Applications for the LP’s Platform Committee were due two days ago, and were to include three sample planks. Several applicants have chosen to make their proposals public. Here are the ones I am aware of; please post links to others in the comments.
UPDATE: In the comments, Susan has clarified that her last plank quoted below was not actually a proposed plank, as the first three are, but is more along the lines of an idea in a formative stage.
Thus far, the discussion has been mostly about the particulars of these proposals. I had been hoping more for links to (or just posting here) of the proposals of any other applicants who want to make their proposed planks public. If any are posted here, I’ll add them to the body of the post.
Susan Hogarth:
National and Community Defense
A community of free people will act in their own defense and that of their neighbors without compulsion. We oppose any form of compulsory military service, including taxation to support a standing or wartime military.
Social Security
It is the right and responsibility of each individual to provide for his old age as he best sees fit. We therefore support the abolition of the compulsory, burdensome, and unworkable Social Security system. Those who have been victims of the Social Security tax and who can therefore rightfully expect some compensation for their effort should have a claim against government property.
Civil Disobedience
Obedience to unjust laws perpetuates injustice. Therefore, we support peaceful disobedience of all unjust laws.
Offensive Weapons
Weapons which cannot be used without extensive concomitant damage to civilian populations (often called ‘weapons of mass destruction’) are - whether controlled by individuals or by states - the tools of terrorism, and as such have no place in the arsenal of a free people. We therefore support a ban on ownership of such weapons and call on the U.S. Government to divest itself of such offensive weaponry. The U.S. Government’s nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenals should be dismantled promptly, and further government research into the production of such materials should cease immediately.
Starchild:
1.7 The Arts [proposed new plank]
Art is a weapon against tyranny. The artistic spirit is anti-authoritarian, and stands in sharp contrast to the nature of bureaucracy, which is the nature of big government. Bureaucracy is deadening, art is enlivening. Bureaucracy upholds authority, art questions authority. Bureaucracy stands for repression, art for expression. Bureaucracy crushes the human spirit, art uplifts it. Bureaucracy is boring, art is passionate (this is reflected in the quote “boredom is counter-revolutionary — always”). Bureaucracy encourages conformity, art encourages nonconformity. The bureaucrat values law and order, the artist values freedom.
Again and again throughout history, poets, painters, musicians, sculptors, novelists, actors, and others have played key roles in motivating people to stand up for their freedom and resist government oppression. The Statue of Liberty designed by Frederic Bartholdi, and the poem by Emma Lazarus that graces its base, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are both works of art which have inspired millions, and today Lady Liberty, the “Mother of Exiles,” serves as the unofficial symbol of our party.
To put the fate of art in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians, or tyrants, either via the power to censor controversial works such as pornographic or “politically incorrect” material, or via the power of the purse by controlling which artists receive funding, is simply wrong. We favor the widest possible application of the First Amendment in protecting creative expression, and no less ardently insist that art not be degraded and robbed of its dignity by paying for it with blood money gained through government aggression.
2.8 Education [proposed replacement plank]
Although frequently desirable, formal education is not a duty which should be imposed on the young. Made compulsory, it often does more harm than good by killing the spirit of learning in children. As Leonardo da Vinci said, “Study without desire spoils the memory, and it retains nothing that it takes in.” Libertarians decry laws forcing young people to spend regimented hours of the day in educational institutions as if they were prisons.
Just as we should be under no obligation to become formally educated, neither do we have a “right” to attend an educational facility at the expense of anyone else, because no legitimate right can impose a duty on another to work to achieve it. We *do* have the rights to *seek* knowledge and technical skills, and there are many ways to exercise these rights, only some of which involve enrolling in schools or programs specifically called “educational.” Writer Mark Twain wisely advised, “Never let your schooling interfere with your education.” Many accomplished leaders in science, business, art, and other areas of endeavor had little in the way of formal schooling, just as today in the United States, students who are homeschooled often outperform their peers in various measures of learning.
Unfortunately, schooling *does* appear to be greatly interfering with the education of millions of young people in U.S. government-run public schools. This is regularly revealed in news stories about high school students who cannot even find the country on a map of the world, high school graduates who cannot construct a grammatically correct sentence, and so on. Some of this, as crazy as it sounds, may have been according to plan: According to Thomas Dewey, sometimes called the “father” of the government (”public”) system of elementary education in the United States, “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society.” Dewey, a state socialist, was an early admirer of the Soviet Union, and wanted children to be indoctrinated to serve the needs of the State. And indeed, the current school system largely modeled on the theories of Dewey and other “progressives” has been progressively “dumbing down” generations of students.
Government schooling is also a source of conflict in society, as factions of the public fight over how these schools use their stolen tax dollars. Today we see the cherished tradition of Separation of Church and State under new assault, with some on the religious right attempting to substitute the teaching of Creationism for evolution, replace sex education with abstinence propaganda, and sneak organized prayer into the classroom. Meanwhile, others on the far left use their control of many government-run universities to further an agenda of “political correctness” under which speech codes are used to criminalize dissenting points of view, school resources are used to lobby for yet more government funding, and educators who do not conform to the dominant mindset often have difficulty getting hired or promoted.
Libertarians believe that choices of which school to attend, whether to pursue academic or vocational learning, or whether to attend an organized school at all, should be made at the family level, by students and parents, according to their wishes and budgets. We urge private industry and charity to be generous in supporting these choices with scholarships and other educational offerings. Society desperately needs Separation of School and State for the same reason Separation of Church and State is so important — it is dangerous to allow those who make and enforce the laws to be involved in telling people what to think and believe. And how much more true when those being so indoctrinated are among the youngest and most impressionable members of society.
3.4 Freedom of Movement [proposed replacement plank for "Free Trade and Migration"]
Freedom of movement, when not infringing on the private property rights of others, is a fundamental human right which should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Countries are not private property, and governments have no legitimate authority to limit who may enter and leave these usually vast areas. Detaining people at national borders without probable cause is just as wrong as detaining them in similar unprovoked fashion at their homes or in the streets.
This is a pressing human rights issue. Border controls enforced by governments of wealthy countries have created black markets in human smuggling, with tragic and deadly consequences. Each year, numerous migrants seeking to cross the border unmolested die in the deserts of the southwestern United States or in overheated vehicles without adequate food and water, while others are trafficked into the country as virtual slaves, forced to work in exploitative, sub-market conditions in order to pay off their smugglers, and afraid to leave these workplaces lest they be deported.
We strongly condemn the construction of the walls and fences which are slowly turning the United States, home to about five percent of the world’s population, into the equivalent of a wealthy, gated community. Such barriers are also the silent killers of millions who never attempt to migrate, taking years off their lives by denying them the opportunity to relocate in places where their life expectancy would have been extended through access to cleaner drinking water, better health care, etc. Equally ominously, with the United States in danger of becoming a police state, the militarization of the border represents a potential “Berlin Wall” which could be used to prevent people from *leaving* the country as well as entering it.
While we understand the concerns of those who resent migrants as an added drain on taxpayer-funded government services, and would like to see the welfare state ended before opening the borders, basic rights are not conditional. If we were not allowed to own guns until there were no shootings, or free speech were put on hold until it was no longer used to express bigoted views, we would wait forever. There is no justice in criminalizing whole groups of people because some
members of those groups take advantage of government largess. Per capita, immigrants to the United States actually receive less in total government benefits than do U.S. residents born in the country. The promise of freedom must be extended to all peaceful refugees and migrants to the United States, whether they come to escape tyranny or poverty. Toward this end, we call for the elimination of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, an end to the massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing certain government documents, and the repeal of laws punishing employers who hire undocumented workers. Such laws hurt the economy and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics. Finally, we demand a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country without government approval, except in cases where such entry was in furtherance of committing an actual crime.
UPDATE 2, Nov. 20
James, AKA VirtualGalt (submitted existing planks, with added language in bold)
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. We specifically call for the repeal of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.
2.0 Economic Liberty
A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society. Because of our belief in a free and competitive market, we are opposed to efforts by governments to protect businesses from the consequences of their poor decisions.
2.4 Government Finance and Spending
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
We call for the gradual retirement of all governmental indebtedness over a 50-year period.
456 responses so far ↓
1 chuckmoulton // Nov 18, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I am glad to see that Susan proposed planks that won’t be rejected out of hand for their length.
I certainly hope Susan is selected because we get the best Platform when intelligent libertarians from many different strategic viewpoints (Radical Caucus, Reform Caucus, etc.) are involved in the process.
2 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 18, 2008 at 3:03 pm
We oppose any form of compulsory military service, including taxation to support a standing or wartime military.
Even though there is a vast portion of libertarians who believe that maintenance of the national defense is a legitimate function of the State, the anarcho wing is insistent on driving them away.
3 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Steven, are there any libertarians in that vast portion who believe in involuntary servitude? Are you asserting some sort of new libertarian who believes in slavery? Because that is what compulsory military service is.
And that is exactly what compulsory taxation to support a standing military is.
There is a constitutional provision against a standing army in peace time, and there is a limit to the endurance of legislation funding a war time army, and the reasons for these limitations are clearly explained in The Federalist Papers - written by several men who were clearly not libertarians at the time.
Ms. Hogarth has proposed wording she finds acceptable. Her proposal has not been adopted. So how is anyone “insistent on driving them away” these magical pro-slavery libertarians? Is it just the expression of opposition to war that you despise?
Does it drive you away to even have someone *propose* an anti-war measure? Because that’s good. I’d like to drive you away, so I’ll propose the USA “stop the war” in every message I post. That ought to infuriate you.
4 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Ms. Hogarth’s proposed language on Socialist Insecurity is okay, except for the last two words. I reviewed this proposal by weirdo Harry Browne to distribute to elderly people, like himself, property that was claimed by the government in the name of all the people.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le9611a06.html
Simply put, I don’t think the people now paying into the system have any less of an expectation of compensation, and I would oppose any land sale for the sake of the elderly. Instead of “against government property” I would propose “…against the property of those politicians, and their heirs and assigns, who voted for or signed previous social security legislation.”
The Ponzi scheme operators are the ones to be made to pay off the victims. I would argue that distributing “government property” to the elderly, or selling it to distribute the proceeds, is ethically similar to having the UN impose a national government in Somalia to force the Somalis to pay taxes to reimburse the international bankers for the funds they lent to the former dictator - who used those funds to torture and massacre the Somalis (or their forebears).
5 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Oops, forgot that time. Stop the war.
6 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm
On offensive weapons, I think Ms. Hogarth is completely mistaken on the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. There are plenty of places in the universe where individuals might have some legitimate purpose for such tools. Any restriction on the possession or use of any kinds of weapons is an affront to the essential freedom to keep and bear arms.
It has been well over 100 years since the first Hague conference, about a hundred years since the London naval conference, and so far there have been few disarmament policies with widespread implementation. A small number of missiles, mostly obsolete, and an even smaller number of warheads have been eliminated. Meanwhile, lots of 16 inch guns for shelling coast lines are still in navy yards, and as recently as the 1980s were employed for the senseless shelling of Lebanon.
The success of authoritarian societies depends entirely on disarmament, as was proven many centuries ago by the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan. The military occupation of China and Korea by the Empire of Japan, and its depredations on civilian populations in Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Guinea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Burma, and elsewhere, were much worse because so many of those civilian populations had already been disarmed.
Artillery shells, hand grenades, dynamite, and machine guns have previously been put forward by the pacifists as weapons of mass destruction, and have certainly been responsible in the killing of many civilians. I think it is idiotic and ludicrous to suggest that people today can know what free people need, or may need tomorrow, and circumscribe their choices.
It worked very poorly in Japan. Disarmament has generally worked very poorly over the years.
The one thing everyone in Africa I met or spoke with had in common was a fierce determination to be armed. It is the disarming of populations that causes war, tyranny, and injustice.
Hoplophobia has no place in the pursuit of peace.
Stop the war.
7 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm
And that is exactly what compulsory taxation to support a standing military is.
By that logic, all compulsory taxation is slavery, ergo, only anarchists are libertarians.
8 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Starchild on the arts. Very pretty prose, though some of the repetition gets a bit dull. It might be improved by being shorter. The thrust of the policy: open and free expression for everyone, not one red cent of tax money for bureau-rats to distribute to artists - is excellent.
Stop the war.
9 paulie cannoli // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Opposition to compulsory taxation is insufficient to make one an anarchist.
It is possible to have a government which is funded voluntarily, yet still claims a monopoly on certain functions such as national defense and courts within a self-defined territory.
This is the position I held immediately prior to becoming an anarchist; I sometimes referred to it as micro-minarchist.
10 G.E. // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Susan’s first three are excellent. #4 is really bad, though. I don’t think it can be reconciled with anarchism.
Yes, please go away.
11 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:25 pm
All compulsory taxation is slavery. No taxation without consent. Or don’t you believe in the consent of the governed, you filthy authoritarian whore?
Stop the war.
12 hogarth // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Even though there is a vast portion of libertarians who believe that maintenance of the national defense is a legitimate function of the State, the anarcho wing is insistent on driving them away.
I’m not sure who you mean when you say ‘anarcho wing’, but as the author of those words, I certainly wasn’t aiming to drive anyone away. I absolutely am big on maintaining a strong defense - I just don’t see any need for compulsion to do it. Perhaps you do, or perhaps you don’t think that taxation is compulsion.
Paul, it’s common courtesy to ask before reposting content entire from another site.
13 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:30 pm
If you don’t believe in consensual taxation, then do you believe in bond issues? Do you believe in referenda to raise property taxes? In many communities throughout the country, the city or county cannot impose a sales tax, property tax, or even borrow money against future tax revenues without the consent of the voters.
Yet, somehow, all these communities have consensual tax systems. Or, at least, consent by a majority of those who vote on those matters. Which is a good deal better than what you want, I think.
I think what you want, Mr. Drunkenmiller, is to have guys with guns go door to door and rape and loot and pillage. We had that when the redcoats ran this country, and we fought a revolution over it. Americans took redcoats out and slit their throats, eviscerated their bodies, and left them rotting in the Sun - to judge only by the primary source materials I’ve read on the rout of the British from Concord bridge back to Boston.
I realise that you and your posh friends in your pleasant think tanks in your Beltway banditry offices don’t much like the rest of us. But you can get our consent before you impose taxes, or you can get your throat slit by your neighbors, and I don’t mind which.
Stop the war.
14 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Ms. Hogarth, I wonder if a specific statement that war protestors need not pay taxes that support the war effort might be enough to fix Drunkenmiller’s problem. But, then, all the funds go into one general federal revenue fund, and we never know which taxes actually go to anything.
The gasoline tax is supposed to pay for highways, but the highway trust fund is rarely used, to create the illusion of slightly less imbalanced budgets. Oh, well.
Stop the war.
15 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Paulie, she’s right. What you should have done was excerpt each proposal to its own article. That way, you’d be quoted each one, and we could have the discussions separated, too.
I personally don’t think the press have any obligation not to report, nor to cravenly seek permission, before publishing the words on a political party’s web site where those words can be discussed and picked apart. The LP, like the BTP, wants to run the country. So its policies, and its policy discussions, are fair game for open dialog.
Stop the war.
16 hogarth // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm
G.E., you might find this bit by Rothbard interesting, even if you don’t agree (incidentally I don’t particularly like MR’s use of the term ‘crime against humanity’, but I let the paragraph entire in the quote):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html
17 paulie cannoli // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Paul, it’s common courtesy to ask before reposting content entire from another site.
Sorry, I thought you were trying to bring your ideas to the largest interested audience and discussion. I’ll ask next time before posting anything you write.
I have zero interest in promoting that site now that I have been kicked off of it, but you and the other writers there (and other people as well) are welcome to cross-post on Next Free Voice, which doesn’t make a regular practice of kicking people off.
Let me know if you want a log in. (That’s a general you, not only Susan).
18 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The overall direction of Starchild’s 2.8 on education seems good. I think it is very long, and I found it tedious to read through.
Stop the war.
19 hogarth // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:40 pm
There are plenty of places in the universe where individuals might have some legitimate purpose for such tools.
I understand this argument. This plank was something I’m just playing around with a bit; it was not offered as part of my ‘application’ to the platform committee - as the comment that Paul left out when he reposted it indicated.
The original posting is here:
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/lp-platform-committee-application-sample-planks/
20 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I should note that I myself do not regard majority consent for a tax to be adequate evidence that it is non-compulsory. We’ve recently had a bit of difficulty with majority consent to gay marriage.
I do not think that my consent is obtained if a majority of my neighbors vote to give their consent. Nevertheless, it is at least the illusion of consent, and arguably better than the federal tax system.
Stop the war.
21 paulie cannoli // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I personally don’t think the press have any obligation not to report, nor to cravenly seek permission, before publishing the words on a political party’s web site where those words can be discussed and picked apart. The LP, like the BTP, wants to run the country. So its policies, and its policy discussions, are fair game for open dialog.
I would generally consider proposals for changing a political party’s public platform, posted in a public place by a prospective party platform participant, to be fair game.
However, I also believe Susan has the right to her work, so I’ll do my best to keep her wishes in mind in the future. As for multiple articles, the purpose of this thread was to discuss all proposals for the platform. It’s just that I haven’t found other proposals besides Susan’s and Starchild’s yet. I’m not interested in putting up hundreds of articles about it, at least at this time.
22 hogarth // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Simply put, I don’t think the people now paying into the system have any less of an expectation of compensation, and I would oppose any land sale for the sake of the elderly.
I didn’t specify elderly. I wrote “Those who have been victims…” which certainly includes those paying now as well as retired people.
I understand the difficulty with the term ‘government property’, but I’m not sure of the best way around it.
23 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:48 pm
If you don’t believe in consensual taxation, then do you believe in bond issues?
Where did I say that?
Mr. Davidson, you have a terrible habit of putting words in my mouth.
24 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Starchild 3.4 on freedom of movement, misses some important points, and spends a lot longer getting to the ones it reaches.
People are not only detained at borders without probable cause, but they are also searched at borders in direct and utter violation of the fourth amendment protections in the constitution. There seems to be no recognition of a need for probable cause for search, anywhere, any longer.
Your car can be searched with the say so of a dog. You’d think a judge, but, no, a dog can sniff at your car, or jump into it (very common for those of us who own dogs and have cars that smell of dogs). The dog may be “trained not to react to other dogs,” but it is, in fact, a dog. Dogs are gregarious and are unlikely to stop being dogs on the say so of some cop dog trainer.
You can have your home searched without a warrant, on the say so of a national security ninny. You might be told 90 days later, if they didn’t find anything, and if their keystroke loggers on your computer couldn’t be used to fabricate some sort of evidence of possible wrongdoing.
Borders should not be any different. If USA government personnel are conducting the search, whether it is in a foreign country or at the borders or within this one, it should be conducted only if probable cause has been established, duly sworn, with the approval of a magistrate. Goodness knows there are enough whores in judicial robes willing to issue warrants on little or no cause that we don’t need to loosen things up further.
Being the exact kind of person who writes way too much to convey a point, I would again note that Starchild’s freedom of movement proposal is wordy. And I should know.
Stop the war.
25 paulie cannoli // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:53 pm
This plank was something I’m just playing around with a bit; it was not offered as part of my ‘application’ to the platform committee - as the comment that Paul left out when he reposted it indicated.
Sorry, again. The only thing I left out were the words ‘bonus plank.’ I just thought that meant you offered four, above and beyond the requested three. I did not realize it was in an entirely separate category.
26 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:55 pm
@19 Wow. It is nice to be understood. Very welcome. Thanks.
27 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Ooops, at 26, Stop the War.
28 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 4:58 pm
@23, I didn’t say you said it. I asked whether you believe in them. I asked a question. Do you see that funny mark at the end of the sentence that isn’t a period? It is a question mark. When I ask a question, you cannot suppose that I know the answer. It does not impugn your intelligence or assert a position of yours to ask you a question.
But, of course, I forgot, you are an authoritarian. So, anyone asking you a question is being impertinent.
You wanna stop me from asking questions? Come on over. Pig.
Stop the war.
29 hogarth // Nov 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Actually, Jim, I think I answered your objection by using the wording “Weapons which cannot be used without extensive concomitant damage to civilian populations…”.
If you’re prepping a nuclear device on Mars to melt the polar ice cap, that’s a whole different kettle of fish than capping a missile whose launch codes *only* include major population centers.
30 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 5:03 pm
@22 There are many problems with government property. One of them is, we don’t really know what’s what.
For example, there is the equal footing clause. States are supposed to enter on an equal footing. But, those admitted after 1861 were essentially prevented from doing so, and were coerced into adopting provisions to turn over vast tracts of territory to the national government. There is considerable question whether the national government can own any land on which it does not erect a “needful building” such as a fort, dock yard, or arsenal, as provided in the authorising language in the constitution.
There are also requirements for the legislature of the state to explicitly consent to the land being turned over. In many cases, a constitutional convention adopted the policy, instead. It is all a terrible mess.
We also haven’t seen an audit of the Federal Reserve, nor of the Treasury’s precious metals, in the first instance since they were formed in 1913 and in the second since around 1954 or so. So we don’t really know how much gold the CIA recovered from the Japanese - who stole it from all over Southeast Asia.
I would be less uptight about this distribution of wealth to cover false promises of future pensions if there were some way of knowing what the government actually owns. That might be a program point for the Boston Tea Party to consider in future.
Stop the war.
31 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 18, 2008 at 5:06 pm
ahh, Mr. Davidson, you’re a troll.
I got it.
32 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm
@29 Agreed, Mars is a potential site for such application. One might also widen a canal, or create one to compete with Suez or Panama, using such tools.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to own a weapon that could only be coded to fire at large population centers. I suspect you’ll find that some of those launch codes point to missile silos, and some of those missiles can be pointed at the vicinity of submarines and carrier battle groups at sea. I’m suspicious of what we know about such things because the nationalist socialist security apparatus is determined to lie to us “for our own good.”
Which, as we’ve seen, did not do us much good after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, nor after the weapons of mass destruction thing in Iraq. Secrecy is a disease.
Stop the war.
33 JimDavidson // Nov 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm
@31 No, Mr. Drunkenmiller, I’m very sincere.
I don’t disagree with you more often, nor more vociferously, than GE or Paulie. I’m perhaps a tiny bit more likely to call you a pig.
But, really, you are an evil authoritarian. You might pretend you are some sort of nice pleasant libertarian. But you are a villain. I want to make you suffer for your villainy.
Authoritarians advocate aggression and initiation of force. Doing so is wrong.
Stop the war.
34 Jeremy Young // Nov 18, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Paulie, how exactly do you of all people get kicked off an anarcho-libertarian site? I can’t imagine you were rude, as I’ve never seen you be so (at least not on blogs). However it happened, that’s a pretty neat trick. I haven’t even managed to be banned from Daily Kos yet, though Lord knows I’ve tried.
35 paulie cannoli // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Paulie, how exactly do you of all people get kicked off an anarcho-libertarian site?
1) it is not an anacho-anything site.
2) Even if it were, that would not mean someone could not be kicked off; anarcho-libertarians believe in property rights.
3) Detailed explanation of the particulars of this incident here
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/site-updates-new-authors/
(see third bullet point).
36 hogarth // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I am glad to see that Susan proposed planks that won’t be rejected out of hand for their length.
I hope that nothing will be ‘rejected out of hand’ - and most especially not for length. The platform-writing process is collaborative, and it’s simple enough to distill Starchild’s essay-length planks into something punchier - if the committee even desires to do so.
I certainly hope Susan is selected because we get the best Platform when intelligent libertarians from many different strategic viewpoints (Radical Caucus, Reform Caucus, etc.) are involved in the process.
Thanks for the compliment, and I agree. Not so much that I’m intelligent
as that the best platform will come from a lively mix of ideological viewpoints.
37 rdupuy // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Well, having only these 2 to compare, Susan’s have the correct form, at least.
Starchild making your point like *this*, is a mistake. I guess you thought it added more emphasis, or made your point stronger, but it has the opposite effect. It makes it appear weak and in need of gimmickry.
Frankly I didn’t finish reading your rant.
Susan loved the style of your writing, although I personally wouldn’t support your planks.
My thoughts, on National defense: I think we must have a military of some size, and therefore that military, properly sized, would have expenses which would be paid by the public.
Social Security: I agree on the point of eliminating the many government entitlement programs, but I’m not sure I’d list them out separately as plank items. I think the word victim, is not only a bit too strong, but in many cases, not even correct. SSN may run out of money someday. But for now, people collect far more than they put in. And more than that, the vast majority of americans, supported the social security system. If we are the victims, most of us are the perpetrators as well.
Civil Disobedience. I completely disagree. Civil disobedience has its place, and I respect those, who engage in principled stands. However, the mere fact that a law is unjust is not enough to break the law, and I don’t start from the position of supporting law breakers. I start from the position of obeying the law.
38 hogarth // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:32 pm
My thoughts, on National defense: I think we must have a military of some size, and therefore that military, properly sized, would have expenses which would be paid by the public.
But I quite agree with this! Nothing I’ve said contradicts that as far as I can tell.
And more than that, the vast majority of americans, supported the social security system.
The ‘04 platform - which was the basis of this particular plank - contained the proviso that those who wanted to continue with the SS system should be allowed to - a sort of ‘opt out’ transformation of SS. I could live with that in the plank.
However, the mere fact that a law is unjust is not enough to break the law, and I don’t start from the position of supporting law breakers. I start from the position of obeying the law.
It was the alarming number of times I have heard this sort of statement from fellow Party members in the past year which induced me to propose this plank. I view it as the most important of the three (or four, if you count the ‘practice’ one). Whether or not I am asked to serve on the PC, I will press for it to be offered to the Convention, or offer it myself from the floor if it is not.
If you had served on a jury in, say, 1845, would you have convicted a man of refusing to return a slave to his ‘owner’? Or would you have acquitted him, deeming the runaway slave laws to be abhorrent?
Isn’t jury nullification just another form of civil disobedience?
Or if you don’t think jury nullification = civil disobedience, ask yourself this: would you have helped a runaway slave who showed up at your doorstep and begged for your assistance?
39 paulie cannoli // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:32 pm
FWIW it’s worth, I like Susan’s proposed planks, except that I would shorten the “offensive weapons” quasi-proposal a bit. Mine would read:
“Weapons which cannot be used without extensive concomitant damage to civilian populations (often called ‘weapons of mass destruction’) are the tools of terrorism, and as such have no place in the arsenal of a free people. We therefore call on the U.S. Government to divest itself of such offensive weaponry. The U.S. Government’s nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenals should be dismantled promptly, and further government research into the production of such materials should cease immediately.”
Also, on the SS plank, I would take out the last sentence.
“It is the right and responsibility of each individual to provide for his old age as he best sees fit. We therefore support the abolition of the compulsory, burdensome, and unworkable Social Security system.”
Claims against government property are a tricky issue, in that the government does not legitimately own any property. Also, as a practical matter, it has already used up many of the resources it has taken from people, and thus would be in no position to pay out everyone who has paid into it in full. And, not everyone has the records to prove exactly how much they paid over the years.
What to do with the property in the possession of the regime is an interesting question. I think it should be addressed separately, if at all.
40 paulie cannoli // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:34 pm
D’oh.
“‘FWIW it’s worth,” - you can take that to the ATM machine.
41 hogarth // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Paul - I like your change to the weapons plank. Seems like an awful lot of Libs are OK with the USG owning WMD though
Taking out the last sentence of the SS plank does indeed make it less arguable.
42 paulie cannoli // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Seems like an awful lot of Libs are OK with the USG owning WMD though
That’s a shame. We both know that’s the direction the party has been going in, though.
43 G.E. // Nov 18, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I’m okay with private entities owning them.
44 George Dance // Nov 18, 2008 at 8:21 pm
@3: “There is a constitutional provision against a standing army in peace time”
Cite, please.
45 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 18, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Seems like an awful lot of Libs are OK with the USG owning WMD though
I suppose I am “OK” with it. I view United States disarmament as “putting down your guns” when the other guys still have theirs pointed at you.
46 mscrib // Nov 19, 2008 at 12:59 am
On Social Security:
Can we specify transition actions? The best way to attack Social Security is to go to a means tested system. One of the largest critiques of a means tested Social Security program is that the public will stop overwhelmingly supporting its existence once it becomes viewed as a welfare program rather than social insurance. Anyway, from a fiscal point of view, means testing for Social Security certainly would be better than the current situation.
47 chuckmoulton // Nov 19, 2008 at 1:27 am
Chuck Moulton wrote:
Susan Hogarth wrote:
You’re missing the point. You and I can hope all we want, but the reality is the LNC will reject Starchild’s application out of hand because his planks are too long. That’s pretty much a certainty based on past experience. And I’m sure Starchild knew that.
There are some people on the LNC who will be opposed to both you and Starchild being on the Platform Committee. Avoiding giving the fence sitters a silly reason to reject you is a good thing, and that’s why I’m glad you stuck to a sample plank length commensurate with the existing Platform.
Once you make the Platform Committee, propose and discuss planks of any length the Committee wants to consider.
48 Jeremy Young // Nov 19, 2008 at 2:45 am
Paulie, so what I take from that lengthy post of yours is that:
1) You set up a blog, and later on invited someone else to be co-administrator; and
2) That person then deleted you from the blog.
In what universe that is appropriate behavior, I have no idea. It makes no difference what your history or behavior is or isn’t. If she had a problem with you, she should have left, not thrown you out of the house you built.
49 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 19, 2008 at 2:53 am
you can get your throat slit by your neighbors, and I don’t mind
There’s those threats of violence again. And for what? Speaking words.
You’re a terrible libertarian, The Troll.
50 paulie cannoli // Nov 19, 2008 at 9:21 am
2) That person then deleted you from the blog.
In what universe that is appropriate behavior, I have no idea. It makes no difference what your history or behavior is or isn’t. If she had a problem with you, she should have left, not thrown you out of the house you built.
Actually, I did not set it up. Stuart Richards set it up. Eventually he got too busy with real life and moved on. But, you are correct, I did in fact do a lot to build it, I invited many of the people who post there (including the one who kicked me off), promoted it extensively, put up hundreds of posts and thousands of comments, spent thousands of hours on it, etc.
I was the last of the people from the early days of the blog who was still actively posting there recently. One or two of the people who were signed up before me or around the same time as me are still signed up, but have not been posting (or commenting much or at all) lately.
And you are correct that I am not happy about the way in which I got booted. In fact up until she did it I had forgotten that one admin could demote another. If I thought she would do such a thing, I would have never promoted her to admin to begin with.
What’s done is done, so now I am not promoting that site anymore, but I am inviting the people that write and comment there (and here) to Next Free Voice instead.
So far Peter Orvetti, Less Antman, Matt Harris, Jim Davidson, and Robert Mayer have signed up to write there. Michelle still has a log in but has not posted anything in a long time. I’m hoping we get more people signed up to write, and more people commenting.
51 hogarth // Nov 19, 2008 at 10:10 am
You’re missing the point.
No, I got it - I was just riffing off your point to make another point
52 hogarth // Nov 19, 2008 at 10:13 am
I view United States disarmament as “putting down your guns†when the other guys still have theirs pointed at you.
Once again: I have *never* suggested ‘disarmament’. I’ve said that we should not support the ownership or use of WMD by *anyone*.
53 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 19, 2008 at 10:55 am
The U.S. Government’s nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenals should be dismantled promptly
I know you’re still batting this idea about, but it seems to me you are suggesting disarmament.
Ms. Hogarth, what sense does it make for an American party to advocate that as part of American policy?
54 hogarth // Nov 19, 2008 at 11:07 am
Ms. Hogarth, what sense does it make for an American party to advocate that as part of American policy?
I explained that; weapons which cannot be used without killing large numbers of innocents are inherently terroristic weapons and should not be used by civilized people.
We just have to decide if we’re civilized or not.
55 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 19, 2008 at 11:14 am
I acknowledge that, but again, how is that not advocacy for disarmament?
56 hogarth // Nov 19, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I acknowledge that, but again, how is that not advocacy for disarmament?
I’m afraid we’re talking past one another. If I have a vial of anthrax (just sayin’!), several handguns, and an SKS, and I decide to (safely) dispose of the anthrax because I realize that mailing it to a congressman would present an inevitable danger to innocent parties, I hardly consider that ‘disarmament’.
I’m using the word ‘disarmament’ to mean getting rid of all weapons, not merely getting rid of one. I don’t advocate that Americans ‘disarm’ at all; only that we get rid of weapons whose use is clearly unethical.
57 Coming Back to the LP // Nov 19, 2008 at 1:04 pm
A few quick thoughts for the platform:
1 Repeal all taxes on income at all levels of government. Abolish the IRS. Repeal the 16th amendment.
2 Repeal all taxes on property at all levels of government. The property tax is the worst of all taxes. Free people who own their own land or home and are self sufficient would be able to live without any income or participation in the cash economy. They are forced by the property tax to have an income and are forced into the hands of the government.
The property tax consititues a “taking” of a portion of a person’s property each year, without compensation.
3. Abolish the Federal Reserve and move toward free market money. In the interim, if government issues money, it must be backed by gold as required under the constitution.
4. Non invervention. End the wars. Bring all the troops home stationed outside the US, in an orderly by timely manner.
5. Free trade with all.
6. End the war on drugs. Free persons should be allowed to self medicate.
7. Abolish Social Security taxes. End mandatory participation. Phase out benefits. Only those wholly dependent and elderly would be allowed to continue to collect.
8. Abolish all laws regulating freedom of speech, press and religion.
9. Abolish all marriage laws that prescribe a one-size fits all marriage contract and prevent the natural long-term relationships that adults may wish to contractually create for themselves.
10 Abolish all child support laws that coerce one party into paying for children being raised by another party.
11 End Selective Service registration and abolish the draft for ever with a constitutional amendment prohibiting government slavery in any form including: the draft, conscription, national service or taxation of income.
12 Prohibit and abolish the use of eminent domain by any level of government.
13 Abolish ______ any agency that you have the time and energy and good writer to write a platform plank about.
Please make a radical, hard hitting platform we can all be proud of.
Smash the state. Vote Libertarian.
58 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 19, 2008 at 2:43 pm
only that we get rid of weapons whose use is clearly unethical.
And that should be done without other countries’ emptying their arsenals?
59 hogarth // Nov 19, 2008 at 2:57 pm
SH:
only that we get rid of weapons whose use is clearly unethical.
SD:
And that should be done without other countries’ emptying their arsenals?
Yes. If the use of the weapons is unethical, then it doesn’t matter that other governments or individuals might be contemplating the use of similar unethical weapons.
We are either prepared to carry out the mass slaughter of civilians in war - in other words, to act as savages - or we are not. If we’re not, there is no purpose to keeping weapons whose deployment necessarily involves such mass slaughter.
What would be the point? Those things aren’t cheap to keep up, and eventually we *will* have another madman in the White House who will use them. And even without that, their presence is a deliberate threat against innocent people. Why keep them unless we agree that their use is good and right?
If you think that there’s a place in civilization for such behavior, then by all means advocate for the development and maintenance of the tools to achieve the slaughter. I do not think that’s civilized, so I do not advocate that anyone keep them for such purposes.
If another country’s government sent nuclear weapons to our cities, would our government be justified in retaliating? I don’t think so. So why keep the weapons?
60 G.E. // Nov 19, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Collective defense is appropriate and would exist in a free society.
I’m against the monopoly state owning any property whatsoever.
But I have to agree with Druckenmiller to an extent. Saying the U.S. should abandon its nukes, etc., is sort of like saying the government should stop prosecuting murderers. Yes, I think the government SHOULD stop prosecuting murderers — but only if it leaves that task to others. Similarly, I think others (private entities) should be in charge of the state’s nukes, and instead of worldwide disarmament, I wish more collective-defense entities were nuked up. I know this is a divergence from Rothbardianism.
61 G.E. // Nov 19, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Dropping nuclear bombs is unethical. But they have another “use” that is perfectly ethical, and indeed, virtuous: they prevent the evil U.S., or whatever may come after it, from invading. If Iran had nukes, there would be no talk of a coming war with Persia.
62 G.E. // Nov 19, 2008 at 3:04 pm
No, but the threat that our government would retaliate is a deterrent.
63 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 19, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I’m sorry, Ms. Hogarth, but the genie is out of the bottle.
If another country’s government sent nuclear weapons to our cities, would our government be justified in retaliating? I don’t think so.
What? Why? Do you think that “we” should just sit there and take it?
64 hogarth // Nov 19, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Dropping nuclear bombs is unethical. … but the threat that our government would retaliate is a deterrent.
See, this is the sort of argument that I find blindingly illogical - even setting aside the immoral nature of a constant threat against large civilian populations.
Either you approve of slaughtering civilians or you do not. Keeping weapons whose sole purpose is that slaughter implies *that you do approve*. The idea that you would make a ‘threat’ that you would never carry out is just plain silly - and guaranteed to get you into trouble.
So in effect you seem (to me) to be saying that you approve of the use of threats of actions which you find unethical. Sorry, but that just doesn’t square with my reading of your character, G.E.
Any shooter knows this lesson: “Don’t point the gun at anything you aren’t willing to put a hole through.” I find it astounding that so many people are willing to point such a horrible gun at so many innocent people with the blithe assumption that the brandishment itself can serve the purposes of keeping peace without the risk of the gun actually going off someday.
I wonder if shooting lessons should be made mandatory.
Just kidding!
-sigh-
65 hogarth // Nov 19, 2008 at 3:47 pm
SH:
If another country’s government sent nuclear weapons to our cities, would our government be justified in retaliating? I don’t think so.
SD:
What? Why? Do you think that “we†should just sit there and take it?
My apologies - I was unclear! You were right to call me on it. I should have written ‘retaliate in kind’ rather than simply ‘retaliate’.
The question was designed to ask you whether you think destroying civilian population centers is ever justified, not whether you think we should defend ourselves or retaliate against the aggressing government. Sorry for not being clear!
66 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 19, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Do I think destroying civilian population centers is ever justified?
I think defining “civilian” is very hard to do in mass warfare.
67 hogarth // Nov 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I think defining “civilian†is very hard to do in mass warfare.
*puts head in hands and groans*
Hoppe wrote about this as one of the greatest perils of democracy - that because of the (obscene) idea that ‘we are the government’, it becomes much more a true Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’ than any state of anarchy could ever aspire to be.
68 JimDavidson // Nov 19, 2008 at 4:18 pm
There is certainly no logic to mutually assured destruction. The best that can be said for it is that deterrence may have been helpful in preventing bad situations from escalating, as long as both sides could convince people that they had sufficient animosity and insanity to “push the button” if missiles began falling out of the sky.
If nuclear weapons provide a deterrent effect against other major world governments, it is based on the threat of insanity. You do a crazy first strike against us, we do a crazy obliteration retaliatory strike against you, everyone goes to nuclear winter. One nuclear weapon can make for a very bad day.
The problem with nuclear deterrence as a credible threat is that it doesn’t work so well against non-national terrorist organisations. If it was a deterrence, where are the Twin Towers?
Now @66, Drunkenmiller says that he can’t