Henry Haller wrote: HH> The reality is that having a very principled platform is about the only real difference between the LP and all of the other political parties out there. <HH
What specifically do you mean by "very principled"? Can an LP Platform be "very principled" without calling for any of the following? * 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"]; * immediate repeal of all drug laws, without regard to kind of drug; * opposition to "all attempts to ban weapons", without regard to kind of weapon; * immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws; * "repeal of all taxation"; * replacement of all environmental protections with "trespass and nuisance" torts; * "elimination of all government fiat money"; * privatization of public roads. What specifically is insufficiently principled about the Greatest Hits draft platform at http://marketliberal.org/LP/Platforms/2007.html ? HH> Of course, there are a few issues, such as abortion, where there can be differences between principled Libertarians. However, such issues are the exception. <HH There are more than you might think. Besides the franchise schism over abortion, there are at least 16 other free <http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=371> variables in libertarian theory even for zero-aggression absolutists. And if you're a non-anarchist, then not only do you have to face the two other big franchise schisms (immigration and libervention), but you also have to choose among the principled and self-consisted worldviews that can be assembled from combinations of elements like * radical <http://www.foldvary.net/works/auspc.pdf> federalism; * geolibertarian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarian> resource communalism; * left-libertarian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Libertarianism> critiques of alleged coercion inherent in original property acquisitions and unequal economic associations; * libertarian <http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf48/papers/thaler.pdf> paternalism based on game-theoretic analysis of bounded <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases> rationality; * the theory of public <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods> goods and free rider <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem> problems; * the theory of natural <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly> monopolies; and * the theory of negative <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_externality> externalities . Thus if you believed Rothbard when he told you that The One True Libertarianism could be rigorously and completely derived from the zero-aggression principle, then you've been sold a bill of goods. Rothbard may as well have been chanting "There is no god but God". Paleolibertarians weaned on Rothbard or Rand seem unaware of the innovations in political economy that have occurred since their prophets closed the paleolibertarian canon in the late 1940s: * The 1939 generalization of Pareto optimality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_optimality> by Kaldor and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor-Hicks_efficiency> Hicks to launch modern welfare economics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics> ; * The 1950 formalization of the Prisoner's <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_Dilemma> Dilemma and the subsequent avalanche of developments in game <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Economics_and_business> theory; * Arrow's 1951 impossibility <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Impossibility_Theorem> theorem, leading to Sen's 1970 liberal paradox <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox> ; * The 1953 discovery of the Allais paradox <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_paradox> , and many subsequent discoveries about bounded <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality> rationality and cognitive bias <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases> and the development of Prospect Theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory> by Tkversky and Khaneman in 1979; * Samuelson's 1954 formalization of the theory of public goods <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods> ; * Tiebout's 1956 theorem <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_sorting> about the optimal local provision of public goods; * Coase's 1959 proof <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem> that markets can handle negative <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality> externalities only in the absence of transaction costs; * The 1962 creation of public choice <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory> theory by Buchanan and Tullock; and * Arrow's 1963 formalization of the problem of asymmetric <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_information> information. For example, Rothbard's For a New Liberty <http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp> (1973) and Ethics <http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp> of Liberty (1982) make no mention of public goods or externalities or free riding. And anyone learning their economics only from Rand will have even less hope of awareness of these ideas. The cumulative revolution in the theory of political economy that took place in the 1950s and 1960s is very recent by historical standards. Students of biology and anatomy long ago stopped reading Aristotle's 2300-year-old treatises, with his theories that head-first birth in animals is caused by weight asymmetry around the umbilical cord, and that the brain's function is just to cool the blood. But progress in the theory of political economy has been so slow that after two millennia, Aristotle's political theories are still required reading. Nevertheless, in my lifetime there has been a noticeable and significant positive impact on serious policy discourse by the last half-century's innovations in political economy -- as compared to very little progress by the LP in promoting libertarianism as a retail political brand. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the further successes of libertarianism will come primarily from the influence of libertarian economic theory on professional policy analysts, and that these successes are unlikely to be accelerated -- and may even be slowed -- by the retail political efforts of libertarians whose knowledge of economics is limited to osmosis from paleolibertarian prophets like Rothbard and Rand. As long as the LP is held hostage by such people, it will continue to be an embarrassment to the growing number of small-L libertarians who are out there making actual progress for libertarianism in the marketplace of ideas. Of the 30 most <http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans&p=368> influential liberty-oriented blogs, at least 25 either ignore or disdain the LP as too extremist. Despite all the posturing of libertarian armchair revolutionaries about America's alleged descent towards "fascism" or a "police state", it's nice to be reminded of just how far from tyranny America actually is, that the self-proclaimed radical freedom-fighters of the LP so clearly believe they can afford the luxury of a balkanized freedom movement. It's ironic that despite all the conspiracy theorists in the libertarian movement, we can't put together a Vast Libertarian-Wing <http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans&p=357> Conspiracy of our own. HH> Now suppose we end up with a platform that is so lacking in specifics that individual candidates can take opposing positions on important issues and still claim to be consistent with the platform. In that case, how is the LP any different from Republicans and Democrats? <HH Ironically, your complaint about a lack of specifics is itself lacking in specifics. Exactly how much disagreement with anarchism is enough to make you unable to perceive the difference between a minarchist libertarian and the nanny-state Democrats and Republicans? Recall that the Democrats support laws regulating prices, wages, hours, plant closure, family leave, hiring, firing, occupational licensure, zoning, rents, etc. Recall that the GOP failed to use its legislative majority to start privatizing any of our socialized systems of education, health care, health insurance, agriculture, and retirement savings. Recall that the GOP supports regulations and bans on gambling, suicide, substance use, pornography, gay marriage, sexual services, reproductive services, and cloning. How can you not notice the difference between these positions and the policies advocated by the Libertarian Reform Caucus (here <http://reformthelp.org/platform/shortB/index.php> ) or the Cato Institute (here <http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/index.html> ) -- or even the Republican Liberty Caucus (here <http://rlc.org/?p=FAQ#4252> )?
