Robert Capozzi wrote: RC> 1) I propose to the ad hoc committee of the LRC that we scrap Version A & B. It appears many of us agree that, in general, the Greatest Hits is a superior solution. 2) I ask that Brian Holtz provide a list of cites of each passage, and which cites he wrote himself. <RC
See the color-coding at http://marketliberal.org/LP/Platforms/2007_annotated.html. That document has links to the three Platforms cannibalized for the Greatest Hits Platform, as well as to an archive of all the past LP Platforms I've been able to find (1972, and 1990 through 2006). The platforms are each in a single file, allowing for easy text search. RC> It seems to me that we need to have the discipline that Brian had in drafting this (for the most part). That is, to only include language that IS or HAS BEEN in prior platforms. That may be impossible, but it strikes me that that's an excellent goal. <RC More eyeballs searching more of the prior platforms could probably make more progress toward that goal. There used to be more than the three paraphrasings and two elucidations that are in the current draft, but then extra effort found good snippets of original language to replace some of my other paraphrasings. RC> If we must make insertions, they should be transparent to the Platform Committee and the Party at large. We shouldn't try to pull a fast one! IMO, it's vital that the LRC continue to act as "fair dealers/honest brokers." <RC Absolutely. I disagree with multiple components of traditional LP dogma: all taxation is theft, privatize all roads and natural monopolies, rely only on charity to prevent starvation, rely only on torts to regulate pollution and other negative externalities, and never defend foreigners from aggression or genocide. While the Greatest Hits draft is less explicit about these principles than previous platforms, I resisted the urge to carve my disagreements into the draft. Anyone who cannot accept a platform he considers imperfect should not be involved in writing one. John Shuey wrote: JS> Its greatest weakness is that it emulates what has been a failure for 30+ years! <JS What has failed for 30+ years is * calling for legalized child prostitution ["repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality"]; * calling for immediate repeal of all drug laws, without regard to kind of drug; * saying we "oppose all attempts to ban weapons", without regard to kind of weapon; * calling for the immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws; * calling for the replacement of all environmental protections with "trespass and nuisance" torts; * calling for "elimination of all government fiat money"; * calling for privatization of public roads; * etc. All of these bugs (and more subtle ones) are removed by the Greatest Hits platform. JS> As for appealing to the base? Fine...if we want to continue attracting .5% to 2% of the vote. <JS I disagree with your apparent premise that anything the LP base would accept could never appeal to a wider audience. JS> 1. The platform should only contain planks that would appeal to at least 50% +1 of the electorate; <JS Polling data show this requirement is misguided. At most 16% <http://www.theadvocates.org/library/poll-results.html> to 20% <http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5431> of Americans are liberty increasers -- i.e. they agree that America should have both more civil freedom and more economic freedom. We won't eliminate the popularity of the nanny state overnight, and the nanny state wasn't built overnight either. The Socialist Party never won more than 6% of the popular vote, but Milton Friedman famously called it the most influential party in early-twentieth-century America because almost all of its 1928 platform became law in the subsequent decades. JS> 2. It should be free of arcane language and concepts; <JS The Greatest Hits draft eliminates jargon from earlier Platforms like * "cult of the omnipotent state"; * "private sector dissemination of information"; * "medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances"; * "civil asset forfeiture"; * "a reasonable number of peremptory challenges"; * "an immediate end to the doctrine of 'Sovereign Immunity'"; * "any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment"; * "digital audio tape recorders and radar warning devices, and the manufacture of video terminals"; * "semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices"; * "children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians"; * "gold coins denominated by units of weight [...] private ownership of and contracts for gold" * "all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money"; * "stock-market index futures or new financial instruments which may emerge in the future"; * "such torts as trespass and nuisance"; * "forced surface-mining of privately homesteaded lands"; * "multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security"; along with a blizzard of alphabet-soup references to specific laws and agencies. I just don't see how any moderate could call this draft "a tremendous step backwards". JS> 3. It should be crisp and brief; and 4. It should fit on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. <JS The Greatest Hits draft would easily fit on two sheets. But again, if you're looking for a piece of marketing literature to hand to the average voter, then for goodness' sake don't author it by committee at biannual conventions requiring 2/3 approval under bylaws that also allow for random plank deletions, challenges to the Judicial Committee, minority reports, etc. Again: the goal of Platform reform is not to write the ideal voter outreach pamphlet. The goal of Platform reform is to remove the obstacles to writing voter outreach pamphlets that are ideal for each kind of voter. (News flash: there is more than one kind of voter.) Why make Platform reform harder than it already is? Let's write a Platform that does its job, so that our candidates and other marketeers can do theirs. The job of the LP Platform is to provide a comprehensive but terse reference document for looking up what policy DIRECTION (*) the LP advocates on any issue that might be of concern to a sizable number of Americans. The job of the LP Platform is not to be a magical text that will convert to libertarianism 51% of the average voters who read it. No such text is possible, and we would be setting up the reform movement for justifiable accusations of failure if we frame our effort that way. (*) Thanks to Carl for correcting me when I earlier said "policy stand" instead.
