Alex, no form of the word "secede"/"secession" appears in the text you cite:
What is your evidence that Mises supported personal secession? I already told you:
) From http://www.mises.org/quotes.aspx?action=subject&subject=Secession
it appears that Mises did not support personal secession. The quotes there consistently refer to "villages" as the smallest of the sorts of things that may secede. The one outlier quote is extremely hypothetical: "If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done." I would have no problem replacing the old personal secession language with this sentence from Mises. Again, I don't see how personal secession isn't the functional equivalence of anarchism. (
it appears that Mises did not support personal secession. The quotes there consistently refer to "villages" as the smallest of the sorts of things that may secede. The one outlier quote is extremely hypothetical: "If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done." I would have no problem replacing the old personal secession language with this sentence from Mises. Again, I don't see how personal secession isn't the functional equivalence of anarchism. (
I didn't "misrepresent Restore04", because I have never ever said they "propose simply that we keep everything in the 2004 platform verbatim". If you want to disagree with me, please quote what you're disagreeing with. The fact of the matter here is that Restore04 has submitted a draft to the Platform Committee, and that draft actually makes the 2004 personal secession language *more* extreme, by making it the *only* kind of secession it mentions. Before you suggest I "misrepresent" anybody, please get your facts straight.
It's bizarre for you to vouch that "Restore04 does not prevent you from advocating X", because Restore04 doesn't have *the power* to prevent anybody from advocating anything. Your repetition of this assurance is entirely content-free.
Is complaining about my variation of Less Antman's term "Ruwarchy" supposed to constitute an answer to my point that in the last two days multiple Ruwart supporters have proposed restoring the 2004 platform language advocating the right of children to “engage in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality”? Is disagreeing with them "deviation", or not?
Since you're so quick to pronounce what constitutes a "deviation" in the context of the Platform, I wish you could find the time to enlighten us on the Platform Committee about what parts of your 2004 platform we'd be deviant not to restore. So far, you've distanced yourself from decriminalizing private WMD and form pro-choice absolutism. The rest of my list is at http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-faq#2004Extremism. What else do we have your permission to backslide on?
Your sketch of the differences between anarchists and minarchists is wildly sparse. There are multiple flavors of market anarchists, half a dozen flavors of minarchist, and at least 25 free variables in libertarian theory that any of these flavors can change the dials on. Given all this, it's somewhat ironic for you to call yourself "big tent" while you pronounce what constitutes "deviation".
It's all well and good for you to declare that you, a hypothetically good parent, don't want the gummint in charge of protecting your hypothetical children. Meanwhile, here in the real world, actual parents and guardians sadistically abuse their actual children every day. What are those kids supposed to do in Ruwarchotopia -- drop a dime to ask the Gotti Defense Agency if they do pro bono work?
Less, I'm aware that David Nolan says he's not an anarchist. Now, can you quote him ever saying that something requires an irreducible non-zero amount of monopoly state power? I know he's a geolibertarian who agrees with Milton Friedman (and me) that land value taxation is the least bad kind of tax, but David's vaunted 2004 platform rules out replacing all taxes with LVT because it is a "new tax". Doh!
Marc, it is of course scurrilously slanderous for anyone to suggest that Ruwart is a fan of child pornography -- or child prostitution or whatever. That's not the question. The question is: how can I and my neighbors get enthusiastic about "organizing my precinct" for a party whose Platform and presidential nominee say pedophiles have the right to personally secede from the laws against sex with children too young to consent?
Susan, thanks for revealing to us that you post comments without necessarily reading through to the end of the thread.
