LPplatform-discuss : Messages : 4756-4785 of 4785

(HH) Even during a war, the government must have a warrant to search a building

in the USA.

(K) Ideology does not trump reality. Police do not need a warrant to enter
a building, if someone is firing weapons from there. Nor should they be so

required. "Liberty" is not a suicide pact.

(HH) The Fourth Amendment protects "The right of the People..",

as it reads, and so it only applies within the effective jurisdiction of the USA.

(K) The US Supreme Court has held that the US has world-wide jurisdiction.

Otherwise the "arrest" of Noriega would have been illegal. Further, the notion
that territorial jurisidiction has moral justification is without libertarian foundation.

Effective control of an area (based on government force) does not confer some

kind of moral shield against invasion or revolution or competition. Political borders
have no basis in morality, except as a means to control aggression.

The US (and any other government) has a right to govern (or not)
entirely apart from the question of it's political territory.

(HH) Captured "enemy combatants" are Prisoners of War (POW).

(K) Prisoners of War openly wear a uniform.

Nazi spies were caught in US territory (during WWII)

and were summarily executed after military tribunal.

The Bill of Rights applies only to civil courts,

and not to enemy soldiers or illegal combatants.

The US held thousands of captured German soldiers,

and none of them had court-appointed attorneys or

access to civilian courts.

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft�s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

#4784

From: Harland Harrison <harlandh5@...>
Date: Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:42 pm
Subject: Re : Plank 3.2 "Internal Security and Individual Rights" - Proposed change

harlandh5

Online Now

From : kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>

(K) The proposed wording is better, but the meaning of both is unclear.

Does this mean, in war we must get a judge-issued search warrant before

going into a building used by enemy snipers?

That captured enemy combatants are entitled to constitutional protections,

including court-appointed attorneys and access to the civilian courts?

(HH) This sentence in the Platform only describes the Bill of Rights, of course.

We should make this one small change so that our argument will be accurate.

Here are my answers to your questions about the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of these details, however, the LP should support the Bill of Rights.

Even during a war, the government must have a warrant to search a building

in the USA. The Fourth Amendment protects "The right of the People..",

as it reads, and so it only applies within the effective jurisdiction of the USA.

Captured "enemy combatants" are Prisoners of War (POW). The strange new

terms, "(illegal) enemy combatants", were invented to justify torturing POWs

and abusing the rights of people the US government captured. As POWs,

the Third Geneva Convention requires that a government extends them the

same rights in court that it would give to its own soldiers. The Fifth and Sixth

Amendments apply, anyway. Amendments 5 and 6 protect "the accused" and

any "person held". So civilian prisoners are entitled to civilian courts. Enemy

soldiers can be court-martialed. However, enemy soldiers cannot be prosecuted

simply for fighting against the US.

Harland Harrison

=================================================================

To: LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com

From: harlandh5@...

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:25:16 +0000

Subject: [LPplatform-discuss] Plank 3.2 "Internal Security and Individual Rights" - Proposed change

If you are on the Platform Committee and receive this, please share my request with your colleagues.

To LP PlatCom,

Please consider this proposed change to Plank 3.2 "Internal Security and Individual Rights":

=================================================================

In Plank "3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights"

Change

"The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. "

"The Bill of Rights remains in force during a time of war."

=================================================================

Note that during a war, soldiers, (but not civilians), can be put on trial without an indictment.

for liberty,

Harland Harrison

LP of San Mateo County CA

harlandh5@...

Cell 650-921-9326

#4783

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:46 am
Subject: RE: Plank 3.2 "Internal Security and Individual Rights" - Proposed change

kevinsbjornson

Offline

(K) The proposed wording is better,
but the meaning of both is unclear.

Does this mean, in war we must get
a judge-issued search warrant before
going into a building used by enemy
snipers? That captured enemy combatants
are entitled to constitutional protections,
including court-appointed attorneys and
access to the civilian courts?

To: LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com
From: harlandh5@...
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:25:16 +0000
Subject: [LPplatform-discuss] Plank 3.2 "Internal Security and Individual Rights" - Proposed change

If you are on the Platform Committee and receive this, please share my request with your colleagues.

To LP PlatCom,

Please consider this proposed change to Plank 3.2 "Internal Security and Individual Rights":

=================================================================

In Plank "3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights"

Change

"The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. "

"The Bill of Rights remains in force during a time of war."

=================================================================

Note that during a war, soldiers, (but not civilians), can be put on trial without an indictment.

for liberty,

Harland Harrison

LP of San Mateo County CA

harlandh5@...

Cell 650-921-9326

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

#4782

From: Harland Harrison <harlandh5@...>
Date: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:41 am
Subject: "Accountability of Government Officials" - Proposed additional plank

harlandh5

Online Now

If you are on the Platform Committee and receive this, please share my request with your colleagues.

To LP PlatCom,

Please consider this proposed additional plank "Accountability of Government Officials":

=========================================================

Insert the following after "3.2. Internal Security and Individual Rights" and renumber appropriately:

"3.3 Accountability of Government Officials

Recent government officials stand accused of violating the civil liberties of both citizens and non-citizens, as contained in the Bill of Rights, in humanitarian treaties, and in domestic law. It remains the duty of government officials to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing, even when committed by their colleagues or predecessors. Nobody, no matter how powerful, should have impunity to violate basic civil liberties. We call on current officials to investigate all credible charges, and to prosecute as appropriate to the rule of law, regardless of political expediency. "

=========================================================

for liberty,

Harland Harrison

LP of San Mateo County CA

harlandh5@...

Cell 650-921-9326

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#4781

From: Harland Harrison <harlandh5@...>
Date: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:32 am
Subject: Plank 3.6 "Representative Government" - Proposed change

harlandh5

Online Now

If you are on the Platform Committee and receive this, please share my request with your colleagues.

To LP PlatCom,

Please consider this proposed change to Plank 3.6 "Representative Government":

=================================================================

In Plank "3.6 Representative Government"

Add at the very end, after "... consider all legitimate alternatives.":

"Above all, we call for enforcing laws that provide for honest elections,

and guarantee that citizens have an equal and ample opportunity to cast their votes."

=================================================================

US politics is being fought not over who voters will prefer, but who can manage to cast a vote that will be counted.

"It is not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes" - Josef Stalin

for liberty,

Harland Harrison

LP of San Mateo County CA

harlandh5@...

Cell 650-921-9326

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#4780

From: Harland Harrison <harlandh5@...>
Date: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:25 am
Subject: Plank 3.2 "Internal Security and Individual Rights" - Proposed change

harlandh5

Online Now

If you are on the Platform Committee and receive this, please share my request with your colleagues.

To LP PlatCom,

Please consider this proposed change to Plank 3.2 "Internal Security and Individual Rights":

=================================================================

In Plank "3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights"

Change

"The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. "

"The Bill of Rights remains in force during a time of war."

=================================================================

Note that during a war, soldiers, (but not civilians), can be put on trial without an indictment.

for liberty,

Harland Harrison

LP of San Mateo County CA

harlandh5@...

Cell 650-921-9326

#4779

From: Henry Haller <hehaller@...>
Date: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:50 pm
Subject: Re: LP PlatCom Meeting This Weekend

hehaller3

Offline

 At the risk of beating a dead horse, I offer the following suggestion; in the proposed section 1.4:
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should neither restrict, nor subsidize, nor dictate the reproductive choices of individuals. be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. We hold this view not only for abortion, but also for birth control, fertility treatments, sperm donations, egg donations, surrogate motherhood, prenatal testing, stem cell therapies, cloning, and germline engineering."
replace the word "restrict"with the phrase "unduly restrict."
-- -- Henry Haller
On Monday, December 07, 2009, at 07:17PM, "Brian Holtz" <brian@...> wrote:
>

The 2010 Libertarian Party Platform Committee is meeting this weekend in Las Vegas to adopt its report for the May 2010 convention. Perhaps due to satisfaction with the "greatest-hits" 2008 platform that the 2008 NatCon delegates assembled out of the best parts of 9 previous LP platforms, there have not yet been many specific proposals for modifying the platform in 2010. So far, the most prominent themes regarding 2010 have been:

defending LP candidates against possible misinterpretation of LP positions,
correcting a few semantic bugs the 2008 platform inherited from its greatest-hits language, and
smoothing some of the transitions between thoughts inherited from different platforms.

As one of the ten PlatCom reps appointed by the Libertarian National Committee, I'm interested in feedback from the membership about what changes they're most interested in for 2010. Here is a list of the defects and holes I currently see in the platform, along with examples of how I could support fixing them. For more information about past and present LP platforms, see here.

#4778

From: MICHAEL WILSON <michaelhwilson@...>
Date: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:45 am
Subject: Platform rewrite

mhjwilson

Offline

Any updates on the rewrite of the platform? I understand the committee is meeting this weekend.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#4777

From: Brian Holtz <brian@...>
Date: Wed Dec 9, 2009 4:03 pm
Subject: competence, copyright, incorporation, free will

brianholtz1965

Online Now

Harland Harrison wrote:

HH) It is absurd to define force and fraud as "attempts to make choices for others". (HH

The sentence in question doesn't attempt to define force and fraud. It merely highlights the core feature of force and fraud that makes them objectionable.

HH) People have a right to take the risks they choose to take, and nobody else should have the power to judge their level of understanding. (HH

As the father of a 3-year-old, and a friend of couple stroke victims, I'll just have to disagree with you on this one.

HH) if you want to increase the right to copy, it should say something like: "We SUPPORT the right to freely reproduce COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL when doing so ..." (HH

That would implicitly endorse the concept of copyright, which no LP platform has ever done.

HH) You say your sentence is "not about copyright at all," and then say that "it's about e.g. the DMCA", (which stands for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). (HH

You chopped my phrase in half. I wrote "e.g. the DMCA and reverse-engineering". Wikipedia begins its summary of the DMCA like so: "It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself." These are the reasons that the DMCA is notorious, at least among technologists.

HH) The present laws give "producers" power to stop "consumers" from copying, but at least includes some limits on those powers. Your addition appears to take all rights away from consumers. (HH

I give each side precisely the same right -- namely, the right to either engage in trade or decline to do so. It's simply bizarre to assert that repealing the DMCA would take away rights from consumers.

BH) It opposes all restrictions on private parties' ability to negotiate how they use information voluntarily disclosed to each other. (BH

HH) I can't understand what it means, why it applies to secret recordings but not blackmail for example. (HH

It means that if you voluntarily disclose information to me, you can't complain about me recording it or repeating it -- as long as I obey any terms we negotiated for the disclosure.

HH) No, the "risk" sentence only applies to "media and substances". (HH

No, grammatically the two clauses are peers, with the "and" just avoiding repetition of the "adults have the freedom and responsibility" preface.

HH) Whatever you mean [by "peaceful adults"] is unclear, and that does not "defends" candidates it leaves them open to more criticism. (HH

I readily concede that the two words "peaceful adults" won't let you build a machine that automatically separates the U.S. population into two non-overlapping groups. That's a trivial problem compared to the fact that our platform currently opposes all laws preventing children from buying guns. Some libertarians may favor the right of children to keep and bear arms, but most of us don't, and we don't want the LP accused of favoring that.

HH) just saying one person is "responsible" does not protect the citizens unless that person has enough money to pay for damages. (HH

I never said it did. No language -- not even your "full insurance" -- can guarantee that no tort will ever cause damages beyond the tortfeasor's ability to arrange compensation. Would you have some government agency constantly monitoring each corporation for all its potential torts, and then comparing their risk exposure to the financial health of its insurers, and their re-insurers, etc.?

The point here is that incorporation allows a group of people to commit torts without any of them having the last-penny financial liability that at least one of them would have in the absence of the government's granting of corporate privilege. I still can't tell if you agree that the LP platform should oppose such privilege.

BH) What it opposes is subsidies for that. (BH

HH) Then don't single it out. (HH

It's one of the biggest subsidies, and third-party payments for routine healthcare are one of the biggest drivers of healthcare costs.

HH) if an immigrant with an LA visa went to San Francisco he might get Healthy San Francisco medical care,and the proposed language says somehow he should be billed for that. (HH

That this language opposes migration-for-rent-seeking is a feature, not a bug.

BH) The pre-Portland platform's call for unrestricted immigration is gone, and won't be coming back in 2010. (BH

HH) How do you know? Don't the delegates get any choice? (HH

The fact that it will be the choice of the delegates is how I know what the result will be. To learn more about free will, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/.

#4776

From: Harland Harrison <harlandh5@...>
Date: Wed Dec 9, 2009 6:44 am
Subject: Re : Re : LP PlatCom Meeting This Weekend

harlandh5

Online Now

I promised more information, so I replied to some of Brian Holtz' critique of my criticism of his changes in line, below.

I hope that committee members will read my original post, as well as this, because parts of it were deleted.

Harland Harrison

Harland Harrison wrote:

I support Brian Holtz addition to Plank 3.5, which will protect children from abusive guardians.
I oppose all the other changes proposed by Holtz. Some of his "defenses" for candidates actually deny people rights which they enjoy now.

Specifically, my other defenses-for-candidates changes would

deny children the right to buy drugs
deny politicians the "right" to subsidize or dictate reproductive choices
deny children and violent criminals the right to bear arms

Force and fraud are not "attempts to make choices for others"; they are attempts to deny the victims a choice.

Initiated force is clearly an attempt to impose a choice, and fraud is by definition an attempt to trick someone into a choice they otherwise wouldn't make. Denying someone a choice is often not aggression -- for example, not hiring her or declining to go out with her -- so we can't say that choice-denial is equivalent to aggression.

"Banished from human relationships" sounds like a call for government to meddle with families.

The phrase you quote here has been in the Platform for at least two decades.

No, "making choices for others" is not necessarily wrong. We must make choices for our children and future generations.

It is absurd to define force and fraud as "attempts to make choices for others". We don't want to ban parents making choices for their children. I can assume you meant something else, but the phrasing is very poor, and distorts the original meaning.

"The right to make a choice depends on the individual both understanding its consequences and accepting responsibility for them." People have the right to make their own choices and take risks, even when NOBODY fully understands the consequences.

The word "fully" isn't in the proposed language you quote. Would you seriously claim that the right to make a choice is completely independent of one's mental competence to understand any of the consequences of that choice?

Your plank says nothing about "mental competence". People have a right to take the risks they choose to take, and nobody else should have the power to judge their level of understanding. For example, a new drug might have delayed side-effects, but people have a right to take it, even if they don't know the consequences, even if NOBODY FULLY understands the drug, yet.

The addition about intellectual property takes away the ordinary rights of "fair use" and time limitations under current law and centuries of tradition: "We defend the right to freely reproduce original expression when doing so does not divert commercial benefit from the author to the reproducer." When Disney's copyright expires they should just stop making money from it. Whether my parody hurts your sales or not, satire is a fair use.

You need to read the statutory definition of fair use e.g. at the bottom of http://libertarianmajority.net/matrix. My change would radically reduce government-created copyright privileges, by legalizing most of the "piracy" that happens on the Internet today.

OK, if you want to increase the right to copy, it should say something like:

"We SUPPORT the right to freely reproduce COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL when doing so ..."

The addition for information technology also denies the ordinary limitations on patents, copyrights, and contracts. "Limits on the use of information technology should be decided by contracts between producers and consumers."

This language obviously does not deny contract rights, and is not about copyright at all. It's about e.g. the DMCA, and laws against reverse-engineering.

You say your sentence is "not about copyright at all," and then say that "it's about e.g. the DMCA", (which stands for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

The present laws give "producers" power to stop "consumers" from copying, but at least includes some limits on those powers. Your addition appears to take all rights away from consumers. Currently, contracts are limited by law. Copyrights and patents are limited. The LP probably wants more limits on IP, not fewer.

"We favor the freedom of association among private parties to negotiate how they use information voluntarily disclosed to each other." Is it about medical records, blackmail, court testimony, secret recordings, or what?

Yes, no, no, yes. It opposes all restrictions on private parties' ability to negotiate how they use information voluntarily disclosed to each other. Is there some restriction of this kind that you favor?

I can't understand what it means, why it applies to secret recordings but not blackmail for example. If a phone company, credit card company, health insurance company, or the DMV wants to sell information about individuals, what is the LP position supposed to be?

The deleted text protects many freedoms like gambling, prostitution, travel, trade, and communication with forbidden countries, forbidden sex acts, and choice of safety equipment. "Adults have the freedom and responsibility to decide what media and substances they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and to accept for themselves any risk to their own health, finances, safety, or life."

The "risk" language covers all the freedoms you list above.

No, the "risk" sentence only applies to "media and substances". It does NOT protect gambling etc.

"Knowingly" implies the government could forbid drugs from Canada on the grounds of uncertain purity!

Again, you're tendentiously reading into the text claims of epistemic absoluteness that just aren't there. "Knowingly" here essentially means that the adult isn't being deceived.

inserting the disclaimer "peaceful adults" actually has the opposite effect intended. It implies that non-citizens, felons, and schizophrenics should have equal access weapons!

I like how you use exclamation points to mark your non-sequiturs. It's very helpful. :-)

Non-sequitur? Do you mean that non-citizens, felons, and schizophrenics SHOULD have equal access weapons if they appear peacefully to buy them? Whatever you mean is unclear, and that does not "defends" candidates it leaves them open to more criticism.

2.2. Environment. The deleted text is complete.

The deleted text uses the vague and value-laden terms "sensible use" and "misuse". The LP is not the arbiter of people's utility functions about how to use resources. Our job is simply to oppose aggression.

The added text is inaccurate. The biggest pollution problems come from polluting the "commons", the air, ocean, and water table. "Individual rights" do not address the issue.

All rights, even rights to the natural commons, are ultimately individual rights. I'd love to add to the LP platform a cogent discussion of the natural commons (as in my Free Earth Manifesto), but the LP is not yet ready to talk about a "commons". The best we can do for now is demand that polluters pay.

The deleted text is important libertarian, and is not replaced: "While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy"

The second clause is redundant with the next sentence: "We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production." The first clause is a vacuous truism that has nothing to do with Libertarian principle.

The added text is inaccurate; "free market" does not mean the government protects the players from fraud.

The language doesn't say that the fraud protection comes from government. I wouldn't agree that a market can be considered "free" if it is rife with unprosecuted fraud.

Also, governments can (and should) buy on the free market and their losses are clearly "socialized".

Neither I nor any NatCon supermajority would agree with you that the State should count as an investor whose losses should be socialized.

I never said we liked it, but the government TARP is a large fraction of the US banking system.

The added text is a weird scheme which would not work: "as long as ultimate responsibility for each non-contractual liability of the firm is accepted by at least one of the individuals in it. "A corporation would just need to hire one homeless guy to sign for the liability

Thank you for agreeing with me that the alleged problem/scandal of limited corporate liability is in principle no different than if all corporations were just limited partnerships with at least one general partner. Thanks also for explaining exactly why this scheme in fact would work as intended.

We could advocate full insurance to cover all liability of a corporation, but this language does nothing of the kind.

Does your "full" insurance means that at least one person has last-penny liability (e.g. the "names" of Lloyds of London)? If so, your proposal is equivalent to mine. If not, you're simply disguising your advocacy for limited corporate liability.

No, just saying one person is "responsible" does not protect the citizens unless that person has enough money to pay for damages.

Full insurance means the responsible people providing the insurance DO have enough money. We could advocate full insurance, but calling for one scapegoat is not the same thing.

I, for one, do not oppose the "use of insurance for routine care".

Nor does my language. What it opposes is subsidies for that.

Then don't single it out.

The proposed change removes the protection of civil liberties for non-citizens.

No, the platform already says "This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens." Strictly speaking, neither the current nor proposed language opposes protections for non-citizens.

The Bill of Rights DOES protect non-citizens. The victims of torture are mostly non-citizens. You deleted any mention of the Bill of Rights.

Instead of deleting, just accurately describe the Bill of Rights.
"The Bill of Rights REMAINS IN FORCE DURING a time of war. "

We can do better. Or do you advocate the wartime quartering of troops? :-)

The Bush administration actual managed to violate Amendment 3. But the only important difference in the Bill of Rights during war, is that an indictment is not required to begin to prosecute a soldier.

The added text, "pay for any costs they impose on others," adds a vague, unworkable, and unfair restr iction on migrants.

The principle is that migrants remain liable/responsible for the costs they impose. Are you disagreeing with that principle, or just how it is worded?

I disagree with both. Migrants will make money for some, but cost others money. Immigrants certainly are not "liable" for working and living ordinary lives. But even if we tried, we could not figure out how much particular citizens were cost.

I don't have to pay for the costs I would impose on San Francisco by moving there from Los Angeles

Yes, because those two jurisdictions are already reasonably close to equilibrium in terms of migration induced by their relative levels of economic freedom, public goods, natural resources, and economic prosperity. For more on this subject, see here.

Of course. But if an immigrant with an LA visa went to San Francisco he might get Healthy San Francisco medical care,

and the proposed language says somehow he should be billed for that.

The pre-Portland platform's call for unrestricted immigration is gone, and won't be coming back in 2010.
How do you know? Don't the delegates get any choice?

#4775

From: Brian Holtz <brian@...>
Date: Wed Dec 9, 2009 3:58 am
Subject: Re : LP PlatCom Meeting This Weekend

brianholtz1965

Online Now

Harland Harrison wrote:

I support Brian Holtz addition to Plank 3.5, which will protect children from abusive guardians.
I oppose all the other changes proposed by Holtz. Some of his "defenses" for candidates actually deny people rights which they enjoy now.

Specifically, my other defenses-for-candidates changes would

deny children the right to buy drugs
deny politicians the "right" to subsidize or dictate reproductive choices
deny children and violent criminals the right to bear arms

Force and fraud are not "attempts to make choices for others"; they are attempts to deny the victims a choice.

"Banished from human relationships" sounds like a call for government to meddle with families.

The phrase you quote here has been in the Platform for at least two decades.

"The right to make a choice depends on the individual both understanding its consequences and accepting responsibility for them." People have the right to make their own choices and take risks, even when NOBODY fully understands the consequences.

The addition about intellectual property takes away the ordinary rights of "fair use" and time limitations under current law and centuries of tradition: "We defend the right to freely reproduce original expression when doing so does not divert commercial benefit from the author to the reproducer." When Disney's copyright expires they should just stop making money from it. Whether my parody hurts your sales or not, satire is a fair use.

The addition for information technology also denies the ordinary limitations on patents, copyrights, and contracts. "Limits on the use of information technology should be decided by contracts between producers and consumers."

This language obviously does not deny contract rights, and is not about copyright at all. It's about e.g. the DMCA, and laws against reverse-engineering.

"We favor the freedom of association among private parties to negotiate how they use information voluntarily disclosed to each other." Is it about medical records, blackmail, court testimony, secret recordings, or what?

The deleted text protects many freedoms like gambling, prostitution, travel, trade, and communication with forbidden countries, forbidden sex acts, and choice of safety equipment. "Adults have the freedom and responsibility to decide what media and substances they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and to accept for themselves any risk to their own health, finances, safety, or life."

The "risk" language covers all the freedoms you list above.

"Knowingly" implies the government could forbid drugs from Canada on the grounds of uncertain purity!

Again, you're tendentiously reading into the text claims of epistemic absoluteness that just aren't there. "Knowingly" here essentially means that the adult isn't being deceived.

inserting the disclaimer "peaceful adults" actually has the opposite effect intended. It implies that non-citizens, felons, and schizophrenics should have equal access weapons!

I like how you use exclamation points to mark your non-sequiturs. It's very helpful. :-)

2.2. Environment. The deleted text is complete.

The added text is inaccurate. The biggest pollution problems come from polluting the "commons", the air, ocean, and water table. "Individual rights" do not address the issue.

The deleted text is important libertarian, and is not replaced: "While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy"

The added text is inaccurate; "free market" does not mean the government protects the players from fraud.

The language doesn't say that the fraud protection comes from government. I wouldn't agree that a market can be considered "free" if it is rife with unprosecuted fraud.

Also, governments can (and should) buy on the free market and their losses are clearly "socialized".

Neither I nor any NatCon supermajority would agree with you that the State should count as an investor whose losses should be socialized.

The added text is a weird scheme which would not work: "as long as ultimate responsibility for each non-contractual liability of the firm is accepted by at least one of the individuals in it. "A corporation would just need to hire one homeless guy to sign for the liability

We could advocate full insurance to cover all liability of a corporation, but this language does nothing of the kind.

I, for one, do not oppose the "use of insurance for routine care".

Nor does my language. What it opposes is subsidies for that.

The proposed change removes the protection of civil liberties for non-citizens.

Instead of deleting, just accurately describe the Bill of Rights.
"The Bill of Rights REMAINS IN FORCE DURING a time of war. "

We can do better. Or do you advocate the wartime quartering of troops? :-)

The added text, "pay for any costs they impose on others," adds a vague, unworkable, and unfair restr iction on migrants.

The principle is that migrants remain liable/responsible for the costs they impose. Are you disagreeing with that principle, or just how it is worded?

I don't have to pay for the costs I would impose on San Francisco by moving there from Los Angeles

#4774

From: Harland Harrison <harlandh5@...>
Date: Tue Dec 8, 2009 11:59 pm
Subject: Re : LP PlatCom Meeting This Weekend

harlandh5

Online Now

Thanks for asking what members want in their platform.

I disagree with Kevin Bjornson comments about alliances.

I support Brian Holtz addition to Plank 3.5, which will protect children from abusive guardians.

I oppose all the other changes proposed by Holtz. Some of his "defenses" for candidates actually deny people rights which they enjoy now.

My comments are below. Please feel free to inquire if I can explain anything better.

for Liberty

Harland Harrison

LP of San Mateo County CA

Here is a thought on Kevin Bjornson's comments

Planks 3.1 & 3.3

The citizens should control any army a government has. Making governments "lawfully required to respond" effectively gives control of national armies to others. When the country needs defending, Congress should declare war. If foreign citizens need defending, Congress should, again, declare war.

Here are some of my thoughts on Brian Holtz' proposed changes

1.0. Personal Liberty

Force and fraud are not "attempts to make choices for others"; they are attempts to deny the victims a choice.

"Banished from human relationships" sounds like a call for government to meddle with families.

The original text incidentally condemns aggressive war and similar situations. Perhaps the word "morally" would help, because it expresses an ideal, not a law.

"No individual, group, or government may MORALLY initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. "

People have the right to make their own choices and take risks, even when NOBODY fully understands the consequences.

"The right to make a choice depends on the individual both understanding its consequences and accepting responsibility for them."

People often decide to take actions whose consequences may not even be known to anyone.

1.1. Expression and Communication

The plank does not need to cover the entire first amendment, and the changes don't cover everything well.

The addition about intellectual property takes away the ordinary rights of "fair use" and time limitations under current law and centuries of tradition:

"We defend the right to freely reproduce original expression when doing so does not divert commercial benefit from the author to the reproducer."

When Disney's copyright expires they should just stop making money from it. Whether my parody hurts your sales or not, satire is a fair use.

The addition for information technology also denies the ordinary limitations on patents, copyrights, and contracts.

"Limits on the use of information technology should be decided by contracts between producers and consumers."

The patent and copyright language in the Constitution specifically seeks to promote the arts, not to maximize the amount of money marketers can make.

1.2. Personal Privacy

The added text is ambiguous and vague:

"We favor the freedom of association among private parties to negotiate how they use information voluntarily disclosed to each other."

Is it about medical records, blackmail, court testimony, secret recordings, or what?

The deleted text protects many freedoms like gambling, prostitution, travel, trade, and communication with forbidden countries, forbidden sex acts, and choice of safety equipment:

"We favor the repeal of all laws creating crimes' without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. "

The replacement text does not cover everything and is not a good description:

"Adults have the freedom and responsibility to decide what media and substances they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and to accept for themselves any risk to their own health, finances, safety, or life."

The "media" is not at issue, but the content. "Knowingly" implies the government could forbid drugs from Canada on the grounds of uncertain purity!

1.4. Abortion

The current version is fine. The added text, supposedly to "defend" and "guide" candidates, involves ethical issues we have never addressed.

1.6. Self-Defense

The current version is fine, but inserting the disclaimer "peaceful adults" actually has the opposite effect intended. It implies that non-citizens, felons, and schizophrenics should have equal access weapons!

2.2. Environment

The deleted text is complete. The added text is inaccurate. The biggest pollution problems come from polluting the "commons", the air, ocean, and water table. "Individual rights" do not address the issue.

2.3. Energy and Resources

The deleted text is important libertarian, and is not replaced:

"While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy"

2.5. Money and Financial Markets

The added text is inaccurate; "free market" does not mean the government protects the players from fraud. Also, governments can (and should) buy on the free market and their losses are clearly "socialized".

2.6. Monopolies and Corporations

The added text is a weird scheme which would not work:

"as long as ultimate responsibility for each non-contractual liability of the firm is accepted by at least one of the individuals in it. "

A corporation would just need to hire one homeless guy to sign for the liability. We could advocate full insurance to cover all liability of a corporation, but this language does nothing of the kind.

2.9. Health Care

The original text says enough:

"We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. "

We cannot anticipate the specifics of the debate even in the near future.

And I, for one, do not oppose the "use of insurance for routine care".

3.2. Internal Security and Individual Rights

The proposed change removes the protection of civil liberties for non-citizens. The victims of torture are mostly non-citizens! Instead of deleting, just accurately describe the Bill of Rights.

"The Bill of Rights REMAINS IN FORCE DURING a time of war. "

3.4. Free Trade and Migration

The added text, "pay for any costs they impose on others," adds a vague, unworkable, and unfair restriction on migrants. I don't have to pay for the costs I would impose on San Francisco by moving there from Los Angeles; why should an immigrant have to pay for that? How in the world would such a system work?

3.5. Rights and Discrimination

Two very good additions recognize how the common law protects children from abuse by their parents.

"-unless they abuse, neglect, or recklessly endanger their children. Children have the right to petition a court to establish their maturity and become emancipated, with all the rights of an adult."

=======================================================================

De : kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
� : lpplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Envoy� le : Lun 7 D�cembre 2009, 23 h 03 min 03 s
Objet : RE: [LPplatform-discuss] LP PlatCom Meeting This Weekend

3.1 National Defense
"The United States should both abandon its attempts to act
as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances."

(K) By their very nature, alliances entangle. When an ally is
aggressed upon, an ally would be obligated by treaty to respond.
If not lawfully required to respond, there would be no alliance.

Hence this sentence opposes alliances, qualifying the objection
by a perjorative. Without alliances, smaller nations would be easy
prey and would become extinct; leading to the evolution of big
nation-states that have gotten big through aggression. Hence,
this is a sure prescription for massive world war, and catastrophe.

3.3 International Affairs
We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid.

(K) This sentence opposes a specific type of military action abroad,
that which intervenes in a multi-party dispute; and would allow the US
military action abroad that does not intervene. This has the effect of
outlawing alliances (a one-on-one dispute does not entail alliance).

Alliances do not by their nature violate the NAP.
Hence the inclusion of this prohibition against alliances
constitutes the introduction of extra-libertarian ideology
into the LP platform.

So, not only would this prohibition result in catastrophe of epic
proportions (hence violating the consequentialist principle),
this also violates natural law principles.

To: LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com
From: brian@...
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:17:51 -0800
Subject: [LPplatform-discuss] LP PlatCom Meeting This Weekend

The 2010 Libertarian Party Platform Committee is meeting this weekend in Las Vegas to adopt its report for the May 2010 convention. Perhaps due to satisfaction with the "greatest-hits" 2008 platform that the 2008 NatCon delegates assembled out of the best parts of 9 previous LP platforms, there have not yet been many specific proposals for modifying the platform in 2010. So far, the most prominent themes regarding 2010 have been:

defending LP candidates against possible misinterpretation of LP positions,
correcting a few semantic bugs the 2008 platform inherited from its greatest-hits language, and
smoothing some of the transitions between thoughts inherited from different platforms.

Chat with Messenger straight from your Hotmail inbox. Check it out

#4773

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Tue Dec 8, 2009 7:03 am
Subject: RE: LP PlatCom Meeting This Weekend

kevinsbjornson

Offline

3.1 National Defense
"The United States should both abandon its attempts to act
as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances."

(K) By their very nature, alliances entangle. When an ally is
aggressed upon, an ally would be obligated by treaty to respond.
If not lawfully required to respond, there would be no alliance.

Hence this sentence opposes alliances, qualifying the objection
by a perjorative. Without alliances, smaller nations would be easy
prey and would become extinct; leading to the evolution of big
nation-states that have gotten big through aggression. Hence,
this is a sure prescription for massive world war, and catastrophe.

3.3 International Affairs
We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid.

(K) This sentence opposes a specific type of military action abroad,
that which intervenes in a multi-party dispute; and would allow the US
military action abroad that does not intervene. This has the effect of
outlawing alliances (a one-on-one dispute does not entail alliance).

Alliances do not by their nature violate the NAP.
Hence the inclusion of this prohibition against alliances
constitutes the introduction of extra-libertarian ideology
into the LP platform.

So, not only would this prohibition result in catastrophe of epic
proportions (hence violating the consequentialist principle),
this also violates natural law principles.

defending LP candidates against possible misinterpretation of LP positions,
correcting a few semantic bugs the 2008 platform inherited from its greatest-hits language, and
smoothing some of the transitions between thoughts inherited from different platforms.

Chat with Messenger straight from your Hotmail inbox. Check it out

#4772

From: Brian Holtz <brian@...>
Date: Tue Dec 8, 2009 12:17 am
Subject: LP PlatCom Meeting This Weekend

brianholtz1965

Online Now

defending LP candidates against possible misinterpretation of LP positions,
correcting a few semantic bugs the 2008 platform inherited from its greatest-hits language, and
smoothing some of the transitions between thoughts inherited from different platforms.

#4771

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:53 pm
Subject: RE: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

kevinsbjornson

Offline

DK - Show me one "proper" government in human history that
hasn't ended up trampling freedom and killing multitudes of people.

(K) show me one example of a period in history where government

wasn't necessary and people didn't aggress. There are plenty of

examples of good government; every time a murderer, robber,

etc., is arrested.

Again, you claim that government necessarily intiiates force,

and for proof, you claim that all examples of governments initiate force.
Yet you offer no example of "anarchy" where governments

don't exist because they aren't necessary.

DK - In my opinion, most Libertarians are content to sit behind a computer and engage in non-productive arguments that don't really amount to much, when they could be actively making a difference in their communities--and that's why this will be my last post to this discussion.

(K) Go ahead and try to influence your local community.

You won't find many takers if you continue to claim that

government isn't necessary and should be abolished.

DK - I couldn't care less about arguing over finer details that really don't mean squat. I just want to be left alone, in peace. And I will reciprocate. Is that too much to ask?

(K) For some people, yes, that is too much to expect.

Not everybody in this world is willing to reciprocate.

They will aggress even if you don't and especially if

you don't want to organize force to counter aggression.

>(K) Liberty allows more than that; allows you to hire a
>specialist and with others, to organize force thus forming
>government.

(K) Initiation of force is not the same thing as organization

of force into government. Force can be initiated with or

without government; and can be met with counter-force,

either individual or government.

"government" in the traditional sense is what I'm talking about,

which is why dictionaries are consistent with the definition I offer.

Your definition of "government" as the organized initiation of force

is not supported by any dictionaries, and is an example of

libertarians making up their own language. I prefer standard English.

DK - I disagree. Prisons only delay the enevitable and force others to pay for the facilities and expenses.

(K) So, you would shoot alleged murderers on the spot,

without trial? If not, aren't you worried they might commit more

murders before they are convicted? Should all murderers

be executed? What if there were extenuating circumstances,

or lack of total certainty? Very noble of you to oppose all

incarceration; just show me one example of where that has worked.

What would you do about rapists, without incarceration?

Armed robbers? What is your alternative? Agreed, often lesser

offenses can be dealt with outside of incarceration, but still,

there are cases when it is necessary.

(K) Defensive force also regulates or controls behavior;

in this case, behavior of aggressors.

DK - I can exempt myself from you and your controls, all day long--and all other regular, equal men just like you. If you think otherwise, I would invite you to try and enforce them--personally.

(K) Wow, very macho. But if you murder someone, your behavior

ought to be controlled and enforcement would be overwhelming.

You would have no choice, can be fatal to bring slogans to a gunfight.

If, on the other hand, you were to resist an unjust law,

or unjust application of law, your resistance might gain allies,

and with the right circumstances, might trigger revolution.
However, revolution would violate the non-interference doctrine

favored by Rothbardites.

(DK) There is no such thing as a "just" or "rightful" system
of government, unless one voluntarily agrees to be bound

by the terms and conditions thereof.

(K) That applies only on the client end, not the (alleged)

perpetrator end. Again, those who aggress ought to be

subject to defensive/retaliatory action, whether by

government or an individual. There is no way to opt out

and be immune, whether rightly or practically, from

governing actions.

There are objective standards of justice, even though we

don't always have knowledge of the details we must muddle

through. If we substitute "anything goes" for justice,

we would be asking for a lot of trouble.

Bing� brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.

#4770

From: "Libertarian News" <libertariannews@...>
Date: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:28 pm
Subject: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

l800electus

Offline

(K) Your equation: government = institutionalized intiation of force,
is not supported by dictionaries, logic, or evidence. "Govern"
(in a political context) means to rule by regulating behavior.
"Government" is the act or result of governing.
(Similarly, "pavement" is the act or result of paving, etc.
Note, this does not include the suffix "ament".)

DK - To repeat, any *initiation* of force is unacceptable, so a system that institutionalizes such is unacceptable also.

(DK) When you say that I should be "governed" if I aggress against another,
my first reaction is to bristle at that statement. If you mean a self-defense
response or personal sanctions, I can fully agree with that. If you are talking
about the kind of system presently in place, I disagree.

(K) The kind of system now in place is not the only alternative to
individual self-defense. In the case of force, let us look to predators
in nature. Virtually all the successful hunters do so in packs.
When we discuss initiatory, defensive, and retaliatory force,
in all cases we are talking about force, but with different moral
dimensions. The moral distinction does not depend on whether
the force is organized into government, or is "lone wolf" (actually,
wolves tend to hunt in packs).

DK - Again, organization isn't the issue; the only thing I'm concerned with, as far as this discussion goes, is whether it is initiated or defensive.

(DK) To get down to brass tacks, government is basically a
system of entitlements; ...

(K) That maybe true as a matter of fact, but that is not
proper government.

DK - Show me one "proper" government in human history that hasn't ended up trampling freedom and killing multitudes of people.

(K) Everybody specializes. Those who
specialize in government, do one thing really well:
blow things up. But sometimes things need to be blown up.

DK - Yes, and I can think of a few things, but that's a discussion for another day, perhaps. ;)

(DK) My article was an opinion piece, highlighting real-life
observations and purposely written in an easy-to-read fashion.
Is there any particular part with which you take issue?

(K) Nothing there really stands out in my mind.

DK - That's because the piece wasn't geared to someone like you. It was geared to the person who feels that something is wrong, but can't quite put a finger on it.

The problem with most libertarians, is they are intentional
and not process oriented. Forget intentions. They are either
counter-productive or irrelevant.

(K) Focus on a system that
on the face is neutral with respect to liberty, but tends
over time (in an evolutionary fashion) to create more liberty.

DK - I prefer freedom over liberties.

To emulate evolution in the political realm,
we need to create competition in government.

Rothbard went completely in the opposite direction.
He focused on an impossible end goal: anarchy or
total absence of government. His agencies of
retaliatory/defensive force are really governments.
If he were to admit that, he would have to look at
prior examples of competition in government,
such as the roman republic. But then he would not
be able to pose as a guru with original thoughts.
He would have to get down to the nitty-gritty of
history, a field outside of his specialty.

DK - I couldn't care less about arguing over finer details that really don't mean squat. I just want to be left alone, in peace. And I will reciprocate. Is that too much to ask?

Amazingly, some Austrian economists feel their specialty
gives them special expertise in foreign policy, a field about
which most are utterly ignorant.

DK - See above.

(DK) I am not calling for pacifism or nonresistance;
I firmly support strong self-defense.

(K) Liberty allows more than that; allows you to hire a
specialist and with others, to organize force thus forming
government.

DK - That is not "government," at least in the traditional sense; it is a private defense force. I have no problem with you hiring or convincing people to defend you. It's when you initiate force against others that's the problem.

(DK) Even so, there are other ways to exact justice and
positively affect behavior, instead of putting offenders in
a Hilton Hotel prison--complete with exercise equipment
and cable TV.

(K) A shared TV and some weights do not a Hilton Hotel make.

I think prison need to be radically reformed, emphasizing
solitary confinement (to avoid social bonding among prisoners),
education, psychotherapy, and moral improvement. But face it,
some people need to be confined because they are a danger
to the life and health of others.

DK - I disagree. Prisons only delay the enevitable and force others to pay for the facilities and expenses.

(DK) 1) understand my reasons for opposing government systems

(K) I do not understand why you oppose all organization of force.
Elsewhere, you said the problem was not the organization,
but the aggression. But "government" = organization of force
to regulate behavior. This regulation can be right or wrong.
A bank guard and bank robber both may use a gun,
and commit the same physical act,
but the moral signficance of their actions is different.

Organized use of force can be initiatory, defensive, or retaliatory.
Individual use of force can be initiatory, defensive, or retaliatory.

DK - If you are regulating my behavior, you are controlling me, and if you are controlling me you are forcing me. You should never be able to control me, but you can certainly make a strong defensive response if I initiate force against you.

(DK) 2) respect my wishes to not be included in any force-based system you may support.

(K) You would rightly be included in a just system of government,
were you to commit an unjust action. You would be included not as
a taxpayer, but as punishment for initiating force (or fraud).
I'm not saying you would become an aggressor,
but logically we cannot exclude the possibility.
No one can exempt themselves (a priori)
from the possibility of being rightly governed.

DK - I can exempt myself from you and your controls, all day long--and all other regular, equal men just like you. If you think otherwise, I would invite you to try and enforce them--personally. There is no such thing as a "just" or "rightful" system of government, unless one voluntarily agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions thereof. As for "unjust actions," that's exactly what I was talking about in my article. Your type of "unjust action" might deal with theft of personal property or bodily injury. Another's "unjust action" might be my opposition to having my money stolen from me (taxation) to pay for another's education. Another's "unjust action" might be smoking, even on private property (house, bar). That is the point I was trying to get you to understand. Human nature is precisely why no human should ever be able to forcibly rule and control other humans. Lysander Spooner had it right on government basically between a struggle between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters and which of them slaves.

(K) "Anarchy" is not one of the options,
because of limitations in human nature,
some will aggress and need to be governed.

DK - See above.

(K) All we can hope for, is to approach that goal
closer and closer, as in Zeno's dichotomy paradox:
That which is in locomotion must arrive at the
half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.

DK - I can accept incrementalism, as long as there is real progress and we are moving in the right direction--and, like I said before, we aren't at a place where our differences should divide us. If we ever see a return to a true constitutional government, then we can take sides and argue about going further. Until then, this division is a waste of time and counterproductive.

Feel free to have the last word. I'm out. All this "cyber libertarianism," as a friend calls it, isn't geting things done in the real world.

We all need to hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!

#4769

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:55 am
Subject: RE: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

kevinsbjornson

Offline

(HP) Please keep in mind that definitions are not concepts and the lack
of an all inclusive definition covering all the underlying concepts is not
necessarily proof those concepts do not exist.

But perhaps the word "government" is frequently used interchangibly with
the word "state" which is more precise in defining that type government I
think we all know we are talking about.

(K) Do we really know what we are talking about?
Words are symbols of concepts. In order to communicate concepts,
we must use words (or other symbols), that necessarily employ means
provided by our natural bodies. For instance, many have an
idea what they mean by "God" but every attempt to communicate
what they mean, necessarily uses meanings derived from the
natural world and our interactions with it.

"State" (in the political sense) is a type of government that has
attempted to limit competition (in governing services) in a given
geographical area. More inclusive definitions of "state" tend to be
counter-factual.

Tibor Machan has written a good article,
pointing out the difference between "state" and "government".
Others have spoken wisely about this distinction,
including this excellent article on Aristotelian Liberalism:

http://www.veritasnoctis.net/docs/plauchedissertationproposal.pdf

Page 22

Plauch�

as well as legal, security and welfare services will be explored. There is a large and growing

body of literature on this subject, some of which are included in the bibliography below. Among

the arguments that I will make will be the Hayekian distinction between law and legislation; the

superiority of customary law, which precedes legislation historically, in delivering justice, in

safeguarding liberty, and in education; the superiority of polycentric legal systems over

monocentric ones; and that the aforementioned goods and services can be provided on a

voluntary basis, cooperatively by associations in society, and competitively on the market.

"Both theoretical and historical alternatives to the state for the provision of
law as well as lega, security, and welfare services will be explored.

There is a large and growing body of literature on this subject,
some of which are included in the bibliography below. Among
the arguments that I will make will be the Hayekian distinction
between law and legislation; the superiority of customary law,
which precedes legislation historically, in delivering justice,
in safeguarding liberty, and in education; the superiority of
polycentric legal systems over monocentric ones;
and that the aforementioned goods and services can be
provided on a voluntary basis, cooperatively by associations
in society, and competitively on the market."

As you can see by this article, non-Orthodox Objectivists are
restoring and enhancing the original concept of competing
governments, rescued from distortion by the Rothbardian apogrypha.
If Rothbard were an archeologist, what he has done to liberty theory
would be comparable to archeological vandalism. The LP "moderates"
accept the basic Rothbardian paradigm, but watered-down.

as well as legal, security and welfare services will be explored. There is a large and growing

body of literature on this subject, some of which are included in the bibliography below. Among

the arguments that I will make will be the Hayekian distinction between law and legislation; the

superiority of customary law, which precedes legislation historically, in delivering justice, in

safeguarding liberty, and in education; the superiority of polycentric legal systems over

monocentric ones; and that the aforementioned goods and services can be provided on a

voluntary basis, cooperatively by associations in society, and competitively on the market

Windows Live� SkyDrive�: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.

#4768

From: "Howard Pearce" <hap8192736@...>
Date: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:08 am
Subject: Re: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

hap8192736

Offline

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:09:27 -0400, kevin Bjornson
<bjornsonkevin@...> wrote:

>
> (DK) You may not favor the "current" system,
> but you seem to be advocating for some level
> of government based upon your previous statement,
> "...beneficial individuals and governments are necessary."
> If I'm out of line on that, please correct me.
> To me, the type of system is irrelevant;
> any institutionalized initiation of force is unacceptable.
> (K) Your equation: government = institutionalized intiation of force,
> is not supported by dictionaries, logic, or evidence. "Govern"
> (in a political context) means to rule by regulating behavior.
> "Government" is the act or result of governing.
> (Similarly, "pavement" is the act or result of paving, etc.

Please keep in mind that definitions are not concepts and the lack of an
all inclusive definition covering all the underlying concepts is not
necessarily proof those concepts do not exist.

But perhaps the word "government" is frequently used interchangibly with
the word "state" which is more precise in defining that type government I
think we all know we are talking about.

--
Howard Pearce

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

#4767

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:09 pm
Subject: RE: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

kevinsbjornson

Offline

(DK) You may not favor the "current" system,
but you seem to be advocating for some level
of government based upon your previous statement,
"...beneficial individuals and governments are necessary."
If I'm out of line on that, please correct me.
To me, the type of system is irrelevant;
any institutionalized initiation of force is unacceptable.

(K) Your equation: government = institutionalized intiation of force,

is not supported by dictionaries, logic, or evidence. "Govern"

(in a political context) means to rule by regulating behavior.

"Government" is the act or result of governing.

(Similarly, "pavement" is the act or result of paving, etc.

Note, this does not include the suffix "ament".)

(DK) When you say that I should be "governed" if I aggress against another,
my first reaction is to bristle at that statement. If you mean a self-defense
response or personal sanctions, I can fully agree with that. If you are talking
about the kind of system presently in place, I disagree.

(K) The kind of system now in place is not the only alternative to

individual self-defense. In the case of force, let us look to predators

in nature. Virtually all the successful hunters do so in packs.

When we discuss initiatory, defensive, and retaliatory force,

in all cases we are talking about force, but with different moral

dimensions. The moral distinction does not depend on whether

the force is organized into government, or is "lone wolf" (actually,

wolves tend to hunt in packs).

(DT) To get down to brass tacks, government is basically a

system of entitlements; ...

(K) That maybe true as a matter of fact, but that is not

proper government. Everybody specializes. Those who

specialize in government, do one thing really well:

blow things up. But sometimes things need to be blown up.

(DT) My article was an opinion piece, highlighting real-life
observations and purposely written in an easy-to-read fashion.
Is there any particular part with which you take issue?

(K) Nothing there really stands out in my mind.

The problem with most libertarians, is they are intentional

and not process oriented. Forget intentions. They are either

counter-productive or irrelevant. Focus on a system that

on the face is neutral with respect to liberty, but tends

over time (in an evolutionary fashion) to create more liberty.

To emulate evolution in the political realm,

we need to create competition in government.

Rothbard went completely in the opposite direction.

He focused on an impossible end goal: anarchy or

total absence of government. His agencies of

retaliatory/defensive force are really governments.

If he were to admit that, he would have to look at

prior examples of competition in government,

such as the roman republic. But then he would not

be able to pose as a guru with original thoughts.

He would have to get down to the nitty-gritty of

history, a field outside of his specialty.

Amazingly, some Austrian economists feel their specialty

gives them special expertise in foreign policy, a field about

which most are utterly ignorant.

(DK) I am not calling for pacifism or nonresistance;

I firmly support strong self-defense.

(K) Liberty allows more than that; allows you to hire a

specialist and with others, to organize force thus forming

government.

(DK) Even so, there are other ways to exact justice and

positively affect behavior, instead of putting offenders in

a Hilton Hotel prison--complete with exercise equipment

and cable TV.

(K) A shared TV and some weights do not a Hilton Hotel make.

I think prison need to be radically reformed, emphasizing

solitary confinement (to avoid social bonding among prisoners),

education, psychotherapy, and moral improvement. But face it,

some people need to be confined because they are a danger

to the life and health of others.

(DK) 1) understand my reasons for opposing government systems

(K) I do not understand why you oppose all organization of force.

Elsewhere, you said the problem was not the organization,

but the aggression. But "government" = organization of force

to regulate behavior. This regulation can be right or wrong.

A bank guard and bank robber both may use a gun,

and commit the same physical act,

but the moral signficance of their actions is different.

Organized use of force can be initiatory, defensive, or retaliatory.

Individual use of force can be initiatory, defensive, or retaliatory.

(DK) 2) respect my wishes to not be included in any force-based system you may support.

(K) You would rightly be included in a just system of government,

were you to commit an unjust action. You would be included not as

a taxpayer, but as punishment for initiating force (or fraud).
I'm not saying you would become an aggressor,

but logically we cannot exclude the possibility.

No one can exempt themselves (a priori)
from the possibility of being rightly governed.

"Anarchy" is not one of the options,

because of limitations in human nature,

some will aggress and need to be governed.

All we can hope for, is to approach that goal

closer and closer, as in Zeno's dichotomy paradox:

That which is in locomotion must arrive at the

half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.

Windows Live� Hotmail�: Search, add, and share the web�s latest sports videos. Check it out.

#4766

From: "Libertarian News" <libertariannews@...>
Date: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:29 pm
Subject: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

l800electus

Offline

I'm glad that you have good reading skills and that we can agree on a few points.

Not all aggression comes from government, correct, but I am opposed to it no matter where it originates.

You may not favor the "current" system, but you seem to be advocating for some level of government based upon your previous statement, "...beneficial individuals and governments are necessary." If I'm out of line on that, please correct me. To me, the type of system is irrelevant; any institutionalized initiation of force is unacceptable.

When you say that I should be "governed" if I aggress against another, my first reaction is to bristle at that statement. If you mean a self-defense response or personal sanctions, I can fully agree with that. If you are talking about the kind of system presently in place, I disagree.

I'm VERY glad to hear that you oppose taxation (theft, wealth redistribution). To get down to brass tacks, government is basically a system of entitlements; most people feel entitled to military, roads, education, etc. and feel that everyone should be forced to pay for it as a price to be paid for living in this country--even though no one here had anything to do with the location of anyone else's birth or to whom a person would be born. No matter if what you support is simply a military and post offices, if you use power of government to take wealth from someone else and use it to fund the things you support then you are a socialist, plain and simple. Because of that, "small, Constitutional government" Libertarians are socialists, as well (taxation is mentioned in Article I of the Constitution). I hear a lot of Libertarians beat up on Republicans and Democrats for being socialists, but Libertarians aren't that far removed, sadly. The only thing setting them apart is the degree to which they will support it.

My article was an opinion piece, highlighting real-life observations and purposely written in an easy-to-read fashion. Is there any particular part with which you take issue?

I first joined the LP in 2001, after coming across a quote from the then-Chairman of the LP while doing research for a political article I was in the process of writing. Over the years I served as a county Chair for a total of three different counties; ran for State House and Congress on the LP ticket; was the Membership Director for my state's Party; was the state Newsletter Editor; and even served as Executive Director for some time. It was at the end of my time as ED that I realized exactly who I was, politically-speaking, and decided that I had to be true to myself and beliefs and could not in good faith support any kind of small/limited/Constitutional/whatever government. So, instead of representing views that would go against the official Party line, I made the honorable decision to resign my position.

I am not calling for pacifism or nonresistance; I firmly support strong self-defense. Even so, there are other ways to exact justice and positively affect behavior, instead of putting offenders in a Hilton Hotel prison--complete with exercise equipment and cable TV.

And let's be clear: I'm not attempting to "recruit" anyone for anything. I am merely hoping that you 1) understand my reasons for opposing government systems and 2) respect my wishes to not be included in any force-based system you may support.

At the end of the day, though, all of this anarchist vs. minarchist crap is a waste of time, since we are nowhere near being at a point where we should be dividing ourselves over it. When we truly get a return to a "constitutional" government, then we can choose sides and argue small government vs. no government. I work with the LP, because I realize that while the LP line doesn't quite go far enough for me it is a big step in the right direction. This country didn't end up in this current mess, overnight--and won't be fixed overnight, either--so I'm willing to use that same kind of incrementalism to turn the tide for the better. Any progress is better than no progress.

--------

1. With all due respect, I'm not interested in your reading ability or any self-aggrandizing.
I'm only interested in knowing whether or not you read, and fully comprehended,
the ideas contained in my article.

(K) I would not waste people's time by commenting on an article I hadn't read.
Your question implies I don't have good reading comprehension abilities,
which is why I said I am an excellent reader. You can't have it both ways,
to accuse someone and then say they can't refute your accusation.

2. Again, organization itself isn't the problem.
The *initiation* of force is the problem--
something the LP *used* to rightfully oppose.

(K) I agree with you here, initiation of force is
the problem, not government. But elsewhere,
you seem to say that government is the problem.
Not all aggression comes from government.

3. I do not "aggress" against others, yet your system still forces me to be subservient while it steals from me to pay for it and directs every aspect of my life. And who are you to decide to what I should have to be subject? Did you fully comprehend what I had to say about "illegitimate" power in my article?

(K) My system? I do not favor the present system,
nor did I give any indication that I do. Why do you
think I favor the current system of government?

I am not the one who decides if you are an aggressor,
nor did I accuse you of being an aggressor. I merely said,
if you aggress, you ought to be governed. Since I am not
part of any government, I am not someone who decides
who gets charged.

Unlike most libertarians, I don't favor taxation.
Why do you suppose I do?

Your article was lacking in specificity, originality, and scholarship.
If you want to discuss legitimacy of government,
please define your terms precisely, then we can discuss
more. BTW, what is your age, and when did you become
libertarian?

4. There are many non-violent, non-aggressive, non-arresting ways of making sure someone feels the sting of their poor decisions and actions, while promoting positive change. Too bad your government has made them "illegal."

(K) You're not going to convert any libertarians by accusing
them of supporting the current system of government.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
You seem to be calling for pacifism.
If someone commits a murder, they shouldn't be arrested?
Pacifism goes far beyond libertarianism. Few people are
pacifists, because evolution tends to select them out.

#4765

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:38 pm
Subject: RE: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

kevinsbjornson

Offline

> (K) There is nothing voluntary about being arrested for murder,
> or any of the common-law crimes.
>

(HP) Being Arrested comes under the heading of defense against a
perceived threat. If it is is done unjustly, then one may have recourse.

(K) Yes, of course. My point is, government can never be 100%
voluntary, or it ceases to be a government. What should be voluntary,
is payment of user fees. Still, fines, war booty, and forced privatization
are not voluntary in regard to the persons paying or losing,
who have committed aggression and deserve to receive counterforce.

Windows Live� Hotmail�: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. Check it out.

#4764

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:27 pm
Subject: RE: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

kevinsbjornson

Offline

(K) I would not waste people's time by commenting on an article I hadn't read.

Your question implies I don't have good reading comprehension abilities,

which is why I said I am an excellent reader. You can't have it both ways,

to accuse someone and then say they can't refute your accusation.

2. Again, organization itself isn't the problem.

The *initiation* of force is the problem--

something the LP *used* to rightfully oppose.

(K) I agree with you here, initiation of force is

the problem, not government. But elsewhere,

you seem to say that government is the problem.

Not all aggression comes from government.

3. I do not "aggress" against others, yet your system still forces me to be subservient while it steals from me to pay for it and directs every aspect of my life. And who are you to decide to what I should have to be subject? Did you fully comprehend what I had to say about "illegitimate" power in my article?

(K) My system? I do not favor the present system,
nor did I give any indication that I do. Why do you

think I favor the current system of government?

I am not the one who decides if you are an aggressor,

nor did I accuse you of being an aggressor. I merely said,

if you aggress, you ought to be governed. Since I am not

part of any government, I am not someone who decides

who gets charged.

Unlike most libertarians, I don't favor taxation.

Why do you suppose I do?

Your article was lacking in specificity, originality, and scholarship.
If you want to discuss legitimacy of government,
please define your terms precisely, then we can discuss

more. BTW, what is your age, and when did you become

libertarian?

4. There are many non-violent, non-aggressive, non-arresting ways of making sure someone feels the sting of their poor decisions and actions, while promoting positive change. Too bad your government has made them "illegal."

(K) You're not going to convert any libertarians by accusing

them of supporting the current system of government.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

You seem to be calling for pacifism.

If someone commits a murder, they shouldn't be arrested?

Pacifism goes far beyond libertarianism. Few people are

pacifists, because evolution tends to select them out.

Windows Live� Hotmail�: Search, add, and share the web�s latest sports videos. Check it out.

#4763

From: "Libertarian News" <libertariannews@...>
Date: Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:52 pm
Subject: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

l800electus

Offline

2. Again, organization itself isn't the problem. The *initiation* of force is the problem--something the LP *used* to rightfully oppose.

--------

(DK) Did you even read my article?

(K) Yes, and my reading ability has been tested
at the 99.9th percentile.

(DK) Organization, itself, isn't the problem.

(K) Ah, but government = organized use of force
to regulate or control behavior. So, you have no
problem with all government, or government per se?

(DK) I think you're missing the point:
There is no legitimate claim to me,
by you or any other person,
to FORCE me to be subservient to your system or pay for it.

(K) If you aggress, you would be rightfully subject and
subservient to a system of organized force.

(DK) I support self-defense,
but I also believe in personal responsibility and voluntary relationships.

(K) There is nothing voluntary about being arrested for murder,
or any of the common-law crimes.

#4762

From: "Howard Pearce" <hap8192736@...>
Date: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

hap8192736

Offline

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:22:00 -0400, kevin Bjornson
<bjornsonkevin@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> (K) There is nothing voluntary about being arrested for murder,
> or any of the common-law crimes.
>

Being Arrested comes under the heading of defense against a perceived
threat. If it is is done unjustly, then one may have recourse.

--
Howard Pearce

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

#4761

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:22 am
Subject: RE: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

kevinsbjornson

Offline

(DK) Did you even read my article?

(K) Yes, and my reading ability has been tested

at the 99.9th percentile.

(DK) Organization, itself, isn't the problem.

(K) Ah, but government = organized use of force

to regulate or control behavior. So, you have no

problem with all government, or government per se?

(DK) I think you're missing the point:

There is no legitimate claim to me,

by you or any other person,

to FORCE me to be subservient to your system or pay for it.

(K) If you aggress, you would be rightfully subject and

subservient to a system of organized force.

(DK) I support self-defense,

but I also believe in personal responsibility and voluntary relationships.

(K) There is nothing voluntary about being arrested for murder,

or any of the common-law crimes.

Windows Live� SkyDrive�: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.

#4760

From: "Libertarian News" <libertariannews@...>
Date: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

l800electus

Offline

Did you even read my article? Organization, itself, isn't the problem.

I think you're missing the point: There is no legitimate claim to me, by you or any other person, to FORCE me to be subservient to your system or pay for it.

I support self-defense, but I also believe in personal responsibility and voluntary relationships.

--------

I think you all should read my article, "Reality Check":
http://anarchistpov.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/reality-check/

Also, if there are any among you who have a legitimate claim to me,
or any other sovereign individual, please step forward and make your claim.

(K) There are legitimate claims on you, and every human,
to not aggress against other humans.

Because of huiman nature, people will sometimes aggress.
To counter this aggression, whether lone wolf or organized
into government, beneficial individuals and governments
are necessary.

You mention a paradox, that a type of fire
is used to fight another type of fire.
However, not all fires are morally equivalent.

Whether force is initiatory or retaliatory/defensive,
determines whether it is unjust or just. Whether
this force is organized, is not morally relevant.
Except, for pragmatic reasons, force must be
organized to counter organized force.

The enemy is not necessarily government (organized use of force),
but aggression, whether lone wolf or organized.

#4759

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:36 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Long's Non-PlatCom thread Re: On Rick Randall's comments

kevinsbjornson

Offline

taxing aggression when it takes the form of pollution

(K) This would not be a "tax", but a fine.

taxing aggression when it takes the form of appropriating ground rent

(K) unlawfully excluding alternate uses of the land is not right,
and this wrong is not remedied by paying for an indulgence.

Windows Live� SkyDrive�: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (7)

#4758

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:18 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Long's Non-PlatCom thread Re: On Rick Randall's comments

kevinsbjornson

Offline

enforcing a due-process-observing monopoly on retaliatory force;

(K) First, "due process" incorporates Spencer's Social Statics,
so the current system often violates due process.

Second, there is no achievement of any such monopoly
of violence, even retaliatory violence. People often retaliate
in violation of statutes, sometimes even form governments
(e.g. mafia) to organize the enforcement.

But, which is it; a monopoly of violence, or just retaliatory violence?
Surely you recognize, there is no actual claim to a monopoly of violence,
much less an achievement of.

the right of the accused to subpoena witnesses and enjoy an impartial jury;

(K) Yes, though such initiation of force maybe necessary (to avoid larger initiations),
still this violates natural law. People should not be subpoened frivolously,
there is always a cost to pay in such cases.

prevention of free-riding on the provision of protection from foreign invasion and universal access to the justice system;

(K) People who don't pay federal taxes (an increasing proportion of the population)
are still "free-riders" so taxation doesn't solve this problem. Whereas a user-fee based
government would be more efficient, resulting in more people able to pay,
and likely a greater proportion of paying persons.

There is little danger of an invasion of the US, that cannot be handled by
local police and militia. The military is necessary mainly for foreign operations,
and these can easily exclude non-paying merchant ships (for example).

policing of forms of aggression (e.g. pollution) too distributed and cumulative to allow tort-based prevention;

(K) There is no NAP-based principle that requires tort-based prevention of pollution.

collection of the ground rent of exclusively-possessed land, in order to compensate those excluded from it.

(K) Rent is rightly payable only to the owner. In this case, the owner
(metaphorically) is Nature and there is no way to pay Nature.
Land should not be exclusively-possessed, unless alll possible uses
were utilized by one owner. This Georgist proposal is simply feudalism
tarted-up. Perhaps the "ground rent" entitles one to indulgences?

Windows Live� Hotmail�: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. Check it out.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (7)

#4757

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:29 am
Subject: RE: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

kevinsbjornson

Offline

(K) Thanks, Brian, for the Pinker article.
Very good reading and I agree,
modernity and humanism do tend to reduce levels
of aggression and we are headed in that direction.

Or at least we were, until Islamists started to get
the upper hand. Perhaps Islam will reform itself,
like Christianity and Judaism have done. However
that would be a more difficult task, considering
the % of violent passages in the koran and the
violence coming from the Islamic realm.

There are some encouraging trends, at least politically,
coming from Turkey and Iran. However, nuclear
explosions would up the death tolls exponentially.

We should be careful to count not only the extreme
examples, but the many petty aggressions afflicting
modern societies.

Governments evolved about 5000 years ago,
in direct response to increased wealth. The
agricultural revolution (about 10,000 years ago)
made stored wealth possible (for the first time)
and this created the possibility of large-scale theft.
Force was organized to steal, some of the more
intelligent organizations of force realized that if
they stole all 100% of the crop, there would be no
crop to steal next year. These became natural
governments, they must have charged a protection
fee to ward off competing gangs.

Good government occured when farmers organized
protective force to counter initiatory force.

Human skeletal evidence older than 10,000 years
is too rare to make statistical generalizations of
the sort Pinker makes. Also, the mere threat of
violence is not measured by the means he uses.

Windows Live� Hotmail�: Search, add, and share the web�s latest sports videos. Check it out.

#4756

From: kevin Bjornson <bjornsonkevin@...>
Date: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:52 am
Subject: RE: Re: [LongThread] anarchy vs. minarchy - burden of proof

kevinsbjornson

Offline

(BH) Extent... of the geographic region for which you want the LPUS
to advocate statelessness (or at least state powerlessness).

(K) That would be a physical impossibility. Because "state" means
the territory or the people residing in that territory, besides it's
other meaning (a type of government that asserts a limited
monopoly of force in a territory, over a people). Clearly,
the territory cannot be abolished, without also abolishing the
laws of physics. The people cannot be abolished, without mass
extinction. And the "state" qua government does not exist in
it's pure form, but only as a warped form of government.

So in a strict sense, we are already "stateless" if by that
you mean an estatist form of government with monopoly
powers. Such a government has existed mostly in the
imaginations of the naive. It is like the myth of the
Emperor's Clothes, a kind of mass hallucination.

The best indice of freedom, is % of the population in prison.
In that regard, the US is #1. The slightly lower tax rate
(about 10% less than Europe) is rapidly rising to or beyond
EU levels. America's form of government is a failure,
already after slightly more than 200 years it is falling down.

The Roman Republic lasted for 500 years. I've visited a
Roman fort by the Black Sea coast; been occupied by
Romans for many centures. The walls are still standing.
Can we say that of public housing in Chicago?

NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here.