Seebeck On His LNC Loss and the LPCA 2010 Lockout

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/02/california-lp-convention-election-this-weekend

Brian Holtz // Feb 15, 2010 at 11:23 am

Cohen @175 incorrectly reports that I described a bylaws change, when in fact my live blogging said it was a platform change.

Seebeck @226: if merely distributing my in-context sans-commentary quotes is an “attack”, you can “attack” me like that any time you want. Your handout quoted David Nolan describing you as “calm”, “rational”, and “civil”. I hope that as Southern Vice Chair you will commit to live up to that description. You often talk of what “hat” you’re wearing when you say something, but as one of the top three leaders of the LP’s largest affiliate you no longer have the luxury of suggesting that how you behave in public does not reflect on the LPCA if you don’t want it to.

Can you quote what Party rule you think requires that delegates to a convention may not enter the hall if they were not present when executive session commenced? I see nothing in RONR pp. 92-93 requiring this. However, our Bylaws do say: “All delegates in good standing shall be eligible to vote on all matters.”

Executive session secrecy prevents me from saying who defended the barring of delegates from the floor, but I’ll say hypothetically that it would be hypocritical of anyone to oppose registration fees but support locking registered delegates out of the hall.

Brian Holtz // Feb 15, 2010 at 6:17 pm

Michael Seebeck: I ran on my accomplishments and goals and support. That was unanswered by critics completely.

Nobody said you’ve had no accomplishments, but Hinkle and Wiener each clearly have had more. The point of my handout was to ask whether you would be sufficiently civil toward the leaders and candidates of the LPUS. Instead of distancing yourself from any of the quotes sitting in front of each delegate, you said: “I know I’m controversial, but I speak my mind.” Were you saying that we could expect more such quotes from you if you ever serve on LNC?

And I won.

Let’s put that in perspective.

• In the four all-caps headlines of your floor handout, it mentions LNC all four times, and doesn’t mention Southern Vice Chair anywhere.
• As the appointed incumbent Southern Vice Chair, you won that race 27-23 over someone who vocally took the minority position on the MB scandal, about which the delegates heard very little from you.
• As the just-elected Southern Vice Chair, you finished last of three in the LNC race. You lost to someone you had described this way: a person who hasn’t been visible in the Party for two years save the JC debacle of late, and will be in Rome (Italy) rather than the convention. People, ask yourself, what good is a two-year Party no-show for a Regional Rep? Yet …that’s what Dan Weiner is in this case. An AWOL person, who doesn’t even respect his constituency enough to show up, and has continually been absent from Party activity is simply neither qualified not informed enough to represent California on the LNC with the ongoing issues facing the state and national Party. Out of touch? You bet, unless he’s merely a puppet for someone else we all know.
• You lost the LNC Alternate race 49-26 to someone who had no floor handout, who cited no accomplishments beyond his attendance record, and who explicitly campaigned on his record of civility.

You do a lot for the LP/LPCA, but you could get even more done if you tried to be more civil. I hope you take this criticism as constructive and fact-based, and I welcome corrections if any of my evidence is faulty.

We don’t need sideline QBs anymore. We need everyone on the field, playing a productive role.

Take a look at http://libertarianmajority.net/bh-lp-activism and http://www.calfreedom.net and then tell us whether you meant to suggest that I am a “sideline QB” or am not “on the field playing a productive role”. Go ahead, speak your mind.

The obvious way for an assembly to handle executive session is to have the door-keeper advise entering delegates that we are in executive session and must agree to keep secret anything that happens in it. It’s simply shameful that registered delegates were kept locked out for up to 90 minutes while the convention dealt with the most contentious issue of the convention, and indeed, of the entire year. I won’t confirm your possible secrecy violation in alleging that the assembly voted on the lockout during the session, but I will say that in any such situation, I would raise a point of order against such a lockout, and would ensure a motion was made to overturn any ruling of the Chair in support of a lockout.

Chuck @244, any second LNC seat for the LPCA would surely be given by ExCom to the second-highest vote getter, Mark Hinkle. Mike would only join the LNC in the unlikely coincidence that 1) LPCA’s 13% allocation becomes part of a 20% super-region that somehow grants us two LNC seats, and 2) Hinkle wins Chair and so vacates his seat, and 3) the ExCom ignores the delegates’ 49-26 preference for Dr. Lieberman over Mr. Seebeck.

Mike @245, see LPUS Bylaw 8.2.c. The delegate allocation was frozen as of 2009-10-31, and no amount of new CA-based sustaining LPUS members joining before St. Louis would change it.

Live-Debating The LPCA Convention

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/02/california-lp-convention-election-this-weekend

Brian Holtz // Feb 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm

I’m live-blogging the convention at http://www.calfreedom.net/2010/02/live-blogging-lpca-convention.html

My floor handouts are at http://sites.google.com/site/defendthelpca/

Brian Holtz // Feb 13, 2010 at 7:50 pm

I’m not “feeding” Cohen anything. I’m live-blogging at http://www.calfreedom.net/2010/02/live-blogging-lpca-convention.html

Brian Holtz // Feb 14, 2010 at 1:40 am

There was never any possibility of Barnes getting elected to an office. A Bylaw will be adopted tomorrow that will effectively foreclose that possibility.

We cannot reveal what was happened in executive session, but 1) bylaws cannot be changed in executive session, and 2) the LPCA has no bylaw overriding the RONR Ch. 20 principle that evidence supporting a successful suspension can (and arguably must) be shared with the assembly (and not the public).

An interesting thing happened outside the doors of the executive session. See the updated live blog for details.

Brian Holtz // Feb 14, 2010 at 1:19 pm

Cohen doesn’t understand how LPCA conventions work. Election of our LNC reps are by approval voting. And when somebody only gets 1 or 2 votes, they are almost surely write-ins.

Brian Holtz // Feb 14, 2010 at 1:28 pm

We elected two alternates by approval voting. Our ExCom will surely choose the top vote-getter to be our single alternate for as long as we only have one LNC seat.

Brian Holtz // Feb 14, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Cohen has given two URLs for the site at which I’m live blogging, and neither is correct. It’s http://CalFreedom.net.

Brian Holtz // Feb 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm

If you’re going to lift material from a source, then link to the source.

Should Dues-Payers Subsidize Delegates?

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/tom-knapp-just-say-no-to-libertarian-party-convention-poll-tax/

Brian Holtz // Jan 26, 2010 at 3:35 pm

Michael, here’s a reality check. When was the last time an off-year LP NatCon ever got an interesting amount of “media attention”? A quick Google News Archive search suggests that our 2006 convention got only 3 mentions in the mainstream media: two local Oregon articles, and one Atlanta article about Bob Barr’s attendance.

Politics is indeed a numbers game. I’d like you to estimate for us: how many extra delegates would you expect to get from delegates being able to attend without paying for a share of the conference facilities? How many extra media impressions would this extra attendance garner for the LP?

I predict you won’t give numeric answers, just like you wouldn’t tell us how much of the LNCC’s bank account should have been donated to Joe Kennedy, and how much it would have changed his 1% outcome.

Talk is cheap. Facts and action, not so much.

Brian Holtz // Jan 26, 2010 at 4:19 pm

Whether the LNC does or does not waste money on other things isn’t strictly relevant to the question of whether delegates should have to pay for a share of the conference facilities. Ditto for whether these conference facilities are overpriced. (“Overpriced” implies a comparison. Where has somebody compared this convention’s costs to a comparable past or alternative venue?)

Tom, exactly where do you think rank-and-file dues-payer subsidization of delegate expenses should end? You apparently already say they should subsizide the room, P/A system, electricity, and A/V system. Should they also subsidize the convention packets and badges? What about internet access? food? parking? lodging? transportation? Why should a penny of LP dues be spent on an office as long as a single delegate can’t afford some of these things? After all, according to you, facilitating a convention of delegates is a core Bylaws mandate of the LNC, whereas the Bylaws say nothing about an office.

I have to chuckle at the irony of candidates for Libertarian office/nomination boldly telling delegates that non-delegate dues-payers should subsidize some of their convention-weekend expenses. Quelle courage!

When the Platform Committee met in Vegas in December, we didn’t ask for LP dues-payers to subsidize our meeting space. Should we have?

Brian Holtz // Feb 2, 2010 at 7:36 pm

@52: Yes, at the 2005 LPCA convention, Allen Rice ended a bitter fight over “floor fees” by donating $195 to cover unpaid fees. Later, in the advanced stages of a tragic case of LP burnout, he complained so much about the whole episode that I paid him the $195 just so I wouldn’t have to hear any more from him about it. So at this point, you could say that the floor-fee sugar daddy was me.

Allen still does small-L libertarian activism, though. His latest project tracks the current initiatives seeking ballot qualification in California: http://www.wgla.org/Politics/2009/Initiatives/index.htm

Brian Holtz // Feb 2, 2010 at 8:16 pm

Cohen misleads yet again. There was nothing private about my deal with Allen. We arranged it on a public forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/972

It’s on the first page of results if you Google:

California libertarian “floor fees” 2005 convention

Brian Holtz // Feb 2, 2010 at 10:05 pm

My dermis is just the right thickness. It sure didn’t look like an attempt at humor, but given your skills in that department, you could plausibly call anything an attempted joke. Civil and well-mannered people save such jokes and “buddy” references for people who they know like or respect them.

As for you not reading my forum, here’s a clue: whether a fact is public or private doesn’t depend on whether Bruce Cohen is aware of it.

“Play” with you? I had a project to potty-train you. It didn’t work. You’re on your own.

“Relax”? Shedding you is, in the context of my LP activism, one of the more relaxing things I’ve done in quite a while.

So you just keep pretending that being fair and honest about people has anything to do with notarizing things, and I’ll keep bird-dogging your every false or unsubtantiated statement about any LPCA member. But please: don’t keep zooming through the speed trap just because you’re desperate for the social interaction of being ticketed.

Which LP Bylaw Redefines Registration?

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/02/lpny-passes-resolution-against-mandatory-floor-fees-for-delegates-at-national-convention-m-carling-allegedly-insinuates-that-states-which-oppose-floor-fees-wont-get-national-ballot-access-support

Bylaw 11(3) says "delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party".  It also  says "At all Regular Conventions delegates shall be those so accredited who have registered at the Convention."  The Bylaws thus clearly imply that registration is a separate step beyond merely being satisfying the conditions that make one entitled to register. However, our Bylaws say nothing about what "registered" means, so its meaning is to be sought in RRONR.  On p. 593 we read:

<i>Registration -- which normally includes these steps:
a) Submission, by the member intending to register, of evidence that he is entitled to do so;
b) Verification by the committee, or a subcommittee of it, that the member's credentials are correct;
c) Recording of the member as officially registered, upon his paying the registration fee (which is sometimes sent in in advance) and signing the list of registrations; and
d) Issuing of the particular badge to which the member is entitled, the official program, and additional necessary information, such as time and place of individual section or committee meetings or workshops. </i>

This seems like a pretty straightforward and reasonable definition of "registration".  If someone thinks that this is not the language governing the definition of "registration" in the LP Bylaws, then can he please quote where the Bylaws provides an overriding definition?  I can't find it.

Folk Economics and Property Axioms

Bruce, disagreeing with Locke on "as much and as good" doesn't automatically make you wrong.  It's just supposed to make you think.  One's theory of property is ultimately about what ethical axioms you accept or reject.  I happen to reject the axiom that you can "own" a location in the same sense as you own your labor or the material objects you fashion with it.

It's naive folk economics to think taxes can always be passed on to the final consumer.  Almost anybody who's ever managed to a profit/loss line knows that it's not true.  If you don't want to invest even 10 minutes learning about tax incidence, then the 1-sentence version is: "tax incidence falls mostly upon the group that responds least to price."  So a cigarette tax falls on price-insensitive nicotine addicts, while an apple tax falls on apple producers as their price-sensitive customers switch to oranges.

We should not be afraid of learning what economists can teach us, and I'm extremely grateful that Pam and Fred have both been so generous with their time and expertise here.

However, the core ideas of geolibertarianism can be stated very simply:

• All persons are created equal, and are endowed at their creation with the inalienable right of equal access to the natural commons of the Earth — everything that is neither a person nor in any way a product of persons.
• Each person has full rights to his body, labor, peaceful production, and voluntary exchanges, but he must compensate those whose access he impairs when he monopolizes, depletes, pollutes, or congests a natural commons.

Is Occupying Vacant Land Inherently Immoral?

Bruce Cohen wrote:

> Building a house on vacant land is not inherently immoral.

John Locke says it's moral only if you leave "as much and as good" land
for others. Are you disagreeing with Locke?

You own the house, because you created it. But you can't create
acreage, you can only occupy it and exclude people from it.

And I would say you can occupy a site as long as you like, but you can't
appropriate the ground rent that gets capitalized into its allodial
value by the nearby development efforts of others.

P.S. If you're going to make comments about whether/how a tax gets
"passed on", first spend ten minutes reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence and understand how it depends
on elasticity.

Re: [CALPCandidates] What is Geo-Rent?

Pamela J. Brown wrote:

Yes, I am saying the Ohlones get to keep land worth $20 million, Brian.

That wasn't my question.  Here it is again, for the fourth time: Suppose that 150 years ago an Ohlone Indian family here in Silicon Valley marked off and defended ten acres for their hunting and gathering, and that their descendants still eked out that sort of existence on that unimproved land today.  In my town, that land would now be worth about $20 million.  How much of that value would have been created by the labor of those Ohlones?  Is your answer really "100%"?

You earlier told us that site values are created purely by the labor of the people who first discover them.  If you really believed that, you would have answered my question the first time out.

If farmers or nuns LIKE their property, who are you to deny them their (emphasis on "their" - not yours) land?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I wouldn't deny people anything they create with their labor -- unlike you, who would annually exact tribute from them.

I don't deny people the right to indefinitely occupy the land they enclose.  I just decline to recognize any so-called "right" to appropriate the accumulated ground rent (site value) created by surrounding development.

Why can't you just be HAPPY for people?   People who have managed to accumulate some very fine resources!

I'm quite happy for people who observe the Lockean Proviso of leaving "as much and as good" for others.  Go live in the woods like Ted Kaczynski, and you don't owe anything to anybody -- not even annual Pam-style tribute.  But if a Manhattan or Silicon Valley is built around you by other people, don't expect to capitalize their efforts into your balance sheet just by polishing your "no trespassing" sign.

[You] should presumably also applaud the KELO decision -  or am I wrong?

Wrong.

Harland Harrison wrote:

> This exemption (4) is just a Prop 13 light,  giving long-term owners immunity from taxes.

No, "immunity from taxes" would mean that long-term owners could appropriate the site value, by renting the site and/or selling it at full value.  Yes, a few long-term resident landholders might avoid some taxes if they have low income, no rental income, make no improvements, and the site doesn't appreciate in value.  If you're really worried about such cases, you can advocate a harder-core geolibertarian position, which isn't necessarily to evict them from the land they claimed.  Rather, you could advocate is that the landholder loses exclusive use of the land, and no longer has the right to exclude other people from using the land the way he does.  (You could also subdivide the land to auction any parts they're not using, and of course it they're absentees then the whole site is auctioned.)

I'd much prefer the inequity of 1) a few holdout senile landholders being forgiven a fraction of their land tax, compared to 2) the rampant inequities of Pam using a head tax to finance public goods in Bedford Falls to make Mr. Potter even wealthier.

I'm curious, Harland, what is your ideal tax system?  You 2006 campaign site gives no information on where you think government revenue should come from.