Libertarians! There's no debate:
For our freedom we will not wait.
Our rights we'll defend,
And someday we'll end
The cult of the omnipotent state.
Seth,
I like it!
Tom
Absolutely fantastic post, Kn@appster. Good poem, Seth.
Anyway Kn@appster, this idea of yours is a great way I beleive we might get things both ways: purist and big tentist. Who can possibly disagree with this?
And why haven't I been able to boil my own thoughts down to something this simple? Simplicity is best.
Sounds great, might even work if there was a side agreement not to debate what constitutes "reducing" or "increasing".
you ain't got enough hair on your ass to make it haiku ;P
The objective of the libertarian party is to use lawful political means to move America in libertarian directions.
The libertarian directions are smaller government, lower taxes, less onerous laws and regulations, and equality before the law.
Or in haiku
The platform for the party:
Reduce government;
Don’t increase government
George,
I'm somewhat confused by your comment. Is it offered as an argument against the WSPP?
Operating on the assumption that that's the case, let me take it from the top:
"The objective of the libertarian party is to use lawful political means to move America in libertarian directions."
Assuming that by "the libertarian party" you mean "the Libertarian Party," that's a reasonably good summation. Keep in mind, however, that I was working "from scratch" with no particular existing entity in mind.
"The libertarian directions are smaller government, lower taxes, less onerous laws and regulations, and equality before the law."
All of which the WSPP covers except possibly the last, and I'd argue that it covers that as well (less power includes less power to discriminate).
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
It may not have been relavent to the post, but you piqued my interest anyway. You dropped the bait, so spill the beans! (Wow, that's a mighty mixed metaphor.) What's the reason you have for no longer wanting to support the LRC?
Lenny,
Two main reasons, but let me take it from the top:
- I agree with LRC that the LP's membership "pledge" should be eliminated.
- I agree with a number of proposals that a super-majority of LRC's members support.
On the other hand:
- The proposals I disagree with the LRC super-majority on tend to be of a character such that support for the LRC as such will generally be understood to mean support for those proposals -- and I can't in good conscience allow whatever small weight my name might carry to be placed in the balance in favor of those proposals. And,
- While the LRC has extended an olive branch to "purists" and anarchists who are interested in a practical political approach with one hand, on the other hand several of its principal activists have launched attacks on "purism" and anarchism as such, both through the LRC's bullhorn and independently. I'm all practical politics, but this is going to be turned into a fight on ideological lines (which seems to be LRC's unfolding strategy), I will be on the "purist" and anarchist side of the barricade.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Correction:
"I'm all practical politics, but this"
... should read ...
"I'm all for practical politics, but if this"
I was suggesting an alternative phrasing, to see if people thought it covered the same ground. I was quoting from the Liberty for Massachusetts Bylaws. I didn't feel a disagreement with your prhasing.
In practice 'Libertarian Party' (LNC) and 'libertarian party' (a party that is libertarian) are both reasonable.
The Libertarian Party uses lawful political means to create less onerous government, to reduce taxes, to and ensure equality before the law.
New Statement of Principles text:
The cult of omnipotent statehood
Is in no manner, way shape or form good;
And as freedom we try
To secure bye and bye
We'll work harder than those other guys would
What -- you thought I'd eliminate "cult of the omnipotent state?" Not a chance.
Tom Knapp
THis world's smallest political platform could be a good replacement for the Pledge. Just add "I want to be a member" below it.
Since this is a statement about the party vs. the person signing it, the person signing it does not have to agree with it 1000%. It's just a reminder what the person is getting into when joining the party.
(I could not quite pledge to this as I think there are a few areas like fighting global warming where more effective government action is needed. However, I could advocate doing this in an efficient manner that results in a net reduction of government, so I might be inside the lines.)
Carl, can you point me to a book that explains how all the possible non-anthropogenic causes of global warming have been ruled out?
Global Warming:Nope.
We might well be in a warming trend right now, but it's most likely caused by solar activity, not human activity. Otherwise, why would the polar caps of Mars be receding as ours are supposedly doing?
Should I have a 1000 business size cards made up with this on it with your name and distributed at the convention.
M.H.W.
The full computational models on CO2, methane, and global warming, including also orbital issues and more esoteric matters, have now been refined to the point that they are in good agreement with the extremely marked temperature trends on earth.
People who want to propose other isolated causes are under the obligation to explain why the artificial CO2 increase is not having its expected effect. This is entirely unlikely to take place.
'I found new evidence' is not legitimate science. At the point you want to overturn a substantial well-studied paradigm, you must explain why the old data is wrong, not rely on the undergraduate habit of thought that data is better if it is newer.
Michael,
Here's the license under which the WSPP (and anything else on Kn@ppster) can be reprinted:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
If you're mulling printing up copies for the purpose of proposing the WSPP as the LP's new platform, consider this a waiver of the attribution and license publication requirements.
I'd suggest that less than 1000 copies will be necessary (500 would be more than enough to get one to all delegates present, probably), and that you'd have an uphill fight in getting it passed, though.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
George,
I'm glad that Kn@ppster is perceived as a multi-cultural blog. However, whatever the hell that thing is that you just wrote looks interesting enough that I'd like to also read it in English if possible.
Regards,
Tom
Translation: People who deny that there is global warming, and that it is in fair part caused by burning oil and coal, are out of touch with reality.
George,
OK. I tried to parse it, and thought you were saying the opposite.
Now ... does anyone have a solution for it that doesn't involve expanding the size, scope and power of government?
I suspect that a close examination would establish that the burning of coal and oil are heavily subsidized (and the costs of pollution produced externalized), directly and indirectly, through government.
It's not obvious that global warming is a problem. It's benefits may outweigh its costs.
Assuming it is, the solution is to tax fossil fuels in proportion to the harm from the expected release of greenhouse gases. That means exemptions for non-fuel uses, such as making plastics, chemicals, etc.
It occurs to me that some such manufacturing process might also release GHGs, though I have no idea if there are any real-world examples. If so in most cases I think a lower rate would be called for, since most of the carbon atoms would wind up in the product.
The revenue could theoretically be used to reduce other taxes, so there need not be any 'expanding the size, scope and power of government'.
David,
Is there any particular reason that the kind of fee you mention should have to be paid as a tax (i.e. to government?) The record of government is that when it implements new taxes, it forgets to reduce old ones.
If we think of global warming as one of the few bona fide "commons" issues (i.e. we each "own" an undivided interest in earth not going into runaway greenhouse a la Venus), then I can see some government involvement, but not necessarily as a a taxing agent.
Government already has the power (and exercises that power) to sue on behalf of the commons for damages. It could simply use that power versus net carbon emitters (investing damages collected in offsets) instead of setting up rinky-dink regulatory schemes that don't solve the problem and often (at best) nominally slow it down a bit, at great expense in both financial and "annoying government" terms.
I prefer the term 'effluent fee' to 'tax', which I forgot when I wrote the above. Economists call such fees 'Pigouvian taxes', after an economist who did some early work on them. The term applies to any charge for producing a negative externality.
I know of no fundamental objection to collecting the assessments as tort payments rather than fees/taxes. There are probably pros and cons for both approaches.
It occurs to me that 'to sue on behalf of the commons' means going to court against each defendant, which sounds a lot more expensive than just collecting fees/taxes.
David,
You write:
"It occurs to me that 'to sue on behalf of the commons' means going to court against each defendant, which sounds a lot more expensive than just collecting fees/taxes."
A lot of that depends on just how much suing there is to do. I suppose you're right, insofar as the scheme I have in mind would not involve the government collecting the fees at all (or at least not exclusively).
There's no particular reason why the government has to be the agency collecting, or disposing of, a fee for carbon storage of known/estimable future emissions.
There are private entities selling carbon storage right now, and a growing fan base for being "carbon neutral." You can visit a number of web sites and pony up (based on what kind of car you have, how much you drive it, etc.) to become "carbon neutral" by having paid for storage of the carbon emissions you're producing (making your NET carbon emissions effectively zero). You get a little sticker and all that.
There's no reason that a GM or Ford product can't roll off the assembly line with storage for the average emissions per year over the average life of that model already bought -- and not necessarily through any government agency. Yes, the cost would be passed on to the consumer ... but right now, the cost imposed by the emissions is externalized to ALL consumers, who pay the government to (ineffectively) remedy the effects.
Presumably if GM and Ford knew that they'd face government (or class action) tort suits for trying to externalize those costs, they'd avoud those suits by going "carbon neutral" (and quite likely work a little harder to produce vehicles that didn't produce as much carbon in the first place).
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Wow! I agree with both George Phillies and David Tomlin!
Tom I think there will be plenty
to keep us busy at this convention, but I will see if they can be done in time to drop on chairs. If not I'll pass, but I think it is good to think about things such as this. The Moon Treaty? Not exactly relevant.
M.W.
I would be nice to see something that addresses the charge of mere negativism...."So what do you guy's propose as an alternative? to..."
I think that an alternative (positive) vision must be offered in order to overcome the built in scepticism that people operate from even when they already believe that the current system is broken/corrupt/etc.
Some kind of statement proposing voluntary solutions, voluntary revenue collection (such as citizen directed lottery funding).
Hunter,
One problem with the LP's platform as it exists is that it is both bulky AND general. The WSPP is more general, but it's less bulky.
With the WSPP, specific programmatic solutions such as those you would like to see can be rolled out to relevant issues at the time those issues ARE relevant (presumably within the parameters established by the WSPP itself).
As far as vision is concerned, vision is a lot more effective when people have it for themselves instead of having it described to them.
The WSPP would fit easily on a t-shirt, and might just act like a (rhetorical) hit of LSD in inspiring vision on the part of those who read it ... which would be a lot more effective than expecting those same people to read 61 platform planks which they won't do) with vision descriptions and "get" what it is that others are seeing.
Regards,
Tom
Commenting by HaloScan
