These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Friday, May 9, 2008

Alex Peak Still Dodging The Point

Don't worry, Alex, I'm doing my best to get the Platform into a state in which, like you, I disagree on principle with only one statement in it, instead of a dozen.   It's fascinating how, whenever I tell you that I'd like the Platform to have as little for minarchists to disagree with as anarchists find to disagree with, you're only response is a vapid "go ahead and try".  I appreciate your permission, and note that you repeatedly dodge what is only the fundamental point of LP reform: that the LP's fundamental texts should be ecumenical toward the major schools of libertarianism.  Still, it's nice to know that this point is so formidable that your only response to it is some hybrid of might-makes-right plus que sera sera. :-)
Thank you also for the mini-lecture on the semantics of "starve".  It seems disingenuous for you to assume I was talking about some kind of positive right for parents to swat away any food that they see approaching their child's mouth. It's just silly to say that I "proposed" a scenario in which "force must be applied against the children".  If you ever spend as many sleepless nights as I have coaxing a crying infant to take a bottle, you'll realize just *how* silly.
Your claim about an asymmetry between minarchists making anarchists uncomfortable in the party instead of the other way around is simply laughable.  First, your claim is utterly non-responsive to my point about how the LP's foundational texts are being used for such pressure.  Second, the anonymous alleged reformer trolls you've seen here are nobodies.  I'll tell you what I bet you saw me tell Less Antman:   A member of the LPCA ExCom, who has also been a member of the LPUS Judicial Committee, privately warned me in 2004 that some of my campaign positions constitute a violation of the Pledge, and that as a candidate I'm not allowed to "proactively oppose" any platform plank, but may merely express disagreement if specifically asked.  I've also had a member of the LPCA Judicial Committee publicly suggest that some of my positions are in violation of my membership Pledge.  And just this year I was in the room when someone who is currently on the LNC announced at our county convention that anybody who disagrees with the 2004 platform should ask himself whether he's in the right party.   Now, I defy you to give comparable examples of moderate LP leaders putting such pressure on radicals.
Re: "My phone is matter."  So?  A "site" is NOT matter.  A "site" is a portion of space-time.  A real estate site contains dirt, and dirt is matter, but dirt is not a site.  You can remove all the dirt, but the hole -- the site -- will still be there.  That's why I said "a set of spatial coordinates".  The next time you think one of my arguments depends on assuming that your phone is immaterial, pause for a moment and consider the possibility that you have not understood my argument. :-)
If the 2004 platform is radical, then Restore04 is inherently radical -- or do you suppose that all those signers just miss the language about homesteading Antarctica? :-)  And of course, the 2004 platform is indeed radical: personal secession, private WMD, privatize all streets/pipes, unlimited immigration, legalized child prostitution, only torts to police pollution, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws -- you know, all the positions that Restore04 signers claim they aren't making an issue of while they implicitly demand those positions be restored to the Platform.  A neat trick, that.