Geolibertarian Answers To Tough Questions About Libertopia

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/02/libertarians-criticize-cpac-conservatives/

1) Government libraries should be privatized by incorporating each of them and distributing the shares among the residents (ideally, the landowners) of the neighborhood/community it serves. If local landowners agree that the library's contribution to their property values is worth its operating costs beyond its usual fees and donations, they can vote to be assessed an ad valorem tax on their land, which re-captures the value the library allegedly adds. If a library is not-for-profit and open to the public, then it would be exempt from the land-value taxes that finance most of government in Libertopia.

2) Along the same lines as government libraries, each government park should be privatized by distributing shares to the residents/landowners of the area it serves.  Conservation groups could buy up shares of parks they are especially interested in preserving.  Not-for-profit parks open to the public would be exempt from land value taxes. Government land that is not already serving as a park should be opened up for homesteading, with homesteaders bidding for leaseholds and subsequently paying a land value tax based on their lease.  If someone offers them more than their current basis for their land-value tax, they either have to sell or raise their land-value tax basis to match the offer.  This of course is the general model of land-value taxation in Libertopia.

3) Pollution is aggression, and should be policed at the most-local practical level of government with Pigovian taxes.  Also, depletion of a natural commons -- oil, minerals, wildlife, aquifers, streams, lakes -- should require a fee paid to the most local level of government that represents the people most impacted by the depletion.

4) There would be no such advantage for wealthy corporations as long as 1) existing assets are distributed as shares to the members of the relevant community  and 2) the natural commons is protected with taxes on pollution, depletion, and site monopolization.  (Taxing "site monopolization" means a land-value tax.)

5) Artificial monopolies, e.g. on oil, are not sustainable and never last.  Natural monopolies -- on physical networks like streets, pipes, and wires -- should indeed be regulated by local associations of the landholders that those monopolies serve.  The distinction between "government" and homeowners' associations will then be -- and indeed should be -- quite blurry.

6) According to the geoist analysis, much of existing inequality stems from 1) appropriation/pollution/depletion of the natural commons without adequate compensation to those whose access rights are thus impaired, and 2) labor being taxed to fund public goods/services that increase the value of land which is mostly owned by non-laborers.  Depending on how the transition is done, the standard anarcholibertarian scenario would indeed very likely bless and exacerbate these two kinds of inequality.  By contrast, the geolibertarian policies described above are designed expressly to restore everyone's equal liberty and equal right of access to the natural commons.

For more on geolibertarianism, see http://earthfreedom.net/.

Reagan Libertarianism

From an interview with Ronald Reagan in the July 1975 issue of Reason magazine:

REAGAN: The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.

The first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual. Maybe we don’t all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments–again the protection of the people.

REASON: Are you suggesting that fire departments would be a necessary and proper function of government?

REAGAN: Yes. I know that there was a time back in history in which fire departments were private and you insured your house and then had an emblem on the front of your house which identified which company was responsible for protecting it against fire. I believe today, because of the manner in which we live, that, you can make a pretty good case for our public fire departments–because there are very few ways that you can handle fire in one particular structure today without it representing a threat to others.

REASON: How would you distinguish “socialized” fire departments and “socialized” fire insurance companies? Or would you be in favor of socialized fire insurance also?

REAGAN: No. Nor am I in favor of socialized medicine. But, there’s bound to be a grey area, an area in there in which you ask is this government protecting us from ourselves or is this government protecting us from each other. I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle–the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he’s stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that’s one of our sacred rights–to be stupid.

REASON: Would you allow anything to go by way of hard core pornography as long as there are willing and consensual buyers?

REAGAN: I didn’t want the picture industry doing it. I just think it’s bad business. But I’m opposed to outside censorship.

My Two Cents on the LP Chair Race

Here's my current two cents on the Chair race.

I love George's centrist libertarianism, and I like a lot of George's ideas about focusing resources on practical politics, but his over-the-top criticisms of other LP leaders (and Ron Paul) have made him a divisive figure -- and not even on ideological grounds.

Mark is more radical than I, but he's a big-tent inclusivist who seems to have little interest in re-opening the ideology/platform wars. I love his description of the LPUS as a service organization, that should cater to more than one type of Libertarian customer.

Wayne is libertarian enough for me if you pick the best passages from his book, and I would love to see him be the LP's chief salesman for a more balanced/centrist libertarianism a la Phillies. Whether the LP should use him as a chief salesman for "Reagan libertarianism" basically depends on how ideologically well-grounded you think the LP is. I know of only one person (Rothbard) who was ever able to personally move the LP's ideology, and Root is no Rothbard. I think the LP's ideology can easily survive Root, but I do worry that he doesn't correctly brand libertarianism as an alternative to both liberalism and conservatism. Also, I worry that he lacks the LP-internal experience to handle the administrative and mediating responsibilities of Chair.

The good that Hancock does for the movement is best done the way he's been doing it, through Freedom's Phoenix. As Chair he would be ideologically and factionally divisive, and there's little reason to think that he could (or should) turn the LP into another Freedom's Phoenix operation.

So my ideal Chair would have Root selling Phillies-style centrist libertarianism while channeling many of Phillies' practical proposals through a Hinkle avatar with Mark's administrative and mediating experience. :-)

But no such candidate is running. So I wonder: can Root be trained to position the LP brand appropriately, and can the LNC/HQ function effectively with him as Chair? People worry about whether Root is using the LP, but I don't worry about that very much at all. Libertarians of all people should recognize that voluntary association is positive-sum. We should blatantly "use" Root as long as we think he is a net positive for LP outreach and branding, and if he stops being so, then we should not hesitate to disca -- I mean, disassociate from him. :-)

I also wonder: why can't Wayne be chief salesman as a Vice Chair? He's already making an impressively prodigious sales effort with no LNC portfolio whatsoever. Hinkle would be much more able than Phillies or Hancock to use Root for LP outreach, and Hinkle would be the least divisive choice for Chair -- and a safe choice as an administrator.

Root was very smart to effectively renounce a 2012 presidential run. If he can improve his antennae about Libertarian branding, and convince us that he can run the LNC/LPHQ, then he will be unstoppable for Chair, and deservedly so. As it stands now, it seems like a toss-up between Root and Hinkle.

Why So Few Women LP Activists?

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/womens-issues-and-third-party-politics/

Carolyn is too polite @6 to describe how bad it can be for single female Libertarians.  And unless she's used surveillance equipment, she probably doesn't even know just how differently many Libertarian men behave around/toward them. But these issues aren't at the beginning of the lines of causation here.  It starts with a culture built around individualism, survivalism, evolutionary psychology, guns, science fiction/fantasy, engineering, computers, technicalities, polemics, one-upsmanship, iconoclasm, conspiracy theories, paranoia, the narcissism of small differences, factionalism, purity-testing, etc.  The end result are demographics and norms so skewed that many Libertarian men wouldn't even understand why our few women aren't flattered by how solicitous some of our men are toward them.

The dynamic seems very similar to that of the engineering/technical world here in Silicon Valley. It's surely exacerbated by the fact that Libertarians explicitly question most of the legal and social norms that our patriarchal society uses to protect/repress females.  Thus I'm impressed that @3 Carolyn can stand up and Just Say No to identity politics.  Still, all of the above shows why it's very important for Libertarian women to seek each other out, both for support and for outreach.  The same is true for Libertarian parents, which reminds me I still need to try to organize a "play date" for other local LP parents of young children.

If (passion for) technology is one of the underlying problems here, perhaps it can help towards a solution, too.  After having worked on Yahoo Personals for eight years, I'm confident that Libertarians could improve our gender ratios through more intensive use of online dating.  Perhaps this advice is itself symptomatic of the problem here, but it's hard to dispute that Libertarians should get better at mating and breeding.

Michael Badnarik Hospitalized After Heart Attack

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/12/breaking-badnarik-reported-hospitalized-after-heart-attack

Michael has been a great advocate for liberty and a great teacher about the Constitution. I hope his heart comes back stronger than ever, so he can keep “lighting the fires of liberty, one heart at a time”.

Questions For George Phillies

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/12/george-phillies-announces-for-national-chair-of-libertarian-party

George, this all sounds very good. I agree with many of your ideas for improving how we spend our money. I also like almost all of what you advocate as Libertarian Centrism. But I’m extremely disturbed when you write things like this (referring to Ron Paul):

As was well known prior to the discovery of his racist newsletters, he is a homophobic bigot, an antiabortionist, a Christian dominionist who believes the Bible trumps the Constitution, an opponent of the Constitution who rejects the 14th amendment etc.

More important, though unsurprisingly, he is a Republican.

The Libertarian Party was founded to establish a party separate from all others. Attempting to use party resources to support a Republican was a gross breach of the fiduciary duties of the national committee.

The LNC had a choice as to whether or not to support homophobia, racism, dominionism, seeking the death of our daughters via back room abortions, not to mention attaching ourselves to a candidate who courted the conspiracy folks on Alex Jones.

They made the wrong choice.

They also sought to recruit this person as our party’s presidential nominee.

They, not Ms. Keaton, should be expelled from the LNC.

My questions:

1) Given your harsh attacks on Ron Paul such as above, how would you be able to position the LP to work with the Tea Party movement, the Campaign For Liberty, etc?

2) You’ve criticized “conservative bigots bleating about ‘Federalism’ and their Jim Crow ’states rights’ doctrine”. Do you believe a libertarian can advocate federalism and decentralism without being a “conservative bigot”?

3) In Dec. 2007 you called for the mass resignation of the LNC for inviting Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination, and said the LNC is guilty of “theft and fraud”. Can you tell us which of the current LNC reps, if any, you do not oppose being re-elected?

Libertarian Platform Committee Recommends Modest Changes

The 2010 Libertarian Party Platform Committee met in Las Vegas on Dec. 12-13 and adopted a relatively modest set of 24 recommendations to the current "greatest hits" platform that the LP assembled in 2008 from language chosen from nine previous LP platforms.  That complete overhaul in 2008 came on the heels of a revolt by the delegates to the 2006 Portland convention, in which they deleted 46 out of the 61 planks of the 2004 platform and left the platform with massive holes necessitating the 2008 reconstruction.

The meeting seemed to confirm that the LP's platform wars were ended by the 2008 "Denver Accord".  That unofficial agreement transformed the Platform from 2004's detailed 14,000-word recipe for abolishing government to a 2500-word declaration of Libertarian policy principles that neither mandates nor precludes the complete replacement of government with markets.  There was in Vegas no effort to revert to a radically detailed abolitionist platform, nor did the PlatCom recommend adding any new language asserting a proper role for government.

Another sign of platform peace was in the roll-call voting.  Brian Holtz was the editor of the 2008 Platform draft that was chosen in Denver over the detailed radical platform offered by Rob Power, and both Californians are back on the 2010 PlatCom.  In Vegas they voted the same way on 22 out of the 25 platform roll-calls for which both were present.  On one of their three disagreements, Holtz in fact cast the lone "radical" vote (against language to "phase out" Social Security rather than "replace" it).

2008 Chair Alicia Mattson was elected Chair over Power, 16-1, after Power had declared the election a referendum on whether PlatCom can use teleconferencing for formal meetings (despite the absence of any Bylaws authorizing them).  Holtz was elected Vice-Chair with 12 votes to Power's 3 (and 2 for Adam Mayer).  M Carling was elected Secretary by acclamation.

2008 LP Vice Presidential candidate Wayne Root spoke during the public comments period the first morning, after inviting PlatCom to his palatial home the previous evening for cocktails. Root said that if elected LP Chair in 2010 he will position the LP to take advantage of the Tea Party movement and the growing interest in libertarianism in mainstream politics.  LPNV Senate candidate Jim Duensing was also on hand to pass out 9/11 Truth literature and discreetly show the surgical scars from his recent shooting by the LVPD.

PlatCom recommended rewrites for four planks: Personal Liberty, Rights and Discrimination, Energy and Resources,  and Free Trade and Migration.  The first two rewrites mention "self-ownership" and replace an unqualified parental "right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs" with the declaration that "unlike adults, children realize certain rights as they mature and develop the ability to understand and accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions".

The Energy and Resources plank was so extensively edited from Adam Mayer's original proposal that he joined the losing side of the 8-5 vote adopting it. It talks about energy being "needed to fuel a modern capitalistic society", and says "our current dependence on carbon-based fuel has led to our involvement in wars throughout the globe".

The Free Trade and Migration recommendation qualifies the current immigration screening language to only "credible" threats to health, security, and property. It also says "We invite those not requiring public assistance to come to our country to embrace the American dream."

No changes were recommended on abortion or foreign policy.  The clause in plank 1.2 about drugs was moved unmodified to plank 1.5.  Opposition to "legal tender laws" was qualified to opposing "unconstitutional legal tender laws".  Deletions were recommended for subjective language about "moral values" in education, about "bigotry" being "irrational and repugnant", and contrasting "sensible use" vs. "misuse" of natural resources.

The 24 Recommendations, if not modified by PlatCom at their pre-convention meeting, must be separately approved by 2/3 votes of the delegates to the May 2010 convention in St. Louis.  Most of the recommendations are standalone, but a few may need to be disentangled.  The recommendation to add the drug language to 1.5 will surely be ordered before the recommendation to remove it from 1.2.  A simple recommendation to delete "unrestricted" from the immigration plank might be dropped in light of the subsequent rewrite that seemed to assume inclusion of that word.  Separate recommendations to append individual sentences to the Health Care plank will need to be ordered, if not combined.

PlatCom also voted, over Power's lone dissent, to endorse the Bylaws Committee's recommendation about plank retention voting.  The proposal is that plank retention voting by delegates will only happen upon the request of either 4 PlatCom members or 10% of the delegates to the previous convention.

If all of the PlatCom's Vegas recommendations are adopted, the Platform would be modified like this: http://libertarianmajority.net/2010-lp-platform-vegas.

No right without a duty?

I stopped skimming these no-right-without-a-duty links when I
encountered the facile point that the "duty" inherent in a right is to
not violate the corresponding right of others. I don't see how it helps
to say that, e.g., the right to life imposes a "duty" to do something.
If that "duty" is simply not to murder people, then it's better not to
talk in terms of "duty", but rather in terms of equality of rights.

The distinction between positive and negative rights is one of the most
powerful analytic tools in the arsenal of modern libertarian theory. In
modern political discourse, to say "every right imposes a duty" not only
discards that tool, but nearly concedes the central debate by framing
the core question in terms favorable to those who advocate positive rights.

The only broad positive obligations that the Libertarian Party should
recognize between individuals is that of guardians toward those in their
custody. Many Libertarians also advocate some narrow positive
obligations, like jury duty or to testify when called as a witness by
the criminally accused, but it's uncertain whether a supermajority of
NatCon delegates would agree to enshrine these in the Platform. Some
constitutionalist libertarians also advocate broader positive
obligations (e.g. militia duty) based on social-contract theory, but
those ideas currently have nowhere near enough support to get into the
Platform. I too advocate some ideas that don't (yet) have enough support
to get into the platform, like the geolibertarian right of equal access
to the natural commons of the Earth (land, water, air, minerals,
wildlife, spectrum, etc.).