Comments on: Libertarian Reform Caucus: Restore ‘84 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/ Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:44:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-611918 Tue, 20 May 2008 13:22:16 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-611918 This thing is filled with so many straw-men, if I were an LP Reformer, I would be mortally embarrassed that this has been put out in my name. I encourage Mr. Holtz and other LP Reformers to come out against this video, and make it clear that they absolutely in no way endorse it, just like Ron Paul make it completely clear that he in no way endorsed the Newsletters. Do the honourable thing, like Ron Paul. Failure to come out in rejection of this video will be construed as an endorsement of this video and its many straw-men implications. Sincerely, Alex Peak This thing is filled with so many straw-men, if I were an LP Reformer, I would be mortally embarrassed that this has been put out in my name.

I encourage Mr. Holtz and other LP Reformers to come out against this video, and make it clear that they absolutely in no way endorse it, just like Ron Paul make it completely clear that he in no way endorsed the Newsletters. Do the honourable thing, like Ron Paul.

Failure to come out in rejection of this video will be construed as an endorsement of this video and its many straw-men implications.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

]]>
by: Peter Orvetti http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609911 Sun, 18 May 2008 02:58:04 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609911 I thank Brian for reminding me of that Libertarian Forum piece, which I read a few years ago while doing some personal research into LP history. An objective book/social history on the LP would be fascinating, and I'd consider doing it myself, but there's probably not a big enough market to make it worthwhile. Anyway, the LF issue on the '83 convention is just linguistically priceless. Rothbard writes like he's John Reed waiting at the Finland Station, like there's an actual big-R Revolution going on. It makes it all seem a bit like play-acting. "H-Hour of Armageddon Day," "Military Maven," "Camp MacBride," "Bergland Central," etc., etc., all good fun. I did think it odd that he blasted cabbies "who would only take you to a few locations, and who fought among themselves for fare, sometimes almost running over the would-be passengers in the process." Isn't this just market forces? I would think Rothbard would see this as a positive. But that's a side note. And to be fair, Rothbard was using the phrase "Leninist caucus discipline" as a dig at the Radical Caucus members who backed Ravenal. I thank Brian for reminding me of that Libertarian Forum piece, which I read a few years ago while doing some personal research into LP history. An objective book/social history on the LP would be fascinating, and I’d consider doing it myself, but there’s probably not a big enough market to make it worthwhile. Anyway, the LF issue on the ‘83 convention is just linguistically priceless. Rothbard writes like he’s John Reed waiting at the Finland Station, like there’s an actual big-R Revolution going on. It makes it all seem a bit like play-acting. “H-Hour of Armageddon Day,” “Military Maven,” “Camp MacBride,” “Bergland Central,” etc., etc., all good fun.

I did think it odd that he blasted cabbies “who would only take you to a few locations, and who fought among themselves for fare, sometimes almost running over the would-be passengers in the process.” Isn’t this just market forces? I would think Rothbard would see this as a positive. But that’s a side note.

And to be fair, Rothbard was using the phrase “Leninist caucus discipline” as a dig at the Radical Caucus members who backed Ravenal.

]]>
by: Eric Garris http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609873 Sun, 18 May 2008 02:02:32 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609873 It is hard to respond to you, since you misquote everything I say. I never said "a majority of radicals," I said a majority of the Radical Caucus. I also didn't say a one-vote swing would have made the difference, but Bergland won his majority by a single vote, with Ravenal close behind. I didn't realize that you were such a Rothbardian that you believe every word of what Murray said. I note a number of inaccuracies and exaggerations of things in Murray's history, but everyone has their own interpretations of event they were closely and emotionally involved with. The vote totals, however, are a matter of record so you can easily check them. You certainly have a good deal of hostility for someone you've never met, but I don't take it personally, since you don't seem to give even a slight amount of courtesy for anyone you disagree with. It is hard to respond to you, since you misquote everything I say. I never said “a majority of radicals,” I said a majority of the Radical Caucus. I also didn’t say a one-vote swing would have made the difference, but Bergland won his majority by a single vote, with Ravenal close behind.

I didn’t realize that you were such a Rothbardian that you believe every word of what Murray said. I note a number of inaccuracies and exaggerations of things in Murray’s history, but everyone has their own interpretations of event they were closely and emotionally involved with. The vote totals, however, are a matter of record so you can easily check them.

You certainly have a good deal of hostility for someone you’ve never met, but I don’t take it personally, since you don’t seem to give even a slight amount of courtesy for anyone you disagree with.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609849 Sun, 18 May 2008 01:05:53 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609849 Eric, you are misinformed. I have never deleted a comment by you on my blog, and I'm sure I would never have any reason to. Please stop making this false assertion about me. It's ludicrous to suggestion that I'm "afraid of polite discussion". Ask David Nolan. Ask Steve Kubby. Ask Tom Knapp. Ask Starchild. I'm not afraid of any kind of discussion, and you get back from me the politeness you offer. When you sneer that you didn't "see me in New York in 1983" and then try to mislead us about what happened there, I'm going to call you on it. I'm sorry if you consider that impolite. I'm happy to have you correct anything you think I've misreported from my sources of information about the 1983 convention. Most of it comes from Murray Rothbard's newsletter. I note you still offer no defense of your suggestions that a majority of radicals supported the Cato candidate in 1983, and that a 1-vote swing would have changed the outcome of the election. My perception is that you apparently thought I didn't know enough about the events there to know those suggestions aren't correct. I apologize if it turns out you were instead simply so careless in how you phrased your assertions that you conveniently and accidentally implied two conclusions that are demonstrably false but if true would overturn the thesis of my video. However, I'm just not naive enough to consider this a coincidence. Susan, the only "fights" I care about concern the Party's foundational texts -- SoP, Pledge, and Platform. You are the one who recreated Rothbard's "Radical Caucus". You are the one who recycled Rothbard's 1977 LNC strategy resolution. You are the one asking to restore to the Platform some of the extremist Rothbardian ideology, like personal secession and legalization of child prostitution, that was first introduced into the Platform in the wake of Rothbard getting his wish that the Cato moderates leave the LP. If there weren't an effort under way to reverse the LP's 2006 repudiation of what was still an essentially Rothbardian platform, then I wouldn't be invoking parallels to the LP's last major confrontation between moderates and Rothbardian radicals. Sorry, but revanchists don't get to complain that the past is being dredged up. Angela, your suggestion that I don't believe in the right of Iraqi children not to be maimed is too vicious to dignify with a response. I stand by every word of the posting you claim has "fact errors", and if one of us is (in Eric's words) "afraid of polite discussion" about the issues raised in it, then our readers are smart enough to figure out who that is. I'll instead merely note the irony of your spiteful comment appearing in a thread about a video invoking parallels between radical attacks on moderates in 1983 and 2008. If you want to get so viciously personal in your character assassination of me, why stop at invoking my living daughter? Why not instead invoke my infant son who died in my arms? Here, knock yourself out: http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/BlakeLessons.html Eric, you are misinformed. I have never deleted a comment by you on my blog, and I’m sure I would never have any reason to. Please stop making this false assertion about me. It’s ludicrous to suggestion that I’m “afraid of polite discussion”. Ask David Nolan. Ask Steve Kubby. Ask Tom Knapp. Ask Starchild. I’m not afraid of any kind of discussion, and you get back from me the politeness you offer. When you sneer that you didn’t “see me in New York in 1983” and then try to mislead us about what happened there, I’m going to call you on it. I’m sorry if you consider that impolite. I’m happy to have you correct anything you think I’ve misreported from my sources of information about the 1983 convention. Most of it comes from Murray Rothbard’s newsletter.

I note you still offer no defense of your suggestions that a majority of radicals supported the Cato candidate in 1983, and that a 1-vote swing would have changed the outcome of the election. My perception is that you apparently thought I didn’t know enough about the events there to know those suggestions aren’t correct. I apologize if it turns out you were instead simply so careless in how you phrased your assertions that you conveniently and accidentally implied two conclusions that are demonstrably false but if true would overturn the thesis of my video. However, I’m just not naive enough to consider this a coincidence.

Susan, the only “fights” I care about concern the Party’s foundational texts—SoP, Pledge, and Platform. You are the one who recreated Rothbard’s “Radical Caucus”. You are the one who recycled Rothbard’s 1977 LNC strategy resolution. You are the one asking to restore to the Platform some of the extremist Rothbardian ideology, like personal secession and legalization of child prostitution, that was first introduced into the Platform in the wake of Rothbard getting his wish that the Cato moderates leave the LP. If there weren’t an effort under way to reverse the LP’s 2006 repudiation of what was still an essentially Rothbardian platform, then I wouldn’t be invoking parallels to the LP’s last major confrontation between moderates and Rothbardian radicals. Sorry, but revanchists don’t get to complain that the past is being dredged up.

Angela, your suggestion that I don’t believe in the right of Iraqi children not to be maimed is too vicious to dignify with a response. I stand by every word of the posting you claim has “fact errors”, and if one of us is (in Eric’s words) “afraid of polite discussion” about the issues raised in it, then our readers are smart enough to figure out who that is. I’ll instead merely note the irony of your spiteful comment appearing in a thread about a video invoking parallels between radical attacks on moderates in 1983 and 2008. If you want to get so viciously personal in your character assassination of me, why stop at invoking my living daughter? Why not instead invoke my infant son who died in my arms? Here, knock yourself out: http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/BlakeLessons.html

]]>
by: Angela Keaton http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609480 Sat, 17 May 2008 16:18:52 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609480 <i>I have never met Brian Holtz.</i> I had not heard of him until my ex-girlfriend found this, http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans&#38;p=276. Ignore the fact errors about me and go to the heart of it, <i>If she thinks the "anti-war" movement is more important than the CA-LP, then she probably doesn't care about the 2004 natural experiment demonstrating that Iraq is not a good wedge issue for the LP. Iraq is not Vietnam, but contrarians have to build an anti-war movement with the war they have, not with the war they might want. The LPC "Peace" Caucus had more than four months to organize for the cruise, but despite an ad in California Freedom to recruit delegates, only 40% of the delegates bothered to vote for "peace". If anti-interventionism can only move 40% of LP convention delegates, how well can it play among the 20% of Americans who lean libertarian? (Depressing caveat here.) The answer probably doesn't matter to Keaton, because she seems not to want those 20% in the LP. </i> In '07, Holtz wrote of his daughter's valiant struggle to have a lemonade stand in her neighborhood. (http://ca.lp.org/cf/CF-200709.pdf) As one wise libertarian explained, Holtz will fight for the right of a child to sell lemonade but not for the right of Iraqi children to not have their arms blown off. I have never met Brian Holtz.

I had not heard of him until my ex-girlfriend found this, http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans&p=276.

Ignore the fact errors about me and go to the heart of it,

If she thinks the “anti-war” movement is more important than the CA-LP, then she probably doesn’t care about the 2004 natural experiment demonstrating that Iraq is not a good wedge issue for the LP. Iraq is not Vietnam, but contrarians have to build an anti-war movement with the war they have, not with the war they might want. The LPC “Peace” Caucus had more than four months to organize for the cruise, but despite an ad in California Freedom to recruit delegates, only 40% of the delegates bothered to vote for “peace”. If anti-interventionism can only move 40% of LP convention delegates, how well can it play among the 20% of Americans who lean libertarian? (Depressing caveat here.) The answer probably doesn’t matter to Keaton, because she seems not to want those 20% in the LP.

In ‘07, Holtz wrote of his daughter’s valiant struggle to have a lemonade stand in her neighborhood. (http://ca.lp.org/cf/CF-200709.pdf)

As one wise libertarian explained, Holtz will fight for the right of a child to sell lemonade but not for the right of Iraqi children to not have their arms blown off.

]]>
by: Eric Garris http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609430 Sat, 17 May 2008 15:17:33 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609430 I have never met Brian Holtz. I went to his personal blog and made a polite comment. His reply was rude and snide. I then replied with an offer to talk with him personally and respecfully to give him my version of events in 1983. I also asked him why he was being so rude to someone he had never met. He did not reply. Instead, he deleted my offer. I repeat my offer here to talk with him or anyone else about the 1983 convention. I realize that, after 25 years, people can remember events differently. I don't understand why people who claim to be rational are afraid of polite discussion. It makes me suspicious of their motives. I have never met Brian Holtz.

I went to his personal blog and made a polite comment. His reply was rude and snide.

I then replied with an offer to talk with him personally and respecfully to give him my version of events in 1983. I also asked him why he was being so rude to someone he had never met.

He did not reply. Instead, he deleted my offer.

I repeat my offer here to talk with him or anyone else about the 1983 convention. I realize that, after 25 years, people can remember events differently.

I don’t understand why people who claim to be rational are afraid of polite discussion. It makes me suspicious of their motives.

]]>
by: Kenny http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609346 Sat, 17 May 2008 12:03:08 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609346 The problem with Dave Boaz is that you don't know what he really thinks. He just does as Ed Crane tells him. Crane's authoritarian management style forces out so many talented staff. The Rothbard-Crane dispute over Murray's exit from Cato has poisoned the libertarian movement and continues to this day. It is embodied in the "purist" (Mises/Independent/FFF) versus "moderate" (Cato/Reason) debates on policy outside the party too. Barr appears to have the support of the Reasonoids. If he or Root wins the nomination, I expect LRC, Mises and their allies to back Baldwin (assuming Paul does not run as an independent). As Rothbard put it, "this is the movement we have chosen" but it is one that is dominated by the family feuds of Don Rockwell and Don Crane. The problem with Dave Boaz is that you don’t know what he really thinks. He just does as Ed Crane tells him. Crane’s authoritarian management style forces out so many talented staff.

The Rothbard-Crane dispute over Murray’s exit from Cato has poisoned the libertarian movement and continues to this day. It is embodied in the “purist” (Mises/Independent/FFF) versus “moderate” (Cato/Reason) debates on policy outside the party too.

Barr appears to have the support of the Reasonoids. If he or Root wins the nomination, I expect LRC, Mises and their allies to back Baldwin (assuming Paul does not run as an independent).

As Rothbard put it, “this is the movement we have chosen” but it is one that is dominated by the family feuds of Don Rockwell and Don Crane.

]]>
by: Susan Hogarth http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609298 Sat, 17 May 2008 10:55:38 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609298 <i>Susan, you’re apparently confused about the Boaz essay, which you may not have read. Boaz was on the Cato team..</i> Indeed. Hard enough keeping track of names of people actually in the discussion, let alone those who were in another discussion decades ago. I applaud your interest in Party history, but I am sorry your main intent seems to be to bring up old fights and try to continue them rather than just moving on. Susan, you’re apparently confused about the Boaz essay, which you may not have read. Boaz was on the Cato team..

Indeed. Hard enough keeping track of names of people actually in the discussion, let alone those who were in another discussion decades ago. I applaud your interest in Party history, but I am sorry your main intent seems to be to bring up old fights and try to continue them rather than just moving on.

]]>
by: Robert Capozzi http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609286 Sat, 17 May 2008 10:04:54 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609286 Brian Miller, I for one believe that the LP can be a functional big tent. But to deny differences is to paper over a wound that has festered since at least 1983. We can have a candid, forthcoming conversation that identifies where we need to agree to disagree. Or we all vie for the correct, plumbline litmus test. I'm for the former. I really can't be bothered with the latter, except to shine a light on that thought for others to assess. Brian Miller,

I for one believe that the LP can be a functional big tent. But to deny differences is to paper over a wound that has festered since at least 1983.

We can have a candid, forthcoming conversation that identifies where we need to agree to disagree.

Or we all vie for the correct, plumbline litmus test.

I’m for the former. I really can’t be bothered with the latter, except to shine a light on that thought for others to assess.

]]>
by: Peter Orvetti http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609231 Sat, 17 May 2008 07:48:21 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609231 Rothbard said parents have no obligation to feed their kids? Wow, that could really save me some money... Sign me up! Rothbard said parents have no obligation to feed their kids? Wow, that could really save me some money… Sign me up!

]]>
by: Charles Foster http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609162 Sat, 17 May 2008 05:09:01 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609162 Geez Louise.... I should have made some popcorn before starting this thread. I'm real pleased to be on the outside looking in for this discussion. Just one thing, here: Though this controversy is at full throttle and will play out on its own terms unabated, I'd like to ask a favor of you Lib folks - regardless of stripe. When this all spills out into the street come convention time, and you are covered up in reporters and packs of broadcast-news hyenas (and you will be), could you please make certain that they understand that the "reform" you speak of has nothing to do with the Reform Party? We're having enough trouble of our own over here without our good name being confused with your internal fights. BTW - There is no longer a Buchanan Wing of the RP. Those lying, lowlife SOB's folded their tents and fled under cover of darkness in mid-2001. Good riddance. Geez Louise…. I should have made some popcorn before starting this thread. I’m real pleased to be on the outside looking in for this discussion.

Just one thing, here: Though this controversy is at full throttle and will play out on its own terms unabated, I’d like to ask a favor of you Lib folks – regardless of stripe. When this all spills out into the street come convention time, and you are covered up in reporters and packs of broadcast-news hyenas (and you will be), could you please make certain that they understand that the “reform” you speak of has nothing to do with the Reform Party?

We’re having enough trouble of our own over here without our good name being confused with your internal fights.

BTW - There is no longer a Buchanan Wing of the RP. Those lying, lowlife SOB’s folded their tents and fled under cover of darkness in mid-2001. Good riddance.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609124 Sat, 17 May 2008 04:25:07 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609124 JRE, the Bylaws and Convention Rules about the Platform are full of references to planks as the unit of change and retention for that document. There is just no way you can claim that the word "basis" means that the Party is forced to indefinitely follow a formatting convention that was only put to use at one convention and then led promptly to the mass rejection of the reformatted platform at the very next convention. Tim, if the Dallas Accord had been a text, we'd all have seen a copy long ago. At the 1974 Dallas convention, anarchists apparently agreed that the LP would not explicitly call for abolition of the state as long as the originally minarchist Platform/SoP no longer said that “protection of individual rights” is a “legitimate function of government” in a libertarian society. However, the Dallas Accord became an effective veto power for anarchists over any Platform statement that didn't uphold anarchist abolitionist principles. By contrast, minarchists had no equivalent veto power over the many abolitionist Platform statements that conflicted with their own small-government principles. When compared to 2004, the Platform Committee's purely-recycled 2008 proposal does not include any new assertions about the role of government. Instead, it removes the 13 most extreme abolitionist statements that were in 2004, and leaves related statements that are consistent with both incremental reform *and* an anarchist destination. I wish that just one radical -- any radical -- would explain why it's "divisive" to complain about this asymmetry in the Platform. I'd even accept an explanation from a "centrist" like Brian Miller, but getting him to answer questions is a skill that I decidedly lack. Otherwise, I'd ask him what he means when he says he's "getting pretty friggin’ tired of advocating the expulsion of groups who aren’t liked by various constituencies." I've never heard him advocate any "expulsion", and he's simply addled if he thinks my video advocates it. No, Mr. Sipos, my "alleged" doesn't mean you're either "mistaken or dishonest", but rather coy. I challenged you to name a reform leader of similar stature to the three radical leaders I identified in my response as clearly suggesting the LP is not the right party for me. If you don't have any such facts at hand, it's not my fault. If you want to play the game of arguing which side's leaders are trying harder to make it uncomfortable for the other side to remain in the party, that's a game I will win every time -- even without invoking my trump of the asymmetry in the party's foundational texts. You of course ignored that asymmetry even after I called it out to you, nor did you answer my response to your drive-by epithet of "Republican lite". Tim, that was the first I'd seen of that Boaz piece. From my copy of Clark's campaign book I had known that the Rothbard and Nolan critiques of the Clark campaign were unfair, but I had no idea they were *that* unfair and unfounded. If you really do have more material like that on your hard drive, then you need to share. Now. JRE, the Bylaws and Convention Rules about the Platform are full of references to planks as the unit of change and retention for that document. There is just no way you can claim that the word “basis” means that the Party is forced to indefinitely follow a formatting convention that was only put to use at one convention and then led promptly to the mass rejection of the reformatted platform at the very next convention.

Tim, if the Dallas Accord had been a text, we’d all have seen a copy long ago. At the 1974 Dallas convention, anarchists apparently agreed that the LP would not explicitly call for abolition of the state as long as the originally minarchist Platform/SoP no longer said that “protection of individual rights” is a “legitimate function of government” in a libertarian society. However, the Dallas Accord became an effective veto power for anarchists over any Platform statement that didn’t uphold anarchist abolitionist principles. By contrast, minarchists had no equivalent veto power over the many abolitionist Platform statements that conflicted with their own small-government principles. When compared to 2004, the Platform Committee’s purely-recycled 2008 proposal does not include any new assertions about the role of government. Instead, it removes the 13 most extreme abolitionist statements that were in 2004, and leaves related statements that are consistent with both incremental reform and an anarchist destination.

I wish that just one radical—any radical—would explain why it’s “divisive” to complain about this asymmetry in the Platform. I’d even accept an explanation from a “centrist” like Brian Miller, but getting him to answer questions is a skill that I decidedly lack. Otherwise, I’d ask him what he means when he says he’s “getting pretty friggin’ tired of advocating the expulsion of groups who aren’t liked by various constituencies.” I’ve never heard him advocate any “expulsion”, and he’s simply addled if he thinks my video advocates it.

No, Mr. Sipos, my “alleged” doesn’t mean you’re either “mistaken or dishonest”, but rather coy. I challenged you to name a reform leader of similar stature to the three radical leaders I identified in my response as clearly suggesting the LP is not the right party for me. If you don’t have any such facts at hand, it’s not my fault. If you want to play the game of arguing which side’s leaders are trying harder to make it uncomfortable for the other side to remain in the party, that’s a game I will win every time—even without invoking my trump of the asymmetry in the party’s foundational texts. You of course ignored that asymmetry even after I called it out to you, nor did you answer my response to your drive-by epithet of “Republican lite”.

Tim, that was the first I’d seen of that Boaz piece. From my copy of Clark’s campaign book I had known that the Rothbard and Nolan critiques of the Clark campaign were unfair, but I had no idea they were that unfair and unfounded. If you really do have more material like that on your hard drive, then you need to share. Now.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609068 Sat, 17 May 2008 03:13:23 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609068 Susan, you're apparently confused about the Boaz essay, which you may not have read. Boaz was on the Cato team, whose management of the moderate Clark campaign was viciously criticized by long Rothbard and Nolan essays (which you perhaps haven't read either). We can either learn from LP history, or repeat it. Your call. But hey, I'm not in the caucus that is recycling 30-year-old Rothbardian strategy texts about building cadre... :-) Angela, if a single one of my facts don't "check", then here's what I ask you to do. Type an opening quotation mark. Paste a statement of mine. Type a closing quotation mark. Then give evidence that my statement is false. That's all I ask. I'm not inerrant, and if my research includes errors, I want to learn about them. Yep, M is quite out there to claim that Rothbard was a GOP plant for undermining the LP. We reformers generally prefer to leave such infiltration conspiracy theories to folks like Christine Smith and Tom Knapp, but you know that the far-flying M marches to the beat of a very distant and fascinating drum. (That reminds me, after Portland at least one prominent California radical, the owner of the ca-liberty list, speculated that the "funding" of the Reform Caucus should be investigated for nefarious connections.) Eric, you can either believe good principled moderate libertarians when we complain that too many radicals use the Party's foundational texts as bludgeons against us -- or not. While you make up your mind, I propose a simple deal: I'll stop protesting the bludgeoning of moderates with the Party's texts when either the bludgeoning stops, or the texts are no longer bludgeon-shaped. Fair enough? That's the deal we'll effectively be voting on in Denver. If you hadn't quit the PlatCom, you'd have gotten to enjoy me being called an "eco-fascist" and having my policies said to be on a slippery slope leading to those of Pol Pot. I guess I should just sit at the kids' table and take it for the team, but sorry, no. Don't confuse me with the reformers who say winning is all that matters. I say what matters is uniting at the ballot box all those who want more liberty. *That* is how we can "drive issues" -- not by calling for personal secession, or immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, or the restoration of the 2004 language legalizing child prostitution, etc. Those issues won't "drive"; they're stuck in a ditch. I don't begrudge our radical candidates trying to get them unstuck, but I just don't agree that all our candidates have to be in the ditch with them. Susan, you’re apparently confused about the Boaz essay, which you may not have read. Boaz was on the Cato team, whose management of the moderate Clark campaign was viciously criticized by long Rothbard and Nolan essays (which you perhaps haven’t read either). We can either learn from LP history, or repeat it. Your call. But hey, I’m not in the caucus that is recycling 30-year-old Rothbardian strategy texts about building cadre… :-)

Angela, if a single one of my facts don’t “check”, then here’s what I ask you to do. Type an opening quotation mark. Paste a statement of mine. Type a closing quotation mark. Then give evidence that my statement is false. That’s all I ask. I’m not inerrant, and if my research includes errors, I want to learn about them.

Yep, M is quite out there to claim that Rothbard was a GOP plant for undermining the LP. We reformers generally prefer to leave such infiltration conspiracy theories to folks like Christine Smith and Tom Knapp, but you know that the far-flying M marches to the beat of a very distant and fascinating drum. (That reminds me, after Portland at least one prominent California radical, the owner of the ca-liberty list, speculated that the “funding” of the Reform Caucus should be investigated for nefarious connections.)

Eric, you can either believe good principled moderate libertarians when we complain that too many radicals use the Party’s foundational texts as bludgeons against us—or not. While you make up your mind, I propose a simple deal: I’ll stop protesting the bludgeoning of moderates with the Party’s texts when either the bludgeoning stops, or the texts are no longer bludgeon-shaped. Fair enough? That’s the deal we’ll effectively be voting on in Denver. If you hadn’t quit the PlatCom, you’d have gotten to enjoy me being called an “eco-fascist” and having my policies said to be on a slippery slope leading to those of Pol Pot. I guess I should just sit at the kids’ table and take it for the team, but sorry, no.

Don’t confuse me with the reformers who say winning is all that matters. I say what matters is uniting at the ballot box all those who want more liberty. That is how we can “drive issues”—not by calling for personal secession, or immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, or the restoration of the 2004 language legalizing child prostitution, etc. Those issues won’t “drive”; they’re stuck in a ditch. I don’t begrudge our radical candidates trying to get them unstuck, but I just don’t agree that all our candidates have to be in the ditch with them.

]]>
by: steve Kubby http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609060 Sat, 17 May 2008 03:03:06 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609060 The Libertarian Party and the Dallas Accord will be the subject of the next Steve Kubby Show, this coming Monday. Less Antman joins us on discussing the fight between radicals and reformers. Susan Hogarth, David Nolan, Brian Holtz and anyone else who wants, can join us for a debate on this key issue. BlogTalk Radio, Monday, 6 PM Pacific Call in number: (646) 378-1107 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/SteveKubbyShow The Libertarian Party and the Dallas Accord will be the subject of the next Steve Kubby Show, this coming Monday.

Less Antman joins us on discussing the fight between radicals and reformers. Susan Hogarth, David Nolan, Brian Holtz and anyone else who wants, can join us for a debate on this key issue.

BlogTalk Radio, Monday, 6 PM Pacific
Call in number: (646) 378-1107
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/SteveKubbyShow

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609056 Sat, 17 May 2008 02:44:41 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/libertarian-reform-caucus-restore-84/#comment-609056 Eric, I wasn't in New York, but I wasn't born yesterday either. I know how the LP presidential balloting rules work, and I know that Rothbard wrote this: MR) On the climactic fourth ballot, with 270 needed to nominate, Bergland picked up ten votes for 270, while Ravenal lost 13 to 230, with 24 sticking stubbornly to NOTA. We started screaming and shouting in triumph; Bergland was over the top, by one vote, although the flow of the voting made it certain that we would win handily on the next ballot. (Fortunately NOTA cannot hold up things forever; after the fifth ballot the low man-Ravenal-would have had to drop out and all would have been over.) (MR 30 votes -- presumably radical, but Rothbard doesn't say -- may have swung with you to Ravenal, but the 270 votes for Bergland surely included the vast majority of radicals, and it seems just as intentionally misleading for you to say that "the LP Radical Caucus majority sided with the Cato candidate" as it is to say that "Bergland won by a single vote". Yes, 4 of the 7-man RC Central Committee took part in what Rothbard called a shocking "stab in the back" -- that's the language he used for his radical comrades, so readers can guess how he described his moderate enemies -- but I still don't hear you daring to claim that anything remotely like a "majority" of LP radicals voted for Ravenal over Bergland. I didn't say 30 votes was "insignificant"; I just said "it seems misleading to suggest that a majority of radicals backed the Cato candidate". Rothbard seems to dispute your claim that you and Raimondo "never attacked Ravenal". He says: "My first, instinctive reaction when I heard the news that the Machine had entered Ravenal as candidate was the same as that of a number of my friends, all of whom liked and admired the man whom Ed Crane affectionately refers to as "Earl the Pearl." That first instinctive reaction of each of us was: "But he's not a libertarian!" [...] Under hard-hitting questioning at a Radical Caucus (RC) candidates' meeting Wednesday night, Ravenal insisted that he now admired the consistency of the LP platform [...] The Radical Caucus Central Committee [of which you and Raimondo were members], then still pro-Bergland, issued a blue sheet of facts on Ravenal [...]" Yes, Rothbard and Evers radicalized the Platform in the 1970s, and were allied with the Cato faction at the time. But you still seem to have your facts wrong when you claim (as you did today on my blog) that the pre-1984 platform was "far more radical than any subsequent version". For example, the 1986 platform included both personal secession (i.e. anarchism) and an apparent endorsement of Rothbard's insistence that parents can allow their children to starve ("Whenever parents or other guardians are unable or unwilling to care for their children, those guardians have the right to seek other persons who are willing to assume guardianship, and children have the right to seek other guardians who place a higher value on their lives.") Neither position was in the 1980 or 1976 platforms. (I don't have copies of the 1978 or 1982 platforms.) If you're going to mislead us on facts I can check, then why should we trust you on the alleged facts that I can't check? The bottom line is that you have yet to dispute the core contention of my video: vicious personal attacks by Rothbard and his radical allies were crucial in helping to induce the Cato moderates to quit the LP, to which Rothbard said they "hopefully will never be heard from again". He got his wish. Maybe things have changed, but when Angela Keaton interviewed you in December you seem conflicted about all this. You told her "I would criticize some of the things that the Radical Caucus did when I was involved in it." You told her that the purpose of the Radical Caucus was "to keep the Party on course ideologically, to make sure that they stayed -- I don't like to use the word 'pure', but that they stayed firm to libertarian principles, and that internal education was as important as any other thing in terms of outreach in the Party." But in the same interview you said that "I left the LP because I didn't see it accomplishing very much any more. It had turned inward on itself and wasn't reaching out to the masses." Gee, I wonder why the LP had turned inward on itself? David Boaz's essay above suggests an answer: because the Cato moderates who tried to make Libertarian ideas popular were savaged for their efforts. Just as is happening in 2008. Eric, I wasn’t in New York, but I wasn’t born yesterday either. I know how the LP presidential balloting rules work, and I know that Rothbard wrote this:

MR) On the climactic fourth ballot, with 270 needed to nominate, Bergland picked up ten votes for 270, while Ravenal lost 13 to 230, with 24 sticking stubbornly to NOTA. We started screaming and shouting in triumph; Bergland was over the top, by one vote, although the flow of the voting made it certain that we would win handily on the next ballot. (Fortunately NOTA cannot hold up things forever; after the fifth ballot the low man-Ravenal-would have had to drop out and all would have been over.) (MR

30 votes—presumably radical, but Rothbard doesn’t say—may have swung with you to Ravenal, but the 270 votes for Bergland surely included the vast majority of radicals, and it seems just as intentionally misleading for you to say that “the LP Radical Caucus majority sided with the Cato candidate” as it is to say that “Bergland won by a single vote”. Yes, 4 of the 7-man RC Central Committee took part in what Rothbard called a shocking “stab in the back” —that’s the language he used for his radical comrades, so readers can guess how he described his moderate enemies—but I still don’t hear you daring to claim that anything remotely like a “majority” of LP radicals voted for Ravenal over Bergland. I didn’t say 30 votes was “insignificant”; I just said “it seems misleading to suggest that a majority of radicals backed the Cato candidate”.

Rothbard seems to dispute your claim that you and Raimondo “never attacked Ravenal”. He says: “My first, instinctive
reaction when I heard the news that the Machine had entered Ravenal as candidate was the same as that of a number of my friends, all of whom liked and admired the man whom Ed Crane affectionately refers to as “Earl the Pearl.” That first instinctive reaction of each of us was: “But he’s not a libertarian!” [...] Under hard-hitting questioning at a Radical Caucus (RC) candidates’
meeting Wednesday night, Ravenal insisted that he now admired the consistency of the LP platform [...] The Radical Caucus
Central Committee [of which you and Raimondo were members], then still pro-Bergland, issued a blue sheet of facts on Ravenal [...]”

Yes, Rothbard and Evers radicalized the Platform in the 1970s, and were allied with the Cato faction at the time. But you still seem to have your facts wrong when you claim (as you did today on my blog) that the pre-1984 platform was “far more radical than any subsequent version”. For example, the 1986 platform included both personal secession (i.e. anarchism) and an apparent endorsement of Rothbard’s insistence that parents can allow their children to starve (“Whenever parents or other guardians are unable or unwilling to care for their children, those guardians have the right to seek other persons who are willing to assume guardianship, and children have the right to seek other guardians who place a higher value on their lives.”) Neither position was in the 1980 or 1976 platforms. (I don’t have copies of the 1978 or 1982 platforms.)

If you’re going to mislead us on facts I can check, then why should we trust you on the alleged facts that I can’t check?

The bottom line is that you have yet to dispute the core contention of my video: vicious personal attacks by Rothbard and his radical allies were crucial in helping to induce the Cato moderates to quit the LP, to which Rothbard said they “hopefully will never be heard from again”. He got his wish.

Maybe things have changed, but when Angela Keaton interviewed you in December you seem conflicted about all this. You told her “I would criticize some of the things that the Radical Caucus did when I was involved in it.” You told her that the purpose of the Radical Caucus was “to keep the Party on course ideologically, to make sure that they stayed—I don’t like to use the word ‘pure’, but that they stayed firm to libertarian principles, and that internal education was as important as any other thing in terms of outreach in the Party.” But in the same interview you said that “I left the LP because I didn’t see it accomplishing very much any more. It had turned inward on itself and wasn’t reaching out to the masses.” Gee, I wonder why the LP had turned inward on itself? David Boaz’s essay above suggests an answer: because the Cato moderates who tried to make Libertarian ideas popular were savaged for their efforts.

Just as is happening in 2008.

]]>