These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Are Platforms Irrelevant?
Mike Nelson wrote:
MN) throws a childish temper tantrum whenever someone uses big, bad, un-politcally correct words, like the ones he just used (MN
I didn't call anybody here a "moron" or "retarded moron" unless they subscribe to the two propositions that I challenged you to endorse.  Thanks for fleeing the scene, and exonerating me of the charge of calling anybody those names.
Wes Benedict wrote:
WB) Words like jerk, moron, bottom-feeder and even MONSTER are common in real political discussions that Republicans and Democrats have. (WB
"Monster" got the offending Obama adviser booted from his campaign.  "Jerk" and "moron" are boorish epithets that diminish only the person who spews them.  Diagnosing such spewage by calling it a "bottom-feeder" debate tactic is nowhere near sinking to that level.  Anyone (like Nelson) who thinks otherwise needs to look up "use-mention distinction" on Wikipedia.
Tom, it was suggested to me by a prominent LP leader that David Nolan only spreads the COINTELPRO interpretation of the Pledge so it can be kept as a cudgel for use against non-radicals.  Do you think Nolan is that Machiavellian?
Wes, I can't agree with the cargo-cult idea that the LP should not care about its Platform simply because the incumbent parties ignore theirs.  However, if the PlatCom's draft passes, then (modulo the environment-related language we're still drafting) I wouldn't see any screaming need to change the platform until, say, artificial wombs are invented, or robots demand to vote.  If Platforms are so uninteresting to you, maybe you would support Tom's World's Smallest Platform:
[X] 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.
or my World's Smallerest Platform:
Outlaw only fraud and force initiation. Tax only land rent and polluting/ congesting/ consuming the commons. Provide only network natural monopolies and protection of life and liberty.
which can even fit on a bumper-sticker:
What you do or make is fully yours, but what you take or spoil is not.
Jeff, yes by "winning 5%-10% in many federal elections" I meant doing it in like 1/4 of them, not merely doing it in one race out of hundreds each cycle.  Ditto to everything else you said.
Tom, can I quote you as saying that "Milton Friedman had a huge negative aggregate impact on human liberty" in every discussion we hold in front of libertarian audiences?  That would save me a lot of typing.  :-)  P.S. How is it that your aggregate-impact-on-human-liberty calculator works only when you're talking to people other than me?  Did you put some new batteries in it or something?  :-)
Pauli, these blog-comment and email duels aren't the most productive way to debate anyway.  I'd much rather have you nominate the best radical arguments you can find for reference/inclusion in the relevant advocacy pages on   That shouldn't take much typing at all.