Comments on: Open letter from Angela Keaton regarding a proposed LNC resolution http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/ Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:46:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: areredstuden http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-735392 Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:19:54 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-735392 house university see frog girl minor red house university see frog girl minor red

]]>
by: sungogonovac http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-709043 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:20:05 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-709043 see all land stone university tom right boat canada see all land stone university tom right boat canada

]]>
by: Jim Davidson http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593609 Mon, 05 May 2008 22:36:38 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593609 I think it is called "the Peter principle." A person rises to the level of his own incompetence. Dismantling the national LP structure would be a mistake, in my opinion. We have now a lovely tar baby where all those who crave power within a national political party go and seek influence. If we destroyed it, we'd have a much harder time keeping track of the @sshats. You might make an analogy with a double agent. Once you find a mole within your group, you don't want to kill him, as much as he might deserve death. You want to surround him with sources of information and feed him carefully programmed falsehoods. Besides, if dedicated private property enthusiasts destroyed the LP national, the anti-freedom types would simply create it again. I think it is called “the Peter principle.” A person rises to the level of his own incompetence.

Dismantling the national LP structure would be a mistake, in my opinion. We have now a lovely tar baby where all those who crave power within a national political party go and seek influence. If we destroyed it, we’d have a much harder time keeping track of the @sshats.

You might make an analogy with a double agent. Once you find a mole within your group, you don’t want to kill him, as much as he might deserve death. You want to surround him with sources of information and feed him carefully programmed falsehoods.

Besides, if dedicated private property enthusiasts destroyed the LP national, the anti-freedom types would simply create it again.

]]>
by: Andrew http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593445 Mon, 05 May 2008 20:34:20 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593445 Just goes to show how important it is to strangle these babes in the cradle, figuratively speaking of course. I sometimes think we'd make more progress dismantling national and focusing on unelecting opposition party candidates rather than wasting our time promoting these hacks. Okay, I'm done venting. Just goes to show how important it is to strangle these babes in the cradle, figuratively speaking of course.

I sometimes think we’d make more progress dismantling national and focusing on unelecting opposition party candidates rather than wasting our time promoting these hacks.

Okay, I’m done venting.

]]>
by: Andrew http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593441 Mon, 05 May 2008 20:31:57 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593441 Oh, and I know of Andrew Davis from down here as well. How is it that these people have a couple flashes in the pan and end up at HQ? Don't we usually require national folks to have a solid record before we send them to HQ to destroy the party? Oh, and I know of Andrew Davis from down here as well.

How is it that these people have a couple flashes in the pan and end up at HQ?

Don’t we usually require national folks to have a solid record before we send them to HQ to destroy the party?

]]>
by: Andrew http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593433 Mon, 05 May 2008 20:29:39 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593433 I don't know Flood, I haven't been active for a couple years, but I believe he managed to fail upwards between the time I laid off and now that I've started paying attention again (partly due to Ron Paul thank you very much). I have a lot of respect for Dr. Woolsey, and even more now. However, if throwing out divisive press releases and inconsequential issues just to divide the party is the "incrementalists" idea of incrementalism. Well, count me as a vote for Ruwart, as in a vote against the "national shoot our selves in the feet, but we are running out of feet to shoot committee." I don’t know Flood, I haven’t been active for a couple years, but I believe he managed to fail upwards between the time I laid off and now that I’ve started paying attention again (partly due to Ron Paul thank you very much).

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Woolsey, and even more now.

However, if throwing out divisive press releases and inconsequential issues just to divide the party is the “incrementalists” idea of incrementalism. Well, count me as a vote for Ruwart, as in a vote against the “national shoot our selves in the feet, but we are running out of feet to shoot committee.”

]]>
by: Jim Davidson http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593432 Mon, 05 May 2008 20:29:38 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593432 I apologize for the digression in the Antman/Peak/Holtz controversy about whether Rothbard was okay. I do agree with Rothbard that legal compulsion is not libertarian. Why doesn't Holtz? Parents should feed their children, and, in my experience, do. But why should they be legally compelled to do so? How does pointing a gun at someone's head help? I'm mystified. I apologize for the digression in the Antman/Peak/Holtz controversy about whether Rothbard was okay.

I do agree with Rothbard that legal compulsion is not libertarian. Why doesn’t Holtz? Parents should feed their children, and, in my experience, do. But why should they be legally compelled to do so? How does pointing a gun at someone’s head help? I’m mystified.

]]>
by: Jim Davidson http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593419 Mon, 05 May 2008 20:23:31 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-593419 The FBI should be abolished, and the tank drivers from 1993 should be indicted (convicted, and publicly executed by burning, in my opinion). I spoke with that @sshat Andrew Davis today to compose an essay for the Libertarian Enterprise on this matter. Apparently, he cites the commerce clause of the USA constitution to justify any government action in any area. What a jerk. I join Neil Smith's call for this scum to be removed from the LP headquarters staff. I suggest a permanent statement be added to Shane Cory and Andrew Davis's files indicating that they are not libertarians, to be forwarded when prospective employers seek references. The FBI should be abolished, and the tank drivers from 1993 should be indicted (convicted, and publicly executed by burning, in my opinion).

I spoke with that @sshat Andrew Davis today to compose an essay for the Libertarian Enterprise on this matter. Apparently, he cites the commerce clause of the USA constitution to justify any government action in any area. What a jerk. I join Neil Smith’s call for this scum to be removed from the LP headquarters staff. I suggest a permanent statement be added to Shane Cory and Andrew Davis’s files indicating that they are not libertarians, to be forwarded when prospective employers seek references.

]]>
by: Yank http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-589834 Fri, 02 May 2008 19:43:16 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-589834 Brian, if I sign one of your things, can I touch your ass? Brian, if I sign one of your things, can I touch your ass?

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-588840 Thu, 01 May 2008 22:15:04 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-588840 <a href="http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#HeatPollution" rel="nofollow">Heat pollution</a>? <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/1290" rel="nofollow">Applying Hansonian futarchy to negative externalities</a>? OK, now this is getting spooky. This thread needs to stop now, before some kind of irreversible Vulcan mind meld occurs. Heat pollution? Applying Hansonian futarchy to negative externalities? OK, now this is getting spooky. This thread needs to stop now, before some kind of irreversible Vulcan mind meld occurs.

]]>
by: Less Antman http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-588625 Thu, 01 May 2008 18:48:00 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-588625 Planes leaves in a few minutes. I guess you're turning down my bet. I think the Rothbardian/Austrian influence will decline as well, and totally agree about the ascendancy of GMU-trained radicals. I think we will see consequentialist market anarchism based more on neo-classical economics become the dominant force in the movement (I think Hanson's work on the use of futures for terrorism, obviously modifiable for climate change, needs to be brought into LP discussions, but so far I've found that I can't mention either global warming or heat pollution without LP members starting their "hoax" speech without listening to my point about futures contracts being a way to keep both sides happy with a market solution). I think you're parsing inappropriately on Hamas, Hezbollah, charity, but no time to argue the point. Boarding. Planes leaves in a few minutes. I guess you’re turning down my bet. I think the Rothbardian/Austrian influence will decline as well, and totally agree about the ascendancy of GMU-trained radicals. I think we will see consequentialist market anarchism based more on neo-classical economics become the dominant force in the movement (I think Hanson’s work on the use of futures for terrorism, obviously modifiable for climate change, needs to be brought into LP discussions, but so far I’ve found that I can’t mention either global warming or heat pollution without LP members starting their “hoax” speech without listening to my point about futures contracts being a way to keep both sides happy with a market solution).

I think you’re parsing inappropriately on Hamas, Hezbollah, charity, but no time to argue the point. Boarding.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-588485 Thu, 01 May 2008 17:11:53 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-588485 Less, it seems you are conflating protection-via-alms and protection-via-defensive-force. Until the Red Cross starts kicking in doors and punishing aggressors, I'm not buying that set of alleged counter-examples. You didn't tell me what other defense agency is competing for Hamas' customers, so it still doesn't yet count as a counter-example. And instead of saying Hezbollah is "a clear example of a typical legitimate government", I in fact said the opposite: I said that Lebanon has been a poster child for why anarchy doesn't work. If your argument for anarchism in America is that it works in Lebanon, well, we're done here. :-) My point remains that the median gang in the history of organized crime has not provided guarantees of rights enforcement that are in any way comparable to what we enjoy here in what is, despite all its flaws, the most wildly successful minarchist experiment in human history. Canaries can live or die for reasons other than what you bring them into the mine shaft to check, and unlike the Ehrlich/Simon basket of commodities, the canaries in question here have ears. I don't know how to make a bet out of it, but let's meet at the LP convention of 2030 and debate whether the influence of Rothbard and Austrianism has increased or decreased between now and then. Good news: one of the GMU economists I named dropped a "thanks for the compliment" comment under my cross-posting of my above analysis at my more.libertarianintelligence.com archive. Now that I know he gets a feed of his mentions in the blogosphere, I'll try to judiciously drop his name some more to encourage interest in the LP. As a long-time member, can you speculate as honestly as possible on why you think self-identified libertarians in academia and the biggest mainstream libertarian institutions (Cato, Reason) so assiduously ignore the LP? My default theory is because of 1) what you guys in the previous Radical Caucus did to such folks in the early 1980s and 2) the extremism that has ever since echoed in the LP Platform and membership. In an interview this winter with Angela Keaton, it was pretty clear that Eric Garris is now somewhat contrite over the schism. It just boggles my mind that radicals don't consider it a top priority to unite the freedom movement under the LP umbrella, but instead all I see from LP/LvMI radicals are vicious attacks on the Cato Institute and "cosmopolitan" libertarians. Dogmatists tend to prefer fighting heretics over fighting infidels, apparently because 99% agreement is the worst possible crime, as a 1% heretic is more likely to defile the vestal virgins than any infidel. :-) Less, it seems you are conflating protection-via-alms and protection-via-defensive-force. Until the Red Cross starts kicking in doors and punishing aggressors, I’m not buying that set of alleged counter-examples.

You didn’t tell me what other defense agency is competing for Hamas’ customers, so it still doesn’t yet count as a counter-example. And instead of saying Hezbollah is “a clear example of a typical legitimate government”, I in fact said the opposite: I said that Lebanon has been a poster child for why anarchy doesn’t work. If your argument for anarchism in America is that it works in Lebanon, well, we’re done here. :-) My point remains that the median gang in the history of organized crime has not provided guarantees of rights enforcement that are in any way comparable to what we enjoy here in what is, despite all its flaws, the most wildly successful minarchist experiment in human history.

Canaries can live or die for reasons other than what you bring them into the mine shaft to check, and unlike the Ehrlich/Simon basket of commodities, the canaries in question here have ears. I don’t know how to make a bet out of it, but let’s meet at the LP convention of 2030 and debate whether the influence of Rothbard and Austrianism has increased or decreased between now and then.

Good news: one of the GMU economists I named dropped a “thanks for the compliment” comment under my cross-posting of my above analysis at my more.libertarianintelligence.com archive. Now that I know he gets a feed of his mentions in the blogosphere, I’ll try to judiciously drop his name some more to encourage interest in the LP.

As a long-time member, can you speculate as honestly as possible on why you think self-identified libertarians in academia and the biggest mainstream libertarian institutions (Cato, Reason) so assiduously ignore the LP? My default theory is because of 1) what you guys in the previous Radical Caucus did to such folks in the early 1980s and 2) the extremism that has ever since echoed in the LP Platform and membership. In an interview this winter with Angela Keaton, it was pretty clear that Eric Garris is now somewhat contrite over the schism. It just boggles my mind that radicals don’t consider it a top priority to unite the freedom movement under the LP umbrella, but instead all I see from LP/LvMI radicals are vicious attacks on the Cato Institute and “cosmopolitan” libertarians. Dogmatists tend to prefer fighting heretics over fighting infidels, apparently because 99% agreement is the worst possible crime, as a 1% heretic is more likely to defile the vestal virgins than any infidel. :-)

]]>
by: Less Antman http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-587908 Thu, 01 May 2008 08:38:02 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-587908 Well, if you're going to deny that Hamas and Hezbollah were good examples of extra-legal protection rackets that had extensive humanitarian operations in areas with formal governments that represented the "legal" authority, I don't think I can make much headway with you. If you think Hezbollah has been a clear example of a typical legitimate government throughout its humanitarian history, so be it. My other examples were on the broader point that there are plenty of organizations that provide child protection services without charging the child, and that we (neither being Objectivists) know that compassion is widely present in society and that the desire for legitimacy is a motivating force for many activities of non-profit organizations (both governmental and non-governmental). I would love to add to your excellent list of economists: I'd add Ben Powell, Ed Stringham, and Peter Leeson without a second thought, and others (anarchists and minarchists) with more time, but both of us need to end this discussion for the time being as we both work for a living. I read all the sites you mentioned,and Cafe Hayek and Liberty &#38; Power, for intelligent discussions based on consequential arguments. As my life energy is limited, I plan to devote it to writing and speaking on behalf of libertarianism with the idea of using my persuasive skills with people less committed to libertarianism than you, and I was warned by former members that anyone who joins the Platform Committee ought to have his head examined, as it is a thankless and frustrating job. Care to disagree? I don't know Alex Peak well enough, but I'm willing to offer a bet of $5,000 that Chuck Moulton will consider himself an anarchist in May 2013 (not a geolibertarian or minarchist), and a separate bet of $10,000 that he will so consider himself in May 2018. You win if he claims to be either a minarchist or a Georgist. Loser is given the choice of making payment to either the LP or to a tax-deductible libertarian organization selected by the winner. If Chuck says he can't choose from the three options, we each contribute half the bet amount as designated by the other. Chuck is a pragmatic radical, and I believe his further training and self-education will make him more comfortable with market anarchism rather than less as time progresses. As an aside, he is also one of the most decent and honorable people I know in the party, committed to working with everyone, and if he is the chair in 5 or 10 years, I think it will be a great boon to the LP. Now it's your turn to suck up to him to win the bet. Thanks for the conversation. My flight leaves in the morning, so you'll get the last word (I'll check later on whether you accepted the bet, sometime after my attendance at the dinner to honor Marshall Fritz on Saturday night in Atlanta: info at http://www.theadvocates.org/marshall-celebration.html about one of the most important activists in the modern history of the movement). So, do we have a bet, Mr. Ehrlich? Best wishes, Julian Well, if you’re going to deny that Hamas and Hezbollah were good examples of extra-legal protection rackets that had extensive humanitarian operations in areas with formal governments that represented the “legal” authority, I don’t think I can make much headway with you. If you think Hezbollah has been a clear example of a typical legitimate government throughout its humanitarian history, so be it.

My other examples were on the broader point that there are plenty of organizations that provide child protection services without charging the child, and that we (neither being Objectivists) know that compassion is widely present in society and that the desire for legitimacy is a motivating force for many activities of non-profit organizations (both governmental and non-governmental).

I would love to add to your excellent list of economists: I’d add Ben Powell, Ed Stringham, and Peter Leeson without a second thought, and others (anarchists and minarchists) with more time, but both of us need to end this discussion for the time being as we both work for a living. I read all the sites you mentioned,and Cafe Hayek and Liberty & Power, for intelligent discussions based on consequential arguments.

As my life energy is limited, I plan to devote it to writing and speaking on behalf of libertarianism with the idea of using my persuasive skills with people less committed to libertarianism than you, and I was warned by former members that anyone who joins the Platform Committee ought to have his head examined, as it is a thankless and frustrating job. Care to disagree?

I don’t know Alex Peak well enough, but I’m willing to offer a bet of $5,000 that Chuck Moulton will consider himself an anarchist in May 2013 (not a geolibertarian or minarchist), and a separate bet of $10,000 that he will so consider himself in May 2018. You win if he claims to be either a minarchist or a Georgist. Loser is given the choice of making payment to either the LP or to a tax-deductible libertarian organization selected by the winner. If Chuck says he can’t choose from the three options, we each contribute half the bet amount as designated by the other. Chuck is a pragmatic radical, and I believe his further training and self-education will make him more comfortable with market anarchism rather than less as time progresses.

As an aside, he is also one of the most decent and honorable people I know in the party, committed to working with everyone, and if he is the chair in 5 or 10 years, I think it will be a great boon to the LP. Now it’s your turn to suck up to him to win the bet.

Thanks for the conversation. My flight leaves in the morning, so you’ll get the last word (I’ll check later on whether you accepted the bet, sometime after my attendance at the dinner to honor Marshall Fritz on Saturday night in Atlanta: info at http://www.theadvocates.org/marshall-celebration.html about one of the most important activists in the modern history of the movement).

So, do we have a bet, Mr. Ehrlich?

Best wishes,

Julian

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-587646 Thu, 01 May 2008 04:21:20 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-587646 Less, I seek out and try to answer the strongest arguments I can find against my positions, but sometimes my silence means neither agreement nor a judgment that an argument isn't worth answering, but rather just that as a full-time engineer and father of three young kids I have finite time. :-) However, your arguments are indeed some of the best I've seen, and I'm going to enjoy debating with you. For example, your answer to my Fairy Godfather argument is good enough to warrant a response. :-) To wit: 1) I'm very skeptical that Hamas is not state-like in having effective monopolies on the semi-formal use of retaliatory force in the relevant "market". What other defense agency can plausibly be said to be competing for its customers? My impression is that Hamas is effectively a state, and that Hezbollah's Lebanon is a poster child for my arguments, not yours. 2) You'll have to give me evidence of systematic pro bono "services of godfathers to vulnerable people in need in their areas of influence". I too have seen the Godfather trilogy, but I'm not going to take your word for it that the median gang in the history of organized crime has provided guarantees of rights enforcement that are in any way comparable to what we enjoy here in what is, despite all its flaws, the most wildly successful minarchist experiment in human history. Your burden of proof is as a result incredibly high, and that's why I advise anarchists to make radical decentralism be their common strategic ground with us minarchists. There is simply no way that you're ever going to convince this entire nation to push a big anarchism button in our nation's capital.. In Somalia or Lebanon maybe, but not here. 3) Charitable agencies don't count as defense agencies. If you call a tail a leg, that doesn't mean you have a five-legged dog. Anarcholibertarian theory needs to correctly predict that defense agencies will reliably act charitably, and it's pretty much hand-waving to say that all these charitable agencies are just itching to compete with the Gottis and Gambinos if only the State would let them. These agencies are *already* just as free as the Gottis and Gambinos to ignore the State's monopoly on the semi-formal use of retaliatory force, and yet as far as I know none of them ever do. Still, very good stuff -- a better argument than I was expecting. It's rare that I encounter an argument whose rebuttal I can't just cut and paste from my oeuvre, but you made me write three brand-new paragraphs here. That was fun! :-) I have vastly more respect for David Friedman than I do for Murray Rothbard -- not only for his worldview, but also for his intellectual honesty and his personal character and even for the quality of the people who agree with him. Aside from young Mr. Peak, I've found that the average quality of debate offered by the LP's self-described Rothbardians to be conveniently poor -- especially compared to the quality of thinking by academic Rothbardians and Austrians outside the LP. I'll go way out on an indefensible limb and predict right now that I think the future of intellectual libertarianism lies not with the dogmatic Austrians at the Mises Institute, or with the venerable Chicago School and their CosmoLibertarian nephews at Cato and Reason, but rather with the dynamic and open-minded EconLibertarians of the "Virginia School" at George Mason University. Friedman is sort of a prototype of their style, but I'm thinking specifically of Bryan Caplan, Dan Klein, Alex Tabarrok, Robin Hanson, Arnold Kling, and -- my favorite of them all, but also by far the most deontological -- the geolibertarian Fred Foldvary. Every LP intellectual should be reading the best GMU blogs (originally Marginal Revolution, now Overcoming Bias and EconLog), but it's apparent that few if any are. The Virginia School has quite simply evolved and transcended beyond the deontologies of Rothbardianism and Austrian Economics, and the only real question (for one as optimistic as I about the long-term power of correct ideas) is how long it will take the LP to catch up. I'm guessing two to three decades, as this is very nearly a Kuhnian paradigm shift that, alas, might have to wait until the Rockbardian generation is retired or dead. I predict that the Rockbardian/Austrian influence on the LP will attenuate as drastically over the next quarter century as the Objectivist influence has done over the previous. Any set of ideas that rigid and dogmatic either has to thoroughly conquer the relevant community during the first intellectual generation, or else it's never going to. Two canaries in our mineshaft to watch are the newly-minted Rothbardian Alex Peak, and anarchist LP Vice Chair Chuck Moulton, who is beginning the PhD program at George Mason. I hope that I'm not hereby causing an Uncertainty Principle effect, but I predict that within 5-10 years neither will be as radical as they are now -- or at least will be geoanarchists. As for acknowledging strong arguments, I have no problem admitting that I've faced a lot of them from a few radicals like Tom Knapp and Starchild and Daniel Grow, and I'm happy to add you and Alex to that stable. :-) Give me Jon Roland and Bob Capozzi and we'll take on all five of you in the next PlatCom -- deal? :-) In general, you can assume that if somebody can engage in a reasonably detailed running debate with me without getting indignant or dismissive, that's a strong clue that I would credit them with having reasonably defensible arguments -- and the inverse inference can be taken to the bank. :-) OK, cue a puerile innuendo from the troll gallery, which will at least reassure us we still have an audience... Less, I seek out and try to answer the strongest arguments I can find against my positions, but sometimes my silence means neither agreement nor a judgment that an argument isn’t worth answering, but rather just that as a full-time engineer and father of three young kids I have finite time. :-) However, your arguments are indeed some of the best I’ve seen, and I’m going to enjoy debating with you.

For example, your answer to my Fairy Godfather argument is good enough to warrant a response. :-) To wit:

1) I’m very skeptical that Hamas is not state-like in having effective monopolies on the semi-formal use of retaliatory force in the relevant “market”. What other defense agency can plausibly be said to be competing for its customers? My impression is that Hamas is effectively a state, and that Hezbollah’s Lebanon is a poster child for my arguments, not yours.

2) You’ll have to give me evidence of systematic pro bono “services of godfathers to vulnerable people in need in their areas of influence”. I too have seen the Godfather trilogy, but I’m not going to take your word for it that the median gang in the history of organized crime has provided guarantees of rights enforcement that are in any way comparable to what we enjoy here in what is, despite all its flaws, the most wildly successful minarchist experiment in human history. Your burden of proof is as a result incredibly high, and that’s why I advise anarchists to make radical decentralism be their common strategic ground with us minarchists. There is simply no way that you’re ever going to convince this entire nation to push a big anarchism button in our nation’s capital.. In Somalia or Lebanon maybe, but not here.

3) Charitable agencies don’t count as defense agencies. If you call a tail a leg, that doesn’t mean you have a five-legged dog. Anarcholibertarian theory needs to correctly predict that defense agencies will reliably act charitably, and it’s pretty much hand-waving to say that all these charitable agencies are just itching to compete with the Gottis and Gambinos if only the State would let them. These agencies are already just as free as the Gottis and Gambinos to ignore the State’s monopoly on the semi-formal use of retaliatory force, and yet as far as I know none of them ever do.

Still, very good stuff—a better argument than I was expecting. It’s rare that I encounter an argument whose rebuttal I can’t just cut and paste from my oeuvre, but you made me write three brand-new paragraphs here. That was fun! :-)

I have vastly more respect for David Friedman than I do for Murray Rothbard—not only for his worldview, but also for his intellectual honesty and his personal character and even for the quality of the people who agree with him. Aside from young Mr. Peak, I’ve found that the average quality of debate offered by the LP’s self-described Rothbardians to be conveniently poor—especially compared to the quality of thinking by academic Rothbardians and Austrians outside the LP.

I’ll go way out on an indefensible limb and predict right now that I think the future of intellectual libertarianism lies not with the dogmatic Austrians at the Mises Institute, or with the venerable Chicago School and their CosmoLibertarian nephews at Cato and Reason, but rather with the dynamic and open-minded EconLibertarians of the “Virginia School” at George Mason University. Friedman is sort of a prototype of their style, but I’m thinking specifically of Bryan Caplan, Dan Klein, Alex Tabarrok, Robin Hanson, Arnold Kling, and—my favorite of them all, but also by far the most deontological—the geolibertarian Fred Foldvary. Every LP intellectual should be reading the best GMU blogs (originally Marginal Revolution, now Overcoming Bias and EconLog), but it’s apparent that few if any are. The Virginia School has quite simply evolved and transcended beyond the deontologies of Rothbardianism and Austrian Economics, and the only real question (for one as optimistic as I about the long-term power of correct ideas) is how long it will take the LP to catch up. I’m guessing two to three decades, as this is very nearly a Kuhnian paradigm shift that, alas, might have to wait until the Rockbardian generation is retired or dead. I predict that the Rockbardian/Austrian influence on the LP will attenuate as drastically over the next quarter century as the Objectivist influence has done over the previous. Any set of ideas that rigid and dogmatic either has to thoroughly conquer the relevant community during the first intellectual generation, or else it’s never going to.

Two canaries in our mineshaft to watch are the newly-minted Rothbardian Alex Peak, and anarchist LP Vice Chair Chuck Moulton, who is beginning the PhD program at George Mason. I hope that I’m not hereby causing an Uncertainty Principle effect, but I predict that within 5-10 years neither will be as radical as they are now—or at least will be geoanarchists.

As for acknowledging strong arguments, I have no problem admitting that I’ve faced a lot of them from a few radicals like Tom Knapp and Starchild and Daniel Grow, and I’m happy to add you and Alex to that stable. :-) Give me Jon Roland and Bob Capozzi and we’ll take on all five of you in the next PlatCom—deal? :-) In general, you can assume that if somebody can engage in a reasonably detailed running debate with me without getting indignant or dismissive, that’s a strong clue that I would credit them with having reasonably defensible arguments—and the inverse inference can be taken to the bank. :-)

OK, cue a puerile innuendo from the troll gallery, which will at least reassure us we still have an audience…

]]>
by: Less Antman http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-587350 Thu, 01 May 2008 00:26:30 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/open-letter-from-angela-keaton-regarding-a-proposed-lnc-resolution/#comment-587350 Brian Holtz says: Less, I don’t traffic in uncharitable readings, because I don’t like getting corrected. Ever. :-) ----- Just the quality we need to encourage in order to build a society based on cooperation, compassion, and mutual respect. ;) I've never read the Ethics of Liberty. I read For A New Liberty and found his discussion of national defense completely unconvincing and borderline frivolous at times (as I mentioned, David Friedman was more persuasive, and I benefited from extensive personal discussions with both David himself when he lived in LA and with Jeffrey Rogers Hummel when he was my roommate). I was very fond of Murray, and he wrote many nice things about me during my first turn of activism in the early 1980s, but I think the best libertarian primers were written by Ruwart and Friedman, and neither used rights-based arguments in their books. Once again, I think it important to acknowledge that radicals come in many flavors, just as do reformers (and that the two categories can and should overlap). It is the sincere attempt to apply the NAP to each situation that earns my respect, and not agreement on all conclusions. In any event, I think Rothbard is sidestepping some of the key issues, and having read his chapter now, I'd say your reading was not uncharitable in this circumstance. I hope you're happy. Rothbard does, of course, offer solid arguments about the state's interference in adoption and the great danger of a monopoly state using the parental neglect argument to seize control of children (again, we must consider who are the dominant real world rights violators in making a consequentialist choice among alternatives to minimize aggression), which are among the reasons you and I disagree on that other matter. By the way, I'm trying to figure you out from your writing, and at this stage it appears that you have as much trouble acknowledging the strong arguments of others as you do being corrected. So I shall assume that all uncontradicted statements of mine represent ringing endorsement on your part, and that you think I'm basically a pretty sensible guy. Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. :) Brian Holtz says:

Less, I don’t traffic in uncharitable readings, because I don’t like getting corrected. Ever. :-)
——-

Just the quality we need to encourage in order to build a society based on cooperation, compassion, and mutual respect. ;)

I’ve never read the Ethics of Liberty. I read For A New Liberty and found his discussion of national defense completely unconvincing and borderline frivolous at times (as I mentioned, David Friedman was more persuasive, and I benefited from extensive personal discussions with both David himself when he lived in LA and with Jeffrey Rogers Hummel when he was my roommate). I was very fond of Murray, and he wrote many nice things about me during my first turn of activism in the early 1980s, but I think the best libertarian primers were written by Ruwart and Friedman, and neither used rights-based arguments in their books. Once again, I think it important to acknowledge that radicals come in many flavors, just as do reformers (and that the two categories can and should overlap). It is the sincere attempt to apply the NAP to each situation that earns my respect, and not agreement on all conclusions.

In any event, I think Rothbard is sidestepping some of the key issues, and having read his chapter now, I’d say your reading was not uncharitable in this circumstance. I hope you’re happy.

Rothbard does, of course, offer solid arguments about the state’s interference in adoption and the great danger of a monopoly state using the parental neglect argument to seize control of children (again, we must consider who are the dominant real world rights violators in making a consequentialist choice among alternatives to minimize aggression), which are among the reasons you and I disagree on that other matter.

By the way, I’m trying to figure you out from your writing, and at this stage it appears that you have as much trouble acknowledging the strong arguments of others as you do being corrected. So I shall assume that all uncontradicted statements of mine represent ringing endorsement on your part, and that you think I’m basically a pretty sensible guy. Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. :)

]]>