and almost entirely by. the same "reformers" who claim that discussing them damages the party. Those are the facts, tough expletive boy. Earth to Brian: Of the 7 items on your list, 0 of them figure prominently in any “purist” presidential campaign. They’re being discussed vis a vis presidential politics at the instigation of, and almost entirely by. the same “reformers” who claim that discussing them damages the party. Those are the facts, tough expletive boy.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-588360 Thu, 01 May 2008 15:39:33 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-588360 Earth to Tom: of the 7 items on my list, 5 are things that "purists" are advocating be put back in the Platform, and a sixth is something that "purists" defend from PlatCom's proposal to remove it. Try dealing in facts, instead of tough-guy expletives. Earth to Tom: of the 7 items on my list, 5 are things that “purists” are advocating be put back in the Platform, and a sixth is something that “purists” defend from PlatCom’s proposal to remove it. Try dealing in facts, instead of tough-guy expletives.

]]>
by: Thomas L. Knapp http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-587917 Thu, 01 May 2008 08:49:35 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-587917 Brian you write: "I’m not too worried about the positions of Root and Gravel, as they have no apparent aspirations to influence the LP Platform. For the other three (Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies), I’m most interested in <b>[a bunch of stuff that's not in any way at issue in this year's presidential election].</b>" For years, the "pragmatist" and "reformer" factions have claimed that what drags the party down is running around talking about stuff like personal secession, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, legalized child prostitution, private WMD, etc. So? Stop fucking talking about that stuff already. It ain't the "purists" quacking about it, it's YOU. Brian you write:

“I’m not too worried about the positions of Root and Gravel, as they have no apparent aspirations to influence the LP Platform. For the other three (Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies), I’m most interested in [a bunch of stuff that’s not in any way at issue in this year’s presidential election].

For years, the “pragmatist” and “reformer” factions have claimed that what drags the party down is running around talking about stuff like personal secession, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, legalized child prostitution, private WMD, etc. So? Stop fucking talking about that stuff already. It ain’t the “purists” quacking about it, it’s YOU.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-587770 Thu, 01 May 2008 06:07:35 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-587770 Tom, if Ruwart's views on legalizing childhood consent to pornography and prostitution weren't "particularly controversial", she would have jumped at the chance to re-affirm them. Instead, she offered no perceptibly substantive response to Phillies' critique of them, except to point out how long ago she wrote the words in question. I'm not too worried about the positions of Root and Gravel, as they have no apparent aspirations to influence the LP Platform. For the other three (Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies), I'm most interested in the Platform issues of 1) personal secession, 2) immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, 3) policing of pollution by dispersed cumulative polluters, 4) right of the accused to subpoena witnesses, 5) privatization of all streets and pipes, 6) legalized child prostitution, and 7) private WMD. I've talked to Steve about #3, and I got him to apparently support #2. I doubt Ruwart has a written record on 1, 2, or 4, and when I looked for her discussion of 3 I couldn't find it. Tom, if Ruwart’s views on legalizing childhood consent to pornography and prostitution weren’t “particularly controversial”, she would have jumped at the chance to re-affirm them. Instead, she offered no perceptibly substantive response to Phillies’ critique of them, except to point out how long ago she wrote the words in question.

I’m not too worried about the positions of Root and Gravel, as they have no apparent aspirations to influence the LP Platform. For the other three (Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies), I’m most interested in the Platform issues of 1) personal secession, 2) immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, 3) policing of pollution by dispersed cumulative polluters, 4) right of the accused to subpoena witnesses, 5) privatization of all streets and pipes, 6) legalized child prostitution, and 7) private WMD. I’ve talked to Steve about #3, and I got him to apparently support #2. I doubt Ruwart has a written record on 1, 2, or 4, and when I looked for her discussion of 3 I couldn’t find it.

]]>
by: Thomas L. Knapp http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-584511 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:30:29 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-584511 Brian, Since I don't regard Ruwart's positions as particularly controversial, I'm not surprised. From the beginning the more interesting story has been the poorly planned and executed attempt to <em>make</em> her positions controversial, presumably in order to benefit some other candidate. If you're interested in "the principles of our presidential candidate(s)," you're hardly lacking source material. Of the declared candidates, at least five of them (Phillies, Kubby, Ruwart, Root, Gravel) have published political books, web availability of reasonably detailed position papers, etc. Compared to 2004, we are literally drowning in available information on our prospective candidates. Brian,

Since I don’t regard Ruwart’s positions as particularly controversial, I’m not surprised.

From the beginning the more interesting story has been the poorly planned and executed attempt to make her positions controversial, presumably in order to benefit some other candidate.

If you’re interested in “the principles of our presidential candidate(s),” you’re hardly lacking source material. Of the declared candidates, at least five of them (Phillies, Kubby, Ruwart, Root, Gravel) have published political books, web availability of reasonably detailed position papers, etc.

Compared to 2004, we are literally drowning in available information on our prospective candidates.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-584229 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:10:11 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-584229 Well, Tom, so much for your prediction about the topic of the show. Except for George's excellent prepared statement, there was effectively nothing of substance said by Ruwart or Kubby or Nolan on the substantive content of Ruwart's controversial positions. Apparently they don't need to be discussed if we don't like how they came to our attention and how a few people reacted to them. Kubby and Nolan clearly steered the conversation away from actual discussion of the actual Libertarian principles that are in serious dispute here. This delegate is more interested in the principles of our presidential candidate than in our candidate's opinion about who at the national office should be fired. I look to our officers and officer candidates to explain that. Except for some quibbling about the newsworthiness of former Senators and congressmen announcing Libertarian candidacies, Phillies' performance was flawless. My opinion of Ruwart, Kubby, Nolan, and the absent Root declined somewhat during the course of this show. Bruce, you should know better than to disrespect Paulie's privacy, and thus to give Steve an excuse to disconnect you. Not smart. Well, Tom, so much for your prediction about the topic of the show. Except for George’s excellent prepared statement, there was effectively nothing of substance said by Ruwart or Kubby or Nolan on the substantive content of Ruwart’s controversial positions. Apparently they don’t need to be discussed if we don’t like how they came to our attention and how a few people reacted to them. Kubby and Nolan clearly steered the conversation away from actual discussion of the actual Libertarian principles that are in serious dispute here. This delegate is more interested in the principles of our presidential candidate than in our candidate’s opinion about who at the national office should be fired. I look to our officers and officer candidates to explain that.

Except for some quibbling about the newsworthiness of former Senators and congressmen announcing Libertarian candidacies, Phillies’ performance was flawless. My opinion of Ruwart, Kubby, Nolan, and the absent Root declined somewhat during the course of this show.

Bruce, you should know better than to disrespect Paulie’s privacy, and thus to give Steve an excuse to disconnect you. Not smart.

]]>
by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583966 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:04:21 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583966 I would love to give all of the power currently held by the federal government to the states. That would be such a great step in the right direction. Local, decentralised government is always a lesser evil than distant, centralised government. My Facebook profile picture currently depicts me holding a signed copy of <i><a href="http://tiger.towson.edu/~apeak1/writtenwork/otherworksworthreading/therevolutionamanifesto/foreword.html" rel="nofollow">The Revolution: A Manifesto</a></i> while Ron Paul is shaking someone's hand in the background. I would love to give all of the power currently held by the federal government to the states. That would be such a great step in the right direction. Local, decentralised government is always a lesser evil than distant, centralised government.

My Facebook profile picture currently depicts me holding a signed copy of The Revolution: A Manifesto while Ron Paul is shaking someone’s hand in the background.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583930 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:33:56 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583930 I emailed to Steve these five questions for tonight's show: http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/04/5-questions-for-dr-ruwart.html No, Susan, the only part of the press release that I liked is where it said "protecting individual rights is a core function of government". Every other clause included some kind of ideological mistake, in my opinion. By the way, I love how so many of our anarchist/radical libertarians are fair-weather constitutionalists, using that tainted foundational document of the vile State to bash their opponents when it's convenient. When I (or a Ron Paul) recommends that we use constitutionalism as a way to promote radical decentralism and divide-and-conquer the nanny state, many radicals complain that doing so might give more power to state governments. The draft LNC resolution posted by George is far better than the LNC press release, but still not flawless, because it needlessly gets into the grey area of the "distribution" of child pornography. Here it is again: “WHEREAS government has a proper role defending the rights of individuals, including those who cannot help themselves; and WHEREAS government has a proper role in pursuing, prosecuting and punishing criminals who violate the rights of others; and WHEREAS such punishment tends to serve as a deterrent against these criminal acts; and WHEREAS young children are not capable of informed consent and require protection from those who will act as predators toward them; and WHEREAS sex between adults and young children is a particularly heinous crime and pornography using children is inherently abusive; and WHEREAS the government’s focus on victimless crimes diverts attention and valuable resources from crimes against young children; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee calls on state governments to divert resources from victimless crimes and vigorously enforce laws that prohibit the production and distribution of pornography involving young children and pursue adults who sexually exploit children.” I emailed to Steve these five questions for tonight’s show:
http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/04/5-questions-for-dr-ruwart.html

No, Susan, the only part of the press release that I liked is where it said “protecting individual rights is a core function of government”. Every other clause included some kind of ideological mistake, in my opinion. By the way, I love how so many of our anarchist/radical libertarians are fair-weather constitutionalists, using that tainted foundational document of the vile State to bash their opponents when it’s convenient. When I (or a Ron Paul) recommends that we use constitutionalism as a way to promote radical decentralism and divide-and-conquer the nanny state, many radicals complain that doing so might give more power to state governments.

The draft LNC resolution posted by George is far better than the LNC press release, but still not flawless, because it needlessly gets into the grey area of the “distribution” of child pornography. Here it is again:
“WHEREAS government has a proper role defending the rights of individuals, including those who cannot help themselves; and

WHEREAS government has a proper role in pursuing, prosecuting and punishing criminals who violate the rights of others; and

WHEREAS such punishment tends to serve as a deterrent against these criminal acts; and

WHEREAS young children are not capable of informed consent and require protection from those who will act as predators toward them; and

WHEREAS sex between adults and young children is a particularly heinous crime and pornography using children is inherently abusive; and

WHEREAS the government’s focus on victimless crimes diverts attention and valuable resources from crimes against young children;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee calls on state governments to divert resources from victimless crimes and vigorously enforce laws that prohibit the production and distribution of pornography involving young children and pursue adults who sexually exploit children.”

]]>
by: Susan Hogarth http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583880 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:40:42 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583880 Holtz says: <i>What we want is for the LP to no longer be formally on record as supporting those positions.</i> Are you comfortable with the LP being 'formally on record' as supporting "increased coordination and communication between federal and state law enforcement agencies"? Holtz says:

What we want is for the LP to no longer be formally on record as supporting those positions.

Are you comfortable with the LP being ‘formally on record’ as supporting “increased coordination and communication between federal and state law enforcement agencies”?

]]>
by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583550 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:45:09 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583550 Actually, it's not a big concern of mine either way. He seems genuinely concerned about Liberty, even if I think he's making a personal mistake in backing Mr. Barr. If Mr. Gordon were to himself run, I would have no difficulty voting for him. Cheers, Alex Peak Actually, it’s not a big concern of mine either way. He seems genuinely concerned about Liberty, even if I think he’s making a personal mistake in backing Mr. Barr. If Mr. Gordon were to himself run, I would have no difficulty voting for him.

Cheers,
Alex Peak

]]>
by: paulie http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583535 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:26:19 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583535 <i>Paulie writes, “And [Mr. Gordon] has even described himself as [an anarchist].” Really? He said to Krist Novoselic that protecting the environment from polluters was a proper function of government, so I thought he was a minarchist.</i> Steve has personally told me he is an anarchist. He's also an incrementalist. Perhaps he meant proper within the present system. Maybe he has reverted to minarchism. Maybe he was blowing smoke up my ass when he said he is an anarchist. You could ask him where he stands now, but he's pretty busy and I think his general outlook is that we have more pressing matters than the minarchy vs. anarchy debate. Paulie writes, “And [Mr. Gordon] has even described himself as [an anarchist].”

Really? He said to Krist Novoselic that protecting the environment from polluters was a proper function of government, so I thought he was a minarchist.

Steve has personally told me he is an anarchist. He’s also an incrementalist. Perhaps he meant proper within the present system. Maybe he has reverted to minarchism. Maybe he was blowing smoke up my ass when he said he is an anarchist. You could ask him where he stands now, but he’s pretty busy and I think his general outlook is that we have more pressing matters than the minarchy vs. anarchy debate.

]]>
by: swift kick in the ass http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583357 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:57:11 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583357 Thanks Brian for the link. "Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest," child porn is not honest, is it ruwart? Thanks Brian for the link.

“Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest,”

child porn is not honest, is it ruwart?

]]>
by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583330 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:02:44 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583330 Paulie writes, "And [Mr. Gordon] has even described himself as [an anarchist]." Really? He said to Krist Novoselic that protecting the environment from polluters was a proper function of government, so I thought he was a minarchist. (DISCLAIMER FOR READERS: This is not to imply that anarchists support pollution. Anarchists consider the pollution of someone else's property to be nothing less than theft, and support various mechanisms to prosecute such these. Anarchists simply don't believe governmental monopolies are effective toward this noble end.) Curiously yours, Alex Peak Paulie writes, “And [Mr. Gordon] has even described himself as [an anarchist].”

Really? He said to Krist Novoselic that protecting the environment from polluters was a proper function of government, so I thought he was a minarchist.

(DISCLAIMER FOR READERS: This is not to imply that anarchists support pollution. Anarchists consider the pollution of someone else’s property to be nothing less than theft, and support various mechanisms to prosecute such these. Anarchists simply don’t believe governmental monopolies are effective toward this noble end.)

Curiously yours,
Alex Peak

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583258 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:45:04 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/ruwart-on-the-steve-kubby-show-0428/#comment-583258 Fred, no "cabal" that I'm in wants to "clear anarchism out of the LP". We just want to make the LP Platform and Pledge tolerant of other schools of libertarianism besides crypto-anarchism -- i.e. individual secession, privatize all streets/pipes, no government laws protecting children from their guardians, private WMDs, no right of the accused to subpoena witnesses, etc. We just want the LP Platform to include all and only the principles that unite the LP's [major schools of libertarianism](http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism). If the recycled language in the proposed 2008 platform says anything against anarchism, it must be something that a previous LP platform has already said: http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform. I personally like having ecumenical anarchists in the LP, because they undercut the voluntaryist canard that any participation in the democratic process is a moral endorsement of whatever the majority decides. Also, it's a lot easier to teach an anarchist about [the theory of market imperfection](http://libertarianmajority.net/do-markets-under-produce-public-goods), than to teach a leftist why markets work so well, or to teach a rightist to be tolerant. Fred, no “cabal” that I’m in wants to “clear anarchism out of the LP”. We just want to make the LP Platform and Pledge tolerant of other schools of libertarianism besides crypto-anarchism—i.e. individual secession, privatize all streets/pipes, no government laws protecting children from their guardians, private WMDs, no right of the accused to subpoena witnesses, etc. We just want the LP Platform to include all and only the principles that unite the LP’s [major schools of libertarianism](http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism). If the recycled language in the proposed 2008 platform says anything against anarchism, it must be something that a previous LP platform has already said: http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform.

I personally like having ecumenical anarchists in the LP, because they undercut the voluntaryist canard that any participation in the democratic process is a moral endorsement of whatever the majority decides. Also, it’s a lot easier to teach an anarchist about [the theory of market imperfection](http://libertarianmajority.net/do-markets-under-produce-public-goods), than to teach a leftist why markets work so well, or to teach a rightist to be tolerant.

]]>