I’m interested if you have any response to my response.

Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak

If you are not eager for the market anarchists to leave the party, then I apologize for suggesting it: it is the conclusion I drew from what I saw as an attempt in another thread to blame the child porn kerfuffle on the anarchists, and your suggestion that the “Ruwarchists” are the ones behind Restore ‘04. Perhaps I was mistaken in that accusation: based on your response, that appears probable. Of course, I never said that people who disagree with me are only welcome if they pay their dues and don’t introduce deviations. The 2006 platform introduced what I consider to be a substantial deviation from the proper position on immigration, and I have said nothing against any person who supported it (other than that I disagree with their position). Shall we call it a draw on “clumsy smears”?

Do me a favor: acknowledge that www.restore04.com was started by LP Founder and minarchist David Nolan, that 5 different candidates have signed it, at least 2 claiming explicitly to be minarchists, and that it has broad support among minarchists. Also, that all polls of LP members indicate that the overwhelming majority support limited government libertarianism and do not consider themselves anarchists, and that this has been the case since the beginning of the LP (David Nolan can confirm this).

The major losses I suffered in platform votes involved several planks I wanted to see added rather than planks passed that I opposed. I can easily name 10 significant disagreements I have of this sort (the most important is that I think there ought to be a plank opposing intellectual property claims that do not arise from contract). I must say that, by and large, I have not had any significant disagreements with what HAS earned the 2/3 support needed for a plank, and that I think it is a tribute to the platform that was developed over more than 30 years that changes took place only when there was a strong consensus. This is one reason I find the sudden disappearance of 80% of all that work in 2006 to be so disturbing: it is as if someone accidentally selected and deleted most of the platform, and I’ll be quite satisfied if we just hit the undo key and return to the disciplined process for updating that was thrown away.

CTRL-A, CTRL-X. Oops! CTRL-Z. Phew!

And then each of us should propose changes for the delegates to consider, and do our best to make good arguments as to how our approach best supports the non-aggression axiom every single one of us pledged to defend when we joined the dues paying party. I’ve said enough times that I know many pro-life minarchists I consider libertarian purists, and if you choose not to believe me, there is no point in my repeating myself. I repeat, there is no point in my repeating myself.

By the way, you are correct about my interval without activism, but I’ve been a Life Member of the LP since 1979, and have been receiving the newsletter continuously. I recall no attempted silencing of minarchists. I am willing to believe someone tried to silence you specifically, but that isn’t necessarily because you’re a minarchist.

I campaigned for office twice (once receiving 167,207 votes for California State Treasurer and qualifying the LP for permanent ballot status in the state). I never, but never, called for the abolition of government as an LP candidate, because I saw the Dallas Accord as a promise among friends to respect a coalition. When asked if I was an anarchist, I always replied, “If I were in favor of chaos, I’d be supporting the incumbent.” If pressed, I’d answer that most members of the LP believe that government should handle the courts, police, and national defense, but some of us believe that all the functions of government can be better provided on the free market, as food, shelter, health care, and other necessities are provided. I consider that a respectful acknowledgment of both the party position and my own. Ruwart often noted disagreement within the party even when the platform was in agreement with her views: I have never seen her address the abortion question without acknowledging that large numbers of LP members take the pro-life position.

Granted, in conversations with other libertarians, I often quip that minarchy is the theory that free market capitalism is best protected by a socialist monopoly, but you’ll note I also poke fun at myself as being an anti-life chaosist. I look forward to meeting you in May: you’ll discover what a brilliant, rational, pleasant guy I am (and modest, did I mention modest?).

I think the platform should simpley consist of our statement of self ownership-NAP principles, and nothing else. Leave the responsibility in the hands of nomination candidates to present solutions to the days issues within the context of our statement of principles. The challenge for our candidates will be to demonstrate how their proposed solutions are in line with libertarian party principles, leaving consistency or contradiction as the factor for determining pass/fail among party delegates.

The Lp platform “solutions” have served little more than leaving us all narrow minded and intollerant of not only the various schools of libertarian though, but each other as well.

Dump the “solutions”. Leave the statement of principles. Let our candidates debate it out. And may the best candidate win.

I’ve worked to hard over the last 15 years, bridging gaps, bringing people over into the fold, to be wondering from year to year, convention to convention, whether or not this is the year that the Lp will abandon me.

Mr. Holtz writes, “Alex, congratulations—by agreeing with Rothbard that it shouldn’t be a crime for parents to let their children starve, you may in fact have finally answered my question about what part of the 2004 platform you disagree with. It said: ‘Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.’ Do you think this language about a positive legal obligation should be in the LP Platform?”

Finally answered your question? I don’t recall you asking me about the 2004 platform before. Did I miss it?

I don’t mind it being there at all. Yes, I disagree with the notion that any positive obligation can exist without it being incurred through contractual agreement, so yes, I disagree with what the platform stated in ‘04. But, frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with including it in the platform.

You?

“If you’re right that Ruwart disagrees with you and Rothbard on whether it should be a crime for parents to let their children starve, then I’d sure like to know who Ruwart thinks would prosecute such crimes in Ruwarchotopia.”

I still think that’s a stupid word, ugly to look at, and unnecessarily hard to pronounce. Look, there’s a ‘T’ in “-topia” and a ‘T’ in “Ruwart.” Go ahead, make your life a little easier. (I grant you permission. ) (And yes, I am joking around with you, so please take it lightly. )

I encourage you to read The Market for Liberty by Linda & Morris Tannehill. It should be able to answer your question. If you wish to read other works on market anarchism afterwards, just let me know.

“Google finds 275 hits for ‘anarchotopia’, so I didn’t just make it up.”

Never said you made it up. I just think it sounds stupid, and had never heard it before.

Utopianism is for fools. Anyone who thinks anarchy—or minarchy—would be a utopia is just as deluded as the statists.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

Sir, I can’t figure out if you’re seriously appreciative or trying to be sarcastic. In either event, I did not “grant you permission,” I stated my opinion that you should be free to advocate whatever changes you like. If you are being sarcastic, I have to wonder what you could possibly think is bad about me standing up for your freedoms.

Back in 2006, when the platform was slashed, I was a minarchist. I was so upset by the slashing, I started a facebook group advocating a return of the 2004 platform.

Since I never claimed you supported keeping the 2006 platform, your claim that I used a straw-man was nothing more than a straw-man itself.

I have addressed in various places A) my opposition to Mr. Knapp’s “World’s Smallest Political Platform” proposal and B) my opposition to the leaving of the platform in its current state. I oppose both A and B very much, and hence why I have addressed both at various times.

“It’s simply false to say that ‘with the Dallas Accord both sides get what they want’. What ‘both sides want’ is to have veto power over any Platform language with which they have principled disagreement.”

How does the Dallas Accord prevent minarchists from removing planks they don’t like? It doesn’t.

“The Dallas Accord gives that veto power only to anarchists, and denies it to minarchists.”

A) How does it prevent minarchists from removing planks they don’t like?

B) If it’s true that it prevents minarchists from removing planks they don’t like, how was it that minarchists were successful in 2006 in gutting our platform? Clearly, they do possess the ability to remove planks in exactly the same way that anarchists can.

“I in fact say that you are in deviation from my pure libertarianism, but unlike you, I don’t demand that the the platform say that I’m right and you’re wrong.”

I don’t demand that the platform have even one word in it. I want it to contain words, and plenty of them. But where have I ever made such a demand?

“’Rent control’ is a red herring that I already diagnosed on TPW on April 9: ‘Your hypothetical about rent control is quite wide of the mark, as the 2008 draft plainly says “We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.”’”

We’re not talking about 2008, we’re talking about the entire future history of the party. How can we be sure that the platform, twenty years from now, doesn’t say, “Only heroin, cocain, crystal meth, and PCP should be illegal. Marijuana, especially for medical purposes, ought to be legalised”? I can think of only one way: a mutual accord between the anarchists and minarchists.

“1. Have you even read our draft?”

I have never commented on the pure-principles-platform positively or negatively. Maybe someday I’ll read it, but until then, I refuse to take a stance on it.

“2. What in your opinion is the most important libertarian principle that a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree is missing from it?”

Again, I do not wish to comment on it until I’ve read it.

“3. What in your opinion are the most important specific policy questions that a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree do not have any answer in it but should?”

Ditto.

“In a backhanded sort of way, it is indeed somewhat big-tent of you to grant permission for our candidates to ‘deviate’ from the Platform, but the permission is not yours to grant.”

It’s backhanded of me to do what I did not do? And you’re going to tell me it’s not my place to do what I’ve never even attempted to do?

Dude. Seriously. Calm down.

There is nothing back-handed about saying that, in my oh so humble opinion, it’s perfectly acceptable for candidates to deviate from the platform. If you do not think it’s acceptable for me to hold this opinion, then please explain to me why I should demand that everyone agree with me? Seriously, you’re not making a bit of sense.

The point I was driving at is that watering down the platform (DISCLAIMER: this is not a claim that you wish to water down the platform) would cause all sorts of problems for our ostensibly minarchist party because the one thing that unites us is our opposition to big government, and that any deviation in the platform that waters it down will surely upset one segment or another.

I brought up candidates for comparitive purposes. You see, in our minarchist party, it would be stupid to expect anarchism from candidates. Each one is bound to disagree with the next, and this is not only okay, it’s a sign of our ability to think freely and to stand up for our views. But candidates and platforms are different things, and must be treated differently.

I think this is logical.

I never claimed I had the power to “grant” anything to the candidates. My position is simply an opinion how to keep our party great and growing. Is it wrong for me to hold such opinions?

I need to go again. Still haven’t finished reading your response, sorry.

Alex

If you’re right that Ruwart disagrees with you and Rothbard on whether it should be a crime for parents to let their children starve, then I’d sure like to know who Ruwart thinks would prosecute such crimes in Ruwarchotopia.

Google finds 275 hits for ‘anarchotopia’, so I didn’t just make it up. Google finds mentions of it on Usenet as far back as 1992. My records show I first used it on Usenet in 1991, but I’d be surprised if my use was the first. It’s an obvious parallel construction to ‘libertopia’, which Google finds 9000 times on the web and on Usenet as far back as 1990.

I am greatly offended that Dr. Phillies thinks all Liburtariens should spell the party name his way. That’s a matter of personal choice! .......Peter Orvetti Says

Shhh! You can’t say playing with your kids, or some of the FBI Athletic Supporters here will think you are a child molester.

But, seriously, the reason to join is so your kids’ future does not suck.

I didn’t dodge the question. It stands to reason that if Ruwart indeed thinks it’s a crime to allow a foetus to die that could survive on life-support, it’s likely that she would say it is a crime to allow babies to die instead of putting them up for adoption. I personally would not agree with her position, assuming this is it, and instead I would agree with Rothbard’s more radical position.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Holtz?

I’ve gotta go, sorry,
Alex

Do people only argue? Why would I join a group like this if I could be playing with my kids?

The question of whether the LP Platform should have only the issue coverage of the amputated 2006 platform is an obvious strawman. Nobody is saying it should, and no such proposal is on the table. If you’re unwilling to address the choices that the delegates will actually face in Denver, do you really think the TPW audience won’t notice?

It’s simply false to say that “with the Dallas Accord both sides get what they want”. What “both sides want” is to have veto power over any Platform language with which they have principled disagreement. The Dallas Accord gives that veto power only to anarchists, and denies it to minarchists. The Dallas Accord lets people like you say that people like me are in “deviation” from optimal “pure” libertarianism. That’s no “Accord”. I in fact say that you are in deviation from my pure libertarianism, but unlike you, I don’t demand that the the platform say that I’m right and you’re wrong. A true accord—a Denver Accord—would be a Platform that doesn’t allow your or me to call each other impure or deviant. What’s so wrong with that?

“Rent control” is a red herring that I already diagnosed on TPW on April 9: “Your hypothetical about rent control is quite wide of the mark, as the 2008 draft plainly says ‘We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.’” Are you going to be punching that strawman all the way to Denver? I ask you again:

1. Have you even read our draft? http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform

2. What in your opinion is the most important libertarian principle that a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree is missing from it?

3. What in your opinion are the most important specific policy questions that a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree do not have any answer in it but should?

In a backhanded sort of way, it is indeed somewhat big-tent of you to grant permission for our candidates to “deviate” from the Platform, but the permission is not yours to grant. Our bylaws require our Presidential ticket to support our Platform, period.

Less tells us that Ruwart has the most comprehensive and plumbline oeuvre of any LP candidate, but you’re probably right that she’s never answered the tough question of whether the LP platform should not choose between pro-choice and pro-life. I’ll bet you $100 she doesn’t think it shouldn’t be silent. Her views about “moral obligations” are irrelevant; she’s not running for Pope. What counts is 1) what she wants the laws/rules to be, and 2) what she wants our Platform to say the laws/rules should be. We all wish that force-initiation didn’t exist and that the strong never preyed on the weak and that rational self-interested agents didn’t tend to consume/congest/pollute the commons and that every child had a pony. Nobody can be accused of “deviation” on that question.

I notice that you completely dodged the tough question of whether there would be any law or rule to prevent parents from letting their children starve in Ruwarchotopia. If you don’t like the name “Ruwarchotopia”, complain to Less. He’s the one that bought the domain name ruwarchy.com. Ruwarchotopia is a straightforward analogy to the standard term anarchotopia.

To say I’m “trashing” Ruwart or trying to “purge” her is just a clumsy smear against me. I’m just quoting what she says, and asking what it means. You’re the one who’s been telling us that Ruwart’s oeuvre is so comprehensive and so “plumbline”. But when I ask you a straightforward question about whether she’s one of those libertarians who she says “generally believe that parents do not have a duty to support their offspring”, you smear me. Can you tell us how you think she should/would answer this “tough question”, or not? The 2004 Platform said “Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.” Do you endorse this anti-Rothbardian language?

For the record, I have never EVER advocated “purging” anybody. I have ALWAYS advocated ecumenicism in the LP. However, unlike you and Alex, I don’t just say that those who disagree with me can pay their dues as long as they don’t introduce “deviation” into the Platform.

Your statement that “anarchists never, but never, tried to shut minarchists up” is simply uninformed. My impression is that until the last year you had been on a 10- or 20-year break from LP activism, and it shows. Even if you’ve forgotten Rothbard’s bitter and vicious attacks that ended up driving out the Cato minarchists (http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1980/1980_09-12.pdf), there are more recent things you should be aware of. A member of the LPCA ExCom, who has also been a member of the LPUS Judicial Committee, privately warned me in 2004 that some of my campaign positions constitute a violation of the Pledge, and that as a candidate I’m not allowed to “proactively oppose” any platform plank, but may merely express disagreement if specifically asked. I’ve also had a member of the LPCA Judicial Committee publicly suggest that some of my positions are in violation of my membership Pledge. And just this year I was in the room when someone who is currently on the LNC announced at our county convention that anybody who disagrees with the 2004 platform should ask himself whether he’s in the right party.

So please don’t try to tell me with one breath nobody has “tried to shut minarchists up” with one breath, while claiming I’m “purging” people with the next. That dog won’t hunt.

I wonder if Keyes’s experience with the CP will play any role in Barr’s deliberations about whether or not to enter the race?

Mary Ruwart, candidate for the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential nomination, will appear on Steve Kubby’s Blog Talk Radio program. Monday, April 28th, at 6pm Pacific.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stevekubbyshow

Likely topic of discussion: Exactly what you’d expect.

Every plank in the platform required a 2/3 vote, did it not? And I was often on the losing side of platform votes, including votes at the recent California convention. And I’m still a member, even though a bare majority of the smallest LP convention since 1973 deleted 80% of the platform, perhaps accidentally by some. And anarchists never, but never, tried to shut minarchists up. And virtually every nominee has been a minarchist, and received my vote. And I consider David Nolan a purist, though he rejects anarchism. And this conspiracy of powerful anarchists trying to undo the 2006 gutting was started by Mr. Nolan, and includes minarchists Phillies and Smith (and Hess and Kubby, whose views I don’t know).

And of all the people for you to trash, Mary Ruwart, who supported Ron Paul in 1988 AND 2007 and ran the Unity 88 campaign to keep the LP together during the divisive battle between Paul and Russell Means and who has never once campaigned as an anarchist or on a position that contradicted the platform, is the least deserving.

Look, I realize you tried to run the ship properly while they fought you at every turn, but the anarchists didn’t steal your strawberries. Redpath is right in saying anarchists are a minority, and we have always been accepted at the pleasure of the minarchists. Fortunately, too many still treat us as friends for this to end. Please stop trying to purge people in the name of a big tent.