This... is actually pretty much what I'd want the LP's SOP to look like. You've done a pretty good job here, Thomas. I think the reformers are basically just trying to get to this point.
Anyway, it's an idea worthy of consideration and I'll link the BTP up on HoT.
This was written in 1977 by Dave Nolan:
Libertarian Party Platform
(Condensed Version)
Regarding Government:
1. We favor the abolition of damn near everything.
2. We call for drastic reductions in everything else.
3. And we refuse to pay for what's left!
For the literal minded out there: It was a joke!
The current situation is no joke however. It is due to a number of factors upon which I will comment further in the near future.
The LP comes away from Portland injured, but I don't believe the wounds are fatal. And don't believe most of the nonsense that has been posted by bloggers who were not even there. I haven't seen any evidence of anyone important quitting the LP over this. No one has been "purged," as if they could be.
Boston Tea Party sounds like a great idea! My *knee jerk* reaction to what happened in Portland is not a *happy* one - but it did accomplish something.
For the first time it made me get off the fence and voice my opinion. I definitely am more of a purist in ideology - but I want a big tent too.
Elle
I wish you all the best with his new party. It could end up being a plus for liberty. However, I think he is making a mistake calling this new organization a political party.
Historically, the LP has waffled between two different business plans:
1. A political party designed to move public policy in a libertarian direction by electing libertarians to public office.
2. A protest organization that keeps shouting what is right regardless of popularity. (This was especially true with the drug war issue.)
The libertarian movement needs BOTH. However, these tasks need to be done by DIFFERENT organizations. Taking stands on unpopular issues results in losing elections. A political party should not be a protest organization. The purpose of a political party is to cash in on the public opinion successes of the protest organizations and think tanks.
Don't waste your time with ballot access and all that overhead. Be an all-out radical protest organization to "speak truth to power" as the progressives say. And as your ideas become mainstream, the new and improved LP can implement them with its large collection of elected, freedom-loving politicians.
PETA, Greenpeace, and Act Up are all effective political organizations. But none of them would be effective as political parties. They are more effective as some of the many factions that make up the Democratic Party.
Consider being a faction in the soon to be much larger Libertarian Party.
As far as starting a new political party is concerned, I would be willing to put time and effort into it. However, I doubt the effects of Portland will be long-lasting. Please see my blog for updates from Barry Hess who headed the Arizona delegation. I have it on information that one of the Refomistas gurus, Carl Milstead, left the Libertarian Party. I doubt any changes that are perceived as being un-libertarian will be enacted by delegates to the 2008 convention and I plan on being there to re-radicalize the LP and vote for most principled, hardcore candidate for President.
Milsted is currently a party member. I asked him. He apparently made a few remarks after not having slept in too long, but is now a party member.
I guess I've just been living in NYC too long, but it's funny to me that so many people within the party see the drug issue as the big albatross around our necks. Around here, the drug issue just isn't seen as that big a deal. Granted, most of my neighbors disagree with me that all drugs should be completely legal, but the notion doesn't make their eyes bug out like, say, RKBA.
Witness the rebirth of the LP Radical Caucus:
http://www.lpradicals.org/
Radicals take heart! The LP is a radical party!
As a matter of fact, I have not resigned, nor do I intend at this time to resign, my membership in the LP.
When did you rejoin?
Robbie
Robbie,
I rejoined in January.
You convinced me, Tom. God help me, I've signed up. Now what's gonna happen? 
a couple comments...
"The platform is, however, amenable to incrementalism insofar as it does not specify what particular reductions in the size, scope or power of government the Party will propose and agitate for at any given time. Those decisions are to be made biennially and entirely anew each time in the form of a short (maximum of five points) program. They may be incremental or "giant step" in character -- the only condition is that they not contradict the platform."
- WOW! this is almost sounding exactly what the LRC is advocating! if Aaron Star's proposal to wipe out the rest of the platform had passed, the LP's platform would be very close to the model that i perceive Knapp is suggesting here. rather than a platform which attempts to answer every single issue from past to doomsday, why not have a fluid platform, visited each convention, that addresses the issues of the day which America faces?
further, that if the LP were to tweak the current SOP a bit, it would not need to try and list principles relating to each and every plank, but allow the SOP to be the place where the overall general principles are described, and just have the planks list the Issues, Solutions - being solutions for the next term of office. and rather than "Transitional Steps", have a third section entitled "Benefits", which is a selling point to all those who are libertarian leaning to help attract their support. (this is not the agenda of the LRC, but an idea i had as to how we might improve upon the party's political platform model, while also maintaining the purity of the principles in a general way)
"Finally, the platform is "big tent" in that it does not demand that Party members dedicate themselves, as a condition of Party membership, to a particular end state or to a particular reason or set of reasons for supporting the party's goals. When the "train" of party progress reaches the "station" at which a particular member can no longer support the direction in which the platform points, he or she may simply step off, having never been required to advocate, as a condition of party membership, going any further than he or she wishes to go."
- well, blow me down! 8-) here Thomas seems to be taking a couple pages right out of the fundamental and most desired proposals of the LRC!
it appears that Knapp starts off by first calling for NO PLEDGE! for, if party members are not "forced" to dedicate themselves to a particular end state or to a particular reason or set of reasons for supporting the party's goals, the they surely would not be signing a pledge in order to be a member... am i correct on this, or am i missing something?
also, if they are not bound to dedicate themselves to an "end state", then it seems Knapp is also calling for the removal of the Libertopian element of the platform. this helps the platform to be more reasonable and palatable to the common American voter while still advancing the concep
Bernard,
"WOW! this is almost sounding exactly what the LRC is advocating!"
LRC founder Carl Milsted immediately categorized it, not entirely without reason, as almost Rothbardian in its purity. Under the platform, the BTP can support any reductions in the size, scope or power of government that it chooses to support at a particular time. What it cannot do is support any increase in the size, power or scope of government "at any level or for any purpose." Period. Not just a teensy-weensy one, and not as a "tradeoff" for some other desired result. Not at all. Ever.
This immediately exposes a distinction that the LRC tries like hell to avoid discussing -- the distinction between incrementalism and compromise.
The "end state" and pledge elements of your analysis also bear examination.
The fact is that, for practical political purposes, the non-aggression principle codified in the pledge mandates a particular direction (away from government power, toward liberty). And the fact is that there may be -- in fact are -- people who are interested in going in that direction who do not desire to go in that direction because they subscribe to that particular principle. The platform requires them to go ONLY in that direction, so the only thing the pledge would do is weed out people who have different reasons for being ... PURISTS.
And, actually, the pledge doesn't even do that. The ultimate defense of the pledge is that it keeps those nasty old compromisers out of the LP. But if that is the case, then HOW THE HELL DID THE NASTY OLD COMPROMISERS NOT ONLY GET INTO THE CONVENTION, BUT DOMINATE ITS PROCEEDINGS?
"Purism" in the LP has traditionally been an uneasy alliance between Objectivists/Randites and Rothbardians, with some LeFevre/Smith types and anomalies like me thrown in. If those groups can be considered a faction, why can't anyone who excepts the expressed political modality of that faction, rather than an only loosely shared premise on which that modality is based, belong as well? Yes, philosophy is important, but at the level of human action, identical results are enough for functional alliances.
The ultimate defense of the pledge is that it keeps those nasty old compromisers out of the LP. But if that is the case, then HOW THE HELL DID THE NASTY OLD COMPROMISERS NOT ONLY GET INTO THE CONVENTION, BUT DOMINATE ITS PROCEEDINGS?
Well, gee, TK. I thought the answer to that was fairly obvious. They lied.
MR,
I wouldn't say it's that simple. Many of them thought of the pledge as having a different meaning when they signed it, and who can blame them (hey, the founder of the party has a line on it that's just plain flat at odds with the historical context)? Others believed it when they signed it, but their views have changed (I'll point out again that Dr. Milstead was a "Rothbardian anarchist" when he joined the LP).
But, let's say they lied. So what? It still establishes that the pledge gives the party no protection against the "impure." That, combined with the continuous argument about its meaning, seems to me to constitute a good argument that it's at best a tempest in a teapot and at worst something that needs to go.
"Purity" is a function of the correlation between stated idea and actual performance, not a function of whether or not one has signed a pledge that one may or may not mean and that one may or may not even understand.
Regards,
Tom
I was a libertarian before there was a party. I felt when I joined the LP was truely a viable alternative to the Dems. and GOP.Currently, I am involved in organizing a chapter in my county in NY State. My feeling is that we have to decide if we want to win elections and get people put into office who can make a difference or if we just want to go around sounding like a bunch of radicals with a wayout agenda.
If we want to elect people to office, (which is what I want), then we have got to emphasize the issues that move people to act. The two major parties are almost carbon copies of themselves and emphasize form rather than political substance.
What we should do is not abandon certain positions, but rather not emphsize them as much as the ones that will get people to vote for our candidates.
For instance, since the Kelo decision a year ago, people who never even knew what eminent domain was about are now taking notice. We have great positions on eminent domain, asset forfeiture, USA PATRIOT ACT, taxes, school vouchers, and big government as well as Iraq, and foreign intervention. We should stop emphasizing drug legalization, abolishing the FDA, and other unpopular positions and think more tactically. The population is very polarized right now and the national sentiment is sort of "them and us". What we have to do is produce candidates with fresh ideas on controversial topics, not look like a bunch of flakes.
The biggest mistake Harry Browne made in his 2000 presidential campaign was when asked on national television what would be the first thing he would do if elected president, was to reply that he would open the Federal prisons and release all the drug offenders. While I agree with that, I wonder how many votes that cost him.
Let's just get a grip and stop all this intercine fueding and focus on our mission, which should be to change the system from within by nominating electable candidates with good "stories".
One of the things that happens when you wander the country is that you meet large numbers of Libertarians and their interpretations of the pledge, some contradictory. Some of them also believe in a theological process, which some of them call 'logic', that causes them to get deeply upset if some or their (or your) positions are contradictory to some of their (or your) other positions. It is noteworthy that the 'logic' process being esposed has properties contradictory to the process of the same name used in modern mathematics, and resembles a process (Neoplatonism: a few allegedly self-evident propositions leading to a supposedly complete set of concludions) that dropped out of philosophy a century ago.
I am a LRC member, and am now a Boston Tea Party member. I cannot for the life of me understand why Dr. Milsted opposes the BTP, it's exactly what we were fighting for!
1. A good platform, which functions as:
2. a good pledge.
3. Relevence, in the form of the ever-changing "program".
4. A stated acceptance of incrementalism.
It's perfect!
What I oppose vehemently is the zero-trade-off bit. I favor getting rid of the federal income tax real soon. Given that it will take years to bring down federal spending enough to pay down the debt and do away with the income tax.
In other words, the BTP is effectively PRO-INCOME-TAX!!!!!
Dr. Milsted,
You're really, really, really reaching here. You've gone from objecting that one party DID call for an end to taxation, to objecting that another party COULD call for an end to taxation. In point of fact, that happens to be equally true of the Democrats and Republicans, but I don't hear you whining that they're just a bunch of misguided Rothbardians because of it.
Given that the BTP hasn't even framed its program yet, it would be a little premature to announce that it is "pro-income tax."
There's nothing in the BTP's platform that would prevent it from advocating incremental measures such as reductions in the income tax. And, as a matter of fact, I'll likely propose a specific version of such an incremental measure as a program point. My proposal would advocate an action that has been taken before; it would simply call for annualizing and regularizing that action. Since you follow this blog, you probably shouldn't have too much difficulty figuring out the details of my proposal.
I'm sorry that you're pissed off that the BTP is doing what the LRC claimed it wanted done, instead of what you yourself actually want done. I'm more interested in doing real and practical -- but principled -- politics than I am in posturing about horse-trading while standing horseless.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Edited By Siteowner
I will restate for the listening impaired.
1. Your zero-trade-off position means no replacements for the income tax.
2. The nation is head over heels in debt.
3. Ergo, you are stuck with either continuing the income tax for a considerable amount of time or defaulting on the debt.
Given that half the damage of the income tax comes from how it is collected, vs. how much, your "principled" approach results in MORE government than my falsely labeled compromise approach.
For the record, even Murray Rothbard gave up on the Rothbard strategies eventually. He ended up supporting Pat Buchanan towards the end.
Dr. Milsted,
You write:
"I will restate for the listening impaired."
Perhaps you ought to have your own hearing ... or at least thinking ... checked. Let's see:
"Your zero-trade-off position means no replacements for the income tax."
Correct.
"The nation is head over heels in debt."
Well, much of the nation is head over heels in debt, I guess. But I think what you're saying is that the government is head over heels in debt.
"Ergo, you are stuck with either continuing the income tax for a considerable amount of time or defaulting on the debt."
You seem to think that there's an implied "immediate abolitionism" clause in the BTP's platform. There isn't. The BTP is free to propose incremental reductions in the income tax rather than an immediate end to it; and to propose cuts in spending (linked or unlinked to tax cuts) as well. That's up to the members, and I don't know what they'll do. Neither do you.
"Given that half the damage of the income tax comes from how it is collected, vs. how much, your 'principled' approach results in MORE government than my falsely labeled compromise approach."
The alternative I believe you're proposing (the "fair" tax) would also impose bureaucratic collection costs. You're betting -- with no evidence to support such a bet -- that this new or replacement bureaucracy would be smaller, or at least more gentle, than the current one.
The fact is that an income tax cut, rightly done, can both decrease Americans' tax bills AND the bureaucracy associated with collection, without offering a dangerous compromise that is likely to result in an additional, rather than a replacement, tax, and an additional, rather than replacement, bureaucracy.
Regularizing an annual increase in the personal exemption to the income tax would decrease the number of Americans filing returns every year; it would therefore also decrease the size of the bureaucracy required to process and audit those returns, to handle withholding, etc.
Furthermore, you keep forgetting that there are other guys on the political field who will be more than happy to promote the other taxes you're calling for. They're called Republicans and Democrats. The fact that the BTP doesn't call for a replacement tax doesn't mean that one won't be called for, or implemented. It just means that we're going to do OUR job rather than THEIR job.
"For the record, even Murray Rothbard gave up on the Rothbard strategies eventually. He ended up supporting Pat Buchanan towards the end."
Which "Rothbard strategies" are you talking about? The incrementalism he supported in 1977-78, or the anti-incrementalism you earlier wanted to pretend he never stopped supporting?
Regards,
Tom Knapp
No, I do not imply an "immediate abolitionism." I said you had the choice between continuing the income tax or default. You seem to indicate continuing the income tax is the way to go (at incrementally lower levels over time).
I find this objectionable. I want to move more rapidly to a tax system based on natural rights principles. This means:
1. Externality fees and natural resource usage taxes.
2. Taxes which best approximate fees for services rendered.
In other words I favor a mix of the ideas of Henry George and Dave Hollist.
Which makes my position more "principled" than the BTP's position.
It is true that there are many Fair Taxers within the LRC. I disagree personally with that position, but I think they belong in the LP. Either the LP represents a broad based coalition of freedom lovers or it is a protest organization that pretends to be a political party.
Dr. Milstead,
I also favor externality fees. However, I don't mistake them for taxes.
A tax is "a charge or burden laid upon persons or property for the support of a government" (Webster's 1913). An externality fee is a fee paid for certain services (specifically, the service provided by others of putting up with the negative side effects of one's actions).
An externality fee (or for that matter a resource usage fee, if the resources are extracted from commonly owned properties or whatever) need not be assessed by, or paid to, a government. Governments are not the only institutions capable of handling commons transactions.
As a matter of fact, in another comment thread somewhere on this blog, I believe that we discussed how auto manufacturers might pay externality fees for the emissions of their products to private carbon storage enterprises (or for that matter internalize the costs by operating their own such enterprises), with government only serving as a tort arbitration mechanism if they failed to do so.
You're still missing my point, however: You're treating politics as a one-player game in which only what libertarians advocate will get done. That's just not the case, and it's not likely to be the case for some time.
We don't have to advocate a "replacement" for the income tax, because there are other parties which will do so.
We can concentrate on our job of REDUCING the size, scope and power of government in the reasonably sure knowledge that there will be plenty of counterweights and counter-proposals to our advocacy, and also in the tentative expectation that when such counterweights are not sufficient to produce some kind of political "balance," that emergent voluntary institutions will take up the slack.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Thanks for the Blogad, Tom.
I'm in process of writing a post on this whole controversy myself.
One question about the zero tradeoff on taxes: would it prohibit a revenue-neutral shift in the method of assessment within a single category of taxation (i.e., shifting the property tax from buildings and improvements entirely onto land value)?
Kevin,
It's lots of fun to be mistaken for someone who has a full elaborated Theory of Everything hidden under his shirt
Suffice it to say that one reason I placed a Blogad for the Boston Tea Party on your blog is that I want to reach/recruit people who might have good answers to that question.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Well, I just wanted to make sure that such an approach was at least arguably compatible with the Platform. I didn't want to join under false pretenses.
I also found your distinction between taxes and rent on common property quite heartening. It's too bad the LP didn't even address the nature of property on any principled basis, when it was in the grip of the Kochtopus and the Catoids; instead, it just implicitly assumed a utilitaran or positivist attitude toward state titles without any regard to justice in acquisition. Had it dealt with these issues, it might have been less vulnerable to the present watering-down from the center.
Kevin,
It's only been a few years since I finally came to terms with the fact that I'm never going to be a "system-builder" -- a well-rounded theorist who can cough up a complete, integrated theory which purports to resolve all the conflicts in political philosophy.
I'm okay with that ("system builders" seem to get burned at the stake, literally or figuratively, on a regular basis). I'm content to explore the issues that I'm not satisfied on and let them stew until I am satisfied, while I concentrate on the issues where I'm certain and where I believe I have something useful (even if only minor in import) to offer.
Land/property theory (very roughly defined, Locke v. George) is one of those "stewpot" issues for me, and I believe it's one that deserves to be thrashed out in an environment where principle is emphasized but where doctrine has not yet ossified.
Of course, I'm sure that there are many people who are already firmly decided on that issue and who want to argue over the things that I consider settled. C'est la vie.
I want to join the Boston Tea Party. How do I sign up?
GOOD SITE
http://www.furnitures.org.in/
good site
http://www.businesscardsshop.com/
best site
http://www.clickpoint.org/
important site
http://www.depression-care.org/
good site
http://www.wifiplanets.org/
Commenting by HaloScan
