There are currently three main proposals circulating for the Libertarian Party Platform.
I am trying to put together a series of debates on blogs like this one, and/or internet radio such as the Steve Kubby Show, between the proponents of these platform proposals. So far, Brian Holtz has expressed an interest in a text debate, David Nolan would prefer to start with a radio discussion, and Tom Knapp has said he is willing to
debate by either text or radio.
The floor is open in the comments, and also at the new
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpradicals-debate/ (not to be confused with
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpradicals-discuss
or the original
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpradicals
which are internal caucus lists).
Here is a brief synopsis of the different proposals.
A) RESTORE 04 by LP Founder David Nolan
More than 100 members of the Libertarian Party, including its founder, a former Presidential candidate, and two of the 2008 Presidential aspirants, have signed a petition calling on the 2008
Platform Committee and convention delegates to restore the 2004 Platform as the starting point for the 2008 version. The petition appears on the website of the newly-formed Restoration Caucus:The first 100 endorsers of the proposal signed up in less than three days, with more names coming in at about one per hour, according to website coordinator Jack Dean. “We’re very pleased by this enthusiastic response,” he said. “We launched the site on December 26, and were hoping for 100 signers by year-end. To reach that goal in only three days shows that a lot of Libertarians are very unhappy with
what happened at the Portland convention in 2006, and want to undo the
damage that was done there.”Among the high-profile Libertarians signing the first day were Presidential contenders Steve Kubby and Christine Smith. Anyone wishing to join them in this effort to keep the LP “the party of principle” is urged to log on www.restore04.com and sign the petition.
In addition to the website, there is a group on facebook,
Libertarians for the Return of the 80% of the Platform which was Deleted
B) Worlds Smallest Political Platform by Tom Knapp
The Boston Tea Party adopted this platform and has recently been re-started. More information about the WSPP at
The full text of the platform is
“The Libertarian Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose.”
Tom Knapp’s message to WSPP supporters:
If you are a member of the Libertarian Party, and if you favor having the LP adopt the World’s Smallest Political Platform, it’s important that you say so. Please visit:
http://www.petitiononline.com/wspp2008/petition.html… and sign the petition supporting the WSPP for the LP.
Other things you can do to promote the WSPP:
- Invite your Facebook friends to join the group.
- If you have your own blog or web site, promote the WSPP there (link buttons are available at wspp.info).
- Talk up the WSPP at your local Libertarian Party activities (it fits on a business card, and I’m working on a printable brochure right now, which will also be available at wssp.info).
- Do you know a candidate for public office? Ask him or her to use the WSPP as his campaign platform.
Thanks for joining the group, and please don’t hesitate to start discussions. There’s also a Yahoo discussion group at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wspp-talk
Best regards,
Tom Knapp
C) Greatest Hits Platform by Brian Holtz
http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform
This platform is compiled from selective parts of all the platforms
from 1971 to 2006. It has the support of
several members of the current platform committee, including its author.
Brian wrote me,
The Directional Principles Subcommittee now contains 9 of PlatCom’s 20 voting members, and our draft is very likely to be the basis of the PlatCom’s majority report. Our draft is also backed by the leadership of the Reform Caucus, an organization with over 1000 members.
Meanwhile, LPHQ in conjunction with the platform committee has sent out a survey (which I also received by snail mail).
Here’s the letter which went out with the e-mail announcing the survey:
Dear fellow Libertarian,
I need your advice.
I serve as chair of the Libertarian Party’s 2008 Platform committee, and we face a difficult challenge. Our job is to make recommendations for changes to our party’s platform.
These recommendations will be considered and voted on by delegates to our national convention, which will be held in Denver from May 23-26, 2008.
Your input is needed to know what recommendations we can offer the national convention delegates that will have the best chance of winning the 2/3 vote required for adoption.
It would be of tremendous help for the future of our party if you could spend the next few minutes completing this online questionnaire.
You’ll find that some of these questions are thought provoking.
These questions were purposely written such that you’ll need to select one answer that more closely represents your preference, even though in some cases you’ll find that both answers offer desirable benefits.
Please answer each question based on your honest opinion rather than what you imagine others might want your answer to be.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to help with this very important task.
Alicia G. Mattson
Chair, 2008 LP Platform Committee
A number of party members have been unhappy with the format, question and choices in this questionnaire. In LP Radicals, Bill Van Allen writes,
There are a number of flaws with this poll; the first and most glaring one is that the author appears to assume that “Libertarianism is what the majority of Libertarians say it is.” That’s just populist bullshit. Libertarian philosophy is the philosophy of individual liberty, personal responsibility and free markets. This poll sounds like it was written by a Clinton “which way is the wind blowing so I’ll know what to say” pollster.
Also, there are other principled options to the questions posed, beside the “all or nothing” choices provided, and some questions assume the unknowable. For example, the question on detail in the platform asks whether we should support “little or no” detail or “comprehensive” detail, completely throwing out the current four-section platform format which is a massive improvement over the previous situation which included duplication and gobbledy gook.
Also, the question about where “mainstream Libertarian thought is at odds with what most voters want” makes the arrogant assumption that we know what “most” voters want on any given issue. The only thing that “most” voters want is another option besides the Republicrats telling them what THEY think the voters want to hear. Your question could be restated for a Yes or No answer thusly: “Should our platform tell people who we are, or what we think they want to hear?” If we’re going to remain the Party of Principle, that answer should be so obvious that the question need not be asked.
Carol Moore writes
Also complain that the questionnaire does NOT provide enough options for some of the questions; i.e., either answer is NOT what most of us radicals want, but either something too extreme or unworkable or something the republicans want. I also told them to kick all the
republicans out of the party
Wes Benedict’s take:
I found many of the questions biased in order to lead respondents who aren’t very familiar with the arguments to give answers the current platform committee wants to hear which is dominated by Reformists and will likely irritate bold platform supporters like myself. Although I haven’t personally decided whether or not I’ll support the Restore04 effort, I think this platform committee will make it more likely the Restore04 effort will succeed and I sure am glad some of you started it.
Morey Straus
For the record, platcomm members were not involved in the development of this survey and only received notification after messages were sent. LNC members who supported Alicia Mattson are urged to question their own judgment.
At TPW,
Eric Sundwall writes
This is an either/or mentality that infects the entire LP (and American electorate). Certain issues, ideas and policies require a differing degree of approach. I believe this is clearly a push question which ultimately seeks to temper the traditional outrage of the average libertarian who has come to the party in protest or frustration after having the major parties fail them.
On the other hand, Brian also says that he has had no luck in getting radicals to point out exactly what libertarian principles are missing from his Greatest Hits proposal.
If anyone wants to weigh in, please comment!
pauliecannoli
Miche
Stuart Richards
bostonteapartygoer
mattdharris
deaconstruck
Less
ponggod
Todd Andrew Barnett
Jim Davidson
Peter Orvetti
Mike Seebeck
aynrkey
sgreffenius
Thanks for covering this, Paulie — in the excitement of a presidential election year, it’s easy for other important party business to be forgotten.
Of the three mentioned platform proposals, it should be fairly obvious that I like mine — the World’s Smallest Political Platform — best. However, I don’t find much of substance to complain about in the Greatest Hits/Pure Principles proposal, or with restoring the 2004 platform.
When I say “of substance,” I mean that I can live with the detailed proposals within those two other proposals. The 2004 platform is a mess in terms of organization, and the GH/PP draft retains the “litmus testing” problem that goes with any attempt to apply a long list of characteristics to a large group of individuals.
My case for the WSPP is aimed at:
- Those who perhaps can’t live with one or more items in these longer platforms;
- Those who are interested in a “big tent” party which doesn’t require that every difference of opinion among its members be settled in its platform; and
- Those who want a simple statement of the party’s position(s) that can be delivered, and understood, in 10-15 seconds.
There are good reasons for the following kinds of Libertarians to support the WSPP: Radicals, reformers, purists, pragmatists, anarchists, minarchists, lessarchists, abolitionists, incrementalists, educators, electioneers, “right” libertarians, “left” libertarians, Austrians, monetarists, Public Choicers … hell, if I keep on going I’ll use up your WordPress account storage quota.
Over time, I’ll be trying to make the WSPP argument to each of those groups discretely. Here, I’ll be glad to answer questions from those who classify themselves as particular types of libertarians and/or want to know why the WSPP is the platform that best serves their objectives.
Best regards,
Tom Knapp
Maybe I accidentally overlooked it, but is there anywhere one can see both platforms, side by side for comparison purposes?
All three are in the post. See where “2004 platform” is highlighted, that’s a link (I put it inside the quote from Nolan).
Knapp’s text is highlighted in red.
The Greatest Hits draft, AKA Pure Principles (authors name, not necessarily my description, nor do I automatically disagree with it) is linked in that section as well.
Let me know if you still can’t find them, and feel free to edit the entry to make them more easy to find if you think they are hard to find now.
Is there anywhere that has a collection of LP platforms over the years? I mean all of them from 1971-2 to today. I think I remember either Doris Gordon or Brian Holtz having such a collection, but now it’s nowhere to be found. An older platform I remember had an explicit note about the American Indian populations of the United States. That seems to be down the memory hole though.
Here is Brian’s list
http://libertarianmajority.net/
I don’t know what Doris Gordon has.
posted on TPW by Steve Gordon
Libertarian Radicals and Reformers Debate
As we move closer to the Libertarian National Convention, the intensity of debate over platform and bylaws issues between various groups and factions within the Libertarian Party is increasing.
Third Party Watch is proud to sponsor this online debate between Brian Holtz of the Libertarian Reform Caucus and Susan Hogarth of LP Radicals.
Each debate contestant has been asked a series of questions about Libertarian Party platform and bylaws issues, the 2006 Libertarian National Convention in Portland and is allowed an opening and a closing statement. Both contestants have been provided the opportunity to rebut statements made by the other.
We’ve rotated the order in which each contestant answers questions. The choice of who was allowed to answer the first/last questions was determined to the satisfaction of both participants by “a roll of the electronic dice.”
To be clear, the opinions of the debaters will not necessarily reflect the opinions of all of the members of the organizations which they are respectively representing. However, the comment section is wide open to discuss any such contradictions or differences.
I’d personally like to thank both Susan Hogarth and Brian Holtz for taking their time to provide thoughtful and meaningful responses to the questions I’ve asked.
Let’s begin.
Brian Holtz’s Introductory Statement: The LP draws 0.3% to 3% of the vote, but polls show ~20% of voters want both more personal liberty and more economic liberty. The Reform Caucus wants to unite all those voters behind the electoral choices that will most move public policy in a libertarian direction. Our primary goal is to fix the LP platform so that these voters can agree that the LP’s solutions are the best, and start electing our candidates to begin rolling back the nanny state now. Platform repair is necessary for building a bigger party and tipping elections, but it’s hardly sufficient. We want to build an LP whose official texts represent all libertarians—Cato- and Chicago-style minarchists, Ron-Paul-style constitutionalists, Objectivists, anarcholibertarians, paleolibertarians, neolibertarians, geolibertarians, ecolibertarians, less-archists—without declaring in those texts that any one school is better than the rest. We are the no-longer-silent libertarian majority of the LP, uniting under a Big Tent all libertarian inclusivists and incrementalists, whether moderate or radical, as long as they are ecumenical toward their fellow libertarians. Our Platform will let LP candidates (like Ron Paul?) follow their conscience for the rare issues on which the major schools and scholars of our movement cannot agree. Our site is http://reformthelp.org.
Susan Hogarth’s Introductory Statement:The Libertarian Party has accomplished an amazing feat in modern third-party American politics. For over three decades, the LP has acted as the political vanguard of the freedom movement, standing solidly opposed to the encroachments of government on all levels. We have created a nucleus of intelligent, creative activists who are fiercely dedicated to increasing the power of the individual over his own life. The concepts and indeed the very vocabulary of freedom that the LP has helped inject into American politics are now everywhere. Many new activists are thinking about and working for libertarian goals. Our mission should be to strengthen these new libertarians as much as possible – to provide them with both the intellectual and the organizational tools to push the American dialogue ever further in the direction of freedom. To accomplish this task, the LP should project a message of uncompromising dedication to our core message: each individual is ultimately responsible for his own choices. As the clearest source of this message, the LP will continue to attract and develop those activists who see that government cannot help some people without harming others and therefore must not be allowed to grow.
TPW: There have been a lot of differing perceptions published about what happened to the LP platform at the 2006 Libertarian National Convention in Portland, OR. What is your view of what transpired?
Hogarth’s Response: The LP, and particularly the platform, fell victim to a complex combination of optimism and despair. Optimism, because libertarians are hearing messages of freedom everywhere and seeing that many Americans do understand that government is more problem than solution; and despair, because we are seeing that the message is being co-opted by the major power parties. Why, many libertarians reflected, can’t the LP itself reap the direct electoral benefit of America’s reawakening hunger for freedom? If only the LP’s message wasn’t quite so challenging, they reasoned, the LP could easily garner the votes of those wanting greater freedom from government. In this atmosphere of mingled hope and fear, a faction of the LP that has always argued for more emphasis on gaining immediate power through elections rather than for consolidating long-term gains through real shifts in the political landscape was able to organize effectively and make their case for dropping many platform planks seen as ‘challenging’. In this, they were aided by problems with attendance, information sharing, and delegate organization and communication.
Added to this complex brew of fear and hope was a party structure softened by rather haphazard management and largely occupied by libertarians who favored a less challenging version of the core message – exemplified by the weak statement currently emblazoned on the LP’s website: “Smaller Government … Lower Taxes … More Freedom …”, a vapid statement that utterly fails to capture the driving spirit of libertarianism and instead sounds like a typical Republican bromide. What happened to the platform in Portland proceeded not just from the votes of individual delegates – many of whom later expressed dismay at the way the platform was considered and at the lack of key information about the existing platform – but from the previous years of indifferent management and poor internal education.
Holtz’s Rebuttal: Typical radical bait-and-switch between libertarianism and anarchism. No “major power party” is “co-opting the message” of anarchism, and America has zero “hunger” for it. The old Platform’s simplistic Rothbardian absolutism—personal secession, privatizing every street, no tax enforcement, a green light for sub-lawsuit-level pollution, no Sixth Amendment right of the accused to subpoena witnesses—is not “challenging” or scary. Rather, it’s simply rejected by the broad mainstream of non-anarchist LP members and candidates. I cite Susan’s actual positions; she invokes strawmen from lp.org and the GOP. She’s given zero specific criticisms of our draft, and zero defense of the anarchist planks she wants restored.
Holtz’s Response: The LRC’s agenda in Portland was to reform the LP Pledge. We failed. There was no coordinated attempt by we four LRC members on the 2006 PlatCom to rewrite or purge the Platform. Voting on our site before Portland called for outright deletion of only 15 planks—not the 46 that disappeared. The Portland delegates were not voting that the LP should forever be silent on all the topics of the planks we voted against. Rather, we were protesting the extremism and bloatedness of the Platform, and trying to use plank retention to open the door to a cleaner Platform more inclusive of the major schools of principled libertarianism. We opened that door, but our task is not yet done. We call on the no-longer-silent libertarian majority of the LP to come with us to Denver and help us finish the job. Delegate frustration with the Platform’s extremism and verbal diarrhea left us with a crater instead of the construction site the LRC hoped for. Those who say the LRC planned, or are happy with, the 15-plank Portland Platform are either lying or ignorant. We want more than anyone to repair the Portland Crater—using the shining principles that unite all libertarians.
Hogarth’s Rebuttal: It’s clear from Brian’s response that education of Party members – and especially of those members who act as convention delegates – is of paramount importance. One of the primary goals of the radical caucus – both for the short and the long term – is to help Party activists to better understand the principles the LP stands behind. An informed delegation will not mistake adherence to principle and thoroughness for “extremism and verbal diarrhea”. Teaching libertarians about libertarianism is a vital role of the LP, and one that has been sorely neglected.
TPW: What are the key bylaws changes you would like to see implemented in 2008? Why?
Holtz’s Response: We support the SoP change from “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state” to simply “challenge all aggression”. Any opponent of aggression or silliness should agree, but many will oppose this simply because we support it. Sigh. The SoP was hastily composed out of Randian rhetoric in a hotel room during the original 1972 NatCon. The 7/8 rule makes it effectively un-repairable, and the one tweak ever made to it used a one-time provision from page 4 of the 1972 Bylaws allowing the SoP to be changed by a 2/3 vote at the 1974 Dallas convention.
Most LRC members probably agree with shortening the LP Purpose to: “expand individual liberty by increasing the number of Libertarians holding elected public office in the United States.” The LP’s specialty should be electoral politics in all its forms and uses, and other libertarian institutions are better at producing white papers and generating scholarship and refining libertarian theory.
Most LRC members probably support restricting the Pledge to just NatCon delegates and PlatCom members, as it removes an ambiguous tripping hazard to new memberships while solemnizing the Pledge by making it apply to a select few. The Pledge should not be interpreted as a loyalty oath to one particular species of libertarianism, and we believe LP founder David Nolan when he says the Pledge was for protecting the Party from possible accusations that it seeks the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.
Pre-submitting NatCon floor resolutions to the PlatCom for ranking is smart. The LNC demurs from making policy pronouncements, and recent NatCons haven’t picked up the slack. Hasty resolutions on Iraq and impeachment failed in Portland because they were too difficult to fix on the fly; well-crafted resolutions probably could have passed easily. (I—not the LRC —have drafts on both topics at http://knowinghumans.net.)
Hogarth’s Rebuttal: “We challenge the cult of the omnipotent state” is fine and stirring wording; appropriate for a call-to-arms for a political party seeking to change the status quo. But many other formulations would work as well. This is not a major issue, in my view. Other radicals may disagree.
The activities of any political party are necessarily varied and complex. The purpose of the LP is not simply to place Libertarians in office, but to effect lasting change in America through the political process – which includes elections, but also includes other activities which are well described in the current ‘purposes’ section.
Having the Pledge restricted to certain Party members would create an unhealthy ‘inner Party /outer Party’ classification system.
I would like to see a more agile system of resolution introduction and passing that extends beyond the convention, so that resolutions could be offered through state or regional Party offices and considered quickly by the LNC. I do not favor giving the platform committee power over resolutions form the floor, although I fully agree with Brian that people who come to the convention with resolutions should craft them carefully and lobby for them well beforehand.
Hogarth’s Response: Changes to region formation and representation: Regional composition and representation must be stabilized so that regions and their representation aren’t something scrambled together in the heat of a busy convention. Regions should not be constantly shifting, and representatives should be chosen well in advance of the national convention.
Streamlining LNC meetings and strengthening Party management: The LNC should be required to meet more frequently using conferencing, and less frequently using travel. The current travel requirements take large expenses of staff time and Party funds, and discourage the participation of younger, older, and less established activists. Having a rough meeting schedule as part of the bylaws will allow those interested in serving on the LNC to evaluate the requirements of the commitment realistically before campaigning. The LNC should explicitly have – and should use – the power to make resolutions concerning events of the day, rather than allowing the LP’s public policy face to be created by default by staff-prepared press releases.
Advertising and Publications Review Committee: The APRC should be made a standing committee of the LNC, and I would like to see it actively involved in the creation, review, and dissemination of literature and other materials, including the LP News and a detailed legislative agenda to complement the platform. Development and expression of the Party’s message is of paramount importance, and has been handled in a haphazard fashion resulting in outdated and often conflicting materials and releases.
Life Membership – not for sale: The current purchasable ‘life membership’ category should be done away with. I believe that membership in a political party should be an ongoing commitment to activism, not a one-time purchase to be used for party newcomers for campaigning purposes. We should acknowledge committed supporters who have shown sustained and significant support via activism and/or financial contributions for the Party in ways that distinguish them from folks who simply have some extra cash to spread around.
Holtz’s Rebuttal: Susan’s Bylaws agenda is apparently about her personal ambition to bring her censorship skills to the LNC and APRC —and to use them remotely from North Carolina to conserve her travel budget. Her answer offers no defense of the “cult of the omnipotent” language, and no critique of the proposed changes to the Purpose and Pledge. The LNC in fact adopted a well-crafted legislative program (comparable to “radical” Steve Kubby’s current campaign program) as early as 1991, but it was summarily deleted by the APRC in 2004 for an unspecified “variance” with the Rothbardian Platform. The LP needs leaders, not Thought Polizei.
TPW: What are the key platform changes you would like to see implemented in 2008? Why?
Hogarth’s Response: I fully support David Nolan’s Restore ‘04 effort to make the 2004 platform the starting point for any platform changes that the 2008 Convention feels necessary. The 2004 platform was a detailed and principled document clearly outlining the LP’s program and stands. I do not think the policy of the LP should be to avoid discussing matters where libertarianism differs most from other political philosophies, but instead to stress those issues to differentiate ourselves. Issues where there is significant and sincere difference of understanding of the application of libertarian principles within the Party (such as abortion and immigration) should likewise not be avoided but should be discussed, debated, and reviewed frequently as newer Party members become active and struggle to understand the implications of libertarian principles for themselves.
Holtz’s Rebuttal: Our pure-principles draft undeniably differentiates the LP. It is comprehensive and doesn’t “avoid discussing” issues; it just declines to make one school of libertarianism dictate to all the others. Yes, our draft is silent on abortion, but Susan’s too is silent on the death penalty, intellectual property, blackmail, and various other free variables in libertarian theory. Rothbardian absolutism requires no “struggle” to understand compared to (say) the geolibertarian theory of land rent or the modern theory of market imperfection. “Libertarian principles” is not a synonym for “Rothbardian principles”, and Susan simply fails to engage the argument that there are multiple principled schools of libertarianism.
Holtz’s Response: The old Platform vainly tried to paper over factional fault lines by pasting together two different platforms, a radical one and an incrementalist one. It failed. Our PlatCom members propose to replace the Portland Crater with a Platform that declares our common ground instead of our battle lines. Our draft restores the Platform’s full breadth of issue coverage, while leaving out the laundry lists, stale issue descriptions, arcane philosophical justifications, vouching for efficacy, and obscure minutiae that had encrusted our shining principles over the decades. We’re using all the best language of 12 past Platforms to describe for each issue what the Bylaws mean by “a libertarian direction in public policy”, thereby stating a timeless principle that is consistent with both incremental reform and radical ultimate goals.
Examples: “We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals.” “All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the IRS and all federal programs and services not required under the US Constitution.” Most of the text in our draft was in the 2004 Platform, but we preserve the 2006 principles on e.g. gay rights and immigration, and bring back some classic language from as far back as the original 1972 Platform.
The old Platform was organized around “Ills” like Education and Agriculture. Instead of organizing our draft around the problems we don’t want government to try to solve, we organize it around the liberties that the LP proclaims. It follows the classic distinction between Personal Liberty and Economic Liberty embodied in David Nolan’s famous Chart, and adds a third section (concerning foreign policy, franchise, and democratic procedure) called Securing Liberty. Read our latest draft at http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Greatest_Hits_Draft_Platform.
Hogarth’s Rebuttal: I believe there is an important place for a “Key Points” document such as the Green Party uses; this document would only infrequently need to be updated. It would provide the sort of positive worldview Brian mentions in his reply. I also believe there is a place for a detailed legislative agenda, to be reviewed for each legislative session. I think the role of the Platform is to fall between these documents, clearly outlining for issues of current interest (1) the issue itself, (2) our principles and how they apply to that issue, (3) our proposed solution to that issue (following naturally from principle), and finally (4) the actions that could be taken immediately by elected Libertarians as a transition to the solution. That is why I believe that the ‘04 platform is a good (re)starting point for the Party’s platform after the Portland debacle.
TPW: This question is for Ms. Hogarth. A number of Libertarians accuse the Radical Caucus of not being concerned with winning elections, of being so radical that typical voters feel intimidated, about being divisive within the party, of being anarchists, of being “losertarians” or “povertarians,” and so on. How do you respond to these charges?
Hogarth’s Response: Elections: Many radical activists are very concerned with winning elections, just as many nonradical activists are not. Our caucus acknowledges that there are many ways to function as an activist within the context of a political party – including elections. Most importantly, when enough people are Libertarians, Libertarians will be elected. Our electoral goal should be to grow the Party in order to win elections, not the other way around.
Intimidation: The libertarian message can be intimidating, without doubt. Mastering it can also be exhilarating, exciting, and inspiring – as all truly rewarding intellectual and moral challenges are. If making the message less ‘intimidating’ means making it less challenging, the LP will only lose the best and strongest potential activists who are yearning for this very journey. Radicals will not support that weakening of the Party and the individuals who make it up. If, instead, making it less ‘intimidating’ means doing a better job preparing new activists and more emphasis on a clear and consistent message, the Party can only benefit and radicals will be completely behind such efforts.
Divisiveness: Within any group of passionately committed activists, there will be differences of opinion as to strategy, methodology, and even goals. To acknowledge and engage these differences within the LP is not divisive – it is the healthy functioning of a mature and thriving organization.
Anarchists: Among the radicals of the LP are both those who favor a severely curtailed state, and those Murray Rothbard referred to as “nonarchists” – those who cannot conceive of any legitimate role for an organized body of coercion. While our differences are fundamental and important, what unites us is the belief that the libertarian message cannot be effectively delivered, understood, or embraced when inconsistencies are deliberately incorporated in order to make the message less ‘intimidating’.
Holtz’s Rebuttal: Since the entire leadership of the original Radical Caucus abandoned the LP to support Republicans like Buchanan and Ron Paul (at whom Susan sneers), it’s odd to certify radicals as the LP’s “best and strongest potential activists”. Susan now claims she wants to “acknowledge differences” in “goals”, but certainly wants no room for any such differences in the Platform. Ending second-class citizenship for non-anarchist LP members will not “weaken” the Party, but strengthen it. I challenge Susan to identify the most important libertarian PRINCIPLE that a majority of NatCon delegates would agree is missing from the draft she says will be PlatCom’s unprincipled “abomination”. What “inconsistency”? Where’s the beef?
TPW: This question is for Mr. Holtz. A number of Libertarians accuse the Reform Caucus of being unprincipled, (or placing pragmatism over principle), of opposing anarchism, of wishing to strip the platform of historical and traditionally libertarian planks like opposition to the War on Drugs, and of favoring the War in Iraq? How do you respond to these charges?
Holtz’s Response: Our opposition to the War on Drugs and military adventurism is clearly proclaimed in our draft Platform: “We favor the repeal of all laws creating ‘crimes’ without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.” “The United States should abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations. American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense—against attack from abroad—of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil.”
Our commitment to principle is evident in the 20 strong planks we’ve assembled from principles proclaimed by past LP Platforms. Many of us disagree with anarchism, but some of us are anarchists who believe that growing the LP only creates future anarchists, and that shrinking the government only creates stronger evidence for anarchism. Since our draft Platform is 100% recycled, it says nothing against anarchism that hasn’t already been part of the LP Platform. We don’t place pragmatism over principle; we merely decline to proclaim that one school of libertarianism is more principled than all the others. Some of us indeed reject an absolutist interpretation of the principle against force initiation. Others of us treat it (like Harry Browne did) as an ideal, always to be strived for but probably never to be achieved. Still others of us say that “zero-aggression” absolutists are themselves insufficiently principled in how they deal with varieties of aggression such as pollution, resource consumption, location monopolies, and free-riding. But each of us wants all freedom-lovers to join the LP’s campaign to win a free country.
Hogarth’s Rebuttal: The essential difference between radicals and reformers is not so much in principle as in strategy. As Brian and I have both pointed out, each caucus contains activists from across the libertarian spectrum.
What radicals want is for the LP to emphasize libertarian principle even where it may seem politically expedient in the short term to de-emphasize certain libertarian positions. We understand that we are struggling not for a little more freedom tomorrow, but for complete political freedom as soon as possible.
TPW: Do you have anything positive, or nice, to say about your opposition?
Hogarth’s Response: Non-radical activists within the LP have, generally, the same range of passion, enthusiasm, and talent that members of the radical caucus display. I am convinced that with very few exceptions, each one does sincerely believe his analysis of strategy and goals is correct. For such a person I can’t wish that he would do anything less than advocate wholeheartedly for his position. This sincere difference of opinion cannot weaken the LP, it can only strengthen it. Non-radicals can provide for the LP’s toolbox one more possibility to open minds and help change our society.
Holtz’s Response: We consider each “opponent” a fellow freedom-fighter in the LP’s big tent. We’re impressed by how many radicals embrace Ron Paul, even though he advocates many positions over which some LP radicals bitterly criticize LP reformers. Ron Paul 1) proclaims there are “proper constitutional functions of the federal government”; 2) advocates force-initiating “tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes”; 3) rejects the LP’s pre-2006 demand for unrestricted immigration; 4) demurs from near-term abolition of the nanny state; 5) denies that private markets alone can provide national defense; and 6) supported the use of the tax-financed military against Afghanistan for harboring the planners of 9/11.
Holtz’s Closing Statement: David Nolan told me January 9th that “if [the 2004 Platform] makes some people uncomfortable, they should go elsewhere”. That won’t unite the 20% of Americans who want more economic and personal liberty. Until radicals can muster the votes and the courage to rename us the Anarchist Party, I’m not going anywhere. Amidst the Ron Paul “tsunami” for principled limited constitutional government, this is no time to resuscitate a litany of breathless zero-government demands and complaints.
The emerging PlatCom draft is the reasonable middle ground between 1) Contract-With-America envy by wannabe marketeers, 2) nostalgia for a discredited Rothbard/Evers zero-government liturgy, and 3) cutesy proposals for a bumper-sticker platform. The LP should not try to dictate talking points or marketing advice to our candidates via a straitjacket that can be adjusted only one weekend every two years. The Platform should proclaim our common ground, not mark internal battlelines for no-knock enforcement by the APRC thought police. The old Platform was broken, labeling as “Domestic Ills” such “ills” as Agriculture, Election Laws, and Consumer Protection. The new draft cleanly and clearly proclaims how our shared and timeless libertarian principles apply to the full spectrum of policy areas. Let’s end the Platform Wars, and unite liberty-lovers to win a free country.
Hogarth’s Closing Statement: The struggle for freedom is man’s greatest quest. Good ideas will always win over bad ones in the long run, and freedom is certainly the best idea ever conceived for the prosperity of man. In this struggle, we can fall victim to either an excess of optimism over short-term gains or an excess of pessimism over short-term losses. Either of these excesses can set our work back by years or even by decades by leading us to offer compromise when none is required, or to soften our message for fear of ‘intimidating’ those who are questioning long-held beliefs.
The LP can remain principled and still win. In fact, that’s the only way we ever will win. The LP must speak forcefully and consistently about libertarian ideas in order to inspire already-libertarian newcomers to join the Party. Hearing Republican or Democrat Lite isn’t an incentive for libertarians in those other parties to jump ship, because they think they’re already affecting public policy via the old parties – and maybe they are! Our job as libertarians, and the LP’s job as a political party, should be to inspire an ever-increasing hunger for freedom. The rest will follow naturally from that.
Add your thoughts
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/12/libertarian-radicals-and-reformers-debate/
Tom, two lines of criticism of WSPP have emerged.
1) Lack of specifics; it doesn’t say by how much we wish to cut government. Example: A 1% decrease in the level of drug law enforcement would fit the platform, but it doesn’t help the 99% who will still be arrested, stripped of rights, imprisoned, have their assets seized, etc., under a hypothetical WSPP compliant Libertarian administration. A 1% decrease in the amount of depleted uranium the US government uses in Iraq does not help the people who will get cancer and birth defects from the 99% of depleted uranium which will still be used next year if such WSPP compliant Libertarians win (cancer and birth defects in Iraq have increased tenfold, and depleted uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years). ETC
2) Too categoric. Minarchist libertarians do not always oppose bigger government on those issues where they feel government does have a legitimate role. They may wish to see an end to the war on drugs, but an increase in police resources used to go after rape, murder, child pornography, etc.
How do you address these concerns?
Do you have any questions for proponents of Greatest Hits and/or Restore 04?
Any libertarian party platform that doesn’t make the right to secession explicit is (silly negative metaphors deleted) nonsense… ho ho ho ho
You know I kind of like Toms the best, You could add reduce the size to zero or to the smallest possible.
I support Restore ‘04.
People never read entire platforms for any party, they simply skip to those few issues that they consider key, and see if the party agrees with them on those certain issues.
The WSPP, although a wonderful summary of libertarian principle which we might legitimately integrate into our platform, should not comprise the entire platform. It will never attract people who aren’t already familiar with minarchism/anarchism (many libertarians don’t realise, after all, that they’re libertarians), whereas Restore ‘04 will.
I don’t believe there is anything un-”big tent” about any of the three proposals. Why is Restore ‘04 not un-”big tent”? Because, again, people will only read those few issues (no more than ten) with which they are deeply concerned about. If your big issue is that you looove censorship, you probably won’t fit in with the LP, anyway.
I want to point out that the Restore ‘04 proposal isn’t necessarily that we just use the ‘04 platform verbatim, never making any changed from it. Rather, the proposal is that we start with that as our guild for any further alterations to the platform, rather than starting with the ‘06 rendition. The gay marriage plank of the ‘06 platform is one that I would like to see integrated into out ‘08 platform, despite my desire to use the ‘04 platform as our base.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
Alex,
Valid point – I asked David Nolan about this, and he says the Restore 04 proposal is to bring back the planks which were deleted in 04, but keep the changes to the planks which were amended but retained in 06 – all, as you say, as a starting point for the 08 platform, not a finishing point.
We need a designated representative for the Restore 04 side if we are to have the open debate I’m trying to have here. Do you want to represent that side?
Side note – I’m also looking to make this into another group blog. If you or others are interested in cross-posting your articles here, let me know in the comments here.
I’m honestly not sure how many of us are writing proposals to compete for Restore04’s blessing. I do know that I tried twice to start a subcommittee of the Platform Committee to work on re-integrating the 2004 planks, and nobody agreed to work with me either time. So I’ve been working on my own. Here’s what I emailed to the Platform Committee and David Nolan a while back (and Nolan seemed to approve):
Let me know what you think about using this model for restoring the
ideas of the 2004 planks in a more compact version. Note that when I
say “restore” I only mean restoring the points made in the plank, not
the exact wording. If you look at the 2006 committee’s planks, it’s
clear that one can keep the 2004 style formatting but be much more
concise in the wording. I just want to build on the work they did by
applying their standards to all the remaining planks they didn’t have
the time to address.
Anyway, let me know what you think:
I. Individual Rights and Civil Order
1. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
Survived 2006 Purge — Leave as-is
2. CRIME
Use 2006 version (combined with Victimless Crimes in 2006, renaming
section in 2008 to Crime and Justice)
3. VICTIMLESS CRIMES
Use 2006 version (combined with Crimes in 2006, renaming section in 2008
to Crime and Justice)
4. THE WAR ON DRUGS
Use 2006 version
5. SAFEGUARDS FOR THE CRIMINALLY ACCUSED
Add to 2006 Crime and Victimless Crimes, renaming section to Crime and
Justice
6. JUSTICE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
Add to 2006 Crime and Victimless Crimes, renaming section to Crime and
Justice
7. JURIES
Add to 2006 Crime and Victimless Crimes, renaming section to Crime and
Justice
8. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY
Combine with Right to Keep and Bear Arms, renaming to Self Ownership and
Defense
9. GOVERNMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH
Restore and combine with Health Care
10. FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION
Survived 2006 Purge — Leave as-is
11. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Survived 2006 Purge — Leave as-is
12. THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY
Use 2006 version
13. THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Survived 2006 Purge — Leave as-is
14. GOVERNMENT SECRECY
Restore and combine with Internal Security
15. INTERNAL SECURITY
Restore and combine with Government Secrecy
16. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Survived 2006 Purge — Combine with Individual Sovereignty and rename to
Self Ownership and Defense
17. CONSCRIPTION AND THE MILITARY
Use 2006 version
18. IMMIGRATION
Use 2006 version
19. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION
Restore and combine with Freedom of Communication (not sure of title,
but since both are 1st Amendment, I think they should be together –
perhaps also with freedom of religion)
20. WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND ABORTION
Use 2006 version
21. FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
Restore 2004 version
22. SEXUAL RIGHTS
Use 2006 version
23. AMERICAN INDIAN RIGHTS
Restore 2004 version
I. Trade and the Economy
1. THE ECONOMY
Restore 2004 version
2. TAXATION
Restore 2004 version
3. INFLATION AND DEPRESSION
Restore 2004 version
4. FINANCE AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Restore 2004 version
5. GOVERNMENT DEBT
Use 2006 version
6. MONOPOLIES
Use 2006 version
7. SUBSIDIES
Use 2006 version
8. TRADE BARRIERS
Restore 2004 version
9. PUBLIC UTILITIES
Use 2006 version
10. UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Restore 2004 version
Then, restore 2004 version of all the planks below that didn’t survive
the 2006 purge
I. Domestic Ills
1. ENERGY
2. POLLUTION
3. CONSUMER PROTECTION
4. EDUCATION
5. POPULATION
6. TRANSPORTATION
7. POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT
8. HEALTH CARE
9. RESOURCE USE
10. AGRICULTURE
11. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT (OSHA)
12. SOCIAL SECURITY
13. POSTAL SERVICE
14. CIVIL SERVICE
15. ELECTION LAWS
16. SECESSION
I. Foreign Affairs
A. Diplomatic Policy
1. NEGOTIATIONS
2. INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND FOREIGN INVESTMENTS
3. HUMAN RIGHTS
4. WORLD GOVERNMENT
B. Military
1. MILITARY POLICY
2. PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS
C. Economic Policy
1. FOREIGN AID
2. INTERNATIONAL MONEY
3. UNOWNED RESOURCES
D. International Relations
1. COLONIALISM
2. FOREIGN INTERVENTION
3. SPACE EXPLORATION
I. Omissions
One of the reasons an aquaintance of mine voted to get rid of the platform at the 2006 convention was because of the plank on healthcare. He felt it called for getting rid of medicare, but did not provide any real alternative. I think he may have a point. May I suggest that examples have some degree of revelance to our efforts and examples of alternatives should be included.
Wherever possible we should include real world examples.
MHW
Civil Liberties
Economic Freedom
[...] was originally posted on my blog and I am hoping to make it a much more active discussion. I would have it here, but this site goes [...]
[...] still need people for the platform discussion. So far Tom Knapp has commented in favor of the WSPP, and Alex Peak has spoken up in favor of [...]
[...] still need people for the platform discussion. So far Tom Knapp has commented in favor of the WSPP, and Alex Peak has spoken up in favor of [...]
[...] http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/lp-platform-proposals-for-2008/ [...]
Analysis of Platform Committee Draft Proposal:
The 3.3 plank on “International Affairs” is redundant and should be deleted. If a foreign affair involves national defense, it should be under 3.1 “National Defense”. If a foreign affair invovles anything else, it should be under 3.4 “Free Trade and Migation”.
The 3.1 “National Defense” reads:
“3.1. National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
(Kevin) No problem with that!
“The United States should abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world.”
(Kevin) That assumes facts not in evidence. The platform should be about principles, not facts, particularly when libertarians disagree on factual matters.
I’m not sure what is meant by “poiceman for the world” or what are the policy implications.
“We oppose any form of
compulsory national service.”
(Kevin) No problem here, either.
As a substitute, here is what I propose:
3.1. National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression, without a draft or otherwise initiating aggression.
US military action abroad may, or may not, be justifed. Neither extreme–always acting militarily abroad, never acting militarily abroad–is required by the non-aggression principle.
I support returning to the original platform.
What I dont understand is why the LP doesnt pick one subject and do something about it. For instance – taxes – we all hate taxes and we all know its theft by the government but NO ONE is doing anything about it – why doesnt the LP start educating the people about it – tell the people the truth and get something going.
The LP is never going to grow at any significant pace unless people see that the Lp is for them and that action is being taken to protect them. The books are out there, make them readily availsble – then start going after the IRS to uphold the law rather then extorting funds from peoples paycheck.
I agree with Nolan that we should revive the 2004 platform, and I believe the very first platform was the best model ever. I was horrified by the “childrens rights” sabotage and generally displeased with the influx of looter infiltrators during the Reagan Administration. The Objectivist attacks published in The Intellectual Activist did not speak for me and I wish philosophers would wake up to what an asset the original LP was and has to be again.
The function of any third party is to change the laws. That’s what they do, as Milton Friedman pointed out in Free to Choose.
I make the case in 20 paragraphs with 2 charts on my site, mp3 included, that to vote for the LP is to win. All change in U.S. history has come from the platforms of minor parties. The same argument was aired on Live and Let Live in Austin.