Whether To Keep Cicconi On This Forum

I've long been in favor of allowing reasonably polite opponents of our agenda (like Starchild, Sundwall, Dedmond, Harrison, Hogarth, Knapp, etc.) to be members of the LibertarianReformCaucus forum, to prevent it from becoming a censored echo chamber like the LP radicals list.  However, I'm now seriously considering what I think would be our first-ever revocation of forum membership.  As much as I am fascinated by the theory of the private provision of law (which I prefer to read about from David Friedman), I think the substantive value of Cicconi's postings are being outweighed by their boorishness.  I've put him back on moderation, and if the work of moderating him mounts faster than do expressions of support for his membership, then that membership will be revoked.

Dan Cicconi wrote:

DC) Brian who insulted me first (DC

That's a lie.  In message 2178 three days ago, you responded out of the blue to my message to Starchild by saying "you are full of day dreaming bullshit".  I immediately put you on moderation and warned you that such scatological insults to any member, reformer or radical, are unacceptable.  If you think I've EVER insulted you, I challenge you to quote it.

DC) I never said those non anarchistic LP's were control freaks, I simply said those that will not accept ideas by everyone seriously and are already predisposed to only one way of looking at this issue are trying to force their vision down all of our throats. (DC

Do you really think I can't just cut and paste what you actually wrote?  It was:

DC) The only answer is to allow the formation of overlapping cantons, in this way we can all truly be free. If you think about it, anyone that wouldn't support such an idea must be an authoritarian control freak (DC

The Reform Caucus says that the LP should be ecumenical towards all schools of libertarianism, including yours and mine.  By contrast, you clearly said that anyone who doesn't agree with you on cantons "must be an authoritarian control freak".  Stop lying about what the record clearly shows.

It's also bizarre for you to now say that disagreeing with you on cantons is the same as "trying to force [a] vision down [your] throat".  This is a common reaction from people who can't endure competent disagreement with them -- they interpret the disagreement as some kind of insult or aggression.

DC) I see no reason to believe than anything other than responding to force and fraud requires no force or fraud. Where are the holes in that theory? (DC

I already showed them to you: http://libertarianmajority.net/platform-portal#Advocacy.  Predictably, you got angry, dismissed them as "crap", and said they "prove" that I favor "control, authoritarianism, and oppressing thy brother".  (If you want to see how a couple serious radical libertarians question these standard criticisms of anarcholibertarianism, see the debate under way at http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thomaslknapp/6437170293998335564/)

DC) I'm extremely hopeful about the country failing (DC

If you're convinced that the American government will collapse, then why are you bothering those of us who participate in  America's electoral process?  We think it's worth our effort to try to unite all the voters who seek both more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the choices available to them that will most move public policy in a libertarian direction.  If you disagree, why don't you go annoy us on other forums instead of this one?

DC) you [Robert] are most likely a pragmatist collectivist, which is the ideology that has brought the country to where it is today (DC

If you are not intellectually equipped to recognize any distinction between minarchism and socialism, then this discussion is even more of a time waste than I had thought.