The recent suggested improvements of the Greatest Hits platform's use of prior platform language are too good to ignore just for the sake of avoiding textual novelty. So for reference purposes I've forked off and archived a "baseline" version of the draft that has no textual novelty and leans toward breadth of coverage (e.g. abortion, secession). Now we can feel free to improve the "remixed" Greatest Hits draft with better language and strategic omissions. The draft still lives at http://marketliberal.org/LP/Platforms/2007.html, and still contains a link to a color-coded annotated version, which itself contains a link to the archived baseline version. The revision logs at the bottom of these files summarize the changes discussed below.
Robert Capozzi wrote: RC> I'd prefer Economic Liberty, Securing Liberty and Personal Liberty be the order. <RC I like the traditional platform order for several reasons. The Personal and Economic Liberty sections represent the two Nolan Chart dimensions that are the heart of libertarianism, while Securing Liberty is a collection of extra issues having to do with government franchise, borders, and procedures. Between Personal and Economic Liberty, I like the traditional order of Personal first so as to help blunt any accusation that we care most about property rights. The only problem I see with the traditional order is that it makes the Platform end on less than a ringing note. But since I think the Platform should be reference material rather than a pamphlet, I'm not too worried about how it ends. RC> 1.2: I'm not sure what that last sentence is about. It sounds like Rothbard's "legalize blackmail" notion, but I'm not sure. I find it obscure. <RC All I can say in its defense is that the prior platform language I was paraphrasing did an even poorer job of stating the general principle: that in the absence of force or fraud, you can't complain about 1) whether another private party demands some information about you as a condition for transacting with you, or 2) what that private party does with that information. The "fraud" proviso of course means that the party may not violate your contractual or reasonable expectations of privacy, but the casual reader might not understand that. Freedom of association is always hard to explain to people who are new to the concept, but a goal of this draft is to avoid spending too much space on examples or explanations, as they can easily triple the size of the document. I also didn't want to spend more space on a principle that was already taking up as much space as the "sensations and substances" principle. I hope somebody can improve on my language, because this aspect of freedom of association is going to become much more important due to advances in information technology. (And yes, this would indeed legalize any form of blackmail that doesn't involve fraud as described above.) RC> 1.3: ".We support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days..." is a clever way to say pro-choice in the first trimester and a bit more. While I'm tepidly pro choice, I've been convinced that the LP Platform should remain neutral on this one. <RC Smart people like you keep saying this to me, so I'm dropping it from the "remixed" version of the Greatest Hits platform. I'm keeping it in the "baseline" version, so that it will retain its breadth of issue coverage and minimize accusations that it tried to change the substance of the platform. RC> 1.4 "urge the assertion of the common-law right of juries " reads odd to me. I think maybe instead of "assertion," the word "adoption" or "recognition" might work better. <RC I agree with both you and John Shuey that this language is poor, so in the Remix I've changed "urge the assertion of" to "recognize". RC> 1.5 "This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group." I'm not sure this sentence adds anything, and while I guess "inheres" is a word, it seems archaic. <RC It seems important to assert that force can be used not just for self-defense but also for the consented-to defense of those who would be within their rights to use their own force if they could. I streamlined it to: "Individuals may agree to be aided in their use of defensive force by any other individual or group." RC> 2.3 "We support the eventual repeal of all taxation." I suggest losing this sentence. Yes, the word "eventual" makes this sentence sound less "crazy," but still.... <RC Agreed. I've dropped it from the Remix, but kept it in the Baseline. RC> 2.4 "We call for the abolition of all regulation of financial and capital markets. What should be punished is the theft of information or breach of contract to hold information in confidence, not trading on the basis of valuable knowledge." Gosh, I'd like to soften "abolition of all regulation." It sounds like the LP thinks Jeff Skilling and Bernie Ebbers are good guys. It's not just theft of info or breach to hold in confidence, there was massive fraud on the markets -- book cooking. <RC Agreed. I've changed it to: "Regulation of financial and capital markets should be limited to prohibition of force and fraud, such as misrepresentation or the theft of information via trespass, but not trading on the basis of insider knowledge obtained in the absence of force or fraud." I'm not a fan of "such as..." lists in the platform, so while I don't object to calling out insider trading as not necessarily a victimful crime, I could be persuaded to drop everything starting with "such as...". Thoughts? RC> 2.5 "We condemn all coercive monopolies." Well, isn't THIS clever way to throw a bone to anarchists! I could live with this, but would suggest deleting. <RC I was attracted to this 2004 platform language because of how it potentially finesses the question of whether a conspiracy ever becomes coercive by virtue of approaching 100% market share. But since that clearly was never the intent of this sentence, I'll just drop it from both the Baseline and Remix. RC> 3.2 "We support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights." Depending on how one reads this, this could be QUITE incindiary. Suggest deleting. <RC Yes, I agree with you and John (and Harland Harrison) on this one. Deleted. RC> 3.5 I'd lose the secession passage, big time, even though the language is fine. <RC My choice of the 1972 language was mostly an attempt to moderate our silly individual-secession stance without being accused of dropping all secession discussion altogether. I also like the 1972 language because, unlike so many Lincoln-bashers in the LP, it in fact puts us on the right side of the Civil War. But I'd be happy to drop the secession coverage if that gave the draft a better chance for adoption than using the 1972 language. Any forecasts on that? John Shuey wrote: JS> the U.S. was never intended to be a "democracy"...for very good reasons. <JS Good point. I've renamed 3.5 from "Democracy" to "Representative Government". JS> under 2.7 I would mention a gradualist approach to the free-market model. First, it would be immoral to simply cut loose those who are retired and depending on S.S., and Second, it will cost you 95% of the senior vote. <JS 2.7 doesn't necessarily rule out a gradual privatization of the retirement industry. But we should probably make that clearer, so maybe the first sentence should instead be: "We advocate transitioning to a privatized retirement savings industry." JS> Isn't 1.2 a rehash of 1.0? Doesn't 1.0 say it all already? <JS You could say that even more so about 1.3 (multi-person "vice") than 1.2 (single-person "vice"), since 1.2 also includes Fourth Amendment protections that aren't covered by the general principles in 1.0. Indeed, most of sections 1 and 2 are just elaborations about how non-aggression applies to the topic in question. But if we didn't talk about "substances" in some way, it would be harder for us to claim we've covered the War On Drugs.
