I've been making this asymmetry argument about the Dallas Accord for over a year, and haven't gotten a single cogent response. (After the initial posting, I made the argument twice on IPR in September, to Starchild himself in April, and to Roderick Long this month.) So when Starchild repeated the Standard Radical Line about the Dallas Accord, I had an idea. I'll re-post the core of my argument in a standalone message, with a subject line of "The asymmetry that no LP radical will address". I'll even graciously say in that message that I agree with Starchild on the only specific platform language that he's offered in this discussion, and that I disagree with my friend and ally M on the question of making all taxes voluntary. Surely that will entice the prolific Starchild into explaining why the Dallas Accord's effect hadn't been asymmetric for three decades.
Did it work? No. Instead of answering my asymmetry argument, Starchild hijacked the word "asymmetry" and used it to blatantly re-exhibit the very phenomenon I've diagnosed (*). Instead of giving any specifics in response to my complaint about vagueness, he just repeated his hand-waving. In frustration, I posted the message below, and suddenly I have etiquette coaches popping up all over the place. OK, here's a version with more of the frustration edited out. (You should have seen my first draft!) Let's see if this works any better.
(*) For the umpteenth time, here is the radicals' version of the Dallas Accord: "The LP shall systematically call for the abolition of every government power, agency, purpose, and function. Smallarchists in the LP shall remain happy that the LP doesn't use the word 'anarchy' and that the government will be allowed to maintain a P.O. box -- at a private firm like Mailboxes Etc."
SC) I don't hear you complaining about the asymmetry of the National LP putting out official publications, press releases, fundraising letters, etc., that implicitly and often explicitly adopt moderate premises, tone, etc., while mention of the Non-Aggression Principle is scarcely anywhere to be seen or heard. (SC
As I explained in my previous message, your only substantive complaint here is that official LP communications aren't saying enough of the things that anarchists agree with. By contrast, my complaint was that the LP had been saying things (e.g. personal secession) that we smallarchists DISagree with.
SC) Substantive disagreement? The embarrassing lack of detail in our platform, for one. (SC
SC) The party's failure to adopt ideological standards for candidates, officers, or delegates. (SCThis is so vague as to be arguably meaningless -- and blatantly ignores the Statement of Principles on which our Party's ideology and purpose is grounded. If you think any candidate, officer, or delegate contravenes these principles, then state your accusation
And if you say the SoP doesn't exclude my geominarchist principles, then who are you to demand standards different from our SoP? You can either demand enforcement of the SoP, or you can try to amend it. Any other complaint about "ideological standards" is hollow.
SC) The failure to adhere to the 1974 Dallas Accord under which Libertarians agreed to leave the door open to either anarchy or limited government and not take a position one way or the other (SCI explained last year why the Dallas Accord is asymmetric: http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/05/restore74-with-denver-accord.html.
SC) The insistence on treating the Libertarian Party as an end in itself [...] (SC