http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/06/wayne-root-launching-libertarian-radio-show-in-ny-la-chicago
I caught the last half of the show Saturday morning. Root and Napolitano did lots of Obama bashing, but admittedly there is plenty to bash there. I can't think of anybody else in the LP besides Root who could exhibit such command of this talk-radio format. We need to find the LP's best speakers and funnel them to Root as future guests. Steve Kubby is great as a radio interviewer, and it would be cool if he were a regular on the show. Chris Agrella (running for Congress near L.A. in a July special election) proved to be an excellent extemporaneous speaker at the LPCA convention in Visalia.
The Napolitano segment didn't mention the libertarian brand very much; I hope/presume it was mentioned more in the Ron Paul segment that I missed.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Re: Self-replicating machines
See Robin Hanson's paper on "The Economics of the Singularity" at
http://spectrum.ieee.org/singularity, which is an update of his 1998
paper in the Journal of Transhumanism.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/singularity, which is an update of his 1998
paper in the Journal of Transhumanism.
Hanson is the most fascinating of the "Virginia School" of libertarian /
public-choice economists associated with George Mason University. The
Virginia School is described at
http://www.mercatus.org/MediaDetails.aspx?id=22330 , and is compared to
the Austrian School at
http://www.scottbeaulier.com/120908_beaulier_hall_vienna_to_virginia_1_.doc
.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Knapp Lashes Himself To His Sinking Ship
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/libertarian-national-committee-votes-that-lee-wright-is-still-a-committee-member
Yes, Tom Knapp, I agree that your reading of 8.4 “is absurd with respect to regional reps”. What I don’t hear you claiming is “8.4 is absurd if we read it as being automatic in the way that the Judicial Committee unanimously reads 8.5.3 as being automatic”. Do you dare say that? Of course not, because that would be actually disagreeing with my argument, and you don’t want to touch my actual argument with a ten-foot pole.
I’m sorry, but there is just nothing “clear” in 8.4 about the process for enforcing the rule it sets forth. 8.4 no more describes the process for its enforcement than 8.5.3 does, and yet the Judicial Committee unanimously says that 8.5.3 is “automatic” — even though it is in the same 8.5 subsection as the for-cause removal power defined in 8.5.1. If 8.5.3 can be “automatic”, so can 8.4.
There is nothing “tangential” about the absurdity you admit that you read in 8.4. Fully eight of our thirteen LNC reps are regional reps, and you don’t dare deny that 8.4 applies to all thirteen. Instead, you claim it’s “tangential” that you read 8.4 as effectively just a polite suggestion for 62% of the LNC reps it purports to be a rule about.
“Imputing an implicit plenary power of removal to the Secretary” is just a recycling of Seebeck’s straw man, changing the word “arbitrary” to “plenary”. I already dismantled that straw man, thus:
The Secretary did not claim the power to remove somebody because of a bad hairstyle, for example. You’re confusing an “arbitrary” power of removal with the power of the recording officer to record that a very specific kind of disqualification has taken place.
I don’t impute, I quote. Again: the Bylaws say that “a National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party”, and that “the Secretary shall be the recording officer of the Party” and shall “keep such minutes and records as necessary”. Necessary for what? Well, necessary for him to report who is a sustaining member, for example.
It remains hilarious for you to talk about the Secretary’s records as “allegations” when Wrights himself admitted that his sustaining membership had lapsed. I recall that there is a long-standing personal beef between you and our current Secretary, and I guess you would dearly love to create the urban legend that he has claimed “plenary power” to remove any LNC rep who looks at him wrong. I suspect that’s why you’re lashing yourself to the mainmast of your sinking argument, and riding it down to the depths of absurdity.
What Seebeck Knows He Can't Explain
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/libertarian-national-committee-votes-that-lee-wright-is-still-a-committee-member
Mike Seebeck, reading absurdity into the Bylaws — as you’re doing, and as I’m not — is always an issue. You can look it up on p.570 of Robert’s Rules. You can run from it, but you can’t hide.
Or maybe your edition says “When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision that Mike Seebeck is willing to talk about, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning.”
After all, I’ve heard there were some mistakes in the most recent print run…
I’ll happily “admit defeat” when you explain either 1) how you’re not rendering 8.4 absurd with respect to regional reps, or 2) why the general principle of interpretation I quoted from p.570 does not apply here.
You can’t do either, and you know it. And so you shout insults at me.
My Libertarian Passion
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/libertarian-national-committee-votes-that-lee-wright-is-still-a-committee-member
Chris Bennett, Mr. Sipos is perfectly free to devote 100% of his own resources to his give-me-liberty-or-give-me-peace obsession. Similarly, I'm free to disagree with him that the LPCA should pay him $3850 per year to devote something close to 1/3 of its discretionary newsletter space to his obsession.
My passion is to unite all the voters who seek both more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the choices that will most move public policy in a libertarian direction. That's why I've never used my positions on the LPUS Platform committee or the LPCA Executive Committee or the LPCA newsletter to try to get the Party to endorse what I freely admit are still minority principles within the movement, like geolibertarianism and liberventionism. In all such internal disputes, all I've ever sought is tolerance for disagreement among principled Libertarians -- no matter how much people like you insult and vilify me for doing so.
Chris Bennett, Mr. Sipos is perfectly free to devote 100% of his own resources to his give-me-liberty-or-give-me-peace obsession. Similarly, I'm free to disagree with him that the LPCA should pay him $3850 per year to devote something close to 1/3 of its discretionary newsletter space to his obsession.
My passion is to unite all the voters who seek both more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the choices that will most move public policy in a libertarian direction. That's why I've never used my positions on the LPUS Platform committee or the LPCA Executive Committee or the LPCA newsletter to try to get the Party to endorse what I freely admit are still minority principles within the movement, like geolibertarianism and liberventionism. In all such internal disputes, all I've ever sought is tolerance for disagreement among principled Libertarians -- no matter how much people like you insult and vilify me for doing so.
Seebeck Still Confused; Sipos Still Barking
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/libertarian-national-committee-votes-that-lee-wright-is-still-a-committee-member
Mike Seebeck, your list @121 is broken in two ways. First, as I already pointed out, a region can remove its rep under 8.7 -- a fact your list glaringly omits. Second, your list also omits the fact that any LNC member gets automatically removed by missing consecutive meetings. Even Mr. Knapp says that removal for consecutive absences is a different process -- with a different voting threshold -- than removal for cause, so if you think that absences fall under the for-cause process, then you need to start aiming your insults in Tom's direction instead of mine.
My contention is that automatic removal by failure to maintain qualification is exactly analogous to automatic removal by missing consecutive meetings. There is nothing "convoluted" about that contention. You tell me who effects the removal for missing consecutive meetings, and that is the answer to your question @121 about who effects removal for failure to maintain 8.4 qualifications.
It's flatly false to say that "the Secretary claimed that arbitrary power [of removal]". What the Secretary did was cite the Bylaw that “a National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party”, and then act in his capacity as "the recording officer of the Party” who shall “keep such minutes and records as necessary”. The Secretary did not claim the power to remove somebody because of a bad hairstyle, for example. You're confusing an "arbitrary" power of removal with the power of the recording officer to record that a very specific kind of self-disqualification has taken place.
Just as I predicted, you again resorted to insults rather than confront the second fundamental principle of interpretation (RRONR p.570): “When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning.” You can keep putting your fingers in your ears and singing that you don't care about the absurdities your reading creates regarding regional reps, but closing your eyes doesn't make you invisible -- as even my 3-year-old has figured out.
Tom Sipos is so cute. He follows me around on IPR like a stray dog, barking at me in response to my conversations with other people (like right here) -- and then he claims that _I_ am obsessed with _him_. I don't even read Sipos's blog, and I ignore as much of his LPCA newspaper as I can, but Sipos apparently reads my blogs somewhat closely. Yes, every time I swat his nose with a rolled-up newspaper in an IPR comment, I turn that into a blog posting, but only because I log every single comment I make on any blog anywhere at my log-blog More.LibertarianIntelligence.com. The simple fact is that nearly everything I say to or about Sipos is a direct response to him barking something at or about me, whereas Sipos continuously follows me around IPR comment threads and barks at me in the middle of my conversations with others. Down, boy, down.
Sipos's "freaked out" characterization is a good example of what passes for reporting in his LPCA tabloid. I invite readers to test that characterization by reading my blog posting in question:
http://knowinghumans.net/2007/08/cfs-new-antiwar-obsession-still-wont.html
Sipos the drive-by pot-shot artist has of course never substantively replied to the arguments I make therein. He's embarrassed that I have on a few occasions since then pointed out this failure, so he says I'm "crying". Readers can decide for themselves which of us is being puerile here.
Mike Seebeck, your list @121 is broken in two ways. First, as I already pointed out, a region can remove its rep under 8.7 -- a fact your list glaringly omits. Second, your list also omits the fact that any LNC member gets automatically removed by missing consecutive meetings. Even Mr. Knapp says that removal for consecutive absences is a different process -- with a different voting threshold -- than removal for cause, so if you think that absences fall under the for-cause process, then you need to start aiming your insults in Tom's direction instead of mine.
My contention is that automatic removal by failure to maintain qualification is exactly analogous to automatic removal by missing consecutive meetings. There is nothing "convoluted" about that contention. You tell me who effects the removal for missing consecutive meetings, and that is the answer to your question @121 about who effects removal for failure to maintain 8.4 qualifications.
It's flatly false to say that "the Secretary claimed that arbitrary power [of removal]". What the Secretary did was cite the Bylaw that “a National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party”, and then act in his capacity as "the recording officer of the Party” who shall “keep such minutes and records as necessary”. The Secretary did not claim the power to remove somebody because of a bad hairstyle, for example. You're confusing an "arbitrary" power of removal with the power of the recording officer to record that a very specific kind of self-disqualification has taken place.
Just as I predicted, you again resorted to insults rather than confront the second fundamental principle of interpretation (RRONR p.570): “When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning.” You can keep putting your fingers in your ears and singing that you don't care about the absurdities your reading creates regarding regional reps, but closing your eyes doesn't make you invisible -- as even my 3-year-old has figured out.
Tom Sipos is so cute. He follows me around on IPR like a stray dog, barking at me in response to my conversations with other people (like right here) -- and then he claims that _I_ am obsessed with _him_. I don't even read Sipos's blog, and I ignore as much of his LPCA newspaper as I can, but Sipos apparently reads my blogs somewhat closely. Yes, every time I swat his nose with a rolled-up newspaper in an IPR comment, I turn that into a blog posting, but only because I log every single comment I make on any blog anywhere at my log-blog More.LibertarianIntelligence.com. The simple fact is that nearly everything I say to or about Sipos is a direct response to him barking something at or about me, whereas Sipos continuously follows me around IPR comment threads and barks at me in the middle of my conversations with others. Down, boy, down.
Sipos's "freaked out" characterization is a good example of what passes for reporting in his LPCA tabloid. I invite readers to test that characterization by reading my blog posting in question:
http://knowinghumans.net/2007/08/cfs-new-antiwar-obsession-still-wont.html
Sipos the drive-by pot-shot artist has of course never substantively replied to the arguments I make therein. He's embarrassed that I have on a few occasions since then pointed out this failure, so he says I'm "crying". Readers can decide for themselves which of us is being puerile here.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Knapp Still Begging The Question
To Tom Knapp:
Bzzzt. “Plain reading of the bylaws” is blatant question-begging. I quote the Bylaws, but you merely make unsupported assertions about what they say. Sorry, try again, and this time have the intellectual courage not to pretend I “claim that if a plain reading of the bylaws results in absurdity…”. That’s not what I said.
My argument has been clear since my first posting on this topic: http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2009/04/senator-joe-mcphillies-has-secret-list.html
And if you can’t wrap your brain around questions that make a reductio ad absurdam argument, then I quote from my third posting on this topic (which was still on the first day I started commenting on this topic):
——–
Why can’t 8.4 violations be considered just another form of “involuntary resignation”? I can think of only one textually plausible answer: in the three places where the Bylaws indisputably talk about a vacancy happening, they use a form of the phrase “deemed vacant”. That construction is not used in 8.4. This absence has to be weighed against the pointlessness of 8.4 if it is not as self-enforcing as the consecutive-absence rule (or, the ill-craftedness of 8.4 if it is supposed to only constrain elections/appointments). Reasonable people can differ on this matter, but people simply acting on agendas will just call other people names.
——–
It’s ridiculously false to claim I “declined to make [my] arguments explicit”. Don’t try to pull that nonsense on somebody who logs and indexes his writings. Feel free to keep it up; I can keep shaming you like this for weeks on end. Copy and paste makes it eeeeeasy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
