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.).

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 been any proposals for rewriting 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.

Don't Run For Congress, Run Against It

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/12/libertarian-curtis-harris-gets-attention-for-running-against-congress

That's a great slogan. I'm totally jealous that I didn't think of it when I was running "for" Congress. I should have thought of it in my 2008 debate, when I answered an audience question about whether I'm qualified for the job. My answer was roughly this:

I'm the first to admit that I'm not qualified for the job my opponents are running for. They're running for the job of dictating your choices either in your personal life or your economic life — or both. I don't think I'm qualified to make those choices for you. And you know what? I don't think my opponents are qualified either. In fact, I don't think anybody is qualified for that job.

However, I think I am qualified to recognize what choices the Congress itself is not qualified to make for you. I also think I'm qualified to read the Constitution and recognize just how little power over your choices that the Congress is supposed to have. If you agree with me, you should vote Libertarian. That's the only way to say on Election Day that the U.S. Congress is not qualified to run your life.

Borrowing Ideas From The LPCO Values Statement

Let's try to strip-mine the LP Colorado Platform's Statement of Values for substantive principles to consider including the LPUS platform. 

• A free people have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not commit fraud or forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
  
• In a free society, no one is forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
• The exercise of every right imposes an appropriate level of responsibility upon that person.
• The people do not possess the authority to empower government to infringe upon human or civil rights for any reason.
• A right is the ultimate personal authority to perform some act. A right can never obligate others to perform an act, as this would force others into servitude.
  

The LP platform already says the above, sometimes with nearly identical wording.

• Because the exercise of some rights requires the ability to understand the possible consequences from our actions, some rights may not be realized until an appropriate level of comprehension and responsibility is reached. 
• The purpose of government is to protect our human and civil rights, establish a judicial system, provide for the common defense, and serve as steward of our public resources.
  
• When people violate the rights of others, those individuals forfeit their rights to the extent necessary for justice to be restored. 

The first point here would be a good addition to the discussion of choices in the existing LPUS 1.0. plank.  Maybe something like: "The right to make a choice may not be realized until the individual is capable of understanding its consequences and accepting responsibility for them."

The platform already pretty much says point two in various places, except for the part about public resources.  As a geolibertarian, I would love to add such a statement about the natural commons.  However, that would not get 2/3 approval in St. Louis, and (re-)stating the other things about government would incur much controversy while arguably not adding anything new.  (However, I'm curious whether our anarchists would say that the platform already advocates the existence of the state.)

The third point opens up the debate between restorative justice and retributive justice.  Some influential libertarian thinkers (e.g. Rothbard, Ruwart) reject retributive justice completely.  I personally favor a mixed approach.  This would be controversial, but at least the controversy wouldn't turn on anarchism vs. minarchism.  The sentence itself is probably too vague to pass.  I'd rather invest in language opposing 1) cruel and unusual punishment and 2) prior restraint.

• While human rights are enjoyed by all people through virtue of our humanity, civil rights are enjoyed only by citizens. To respect civil rights is to acknowledge that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. To deny people their civil rights, such as voting, is to govern without the consent of the people.
  
• In contrast to rights, a privilege is permission from an authority to perform some act. While all types of rights are equal, privileges are not equal and give some individuals advantage over others. Because all legitimate power stems from the people, governments may only grant such privileges, typically in the form of licenses or permits, as the people have authorized.

The LPCO values statements doesn't really define "civil rights" except by saying that only citizens have them.  Several of the LPCO planks give examples of civil rights, but it seems more trouble than it's worth to try to classify every right in the LPUS platform as either a "human" or "civil" right.  Also, this terminology seems non-standard, as most things that in America are called "civil rights" are actually "human rights" under LPCO terminology.  We don't want the LPUS to say it opposes "civil rights" for non-citizens.

Nothing currently in the LPUS platform would fall into the category of "privilege".  In fact, the LPCO platform doesn't give any examples either, and just says that marriage is not a privilege.  There's no need to add to the LPUS platform any positive language about "privilege" granted by government.