Quoth Brian Holtz, quoting Starchild: > SC) I'm just not convinced that watering down our platform will accomplish > this goal. [...] than by changing the ideas of the party. (SC
I've been meaning to address this particular argument for some time -- none like the present, I guess. The GH approach (and most other "shorter platform" approaches) can hardly be described as a "watering down" approach. To "water something down" is to add a bunch of weaker material to it to "dilute" the stronger material. GH/WSPP et al do exactly the opposite. They prune away lots of material. And if that pruning is done correctly, it turns the LP's platform into something that stakes LP claims to larger pieces of political territory for which those claims are legitimate, without sacrificing any principles at all. > Tom, what do you think of the GH draft sans abortion and secession? Looks nice. I still have suggestions, and since you're still soliciting them, I'll keep making them: In section 1.2, I would delete the phrase "such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes." In section 1.4, I would replace "at significant risk" with "in clear and present danger." In section 2.2, I would replace "riparian" with something that a reasonably high-IQ representative reader (me) doesn't have to look up in a dictionary. Section 2.5 is problematic insofar as a proper libertarian position on corporations is that they should not exist (corporations are chartered creations of the state imbued with government-mandated privileges including artificial "personhood," alienation of owner liability, etc.). A short platform isn't the place to go into that in detail, but I'd recommend replacing "corporations" with "enterprises" in the title, and with "joint stock companies" in the body of that section. I continue to desire the elimination of tax credits from section 2.6. Finally (there are some other minor quibbles, but they're purely purist stuff), I don't know how I missed the endorsement of Instant Runoff Voting in section 3.5 Um ... why? If we're going to advocate a particular alternative voting method, why not one that's GOOD, like Approval Voting? None of the above, nor any of the above in combination, break my "time to let the perfect be the enemy of the not good at all" barrier. I'd support this version of GH over the 2006 platform. Tom Knapp
