tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25367230783903130842024-02-18T21:11:14.781-08:00More Libertarian IntelligenceThese opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comBlogger933125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-15718010139268693812012-05-20T18:39:00.000-07:002012-05-20T18:42:31.231-07:00Blood of Tyrants<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="https://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&captions=1&hl=en_US&feat=flashalbum&RGB=0x000000&feed=https%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2F115691855558790141068%2Falbumid%2F5744793863869794097%3Falt%3Drss%26kind%3Dphoto%26hl%3Den_US" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-42919091332206238342012-05-15T22:49:00.001-07:002012-05-15T22:49:30.422-07:00What Eric Sundwall Cannot ResistWhen Eric Sundwall disputes a proposition, he combines lame
<br>argumentation on the proposition with stylish and exasperated insistence
<br>that the real dispute doesn't involve that proposition at all. He
<br>apparently does not see that the former attempt severely undercuts the
<br>latter.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.ericsundwall.com/2007/10/god_and_punk_on_the_platcom">http://www.ericsundwall.com/2007/10/god_and_punk_on_the_platcom</a>
<br>
<br>ES) if 60% found cannibalism desirable, it doesn't follow that staking
<br>out a position on it is a good idea for the LP (ES
<br>
<br>My thesis is that if 60% of Libertarians favor X and 60% of Americans
<br>favor X and none of the GOP/DP/CP/GP favor X, then the LP ought to favor
<br>X. "Pretend X=cannibalism" is not an interesting response -- on any level.
<br>
<br>ES) My experience has been that abortion is split down the middle for
<br>all Americans. (ES
<br>
<br>I'll take polling data over your experience, thanks.
<br>
<br>ES) Talk about confluence of predicates all day, but the average voter
<br>votes their pocketbook and agree to disagree on the abortion issue. (ES
<br>
<br>That abortion isn't a vote-tipping argument for most voters does not
<br>mean that LP's position on abortion doesn't matter.
<br>
<br>ES) The whole bloody point is parody (ES
<br>
<br>When the LP can't be bothered to take the undefended moral/popular high
<br>ground on an issue, it is indeed exhibiting self-parody.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-91763670109432012422011-12-31T14:06:00.000-08:002011-12-31T14:06:51.993-08:00Gary Johnson and Land Value Taxation<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/its-official-gary-johnson-goes-libertarian/comment-page-1/#comment-722758">2011/12/28 at 1:54 pm</a><br />
Eric gets it @8.<br />
<br />
Given GJ’s likely set of opponents, the only thing between him and a first-ballot win in Vegas is the Fair Tax “prebate” issue.<br />
<br />
A better tax position for him would be to advocate that the federal government have only 50 taxpayers: the states, paying in proportion to their population.<br />
<br />
Even better would be to reinstate Article 8 of the Articles of Confederation, which said states should pay in proportion to the value of their land(*). However, advocating this variation would require asking people to understand the <span class="comment-link" title="http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2010/02/why-tax-land-value.html"><a class="comment-link" href="http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2010/02/why-tax-land-value.html" rel="nofollow">top 7 reasons why land value taxation is the least bad “tax”</a></span>.<br />
<br />
(*) “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State”.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-1/#comment-722938">2011/12/29 at 1:04 pm</a><br />
A land value tax has long been recognized by classical liberals as the least bad tax — from <span class="comment-link" title="http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates"><a class="comment-link" href="http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates" rel="nofollow">Adam Smith to Milton Friedman to LP founder David Nolan</a></span>.<br />
<br />
Economists recognize that a land value tax has no deadweight loss, unlike taxes on income, production, consumption, transactions, or material wealth. When you tax land you don’t get less of it.<br />
LVT is the least intrusive tax, with no need to audit anyone and or to police black markets. As David Nolan proposed, landholders would decide “their own valuation; you’d state the price at which you’d be willing to sell your land, and pay taxes on that amount. Anyone (including the tax collector) who wanted to buy it at that price could do so. This is simple, fair, and minimizes government snooping into our lives and business.”<br />
<br />
Land value taxes need not even be strictly mandatory. If you don’t think the benefits of public goods near your parcel are worth the LVT on your parcel, then you should be free to opt out. We would simply disconnect you from our wires and pipes, and while you’re in arrears we would publish your name, address, and photo as someone whose property and person are excluded from the protections of our LVT-financed police and courts.<br />
<br />
Libertarians should oppose all taxes on things that aren’t aggression, such as:<br />
<ul><li>income (wages, interest, dividends, profits, gifts, and inheritance)</li>
<li>production (including value added)</li>
<li>consensual transactions (e.g. the sale, import, or export of goods and services)</li>
<li>fairly-acquired wealth (e.g. real estate improvements, capital, or other produced assets)</li>
</ul>Libertarians should tolerate taxes/fines only on aggression — e.g. polluting, depleting, congesting, or monopolizing <span class="comment-link" title="http://earthfreedom.net/faq#toc3"><a class="comment-link" href="http://earthfreedom.net/faq#toc3" rel="nofollow">the Earth’s natural resources</a></span>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-1/#comment-722955">2011/12/29 at 2:03 pm</a><br />
<br />
Tom @17, land value is indeed subjective, and that’s why I agree with David Nolan that landholders should assess their own values. Each community would set its own LVT <i>rate</i>, but that rate wouldn’t be per-acre. It would be a percentage of the parcel’s landholder-assessed value. Then for a given parcel either 1) the market will push it towards its highest-valued use, or 2) the landholder will take the land off the grid and occupy it forager-style.<br />
<br />
BR @18 includes a lot of <a class="comment-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion</a><br />
<br />
For a long list of living Libertarians and Nobel-prize-winning economists who defend LVT, see <a class="comment-link" href="http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates" rel="nofollow">http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates</a>.<br />
<br />
There’s no “mandatory monopoly services” built into LVT. If you don’t like the pipes or wires that the community is willing to connect at the edge of the parcel you hold, you’re free to make other arrangements — as long as you don’t trespass or commit any other form of aggression.<br />
You’re apparently confusing land <i>value</i> taxes with <i>property</i> taxes, which are indeed evil and indeed have caused massive injustice and malinvestment. You should read <span class="comment-link" title="http://www.progress.org/2004/fold352.htm"><a class="comment-link" href="http://www.progress.org/2004/fold352.htm" rel="nofollow">We Don’t Need Any Stinking Taxes</a></span>, by Libertarian economist Fred Foldvary. If you have more time, read his policy study <span class="comment-link" title="http://www.foldvary.net/works/policystudy.pdf"><a class="comment-link" href="http://www.foldvary.net/works/policystudy.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a></span> comparing LVT to all other government revenue options.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-1/#comment-722959">2011/12/29 at 2:17 pm</a><br />
<br />
BR @23, if you don’t understand the difference between owning yourself and owning something that is neither you nor created by you, then you simply don’t understand libertarianism.<br />
<br />
MW @22, LVT revenues could of course be spent the same way that other libertarians say they’d spend the revenues from <i>their</i> preferred tax scheme — such as Be Rational’s evil slavery-like 10% sales tax.<br />
<br />
In economic terms, my personal view is that the purpose of government is to police aggression (including to protect common goods i.e. natural resources) and to provide the public and club goods that the local community demands. (Public/club/common goods are economic terms; for definitions see <a class="comment-link" href="http://libertarianmajority.net/public-and-private-goods" rel="nofollow">http://libertarianmajority.net/public-and-private-goods</a>.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-1/#comment-722961">2011/12/29 at 2:33 pm</a><br />
<br />
To be clear, geoism is the belief that<br />
<ul><li>All persons have an equal right of access to the natural commons of the Earth, which is air, water, land, minerals, wildlife, spectrum — everything that is not created by persons.</li>
<li>When you deplete, pollute, congest, or monopolize the natural commons, you must compensate those persons whose access to it you have impaired.</li>
</ul>Not unlike the stages of grief, there is a typical progression of response for libertarians who encounter geoism.<br />
<ol><li>Name-calling dismissal</li>
<li>Angry denunciation</li>
<li>Disagreement with strawman misconstruals</li>
<li>Denial of political/practical viability</li>
<li>Acceptance</li>
</ol>It took me years to get out of stage 3, so we should cut BR some slack if he’s temporarily stuck in stage 2.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-1/#comment-722964">2011/12/29 at 2:50 pm</a><br />
<br />
A libertarian LVT would be 100% voluntary: you’re free to labor and transact as you please, you just can’t use LVT-financed services.<br />
<br />
Having a sales tax that is only 10% is like being a little bit pregnant. If you give government a taxing power with the dial set to 10%, we all know which direction the dial will turn. By contrast, LVT imposes a built-in ceiling on government revenue. Critics of land value taxation claim it wouldn’t raise enough revenue because ground rent is allegedly only a small fraction of GDP. That sounds like a good thing to me. If government revenue is restricted by definition to ground rent and fees for polluting/congesting/depleting the commons, then government cannot be nearly as big as when it is allowed to tax labor or production or exchanges.<br />
<br />
Land value taxes are naturally local, and so encourage Tiebout Sorting. If the the local mix of government services is too high (or too low) for your taste, or if they aren’t a good value for the LVT rate financing them, then you can vote with your feet. By contrast, income and sales taxes tend to get centralized at the state or even national level, because (unlike land) income and sales can flee to lower-tax jurisdictions. (New Hampshire is among the most free states, and gets the highest percentage of government revenue from property taxes. California finances its high government spending with high centralized state income taxes that rose after Prop 13 restricted local property taxes in 1978.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-1/#comment-723025">2011/12/30 at 12:55 am</a><br />
<br />
Don, that Libertarians debate each other too much about optimal libertarian policy is only the <i>second</i> biggest problem Libertarians have. The <i>biggest</i> problem Libertarian activists have is that they spend too much effort trying to convince each other about what’s the best use of Libertarian activist effort.<br />
<br />
“Winning power” is an important thing, but it’s not the only thing. Libertarians can walk and chew gum at the same time. I’ve served on the LP Platform Committee for the last six years, but I’ve also served in elective office on my town’s water board for the last three years. I was instrumental in the 2008 rewrite of the LP Platform, and I led the effort to make sure our town avoided 20 pages of bureaucratic water-conservation mandates from Sacramento. I’m all about Getting It Done.<br />
<br />
The biggest practical question around a Gary Johnson LP nomination is: who to run for VP? I’d love to get David Friedman, Jim Gray, or Mary Ruwart. Outside the LP, John Stossel would be great for either P or VP.<br />
<br />
BR brought up land value taxes @6, probably in response to my discussion in another Gary Johnson thread. In that thread, I said that the Fair Tax prebate will be GJ’s weak spot in seeking the LP nomination, and that a better position would be to have the 50 states be the only federal taxpayers. It was only as an aside that I mentioned that the Articles of Confederation apportioned such a tax by land value, and that prompted this “BR” person to start ranting and calling me names.<br />
<br />
BR, it’s an standard result in the economics literature that a tax on an inelastically-supplied good like land has no allocative inefficiency — i.e. no deadweight loss. You can call me all the names you want, but it won’t change the state of economic science.<br />
<br />
The <i>ethics</i> of land value taxation is an open question in the libertarian movement, because different libertarians have different theories about the various kinds of property — especially “intellectual property” and spatial property. However, one doesn’t have to endorse geolibertarian ethics to defend LVT as the least bad kind of tax. Part IV of <span class="comment-link" title="http://www.foldvary.net/works/policystudy.pdf"><a class="comment-link" href="http://www.foldvary.net/works/policystudy.pdf" rel="nofollow">Professor Foldvary’s paper</a></span> lays out the five ways in which LVT is not as bad as the alternatives. Can you answer his arguments, or not?<br />
<br />
BR) “The LP should take a stand for a single tax on sales, at all levels of government, to be capped constitutionally at 10%.” (BR<br />
<br />
No, the LP should not say that Libertarians want to create a national sales tax. Individual Libertarian candidates can chart their own course to the Platform’s goals of repealing income taxes and banishing force and fraud from human relationships. My advice is for candidates to say that it’s never acceptable to tax peaceful consensual behavior (like sales) — whether it’s at 10%, 1% or 100%. My advice is that candidates instead say that any government taxes should fall only on aggression.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-2/#comment-723098">2011/12/30 at 12:30 pm</a><br />
<br />
Don, any pressure on GJ’s positions will come via debating his nomination opponents at state conventions. LP presidential candidates have very little influence on the LP Platform, a living document that is usually not changed very much at any given convention. I see zero chance of the requisite 2/3 majority of delegates adding to the Platform anything like a Fair Tax or consumption tax or even a pollution tax. At our recent PlatCom meeting, we rejected by 5-7 some language advocating the 50 states be the only federal taxpayers. I love the idea but wouldn’t want to impose it on all our candidates, so I voted against it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-2/#comment-723099">2011/12/30 at 12:32 pm</a><br />
<br />
There is still no evidence here that “Be Rational” understands the difference between current property taxes and geolibertarian land value taxes. Geolibertarians in fact bitterly criticize the way current government policy subsidizes landholders and encourages inefficient land use.<br />
<br />
Landholders are massively subsidized because the benefits of nearby government projects (roads, rail, bridges, tunnels, air and water ports, parks, schools, flood control, etc.) get capitalized into land values, but are financed mostly through taxes on income and sales.<br />
<br />
By taxing both improvements and land value, property taxes currently push development away from urban centers, where property taxes are highest. A land value tax would only tax land value, and so would encourage density and infill by taxing developed sites the same as sites that are underdeveloped or held for speculation. Sprawl is also encouraged by<br />
<ul><li>not charging automobile drivers for the pollution and congestion they cause, or for the full costs of the roads and parking space they use;</li>
<li>government lending subsidies that favor single-family suburban dwellings over multi-family urban units; and</li>
<li>mortgage interest deductions that favor suburban homeowners over urban renters.</li>
</ul>Communities should decide locally what mix of club goods (highways, bridges, tunnels, pipes, wires, police/fire protection) and public goods (streets, flood control, parks) that government should provide. To the extent that these goods can’t be financed by user fees, then they should be financed by land value taxes that recover the extra value these services create in the free market for land. If these services aren’t worth their cost, then LVT won’t produce enough revenue to finance them. People can also vote with their feet by moving to a locality with their preferred level of government services.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-2/#comment-723170">2011/12/30 at 11:53 pm</a><br />
<br />
BR @64) Those fascist-socialist “club goods” are the main problem. The government must not be allowed to provide them nor to raise money through any taxation scheme to finance them. That is the cause of the trillions of dollars in waste we see now. We have far too many roads, highways and bridges built in the wrong places (BR<br />
<br />
Ah, so the trillions of dollars of government waste is due to roads and bridges having been built in the wrong places. Got it.<br />
<br />
BR) The government must do nothing (BR<br />
<br />
Well, there’s your problem. You’re an anarchist who bleats “fascist-socialist” when confronted with the textbook argument for government provision of club goods and public goods. Here is some remedial economics reading for you:<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=holtz&comment_status=all&pagegen_timestamp=2011-12-31+21%3A38%3A34&_total=144437&_per_page=20&_page=1&_ajax_fetch_list_nonce=1c0ec33cfd&action=-1&comment_type&paged=1&action2=-1" rel="nofollow">Ch. 11 Public Goods and Common Resources</a> in Principles of Economics by Greg Mankiw</li>
<li><a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=holtz&comment_status=all&pagegen_timestamp=2011-12-31+21%3A38%3A34&_total=144437&_per_page=20&_page=1&_ajax_fetch_list_nonce=1c0ec33cfd&action=-1&comment_type&paged=1&action2=-1" rel="nofollow">Public Goods and Externalities</a> in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics by Tyler Cowan</li>
</ul> <a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-2/#comment-723178">2011/12/31 at 1:09 am</a><br />
<br />
Tom @73, I didn’t say @72 that the presence in economics textbooks of a standard case for a non-zero-sized government proves that anarchism is wrong. I just said that if “Be Rational” is going to brag @44 about being “expert enough in economics to know …”, then s/he ought not to have a more cogent response to that textbook argument than to just chant “fascist-socialist”. (Note that the argument for under-production of public goods is so overwhelming that, as anarcholibertarian professor Walter Block admits about the resulting justification for state intervention, “virtually all economists accept this argument. There is not a single mainstream text dealing with the subject which demurs from it.”)<br />
<br />
The fact remains that BR has offered no rebuttal to the standard arguments of economists about why a land value tax causes less distortion than BR’s own sales tax.<br />
<br />
For example, here are some quotes from <span class="comment-link" title="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_%281990%29"><a class="comment-link" href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_%281990%29" rel="nofollow">a 1990 open letter to Gorbachev</a></span> signed by a long list of economists:<br />
<br />
<i>Your economists have learned much from the experience of nations with economies based in varying degrees on free markets. Your plans for freely convertible currency, free trade, and enterprises undertaken and managed by individuals who receive the profit or bear the losses that result from their decisions are all highly commendable. But there is a danger that you will adopt features of our economies that keep us from being as prosperous as we might be. In particular, there is a danger that you may follow us in allowing most of the rent of land to be collected privately. [...] While the governments of developed nations with market economies collect some of the rent of land in taxes, they do not collect nearly as much as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of taxes that impede their economies–taxes on such things as incomes, sales and the value of capital.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/december-2011-open-thread-and-faq/comment-page-5/#comment-723183">2011/12/31 at 1:26 am</a><br />
<br />
Knapp nails it @231.<br />
<br />
The best exposition of this idea was commissioned from Prof. Fred Foldvary by Knapp himself in 2008 when he edited <i>Question Earthority</i>. I can’t find QE online right now, but Fred’s article is available <span class="comment-link" title="http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2008/01/tax-bads-and-untax-goods-with-green-tax.html"><a class="comment-link" href="http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2008/01/tax-bads-and-untax-goods-with-green-tax.html" rel="nofollow">here</a></span>. I still consider it the single best policy essay ever written.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/gary-johnson-party-switching-statement-plus-reactions-at-lp-org-and-wall-street-journal/comment-page-2/#comment-723213">2011/12/31 at 12:50 pm</a><br />
<br />
BR) <i>university campuses, giant shopping malls, and theme parks like Busch Gardens or Disney World</i> (BR<br />
<br />
It turns out that Be Rational is already a geolibertarian and just doesn’t know it yet. In fact, he may be a geoanarchist, which is what Prof. Foldvary is. BR should read Foldvary’s <span class="comment-link" title="http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html"><a class="comment-link" href="http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html" rel="nofollow">Geoanarchism</a></span> essay at anti-state.com, and also his short paper <span class="comment-link" title="http://www.africa.fnst-freiheit.org/publications/liberal-institute/oc-86-kp-i-foldvary-16-4s-int.pdf"><a class="comment-link" href="http://www.africa.fnst-freiheit.org/publications/liberal-institute/oc-86-kp-i-foldvary-16-4s-int.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Private Provision of Public Goods</a></span>.<br />
<br />
Bob, one doesn’t need to subscribe to geoanarchist utopitanism to agree with Foldvary’s incrementalist prescription for moving in that direction. Within the current statist context, he advocates:<br />
<ul><li><span class="comment-link" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_democracy"><a class="comment-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_democracy" rel="nofollow">radical decentralization</a></span>, in which all government revenue and services happen at the community/neighborhood level, and any larger units of government are just federations from which smaller units may secede.</li>
<li>a <span class="comment-link" title="http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2008/01/tax-bads-and-untax-goods-with-green-tax.html"><a class="comment-link" href="http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2008/01/tax-bads-and-untax-goods-with-green-tax.html" rel="nofollow">Green Tax Shift</a></span>, in which community services are financed not by taxes on income or sales or produced wealth but by fines on negative externalities and by ground rents on sites.</li>
</ul>Foldvary explains that land value taxes closely model how consensual private communities tend to govern themselves. Malls, business parks, hotels, condominiums, homeowners associations — all tend to “tax” their tenants not according to profits or revenues or inventory or improvements, but mostly by site value (for which square footage often serves as a proxy).<br />
<br />
I suspect that if these policies were pursued far enough, the difference between local “governments” and private homeowner/condo associations would become blurred, and would hinge on the governance rules adopted as the public-goods assets of current governments get subdivided.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-69269945816102977092011-10-29T17:11:00.000-07:002011-12-31T13:58:35.080-08:00Will Wrights Take The N1F Pledge?<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/10/lee-wrights-why-i-am-not-running-for-president/comment-page-1/#comment-716815">2011/10/29 at 5:11 pm</a><br />
<br />
I’d like to hear more details about this “pardons” promise. In particular, I wonder if Wrights would agree to the pardons element of the No 1st Force Pledge: <a class="comment-link" href="http://libertarianmajority.net/no-1st-force-pledge" rel="nofollow">http://libertarianmajority.net/no-1st-force-pledge</a><br />
In general, I wonder if there is any part of the No 1st Force Pledge that Wrights disagrees with.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-71138239638781560202011-10-27T13:54:00.000-07:002011-12-31T13:57:17.818-08:00What Tom Knapp Calls Contract Violation<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/10/michael-jingozian-resolving-the-lp-oregon-fiasco/comment-page-2/#comment-716491">2011/10/27 at 9:14 am</a><br />
<br />
After the May 21 convention adjourned sine die due to lack of quorum, there was a Bylaws-mandated State Committee meeting that filled the offices that Bylaw 5.2 said became vacant at the close of the convention.<br />
<br />
Calling that “pixie dust” is self-disqualifying from serious discussion of this topic.<br />
<br />
The allegations that Alicia credibly makes @12 are very disturbing. It will be interesting to see if they attract any credible rebuttal.<br />
<br />
The primary imperative of any <i>libertarian</i> organization is to respect the individual rights of its members.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/10/michael-jingozian-resolving-the-lp-oregon-fiasco/comment-page-2/#comment-716478">2011/10/27 at 12:48 am</a><br />
<br />
@38 In what sense did the Reeves faction “reboot” the LPOR bylaws?<br />
<br />
If for libertarians the ends can justify <span class="comment-link" title="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/mark-hinkle-emails-the-lnc-re-the-jud-com-ruling-about-oregon/#comment-582453"><a class="comment-link" href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/mark-hinkle-emails-the-lnc-re-the-jud-com-ruling-about-oregon/#comment-582453" rel="nofollow">unilaterally “rebooting” the rules of voluntary agreements</a></span>, then libertarianism isn’t worth the electrons used to spell it.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-32602713311900452582011-10-09T13:20:00.000-07:002011-10-10T21:17:48.728-07:00More Falsehoods and Evasion From James RowanJames Rowan <a href="http://missioncitylantern.blogspot.com/2011/10/just-bunch-of-annoying-guys.html">writes</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Holtz wrote a bizarre email claiming that our effort to call the activities of the Libertarian Party about seeking to repeal the laws about dwarf tossing was demeaning to Little People. So, we checked. The Little People of America got those laws passed.</blockquote>I maintain my position that, for any X, it is indeed demeaning to Xs to say that that an X can't figure out whether it's wise to voluntarily consent to an activity like "X tossing" and needs the government -- or the Xs of America -- to make that decision for him. I believe that Xs are grownups and can think for themselves -- even if the Xs of America don't share my belief.<br />
<br />
I repeat the questions that Rowen doesn't dare to answer: <i>Do you believe that you are more competent than dwarfs to make choices that preserve personal dignity? If not, then can you list some of the undignified choices that you think you need government to protect you from making?</i> <br />
<blockquote>Holtz has such a terrible attitude towards Little People, as he has said in an email to us that dwarf tossing is not demeaning, but banning it is demeaning </blockquote><br />
I have never written that X tossing is not demeaning, for any X. My whole point is that each grownup X must decide for herself what is demeaning to her, and that nobody else -- not me, not the government, not even the Xs of America -- should make that decision for her.<br />
<blockquote>Holtz wrote us an email. He did. Now he claims we are bugging him.</blockquote>What I actually claimed was that Rowen "cyber-stalks Libertarians because of their opposition to a taxpayer-subsidized 49er stadium". Rowen is free to fantasize that his cyber-stalking's effect on me is anything other than amusement.<br />
<blockquote>he also is the person directly responsible for the continuation of the at large system of a board that has kept Asian American votes polarized.</blockquote>It's recklessly false to claim that I as a first-term board member am "the person directly responsible for the continuation of the at large system" of our water district. It seems unfounded for Rowen to claim that "Asian American votes [are] polarized" in our water district. This is unikely, because two of our five board seats are held by walk-ons who were elected by default without opposition, and a third had to be appointed because not enough candidates filed for the office. If members of a minority in our district feel under-represented on our board, then they were free to walk on to the board, or to seek appointment to it.<br />
<blockquote>Holtz refused to look at the at large system, though under the CVRA he is supposed to do so. </blockquote>I made no such refusal. Instead, I explicitly requested to our district counsel to "give this issue precisely the amount of attention that you think it deserves". If the water board -- or I personally -- have some obligation under any California law that we/I are not fulfilling, I invite anybody to quote that part of the California code specifying such obligation.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-69408313116676275372011-10-09T12:44:00.000-07:002011-10-09T12:44:49.152-07:00Dwarfs and the California Voting Rights Act[My email today to legal counsel of the water district on whose board I sit.]<br />
<br />
I recently became aware of this James Rowen person as some kind of <a href="http://www.metroactive.com/metro/01.31.07/fly-0705.html">local political consultant</a> who cyber-stalks Libertarians because of their opposition to a taxpayer-subsidized 49er stadium. He says he's upset that a standard Libertarian handout (from The Advocates For Self-Government) cites laws against "dwarf-tossing" as an example of nanny-state paternalism. He infers that Libertarians are biased against dwarfs, but I explained to him (<a href="http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2011/10/rowen-misrepresenting-libertarian-party.html">here</a>) that the opposite is the case. (Libertarians don't agree with his demeaning opinion that dwarfs are so incompetent as to need government to restrict them from making undignified voluntary choices. Libertarians think dwarfs are competent to decide for themselves what voluntary choices are undignified.)<br />
<br />
Rowen apparently thinks that the lack of dwarf representation on the Purissima board could be a problem under the California Voting Rights Act. As much as I'd relish some publicity for the LP's position on this issue, it seems that Rowen is confused about the applicability of the CVRA. At 14026(d) the Act says:<br />
<br />
<i>"Protected class" means a class of voters who are members of a race, color or language minority group, as this class is referenced and defined in the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973 et<br />
seq.).</i><br />
<br />
Feel free to give this issue precisely the amount of attention that you think it deserves.<br />
<br />
On 10/9/11 3:16 AM, James Rowen wrote: <br />
<blockquote cite="mid:32AF87B0-DFCC-47E1-B1D2-9E70575BF61B@yahoo.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">The California Voting Rights Act allows for the review of the electoral system of a district where there has been a lack of minority preferred candidates elected to the board, see Sanchez v. Modesto, for a number of years if the election is done at large.
We suggest given the attitude of some board members towards people of protected classes, see 42 USCA 1793, known as the Voting Rights Act, and physical characteristics is considered a protected class, a real evaluation of the makeup of the board be done.</pre></blockquote>Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-42251806117064527372011-10-09T12:37:00.000-07:002011-10-09T12:37:45.189-07:00Rowen Misrepresenting the Libertarian PartyRe: James Rowen at <a href="http://missioncitylantern.blogspot.com/2011/09/darby-admits-newsletter-on-dwarf.html" moz-do-not-send="true">http://missioncitylantern.blogspot.com/2011/09/darby-admits-newsletter-on-dwarf.html</a> <br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="moz-email-headers-table"><tbody>
<tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th><td>Re: Misrepresenting the Libertarian Party</td></tr>
<tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th><td>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:05:53 -0700</td></tr>
</tbody> </table><br />
So, Mr. Rowen, your belief is that a dwarf can't figure out whether it's wise to voluntarily consent to an activity like "dwarf tossing" and needs the government to make that decision for him?<br />
<br />
I consider your attitude to be demeaning to dwarfs.<br />
<br />
Libertarians believe that dwarfs deserve the dignity of being assumed to be competent to make choices for themselves. That's why the very first plank of the LP Platform says: "<span style="color: #555555; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.</span>"<br />
<br />
Do you believe that you are more competent than dwarfs to make choices that preserve personal dignity? If not, then can you list some of the undignified choices that you think you need government to protect you from making?<br />
<br />
Your either consider yourself superior to dwarfs, or you consider yourself incompetent to resist certain choices that will compromise your dignity. Which is it?Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-11238095637769858452011-10-02T10:45:00.000-07:002011-12-31T13:54:10.053-08:00How To Dissolve The LP<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/update-on-libertarian-bylaws-committee-survey/comment-page-1/#comment-677167">2011/10/02 at 10:45 am</a><br />
Another way to dissolve the LP would be the Oregon way. The LNC could cite some legal status it holds (e.g. FEC status, or trademark holder of the title “Libertarian Party”), cancel the next Party convention, write brand-new bylaws that redefine membership and dissolve the Judicial Committee, and appoint new leadership. If the technique can work in Oregon, why not apply it at the national level?<br />
<br />
Q: What kind of Party have you given us, Mr. Nolan?<br />
A: One governed by Bylaws, if you can keep it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/update-on-libertarian-bylaws-committee-survey/comment-page-1/#comment-674103">2011/10/01 at 10:56 am</a><br />
<br />
Dissolving the LP would presumably take a 2/3 vote to change Bylaw 2, which says the duration of the Party is perpetual.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-53025904549899053672011-09-30T17:07:00.000-07:002011-12-31T13:52:13.011-08:00Proposed Migration Plank<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/lp-blog-immigration-policy-overview-prof-bryan-caplan/comment-page-1/#comment-672360">2011/09/30 at 5:07 pm</a><br />
<br />
I love it when LPHQ works with the awesome libertarian academics at GMU.<br />
<br />
Here is a preview of the Migration plank change I’ll be proposing on the 2012 PlatCom:<br />
<br />
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #8080ff;">Freedom of movement should therefore be without constraints as long as migrants pay for any costs they impose on others, do not trespass, and pose no</span></span> credible threat to security, health or property.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-73591622600748410242011-09-29T14:50:00.000-07:002011-12-31T13:50:42.202-08:00Clone Wes Benedict<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/wes-benedict-engaged-to-marry-leaving-as-lp-executive-director-at-end-of-year/comment-page-1/#comment-668565">2011/09/29 at 2:50 pm</a><br />
<br />
My wife works at Genentech (where the daycare is called Second Generation). If you just give me a tissue sample from Wes, we can grow a new ED in about 18 years.<br />
<br />
That’s my plan A. Does anybody have a plan B?Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-52884556356462006232011-09-24T21:13:00.001-07:002011-12-31T13:49:40.288-08:00Libertarian is neither Left nor Right<div class="entry"> <a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/wayne-root-introducing-our-new-website-for-the-libertarian-national-campaign-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-650943">2011/09/24 at 9:13 pm</a> <br />
<br />
The 10-minute “American Form of Government” video has about 7 minutes of excellent material comparing democracies and republics. The minute or so about anarchism is unnecessary, but what disqualifies the video from Libertarian outreach is its incorrect characterization of Left and Right.<br />
Libertarian outreach needs to emphasize that Libertarian is neither Left nor Right. That’s the message of every Nolan quiz, like this interactive one. (Can you score 100/100?)</div>Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-80595199667403511902011-09-24T21:13:00.000-07:002011-12-31T13:46:32.907-08:00Reinstate Article 8<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/wayne-root-introducing-our-new-website-for-the-libertarian-national-campaign-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-650943">2011/09/24 at 9:13 pm</a><br />
<br />
@11 Yes, replace the 16th amendment with contributions from the states, apportioned by land value (but not land improvements).<br />
<br />
The text could be taken straight from Article 8 from the Articles of Confederation:<br />
<br />
“All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.”Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-36372076040203492472011-09-22T16:58:00.000-07:002011-12-31T13:45:17.826-08:00Federalism Increases Freedom<a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/carl-person-a-state-bank-for-every-state/comment-page-1/#comment-640013">2011/09/22 at 4:58 pm</a><br />
<br />
There are few if any federal responsibilities or institutions for which division into 50 state programs wouldn’t increase freedom in America.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a class="comment-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_migration" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_migration</a>Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-29544125551558788232011-08-14T09:51:00.001-07:002011-08-14T09:51:55.298-07:00Geolibertarianism and Patents<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/why-im-not-libertarian.html">http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/why-im-not-libertarian.html</a><br> <br> <div class="comment-body"> <p>Georgism isn’t so much an <em>alternative</em> to libertarianism as a <em>flavor</em> of it — called <a href="http://earthfreedom.net/manifesto" rel="nofollow">geolibertarianism</a> (aka Green Libertarianism). The basic idea is just this:</p> <p><strong>Keep all you make. Pay for all you take.</strong></p> <p>All persons have an equal right of access to the natural commons of the Earth, which is air, water, land, minerals, wildlife, spectrum — everything that is not created by persons. The best way to protect Earth’s scarce resources is with the the free market. For the market to be truly free, people must not only enjoy the full benefits of their actions, but also pay the full costs. With green pricing, each person pays the full costs he imposes when he depletes, pollutes, congests, or monopolizes the commons. Green pricing creates permanent and automatic incentives for conserving the Earth’s shared resources.</p> <p>Geolibertarians favor taxes/fines only on aggression — e.g. polluting, depleting, congesting, or monopolizing the commons. In practical terms, this means<br> </p> <ul> <li> policing negative externalities through green pricing (e.g. pollution taxes)</li> <li> protecting unowned natural resources with severance fees</li> <li> financing club goods (e.g. highways, bridges, pipes, wires) through usage/congestion fees</li> <li> financing public goods (e.g. streets, flood control, national defense) by <a href="http://knowinghumans.net/2010/02/why-tax-land-value.html" rel="nofollow">taxing the extra land value</a> they create</li> </ul> <p>Those who hold land (monopolize a site) have its value increased by local public services. Public services that can’t be supported by user fees should be financed only by recovering the extra value they create in the free market for land. This encourages efficient land use (infill, mass transit, mixed use, more open space) and creates pressure to defund public services that the community does not actually value.</p> <p>How to apply geolibertarian principles to IP like patents? One way is through a patent value tax. The policy would for a limited fixed term grant exclusive rights to profit from an invention, in exchange for an annual tax that is a fraction of the inventor’s declared value for it, with that fraction increasing linearly to unity by the end of the patent’s term. Anyone may buy the patent by paying the current owner more than owner’s declared value, as long as the buyer also pays the incremental patent value tax.</p> </div> <br> Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-13420349953733773772011-08-10T21:34:00.000-07:002011-08-10T21:37:11.471-07:00Is Some Information Hurtful Per Se?<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/our-gossip-muddle.html">http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/our-gossip-muddle.html</a><br> <br> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn"><a href="http://knowinghumans.net" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a></cite> </div> <div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"> <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/our-gossip-muddle.html#comment-492317">August 10, 2011 at 11:42 pm</a> <span class="comment-meta-sep">|</span> <span class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/our-gossip-muddle.html?replytocom=492317#respond">Reply</a> </span> </div> <div class="comment-body"> <p>Spying technology should not be considered immoral because of the “private” kind of information that it captures, but rather because it violates reasonable expectations about the use of the space in which it is deployed. For better and for worse, those expectations are about to change rapidly and permanently. Miniaturization and mass-production of sensor and storage technology will soon allow anyone to set up hidden audiovideo surveillance of almost any location to which they ever have physical access.</p> <p>If you don’t want certain information about you to spread, then don’t emit it.</p> <p>And if you don’t want an innovation of yours to spread, then don’t share it with anyone unless you’ve arranged enough bonding/insurance for the case of it escaping into the wild.</p> </div> <br> Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-69281462488738551912011-08-10T21:32:00.001-07:002011-08-10T21:32:31.484-07:00Is Hanson Still An Econ-Libertarian?<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/why-im-not-libertarian.html">http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/why-im-not-libertarian.html</a><br> <br> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn"><a href="http://knowinghumans.net" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a></cite> </div> <div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"> <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/why-im-not-libertarian.html#comment-492223">August 10, 2011 at 5:06 pm</a> <span class="comment-meta-sep">|</span> <span class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/why-im-not-libertarian.html?replytocom=492223#respond">Reply</a> </span> </div> <div class="comment-body"> <p>Caplan admits there are degrees of libertarian purity, as scored on his <a href="http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi" rel="nofollow">libertarian purity test</a>. But of course there is more than one dimension of libertarian purity; in fact there are <a href="http://libertarianmajority.net/free-variables-in-libertarian-theory" rel="nofollow">at least two dozen free variables in libertarian ethical theory</a>.</p> <p>Those free variables help explain why it takes a <a href="http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism" rel="nofollow">scorecard</a> to keep track of the major schools of libertarianism. Hanson himself proposed in 1997 to use “Econ-Libertarian” to describe libertarians like him who “seek institutions whose consequences make most everyone better off according to their own estimation”. The Libertarian Party Platform Committee has worked over the last few years to make the platform more ecumenical to various kinds of libertarians, but we’re not done yet.</p> <p>Matt, I agree on the question of objective morality. Your point about threats of violence can be applied to any form of “property”. Hanson’s argument is that ideas are indeed prosperity generators because of their positive externalities, and so he favors <i>any</i> institutional arrangements that will maximize those positive externalities. He sees prosperity as <i>his</i> trump card, not yours.</p> </div> <br> Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-50450074611741752302011-08-10T21:29:00.001-07:002011-08-10T21:29:11.275-07:00When Should Libertarians Say D=R?<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/08/lee-wrights-voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils">http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/08/lee-wrights-voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils</a><br> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianmajority.net" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Aug 8, 2011 at 9:06 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>When we say that the incumbent parties aren’t substantially different from each other, we undercut our message that Libertarians combine the best of both Left and Right. One way to present that message is with an <a href="http://marketliberal.org/test/">interactive JavaScript Nolan quiz</a>.<br> </p> <p>When we say that the incumbent parties are too alike, we should include specifics, as in these <a href="http://libertarianmajority.net/videos">two videos</a>.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Aug 8, 2011 at 10:42 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>Saying that there is such a thing as Left and Right does not perpetuate the myth that there is no Up or Down.</p> <p>On the other hand <img src="cid:part1.05050903.02070401@holtz.org" alt=";-)" class="wp-smiley"> , denying that there is a Left that differs from the Right is a great way to limit your audience to pretty much just the choir.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Aug 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>Darryl, the answer to your question is in my two videos above.</p> <p>Michael, the point of the Nolan Chart is that Left and Right are just two different tendencies to coerce, and that Up/North is the direction for those who find both tendencies distasteful.</p> <p>If you think that taping the “coercion” label onto things is a political silver bullet, let’s see if it works on <i>you</i>. Read <a href="http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html" rel="nofollow">this short essay</a>, and see if it gives you the geolibertarian realization that appropriating ground rent is coercion.</p> <p>There are no silver bullets in libertarian outreach. A silver bullet that works on every werewolf is exactly what the next werewolf wants you to think you have.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Aug 9, 2011 at 9:01 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>I’m saying that the Left and Right each want to protect you from a certain set of your own choices. The substantial overlap between those two sets is identified in the two videos above. The substantial difference between those two sets can be seen using the “View the positions of” menu of the quiz above.</p> <p>Different audiences have different tolerances for oversimplification. For audiences with higher tolerance, or less time, there is always the bumper sticker approach.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Aug 10, 2011 at 12:43 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>JT) Democrats and Republicans aren’t substantially different in what they actually do in office (JT</p> <p>Minimum wage. Abortion. Marginal tax rates. DOMA. Mandatory health insurance. Prayer in public schools. Partial Social Security privatization. Family medical leave. Etc. Etc.</p> <p>To see how differently the donkeys and elephants vote, take a look at the data, e.g.<br> <a href="http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Barbara_Boxer.htm" rel="nofollow">http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Barbara_Boxer.htm</a><br> <a href="http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Orrin_Hatch.htm" rel="nofollow">http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Orrin_Hatch.htm</a></p> <p>Sure, it’s often the case that one party can limit how much of the other party’s agenda gets implemented, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t pushing an ideology. And yes, neither party is working to move policy in an overall libertarian direction. But denying there are substantial differences is not a silver marketing bullet to be included in all Libertarian outreach. There is a market segment to whom we should emphasize the similarities between the two incumbent parties, and there is anothe segment to whom we should say we combine the best of the differences between the parties.</p> <p>For a guide to polling data about how libertarian Americans are, see <a href="http://libertarianmajority.net/libertarian-polling" rel="nofollow">http://libertarianmajority.net/libertarian-polling</a> .<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Aug 10, 2011 at 2:02 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>The point of my Boxer/Hatch links was to point toward data about how important policy issues are often decided by close to party-line votes. That’s why I also listed a bunch of important policies whose implementation has hinged on party lines. If we disagree about the historical record here, then we can let readers investigate for themselves.</p> <p>JT) But overall, I don’t see a substantial difference between the 2 incumbent parties. (JT</p> <p>Yes, but you’re already a libertarian. It’s important to get libertarians to vote Libertarian, but we also need to cultivate the libertarian leaners who currently vote for one incumbent party out of loathing for the other. Telling them the incumbent parties are the same is a good way to get them to ignore the rest of our pitch.</p> <p>That’s why I like The Advocates For Self-Government and their diamond-chart quiz. I wouldn’t replace it with an are-you-a-statist-or-libertarian quiz.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><span class="comment_num"></span> <strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Aug 10, 2011 at 4:33 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>JT) “Democrat” and “Republican” aren’t two of the areas. (JT</p> <p>If you score the Democrats and Republicans on the quiz @31 (or on the WSPQ), they will fall into the left and right sides of the diamond chart, respectively. That’s why it’s shaped like a diamond, and not a thermometer.</p> <p>JT) a few of those policies either weren’t close to being implemented or weren’t substantially different from what the other party proposed, IMO (JT</p> <p>1) I repeat: “it’s often the case that one party can limit how much of the other party’s agenda gets implemented, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t pushing an ideology.”</p> <p>2) Policy questions like abortion, marginal tax rates, school prayer, and SS privatization are considered by many many Americans to have massive impacts on their lives — even if you don’t see much difference in the outcomes. (If the Democrats raise marginal tax rates and uncap FICA contributions, are you going to pay my family the tens of thousands of dollars a year it will cost us? If one of my daughters wants an abortion after the Republicans outlaw them, are you going to perform the procedure?)</p> <p>Bob, voters’ perception of candidates below POTUS are mostly determined by party label (and name recognition), not individual candidate evaluations. That’s pretty much the point of political parties.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Aug 10, 2011 at 6:05 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>I’m not asking voters to become issue analysts. I’m just asking voters to signal what direction they want America to go: Left, Right, or Free. The way to beat the Wasted Vote Argument is to convince people that voting is about signaling, and not about changing election outcomes.</p> <p>If in the near future the Democrats and Republicans start having policy differences that you consider “substantial”, would you then start agreeing with the Wasted Vote Argument?</p> <p>For my full dissection of the Wasted Vote Argument, see <a href="http://knowinghumans.net/2008/04/vote-by-your-principles-not-by-habit.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br> </p> <p><br> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-67598215518983095572011-07-30T19:08:00.001-07:002011-07-30T19:08:10.760-07:00My Comments on the LP Oregon Case<p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianmajority.net" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Jul 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>There seems to be a hole in the bylaws here. What should happen when it’s no longer the case that 3/4 of the LNC can agree on what leadership/bylaws to recognize for an affiliate? E.g., who should be on the state chairs list, who gets to vote on the regional LNC rep, and what should lp.org link to?</p> <p>Note that <a href="http://www.lp.org/states/Oregon" rel="nofollow">http://www.lp.org/states/Oregon</a> currently does not point to any affiliate web site.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianmajority.net" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Jul 21, 2011 at 3:36 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>The LNC interest in affiliate bylaws is established by LPUS bylaw 6.2: “Affiliate party status shall be granted only to those organizations which adopt the Statement of Principles and file a copy of their Constitution and/or Bylaws with the Party Secretary.”</p> <p>The LNC interest in who affiliate chairs are is established by LPUS bylaw 8.8: “The voting procedure for the removal and replacement of regional representatives shall be determined by the regions. In the absence of any such procedures, a majority vote of the state chairs shall prevail.”</p> <p>I didn’t ask what criteria the LNC should use to decide among competing claimants to leadership of an affiliate. I instead asked what should happen if we fall through the hole in our bylaws that opens when it’s no longer the case that 3/4 of the LNC can agree on who leads an affiliate.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianmajority.net" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Jul 21, 2011 at 6:06 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>@119 “Vote to change” begs a question that the JudCom might imminently be asked to decide, so I indeed won’t debate the merits of it — except to note that a recognition of the 2009 status quo is a curious sort of “change”. <img src="cid:part1.07070003.09030109@holtz.org" alt=":-)" class="wp-smiley"> </p> <p>Your construction “good news…” fallaciously assumes there is some fact of the matter about which there is “news”, and thus arrives conveniently pre-rebutted. </p> <p>I’m glad we (apparently) agree that the LNC has a bylaws-derived duty to track who are the chairs of its affiliates. QED.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Jul 21, 2011 at 6:44 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>NobodyReads, if you had read @118, you should know that I’m claiming that you’re begging a question — the one I mentioned @126, and that I can’t debate here for the reasons I gave there. Nobody reads, indeed.</p> <p>I wonder if any discussants here could pass an <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html" rel="nofollow">ideological turing test</a> on this topic.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Jul 22, 2011 at 1:35 am</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>I’m pretty sure that the only comment I’ve made on the substance of this case is just to quote two lines from the LPUS bylaws and point out that they make textual mentions of 1) affiliate party bylaws and 2) affiliate party chairs.</p> <p>When I first came here (@111) to ask a question and report a fact, I didn’t expect to be confronted with misinformation that could so easily be corrected by quoting the bylaws, and so I couldn’t resist. But I’ll continue to decline to engage in advocacy about this case, and to avoid territory like Nick strayed into @3.</p> <p>For my thoughts on JudCom transparency, see <a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/libertarian-party-secretary-and-treasurer-election-results/#comment-210748" rel="nofollow">this 2010 email to my fellow JudCom members</a>.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Jul 22, 2011 at 8:22 am</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>To clarify, I’ll always be an advocate for the relevance of bylaws in the LP — and for the practice of charitably interpreting the words of fellow Libertarians.</p> <p>JudCom is Bill Hall (Chair), Nick Sarwark, Bob Sullentrup, Robert Latham, Lee Wrights, Judge Jim Gray, and Brian Holtz.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><span class="comment_num"></span> <strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Jul 22, 2011 at 12:51 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>Wrights is not the kind of person who would change his opinion on a case like this just for some prospective advantage in the presidential nominating campaign.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Jul 23, 2011 at 2:21 am</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>Please do not set a precedent by letting an anonymous mudslinger goad you into recusing yourself.<br> </p> <p class="comment_meta"><strong><a href="http://libertarianintelligence.com" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brian Holtz</a> </strong> <span class="comment_time">// Jul 23, 2011 at 9:58 pm</span> </p> <div class="entry"> <p>@203 I second the idea that all parties remain “focused on the technical merits of the situation”. Whenever one side attacks the character of the other, they invite the inference that their case is weak on the merits.</p> <p>@162 I saw nothing in the cease and desist letter that suggested that any LP member should consider himself to be alienated from his right to appeal to the Judicial Committee under the Bylaws.</p> <p>Remember the 11th Commandment: “When speaking of a fellow self-described lover of liberty, thou shalt ascribe the best possible motives that are consistent with the evidence.”<br> </p> <p><br> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-32862898586488870002011-05-31T09:45:00.001-07:002011-05-31T09:45:32.724-07:00The LP Platform On Negative ExternalitiesResponding to <a href="http://equityjungle.com/2011/05/29/i-am-not-a-libertarian-because-i-believe-in-freedom-and-property-rights-and-id-like-to-minimize-government-coercion/">Mike Kimel</a>:<br> <br> <span class="js-singleCommentText jsk-ItemBodyText">It would be mistaken to suggest that the Libertarian Party platform (the current version of which I assembled in 2008) does not recognize negative externalities as coercion. Here are some platform quotes to set the record straight: <br> </span> <ul> <li><span class="js-singleCommentText jsk-ItemBodyText">Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. </span></li> <li><span class="js-singleCommentText jsk-ItemBodyText"> The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. </span></li> <li><span class="js-singleCommentText jsk-ItemBodyText"> Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. <br> </span></li> </ul> <span class="js-singleCommentText jsk-ItemBodyText"> The problem with standard libertarian doctrine in this area is not that it fails to see the problem of negative externalities, but rather that it offers a one-size-fits-all solution: torts. Forward-looking libertarians recognize the need for other regulatory responses to negative externalities. For more info, Google “green libertarianism” or the Free Earth Manifesto. <br> <br> P.S. The right to private property, like most or perhaps all rights, cannot be practically realized without government (i.e. a monopoly on rights adjudication), but it's silly to conclude from this that property rights are arbitrary, or should be subject to the whims of the minority (or majority) that dominates the government.</span><br> Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-89064930135800982612011-04-06T11:26:00.000-07:002011-04-06T11:27:04.891-07:00The Enemy Is Not In This RoomIt's always frustrating when fellow liberty-lovers don't completely <br>agree with one's own principles and axioms, but we must remember that <br>the enemy is not on this list. There are no socialists or fascists or <br>commies here. Nor are there any cowards or nincompoops or hypocrites.<p>As for "more libertarian than thou", I should indeed hope that any <br>points of disagreement here get judged on the basis of what is best for <br>Liberty.<p>P.S. I hope you're all signed up for this weekend's poker tournament at <br>the LPCA convention, so that I (or Melisse) can take your money. :-)Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-17861611130903856642011-04-06T08:41:00.000-07:002011-04-06T08:42:06.259-07:00Pot Calls Kettle A Central PlannerPam Brown wrote:<p>PB) It's Hayek's distinction between unplanned order, cosmos, and <br>centrally planned order, taxis. We are for cosmos; Georgists prefer <br>taxis. (PB<p>Allodial libertarians let kings and conquistadors hand down to future <br>generations the royal authority to violate Lockean property rights and <br>collect subsidies from their neighbors.<p>Geolibertarians let market forces guide all locations to their best use, <br>by enforcing Lockean property rights and undoing subsidies.<p>The only "central planning" I've suggested is for the same public goods <br>that Pam would also centrally plan: courts, police, border defense, <br>streets, flood control, sewage and water pipes, etc. If it's "central <br>planning" to collect fees from the locations that these services <br>subsidize, then it's even worse "central planning" for Pam to collect <br>head taxes from tenant families in order to finance services that <br>subsidize land owned by free-riding absentee land barons.<p>And again: Pam's head tax is apparently mandatory, but I would let <br>landholders opt out of their land value "tax". Residents of such <br>seceded land would just be banned from the community's <br>streets/courts/parks/pipes, and the fine for trespassing would be equal <br>to the land's back taxes plus interest.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-4156277008118559242011-04-04T21:29:00.001-07:002011-04-04T21:29:15.457-07:00Allodialism cannot create space; Geoism puts space to best usePam Brown wrote:<br> <br> PB) People discover new things all the time. <br> [...5 examples of non-spatial property, and ...]<br> <div>an island that no one knew about (PB<br> <br> I bet it's been decades since anybody discovered an economically useful island that nobody else knew about. And of course, such a discovery doesn't add so much as a single square inch to the surface area of the Earth. Even if you created an island by building on a shallow part of the seabed, that area of the sea floor was already there. You should certainly own your <i>improvement </i>to that area, but excluding people from that area is Locke-compliant only while "as much and as good" seabed is available to others.<br> <br> PB) Where to you think incentives to create, find, invent come from? PROPERTY RIGHTS. (PB<br> <br> You can't "create" or "invent" new locations in spatial resources: the Earth's surface, EM spectrum, orbits, sea lanes, air routes, etc. All you can do to a location is reach/claim/occupy it. I don't see a whole lot of "finding" of new locations happening -- new islands, new air routes, new parts of the EM spectrum, new orbits. Even when you say you "found" a location -- like an island, or the radio "waterhole" between 1420 and 1666 MHz -- all you really did was find out that a pre-existing location was more useful than had been previously known.<br> <br> There should indeed be incentives to put each location to its best use -- <i>and that's exactly what geolibertarianism does</i>. It says that you can't idly appropriate community-created ground rent while withholding a location from the use to which the highest bidder would put it. If you really value your use of the location more than the highest bidder does, then you have to put your money where your mouth is, and show that you value the location even without appropriating its community-created ground rent.<br> <br> The whole point of geolibertarianism is to create incentives to put each location to its best use. Allodial propertarianism fails miserably at that task, because it lets kings and conquistadors hand down to future generations the royal authority to violate Lockean PROPERTY RIGHTS.<br> <br> Example: In the Silicon Valley suburb where I live, land is worth about $2M per acre. (One mile south of me, a 15-acre estate was just purchased for a U.S. record $100M.) There is a 20-acre monastery a mile west of me (adjacent to the mansion recently sold by Barry Bonds, and down the street from Cisco's CEO) where 16 cloistered elderly nuns sleep on straw mattresses, have no TV, and wake up in the middle of the night to pray. Their only "work" is "prayer", and they live only on "alms".<br> <br> Example: About a mile north of me are hundreds of acres of land owned by Stanford University in the hills above campus, with sweeping views of the San Francisco Bay. Nearly all of the land is off-limits to everyone but -- wait for it -- cows. The university grazes a handful of cows there, in order to comply with Leland Stanford's posthumous requirement that a demonstration farm be maintained on a portion of the vast amount of land he used to create the university.<br> <br> So we have nuns and cows, both sleeping on straw, keeping hundreds of acres of prime Silicon Valley land off the market. This props up real estate values for me and my billionaire neighbors (Andy Grove lives two driveways down), and makes sure that their gardeners and maids can't afford to live anywhere near them.<br> <br> For the market to guide all land to its best use, all land has to be treated equally -- whether it's owned by nuns or billionaires.<br> </div> Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-58500237290318820622011-04-04T14:08:00.000-07:002011-04-04T14:09:05.272-07:00Homesteading Spatial vs. Material ResourcesJonathan Hall wrote:<br> <br> JH) People familiar to Locke's proviso may recognize this: "while enough and as good remains for others." The "while" does not refer to any single time but to all time. [Allodial libertarians] falsely extend the non-violent conditions at the time of original homestead to justify aggression across all times. What starts out as purely defensive force, will under conditions of scarcity turn into initiated force against absolute freedom. (JH<br> <br> Jonathan, this argument seems to prove too much. Lots of abundant material things -- e.g. gold, oil -- might become scarce later, but that doesn't mean that absolute allodial ownership of them has later become initiated force. It also shouldn't matter if the demand later increases, e.g. the late-born show up asking for their "share" of gold or oil.<br> <br> To me, the crucial distinction is between material property and spatial "property". Spatial "property" includes the surface of planets (e.g. land, harbors, waterways, seabeds), air routes, airspace, broadcast spectrum, orbits, and LaGrange points. Unlike material property, spatial "property" cannot be created, destroyed, hidden, or moved. Rather, it is reached, claimed and occupied -- and not always in that order. <br> <br> The libertarian non-coercion principle seems to me to be silent on the question of whether homesteading an unused spatial resource should yield allodial ownership of the homesteaded space. The equally-libertarian alternative axiom is that homesteading yields merely a right to exclusively occupy the space so long as a) "as much and as good" is available to others, or b) the excluded are compensated. Neither geolibertarians nor allodial libertarians should be called unlibertarian for disagreeing on which axiom to endorse.<br> <br> I prefer the geolibertarian axiom regarding spatial property for several reasons:<br> <ul> <li>It makes it easier to hold an absolutist position defending material property.</li> <li>It makes it easier to hold an absolutist position opposing all taxes.</li> <li>The resulting land-occupancy fees can increase economic efficiency by internalizing the positive externalities of local public goods.</li> <li>Land-occupancy fees can increase fairness by undoing the land subsidies created by local public goods. (This restates the previous point, since internalizing externalities increases fairness.)</li> <li>Land-occupancy fees help radicalize minarchist libertarians who otherwise might grudgingly allow the State some authority to tax your body, labor, or exchanges.</li> <li>It shows progressives and environmentalists that not all libertarians defend the interests of plutocrats.</li> <li>It washes our hands of the shameful history of racist/imperialist/monarchist conquest that is so tightly bound into existing land titles.</li> </ul> Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2536723078390313084.post-38575587191422012712011-04-04T08:25:00.001-07:002011-04-04T08:25:55.548-07:00Club vs Public Goods; Future Persons; VoluntarismTo Pam Brown and Starchild:<p>BH) The public goods I mentioned were "courts, police, border defense, <br>streets, flood control, fire hydrants" (BH<p>PB) toll roads ... fire station insurance ... ambulance service (PB<p>A "public good" is by definition non-excludable, and none of your three <br>examples are public goods. Toll roads and fire/ambulance service are <br>non-rivalrous (until they become congested), and so are club goods (that <br>under congestion are private goods). I don't favor land-value fees to <br>finance club goods, except to the extent that they have non-excludable <br>benefits.<p>For example, I said "fire hydrants", not water service. Pipes generally <br>are club goods, because you can exclude people from connecting to them. <br>However, you free-ride on the water system if nearby fire hydrants make <br>fire less likely to spread onto your property. Similarly, sewer pipes <br>are public goods to the extent they prevent contagion. In general, all <br>services aimed at preventing flood/contagion/conflagration/invasion are <br>public goods, because of their non-excludable benefits.<p>I said "streets", not toll roads. Streets will remain a public good <br>until most vehicles are equipped with FasTrak and most intersections <br>have a way to defend against free-riders. I'm all in favor of tolls on <br>bridges, tunnels, and other bottlenecks. But where tolls are impractical <br>to collect, the streets should be financed by the increased value they <br>create in the land that they serve. If our city block consists of just <br>1) my large estate and thriving storefront and 2) your little townhouse, <br>it's unfair and inefficient to finance our street through an equal <br>contribution by you and me.<p>Police protection is a club good that has significant non-excludable <br>benefits. If would-be criminals in an area cannot tell which persons or <br>property are protected by the local police, then free-riding makes this <br>service partially a public good. And of course, if 99.9% of people <br>prefer that the indigent get police protection, then they can free-ride <br>on the donations/fees that their neighbors pay to finance free police <br>protection for the poor.<p>So in general, yes, I'm in favor of financing excludable services (i.e. <br>club goods) through fees. But to the extent a service is non-excludable <br>(i.e. a public good), then the most fair and efficient way to finance it <br>is by charging the owners of the land which benefits from it -- <br>especially if the cost of providing the service is a function of the <br>size of the area served. This is tends to be the case for the major <br>public goods like invasion defense, streets, flood control, fire <br>prevention, and police protection.<p>PB) The Georgist assumption that the land discoverer didn't EARN what <br>land he found --through risk and hard effort - but somehow "took" it (PB<p>Like Locke, I have no problem with you keeping what you find/take/grab, <br>as long as you leave as much and as good for others. I just can't agree <br>that pounding a "keep out" sign into a beach can establish perpetual <br>ownership of an island or continent for anybody -- man, king, or god.<p>Starchild, it's dangerous to assign rights to future persons, and the <br>geolibertarian analysis doesn't have to do that. The "rights" of <br>not-yet-here persons are proxied as the rights of their currently-here <br>progenitors/sponsors. This point becomes increasingly important as <br>technology makes it radically cheaper to create or import people en <br>masse. Mass creation or importing of people should not be allowed to <br>dilute the stake that the already-present hold in the local commons.<p>SC) the axiom that people would never voluntarily give even a small, <br>libertarian-oriented government (SC<p>"Never" is your word, not mine. My concern is, rather, that 1) <br>free-riding on the contributions of others will inevitably spiral into <br>catastrophic under-funding of public goods, and 2) no amount of <br>volunteerism can repeal the tragedy of the commons. Recall my motto of <br>"fees and fines, but never taxes". I'm OK with a non-mandatory <br>land-value fee that is enforced by 1) ostracism from the community's <br>streets/courts/parks and 2) massive retaliation for trespass thereon. <br>But I'm not OK with making it voluntary to pay fines for <br>polluting/depleting/congesting the commons. A voluntary fine isn't a <br>fine at all.Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.com