Comments on: LP Photoshop of the day http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:37:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Starchild http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-591248 Sun, 04 May 2008 01:20:16 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-591248 Brian, You ask me, "Why would a radical state-force-abolitionist party want to use the name 'Libertarian?'" and not call ourselves the Anarchist Party or some other name. Because, not all of us radical libertarians are anarchists, even though you seem to keep wanting to suggest that we are. A significant minority, if not a majority, of us favor having small, limited governments to protect life, liberty, and property. Many moderate and conservative-leaning people in the freedom movement have long chafed at the word "libertarian," claiming it sounds like "libertine," "liberal," etc. And we radicals are the ones who are more insistent that our party and movement be based on the Non-Aggression Principle, the right to live your life as you choose so long as it does not involve initiating force or fraud against others. That concept is very closely tied with libertarianism -- some would even argue that concept *is* libertarianism. I don't see people like Cato, Reason, Ron Paul, Chicago School economists, constitutionalists, etc., making strong attempts to claim the word "libertarian" as their own. It is sometimes used to describe them, but other terms are often used as well, such as "conservative" or "free market," and I haven't heard them objecting much (I suppose Reason might object to "conservative" more than the others, but I also think they tend to be more radical than the others). So if we split, it would seem to make more sense for the radical party to be called the Libertarian Party. I'm not saying we *should* split, but I thought Carl's idea worth discussing. Brian,

You ask me, “Why would a radical state-force-abolitionist party want to use the name ‘Libertarian?’” and not call ourselves the Anarchist Party or some other name.

Because, not all of us radical libertarians are anarchists, even though you seem to keep wanting to suggest that we are. A significant minority, if not a majority, of us favor having small, limited governments to protect life, liberty, and property.

Many moderate and conservative-leaning people in the freedom movement have long chafed at the word “libertarian,” claiming it sounds like “libertine,” “liberal,” etc.

And we radicals are the ones who are more insistent that our party and movement be based on the Non-Aggression Principle, the right to live your life as you choose so long as it does not involve initiating force or fraud against others. That concept is very closely tied with libertarianism—some would even argue that concept is libertarianism.

I don’t see people like Cato, Reason, Ron Paul, Chicago School economists, constitutionalists, etc., making strong attempts to claim the word “libertarian” as their own. It is sometimes used to describe them, but other terms are often used as well, such as “conservative” or “free market,” and I haven’t heard them objecting much (I suppose Reason might object to “conservative” more than the others, but I also think they tend to be more radical than the others).

So if we split, it would seem to make more sense for the radical party to be called the Libertarian Party. I’m not saying we should split, but I thought Carl’s idea worth discussing.

]]>
by: Less Antman http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590422 Sat, 03 May 2008 07:56:39 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590422 So if I understand you correctly, Brian, you were in favor of the entire 2004 platform other than 13 planks, and think that the Portland delegates went far, far beyond what was desirable. Thanks for clearing that up. The sin of the current PlatCom proposal is the sin of omission. You can't replace 14,000 words very easily. It comes down to you objecting to a comprehensive platform with detail that I believe is helpful to candidates in planning their campaigns and to new members to improve their understanding (I used it personally in 1979 after joining the LP as a guide to learning). Local candidates should not be hung out to dry without guidance. I would support your "platform" as a form of program, and if your only objection is that the detailed document we need shouldn't be called the platform, suggest you support my proposal to call it a banana instead, so that we have a comprehensive banana to assist candidates and new members to improve their understanding of the application of the non-aggression principle to the dizzying area of subjects. By the way, I think the original version of your pollution plank is a major improvement on all previous planks, and regardless of which of us wins on the issue of Ctrl-Zing the Portland Crater, I do plan to offer enthusiastic support for your pollution proposal. It is better than the Temporary Platform plank you found, much better. I also think a revised Children's Rights plank is needed, to ensure that our nominee can point to something that sounds reasonable to the public and avoids the "fill-in-the-blanks" ugly conclusions that were rightfully blamed on an answer in a book that was too short. Which is why we need a long platform. To sign the petition to Restore the 2004 Banana, go to www.restore04.com. So if I understand you correctly, Brian, you were in favor of the entire 2004 platform other than 13 planks, and think that the Portland delegates went far, far beyond what was desirable. Thanks for clearing that up.

The sin of the current PlatCom proposal is the sin of omission. You can’t replace 14,000 words very easily. It comes down to you objecting to a comprehensive platform with detail that I believe is helpful to candidates in planning their campaigns and to new members to improve their understanding (I used it personally in 1979 after joining the LP as a guide to learning). Local candidates should not be hung out to dry without guidance.

I would support your “platform” as a form of program, and if your only objection is that the detailed document we need shouldn’t be called the platform, suggest you support my proposal to call it a banana instead, so that we have a comprehensive banana to assist candidates and new members to improve their understanding of the application of the non-aggression principle to the dizzying area of subjects.

By the way, I think the original version of your pollution plank is a major improvement on all previous planks, and regardless of which of us wins on the issue of Ctrl-Zing the Portland Crater, I do plan to offer enthusiastic support for your pollution proposal. It is better than the Temporary Platform plank you found, much better. I also think a revised Children’s Rights plank is needed, to ensure that our nominee can point to something that sounds reasonable to the public and avoids the “fill-in-the-blanks” ugly conclusions that were rightfully blamed on an answer in a book that was too short. Which is why we need a long platform.

To sign the petition to Restore the 2004 Banana, go to www.restore04.com.

]]>
by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590412 Sat, 03 May 2008 07:38:36 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590412 Another error: I <i>do</i> think the fact that Ruwart believes that society could structure itself without a monopoly lording over it is entirely irrelevant to her campaign. Conversely, I don’t think the fact that she believes that society could structure itself without a monopoly lording over it is <i>at all relevant</i> to her campaign. Another error: I do think the fact that Ruwart believes that society could structure itself without a monopoly lording over it is entirely irrelevant to her campaign.

Conversely, I don’t think the fact that she believes that society could structure itself without a monopoly lording over it is at all relevant to her campaign.

]]>
by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590411 Sat, 03 May 2008 07:35:50 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590411 "Rudeness," not "Rootness." Sorry about that. “Rudeness,” not “Rootness.” Sorry about that.

]]>
by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590409 Sat, 03 May 2008 07:33:21 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590409 Dear fellow radicals: Please stop making us look bad. Yes, there have been plenty of people trying to smear this sweet woman, but this isn't an example of it. For this to be an actual smear, the message would have to be false, <i>and</i> the subject would have to be negative. Neither of these are the case. Dr. Ruwart actually is an anarchist (depending upon how you wish to define the term), and anarchism (depending upon how you wish to define the term) is not this great evil that the radicals are parodoxically trying to make it out to be. The only possible room for claiming this is a smear is to note that the colour used is red, rather than yellow. But in my reading of the first bunch of posts, I saw no such claim. (I stopped reading not too long into the thread.) Claiming this is a smear and calling for Mr. Gordon's blood is completely unacceptable, and makes all of the other radicals here look bad. The fact is, we're all in this movement together. We all want to decrease the size, scope, and cost of government. The moderates need us and we need them. I started reading up on anarchist philosophy because I was sickened by the rudeness I saw from certain LP Reformers toward the radicals. I was sickened by the false claim that radicals want all or nothing, as though we would not be happy to see steps taken in our direction. I was sickened by the way these certain Reformers seemed to want to kick people out of the movement for disagreeing with them, and didn't have any perceivable respect for radicals. Now I'm starting to see the same rootness come from certain people in the radical camp as well. If we cut this ship in half, we all sink. Do I like seeing it brought up that Ruwart is an anarchist (depending upon how one wishes to use the term)? No, because A) I don't think the fact that she believes that society could structure itself without a monopoly lording over it is entirely irrelevant to her campaign, and B) her primary strength is her superior ability to communicate libertarian values to the average American. But I can't stop the fact that Dr. Long acknowledged on his blog Dr. Ruwart's belief that society could structure itself without a monopoly lording over it. And I can't stop the fact that it's true. There is a very good chance that Dr. Ruwart will be our 2008 candidate. If the moderates in the party wish to stress, for whatever reason, to the American people that she is an anarchist, that's their perogative. We have no right to stop them. What is our role, then? To point out that she is right: that A) innocent people are dying in a needless war, that B) high taxation and wasteful spending hurt us all, and that C) a free-market healthcare system would provide higher quality healthcare at significantly lower costs. But let us not sink to the habit of acting rudely. Doing so just paints us all in a bad light, and serves to divide the movement when, in reality, our goals are all virtually exactly the same the first 95-99% of the way. Love, Alex Peak Dear fellow radicals:

Please stop making us look bad. Yes, there have been plenty of people trying to smear this sweet woman, but this isn’t an example of it. For this to be an actual smear, the message would have to be false, and the subject would have to be negative. Neither of these are the case. Dr. Ruwart actually is an anarchist (depending upon how you wish to define the term), and anarchism (depending upon how you wish to define the term) is not this great evil that the radicals are parodoxically trying to make it out to be.

The only possible room for claiming this is a smear is to note that the colour used is red, rather than yellow. But in my reading of the first bunch of posts, I saw no such claim. (I stopped reading not too long into the thread.)

Claiming this is a smear and calling for Mr. Gordon’s blood is completely unacceptable, and makes all of the other radicals here look bad. The fact is, we’re all in this movement together. We all want to decrease the size, scope, and cost of government. The moderates need us and we need them.

I started reading up on anarchist philosophy because I was sickened by the rudeness I saw from certain LP Reformers toward the radicals. I was sickened by the false claim that radicals want all or nothing, as though we would not be happy to see steps taken in our direction. I was sickened by the way these certain Reformers seemed to want to kick people out of the movement for disagreeing with them, and didn’t have any perceivable respect for radicals.

Now I’m starting to see the same rootness come from certain people in the radical camp as well. If we cut this ship in half, we all sink.

Do I like seeing it brought up that Ruwart is an anarchist (depending upon how one wishes to use the term)? No, because A) I don’t think the fact that she believes that society could structure itself without a monopoly lording over it is entirely irrelevant to her campaign, and B) her primary strength is her superior ability to communicate libertarian values to the average American. But I can’t stop the fact that Dr. Long acknowledged on his blog Dr. Ruwart’s belief that society could structure itself without a monopoly lording over it. And I can’t stop the fact that it’s true.

There is a very good chance that Dr. Ruwart will be our 2008 candidate. If the moderates in the party wish to stress, for whatever reason, to the American people that she is an anarchist, that’s their perogative. We have no right to stop them. What is our role, then? To point out that she is right: that A) innocent people are dying in a needless war, that B) high taxation and wasteful spending hurt us all, and that C) a free-market healthcare system would provide higher quality healthcare at significantly lower costs.

But let us not sink to the habit of acting rudely. Doing so just paints us all in a bad light, and serves to divide the movement when, in reality, our goals are all virtually exactly the same the first 95-99% of the way.

Love,
Alex Peak

]]>
by: Starchild http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590351 Sat, 03 May 2008 05:55:31 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590351 Brian, You again ask me whether I think you personally are in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. And as I already told you when you asked me the same question on the "Reform" Caucus list, I don't think it serves any productive purpose to frame the issue in personal terms like that. I get the feeling that you want to be able to tell people we are trying to drum you out of the party, and like Less Antman, I'm not biting. Likewise I am not particularly interested in figuring out what platform proposals will pass by 2/3rds of delegate votes. Since your faction evidently controls the Platform Committee and wants to stop delegates from bringing back the 2004 platform, you are interested in discovering just how far you need to compromise in order to get people to back the Committee's proposals instead of voting for restoration. Given that I want platform debate at the convention to start from the 2004 platform (for those who may not have heard, please sign the petition to bring back the detailed, in-depth LP platform we had in 2004 before it was gutted during the Portland convention disaster in 2006 -- http://www.Restore04.com ) why should I assist in helping finesse your proposals to modify the 2006 mess? And in a similar vein, why should I help you nitpick the 2004 platform now (as you've also sought to get me to do), in order to help you convince others to see it in a less favorable light and thereby blunt the effort to bring it back? I say let's dump the 2006 platform and *then* talk about where to go next. You defend the 2006 results by saying the 2006 delegates "played by the rules." That may be, but someone failed to distribute copies of the existing platform so people could read what they were voting on. The platform-retention votes are typically under-publicized; it's usually just been kind of like "fill it out and hand it in on your own time." The better-organized "Reform" faction was able to take advantage of this by making sure their supporters filled it out while others, thinking it an unimportant vote or not being aware of it, may have failed to do so. I'm not saying "Reformers" acted unfairly, but the procedures were such that I think it was not the outcome we would have gotten had people been adequately informed and votes actively solicited. As for the tax slavery thing, I know that I have mentioned it in speeches to general audiences. I've also mentioned it to African-Americans one-on-one. While I generally try to qualify my remarks by saying that it's not as bad as, or comparable to, plantation slavery, that's not a cop-out, just the truth as I see it. I'm not aware of many places where my spoken comments on any subject have been recorded for posterity that I'd be able to access them, and I don't feel like listening to old footage see whether I might have mentioned the issue in passing. But since you're making it a challenge, I will try to keep it in mind and avail myself of the next opportunity that may arise and let you know about it. Finally, if you say you're more radical than me, good! I look forward to having your support in speaking out for a more radical Libertarian Party -- a party that's not afraid to say what it believes, *in detail*, in our platform, for the world to see. A party that's not afraid to leave the door open to anarchy as an end goal, as much as to small, limited government. A party that is less concerned with image, and "being taken seriously," or people calling us losers, and more concerned with speaking truth to power, standing up for the oppressed and downtrodden, and letting the chips fall where they may. That, my friend, is radicalism. Hopefully your own libertarian journey is not over either. Brian,

You again ask me whether I think you personally are in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. And as I already told you when you asked me the same question on the “Reform” Caucus list, I don’t think it serves any productive purpose to frame the issue in personal terms like that. I get the feeling that you want to be able to tell people we are trying to drum you out of the party, and like Less Antman, I’m not biting.

Likewise I am not particularly interested in figuring out what platform proposals will pass by 2/3rds of delegate votes. Since your faction evidently controls the Platform Committee and wants to stop delegates from bringing back the 2004 platform, you are interested in discovering just how far you need to compromise in order to get people to back the Committee’s proposals instead of voting for restoration.

Given that I want platform debate at the convention to start from the 2004 platform (for those who may not have heard, please sign the petition to bring back the detailed, in-depth LP platform we had in 2004 before it was gutted during the Portland convention disaster in 2006—http://www.Restore04.com ) why should I assist in helping finesse your proposals to modify the 2006 mess?

And in a similar vein, why should I help you nitpick the 2004 platform now (as you’ve also sought to get me to do), in order to help you convince others to see it in a less favorable light and thereby blunt the effort to bring it back? I say let’s dump the 2006 platform and then talk about where to go next.

You defend the 2006 results by saying the 2006 delegates “played by the rules.” That may be, but someone failed to distribute copies of the existing platform so people could read what they were voting on. The platform-retention votes are typically under-publicized; it’s usually just been kind of like “fill it out and hand it in on your own time.” The better-organized “Reform” faction was able to take advantage of this by making sure their supporters filled it out while others, thinking it an unimportant vote or not being aware of it, may have failed to do so. I’m not saying “Reformers” acted unfairly, but the procedures were such that I think it was not the outcome we would have gotten had people been adequately informed and votes actively solicited.

As for the tax slavery thing, I know that I have mentioned it in speeches to general audiences. I’ve also mentioned it to African-Americans one-on-one. While I generally try to qualify my remarks by saying that it’s not as bad as, or comparable to, plantation slavery, that’s not a cop-out, just the truth as I see it. I’m not aware of many places where my spoken comments on any subject have been recorded for posterity that I’d be able to access them, and I don’t feel like listening to old footage see whether I might have mentioned the issue in passing. But since you’re making it a challenge, I will try to keep it in mind and avail myself of the next opportunity that may arise and let you know about it.

Finally, if you say you’re more radical than me, good! I look forward to having your support in speaking out for a more radical Libertarian Party—a party that’s not afraid to say what it believes, in detail, in our platform, for the world to see. A party that’s not afraid to leave the door open to anarchy as an end goal, as much as to small, limited government. A party that is less concerned with image, and “being taken seriously,” or people calling us losers, and more concerned with speaking truth to power, standing up for the oppressed and downtrodden, and letting the chips fall where they may. That, my friend, is radicalism. Hopefully your own libertarian journey is not over either.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590337 Sat, 03 May 2008 05:35:45 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590337 Starchild, why would a radical state-force-abolitionist party want to use the name "Libertarian"? That name has been thoroughly "watered down" by the ACLU, by constitutionalists like Ron Paul, and by statists from Cato, Reason, U of Chicago, etc -- as well as by an uninterrupted stream of non-abolitionist LP presidential candidates (or was Bergland an anarchist?). If your new party wouldn't have the intellectual courage to call itself the obvious name (Anarchist Party), then you could use any of: Zero Aggression Party Non-Aggression Party Voluntary Party Non-Archist Party No First Force Party Non-Coercion Party Private Law Party Secession Party Anti-Politics Party Zero Government Party Anti-Statism Party I even have a membership pledge/quiz already prepared for your new party: http://libertarianmajority.net/no-1st-force-pledge However, fair warning: I've yet to find anyone radical enough to score a perfect 30 on it. But if you're running for LNC in Denver and you endorse the whole pledge, then your campaign will get $100 from me. If you can't score a 30 on it, then fair warning again: those who do score a perfect 30 might someday bolt your party and form a *truly* radical freedom party, rejecting your "watered down"/"lite" radicalism. Starchild, why would a radical state-force-abolitionist party want to use the name “Libertarian”? That name has been thoroughly “watered down” by the ACLU, by constitutionalists like Ron Paul, and by statists from Cato, Reason, U of Chicago, etc—as well as by an uninterrupted stream of non-abolitionist LP presidential candidates (or was Bergland an anarchist?).

If your new party wouldn’t have the intellectual courage to call itself the obvious name (Anarchist Party), then you could use any of:

Zero Aggression Party
Non-Aggression Party
Voluntary Party
Non-Archist Party
No First Force Party
Non-Coercion Party
Private Law Party
Secession Party
Anti-Politics Party
Zero Government Party
Anti-Statism Party

I even have a membership pledge/quiz already prepared for your new party:
http://libertarianmajority.net/no-1st-force-pledge

However, fair warning: I’ve yet to find anyone radical enough to score a perfect 30 on it. But if you’re running for LNC in Denver and you endorse the whole pledge, then your campaign will get $100 from me. If you can’t score a 30 on it, then fair warning again: those who do score a perfect 30 might someday bolt your party and form a truly radical freedom party, rejecting your “watered down”/”lite” radicalism.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590288 Sat, 03 May 2008 04:39:20 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590288 Less, I stand by my characterization of your list of content-free metaphors as "vapid imagery", and I stand by my "testicular fortitude" challenge -- not an insult, a *challenge* -- for you radicals to stop hurling specious blanket characterizations and to *start debating specific Platform principles and language*. I asked three very reasonable questions about the Platform Committee's work. You radicals can either answer them or you can't. What's "inappropriate" is for you to suggest that the delegates did anything in Portland other than play by the rules. I (as far as I know) coined the terms "amputated platform" and "Portland crater", so please don't pretend that I have something to defend about the state of the Platform. Going into Portland, the Reform Caucus had voted to recommend deletion for only 15 planks, and none of us three Reform Caucus members on the 2006 PlatCom even tried to get those deletions into the committee report. I myself voted to delete only the 13 most extremist planks. And yet, the delegates rose up and voted to delete 55 of the platform's 62 planks! The fault for this mass deletion lies as much with those who bloated the Platform as it does with the delegates who saw (more clearly than I did) that we should build for the future from a new foundation. Speaking of "Ctrl-Z": 15 other planks survived by being consolidated down to 8, so only 40 planks were actually deleted. Restore04 is *not* proposing to simply undelete those 40 planks. Instead, they are mutating the 14,000-word 62-plank 2004 platform into what was before this week a 10,000-word 31-plank platform with a completely new platform outline and undisclosed large swaths of novel language. This week's draft is even shorter, but my analysis of the previous draft showed hundreds upon hundreds of words of novel language never voted on by any PlatCom or NatCon, about 5000+ words of missing 2004 language, and at least 40 specific policy positions from 2004 that have been summarily left on the cutting room floor. Do you know which ones? Restore04 ain't sayin' -- except to say "trust us". In addition, despite all the Restore04 talk of an illegitimate "rump" Portland convention, the "Restore04" draft in fact chooses 2006 language over 2004 language more often than not. The Rob Power platform is not "Ctrl-Z". It's the work of (as far as is publicly known) only two or three people, who couldn't find the time to assemble and submit it before the PlatCom meeting in Vegas. Even now, three weeks before Denver, it is changing rapidly and still has basic editing mistakes. By contrast, what became the PlatCom's proposal has been evolving in plain public view for a year, has no sentences not approved in a previous platform cycle, was subject to grueling word-by-word markup by the full PlatCom over two long days in Vegas, and was published for delegate consideration nearly three months in advance of Denver. Only 6 of our 30 recommendations attracted more than one nay for adoption, and only 3 of them more than two. The PlatCom's proposal is a thus a well-considered unity platform that rejects both the Reform Caucus next-four-years approach and the discredited verbose Atlanta format. In a sense, our proposal is the true Ctrl-Z here, as it reverts back to the length and tone of the original 1972 platform. Delegates who read it will agree with the surprisingly favorable reviews it's received from the radicals who have dared to actually read it. That's surely the reason why Restore04 dares not link to it from their site. They're afraid of what fully-informed delegates will decide to do. Delegates who want to see what Restore04 won't show them should get the whole story -- which is only available at http://libertarianmajority.net. Less, I stand by my characterization of your list of content-free metaphors as “vapid imagery”, and I stand by my “testicular fortitude” challenge—not an insult, a challenge—for you radicals to stop hurling specious blanket characterizations and to start debating specific Platform principles and language. I asked three very reasonable questions about the Platform Committee’s work. You radicals can either answer them or you can’t.

What’s “inappropriate” is for you to suggest that the delegates did anything in Portland other than play by the rules. I (as far as I know) coined the terms “amputated platform” and “Portland crater”, so please don’t pretend that I have something to defend about the state of the Platform. Going into Portland, the Reform Caucus had voted to recommend deletion for only 15 planks, and none of us three Reform Caucus members on the 2006 PlatCom even tried to get those deletions into the committee report. I myself voted to delete only the 13 most extremist planks. And yet, the delegates rose up and voted to delete 55 of the platform’s 62 planks! The fault for this mass deletion lies as much with those who bloated the Platform as it does with the delegates who saw (more clearly than I did) that we should build for the future from a new foundation.

Speaking of “Ctrl-Z”: 15 other planks survived by being consolidated down to 8, so only 40 planks were actually deleted. Restore04 is not proposing to simply undelete those 40 planks. Instead, they are mutating the 14,000-word 62-plank 2004 platform into what was before this week a 10,000-word 31-plank platform with a completely new platform outline and undisclosed large swaths of novel language. This week’s draft is even shorter, but my analysis of the previous draft showed hundreds upon hundreds of words of novel language never voted on by any PlatCom or NatCon, about 5000+ words of missing 2004 language, and at least 40 specific policy positions from 2004 that have been summarily left on the cutting room floor. Do you know which ones? Restore04 ain’t sayin’—except to say “trust us”. In addition, despite all the Restore04 talk of an illegitimate “rump” Portland convention, the “Restore04” draft in fact chooses 2006 language over 2004 language more often than not.

The Rob Power platform is not “Ctrl-Z”. It’s the work of (as far as is publicly known) only two or three people, who couldn’t find the time to assemble and submit it before the PlatCom meeting in Vegas. Even now, three weeks before Denver, it is changing rapidly and still has basic editing mistakes. By contrast, what became the PlatCom’s proposal has been evolving in plain public view for a year, has no sentences not approved in a previous platform cycle, was subject to grueling word-by-word markup by the full PlatCom over two long days in Vegas, and was published for delegate consideration nearly three months in advance of Denver. Only 6 of our 30 recommendations attracted more than one nay for adoption, and only 3 of them more than two.

The PlatCom’s proposal is a thus a well-considered unity platform that rejects both the Reform Caucus next-four-years approach and the discredited verbose Atlanta format. In a sense, our proposal is the true Ctrl-Z here, as it reverts back to the length and tone of the original 1972 platform. Delegates who read it will agree with the surprisingly favorable reviews it’s received from the radicals who have dared to actually read it. That’s surely the reason why Restore04 dares not link to it from their site. They’re afraid of what fully-informed delegates will decide to do. Delegates who want to see what Restore04 won’t show them should get the whole story—which is only available at http://libertarianmajority.net.

]]>
by: Starchild http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590278 Sat, 03 May 2008 04:31:10 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590278 Carl, Heh. Discovering you're *that* Carl (i.e. Milsted, founder of the "Reform" Caucus) is not what I expected! What was it Monty Python said about the Spanish Inquisition? Well, for being open to *either* a more radical *or* a more moderate LP, for strategic reasons, you at least deserve props for integrity in seeking out effective solutions in whatever direction they may lie! Hell, you could even be right that a two-prong strategy of a radical pro-freedom party and a more moderate less-government party would work better than what we have now. It's at least worth discussing. The main drawback I see is that it kind of only makes sense to have one libertarian party per political jurisdiction, so as not to split the vote. At least that's been my assumption. But thinking about it some more now, I'm wondering if you could be onto something. I'm just brainstorming wildly here, but what if it were possible to have an amicable parting leading to two separate parties being set up in such a way as to engender mutual cooperation? People approaching either party could be quizzed on their beliefs and approach to politics, so that radicals showing up on the moderates' doorstep could be directed to the radical party, and vice-versa. The radicals would then be able to focus on activism, education, cutting loose and stirring the pot with unorthodox approaches without having to spend so much time on damage control against others trying to water down their platform or principles -- the litmus tests for holding office in the radical party and its heavy ideological focus and (at least as initially seen by the public) lack of electoral prospects serving as strong disincentives for any such effort when the moderate party represented a much easier target. Meanwhile, the moderates would be able to focus their party on pushing "electable" candidates, having a short and non-controversial platform, being mainstream and socially conformist, marketing a non-alienating message to the public, etc., without feeling "embarrassed" or undercut by the presence of the radicals. The radical libertarian party could even serve as an emergency backup system for the moderate libertarian party, so that if the latter started to stray too far towards statism or was in danger of being taken over by opportunists, its remaining loyal members could invite the radicals to send a "rescue team" to assist them in doing a purge and getting back on the moderate limited government track, and then leave again. In exchange for this "poison pill" support system, the moderates would agree to use their presumed greater leverage within the political system to help ensure the ability of radical candidates to take part in debates, help defend the radical party from censorship, etc. Perhaps the two parties could cooperate in other ways as well, such as by not running candidates against each other, and sharing outreach opportunities, resources like databases, office space, even personnel to some degree with their counterparts, seeking to help each other in their respective missions. Beyond the practical difficulties of hammering out an agreement and actually getting such a plan enacted, I see two immediate problems with this: (1) Laws might prevent much of this kind of cooperation between different political parties, and (2) The human tendencies to be parochially loyal to one's own organization, rather than to the larger libertarian movement (a tendency somewhat in evidence in the LP now) and to see another somewhat similar political party in the same jurisdiction as a competitor rather than a co-conspirator, might get in the way. If we were able to do it, I think the best division of assets and members would be for the moderates to keep most of the LP membership and assets, since it is an established entity already trending toward moderation -- I think it would be in the interests of a new radical party not to grow *too* quickly anyway -- but for the moderates to change the name of the party (as recommended a few years ago by moderate Mark Schreiber, who thought the Libertarian Party name had too much baggage) and give the "Libertarian Party" *name* and the name-related assets like LP.org to the radicals to take and start anew. It is in the interests of the libertarian movement as a whole for the name "Libertarian Party" to remain associated with a party that adheres closely to libertarian ideas, and that would clearly more likely be the radicals' party. This division of resources might also pose legal problems, I don't know. But I'm curious to hear what others think. Carl,

Heh. Discovering you’re that Carl (i.e. Milsted, founder of the “Reform” Caucus) is not what I expected! What was it Monty Python said about the Spanish Inquisition? Well, for being open to either a more radical or a more moderate LP, for strategic reasons, you at least deserve props for integrity in seeking out effective solutions in whatever direction they may lie!

Hell, you could even be right that a two-prong strategy of a radical pro-freedom party and a more moderate less-government party would work better than what we have now. It’s at least worth discussing.

The main drawback I see is that it kind of only makes sense to have one libertarian party per political jurisdiction, so as not to split the vote. At least that’s been my assumption. But thinking about it some more now, I’m wondering if you could be onto something.

I’m just brainstorming wildly here, but what if it were possible to have an amicable parting leading to two separate parties being set up in such a way as to engender mutual cooperation? People approaching either party could be quizzed on their beliefs and approach to politics, so that radicals showing up on the moderates’ doorstep could be directed to the radical party, and vice-versa.

The radicals would then be able to focus on activism, education, cutting loose and stirring the pot with unorthodox approaches without having to spend so much time on damage control against others trying to water down their platform or principles—the litmus tests for holding office in the radical party and its heavy ideological focus and (at least as initially seen by the public) lack of electoral prospects serving as strong disincentives for any such effort when the moderate party represented a much easier target.

Meanwhile, the moderates would be able to focus their party on pushing “electable” candidates, having a short and non-controversial platform, being mainstream and socially conformist, marketing a non-alienating message to the public, etc., without feeling “embarrassed” or undercut by the presence of the radicals.

The radical libertarian party could even serve as an emergency backup system for the moderate libertarian party, so that if the latter started to stray too far towards statism or was in danger of being taken over by opportunists, its remaining loyal members could invite the radicals to send a “rescue team” to assist them in doing a purge and getting back on the moderate limited government track, and then leave again. In exchange for this “poison pill” support system, the moderates would agree to use their presumed greater leverage within the political system to help ensure the ability of radical candidates to take part in debates, help defend the radical party from censorship, etc.

Perhaps the two parties could cooperate in other ways as well, such as by not running candidates against each other, and sharing outreach opportunities, resources like databases, office space, even personnel to some degree with their counterparts, seeking to help each other in their respective missions.

Beyond the practical difficulties of hammering out an agreement and actually getting such a plan enacted, I see two immediate problems with this: (1) Laws might prevent much of this kind of cooperation between different political parties, and (2) The human tendencies to be parochially loyal to one’s own organization, rather than to the larger libertarian movement (a tendency somewhat in evidence in the LP now) and to see another somewhat similar political party in the same jurisdiction as a competitor rather than a co-conspirator, might get in the way.

If we were able to do it, I think the best division of assets and members would be for the moderates to keep most of the LP membership and assets, since it is an established entity already trending toward moderation—I think it would be in the interests of a new radical party not to grow too quickly anyway—but for the moderates to change the name of the party (as recommended a few years ago by moderate Mark Schreiber, who thought the Libertarian Party name had too much baggage) and give the “Libertarian Party” name and the name-related assets like LP.org to the radicals to take and start anew. It is in the interests of the libertarian movement as a whole for the name “Libertarian Party” to remain associated with a party that adheres closely to libertarian ideas, and that would clearly more likely be the radicals’ party.

This division of resources might also pose legal problems, I don’t know. But I’m curious to hear what others think.

]]>
by: Yank http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590128 Sat, 03 May 2008 02:01:32 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590128 Brian, if I give you 100$, would you let me touch your ass? Brian, if I give you 100$, would you let me touch your ass?

]]>
by: Less Antman http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590096 Sat, 03 May 2008 01:06:03 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-590096 Brian, you are trying to make this a debate about anything but the totally inappropriate manner in which 80% of the platform was gutted. Sorry, I won't bite. If the www.restore04.com proposal passes, you may then propose to eliminate the secression plank, will probably win, and I'll accept the result cheerfully. I understand why you are hurling insults and implying a lack of integrity on the part of those who want to return to a comprehensive platform, and I respect the fact that you don't want one, but I think I've made the points I need to support Ctrl-Z for those who want to consider them. Brian, you are trying to make this a debate about anything but the totally inappropriate manner in which 80% of the platform was gutted. Sorry, I won’t bite. If the www.restore04.com proposal passes, you may then propose to eliminate the secression plank, will probably win, and I’ll accept the result cheerfully.

I understand why you are hurling insults and implying a lack of integrity on the part of those who want to return to a comprehensive platform, and I respect the fact that you don’t want one, but I think I’ve made the points I need to support Ctrl-Z for those who want to consider them.

]]>
by: Liberated Woman http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-589790 Fri, 02 May 2008 19:07:23 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-589790 Itch &#38; Yank: I look forward to your entertaining and vacuous comments. :) The humor is mildly calming in a sea of turmoil. Itch & Yank:

I look forward to your entertaining and vacuous comments. :) The humor is mildly calming in a sea of turmoil.

]]>
by: Yank http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-589712 Fri, 02 May 2008 17:48:04 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-589712 I like ass. I like ass.

]]>
by: C. Al Currier http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-589690 Fri, 02 May 2008 17:30:04 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-589690 <blockquote> ..... in one day “Libertarians for Bush” website got nearly 30,000 hits. ...wild idea that Dondero is a secret radical .....warmongering Libertarians.... amusing speculation....Susan Hogarth Says </blockquote> HEY! Thanks for straightening me out! I thought he was with a <b><i>Libertines</i></b> for Bush group. I guess I should try to do a better job of staying up on the details. I get a lot of stuff from second hand sources.
..... in one day “Libertarians for Bush” website got nearly 30,000 hits.
...wild idea that Dondero is a secret radical …..warmongering Libertarians…. amusing speculation….Susan Hogarth Says

HEY!
Thanks for straightening me out!
I thought he was with a Libertines for Bush group. I guess I should try to do a better job of staying up on the details. I get a lot of stuff from second hand sources.

]]>
by: Carl http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-589672 Fri, 02 May 2008 17:05:57 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/30/lp-photoshop-of-the-day-2/#comment-589672 Starchild: No, I do not lean that way. Regarding my comments, I'll repeat what I have said repeatedly: either the LP should moderate and try to win elections OR the party should become the PETA for liberty making less radical organizations look moderate. One or the other. But not both. --- I wanted to force the issue when I started the LRC. At the time I was inclined for the LP to be the ultra-radical Leninist organization and for a new party to actually win elections and increase liberty. My friends in the LP thought the LP was worth salvaging so the LRC was born. I wanted to win or lose big. Having already lost the pledge vote, I was DISMAYED when the platform was mostly deleted. I was ready to do a walk-out. I HAD walked out. Got sucked back in by that pyrrhic victory. On the upside, without the walkout I have time to craft the message for a new party that is not simply libertarian lite, something closer to Brian's ecolibertarian message than Cato's corporatist message. If the LRC scores a stunning victory in Denver I may instead rejoin the LP, but the victory would have to be truly stunning. Starchild:

No, I do not lean that way.

Regarding my comments, I’ll repeat what I have said repeatedly: either the LP should moderate and try to win elections OR the party should become the PETA for liberty making less radical organizations look moderate. One or the other.

But not both.
—-

I wanted to force the issue when I started the LRC. At the time I was inclined for the LP to be the ultra-radical Leninist organization and for a new party to actually win elections and increase liberty. My friends in the LP thought the LP was worth salvaging so the LRC was born. I wanted to win or lose big.

Having already lost the pledge vote, I was DISMAYED when the platform was mostly deleted. I was ready to do a walk-out. I HAD walked out. Got sucked back in by that pyrrhic victory.

On the upside, without the walkout I have time to craft the message for a new party that is not simply libertarian lite, something closer to Brian’s ecolibertarian message than Cato’s corporatist message.

If the LRC scores a stunning victory in Denver I may instead rejoin the LP, but the victory would have to be truly stunning.

]]>