No, Bruce. "Services...regarding human sexuality" does not mean "sexual services", nor anything like it. If you cut a long paragraph apart, you can make it say anything you want. Perhaps you could argue that the statement is badly worded. But that is precisely the point that Brian Holtz was contesting.
Only somebody who wanted to discredit and destroy the LP would try to twist that statement about birth control into a supposed endorsement of child prostitution. Harland Harrison --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry Harland, > > You're incorrect. > > Let's parse the words, shall we? > > "...we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict > anyone, including children, from engaging in > voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or > information regarding human sexuality..." > > Let's distill that phrase a little. > "engaging in voluntary exchanges of ...services > ...regarding human sexuality" > > Most Libertarians want the law to differentiate > between adults and those not of the age of > majority when it comes to some things, > including 'services regarding human sexuality'. > > Your turn, Harland... > > > > Harland Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The platforms call for birth control for minors, not > for "child prostitution"! The language clearly > states that it means contraception. Only deliberate > distortion can create any other impression. From > Brian Holtz' own site, the 1990 platform says: > > "We regard the tragedies caused by unplanned, > unwanted pregnancies to be aggravated, if not > created, by government policies of censorship, > restriction, regulation, and prohibition. Therefore, > we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict > anyone, including children, from engaging in > voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or > information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, > birth control, or related medical or biological > technologies." > > http://marketliberal.org/LP/Platforms/1990.txt > > Brian Holtz wrote, (below), that "nothing in the > context of these platforms rescues this wording." He > invited you to "see for yourself" on his own site. If > you do, I think you will find, as I did, that the > platforms say nothing about "child prostitution", > despite what Brian Holtz claimed, and that the phrase > he quotes out of context refers to birth control and > medicine. > > Harland Harrison > LP of San Mateo County CA > > --- Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > Howard Pearce wrote: > > > > BH> In particular, does an LP Platform "debase > > libertarian belief" if it does not call 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"]; <BH > > > > HP> I need to see more context here ... This > > statement certainly does need scrutiny as > > children are not adults. Have you considered > > the possability of bad wording ? <HP > > > > If it's merely bad wording, it managed not to get > > fixed in any Platform from 2004 all the way back > > to at least 1990. Nothing in the context of these > > platforms rescues this wording; see for yourself > > here > > http://marketliberal.org/LP/Platforms/ > > > > Do you have any problem with the > > Greatest Hits language on this topic? It says: "We > > favor the freedom and > > responsibility of adults to decide what sensations > > and substances they > > knowingly and voluntarily consume. We favor the > > freedom of all adults to > > engage in any consensual amorous or reproductive > > behavior or relationship > > that does not violate the rights of others." > > > > BH> * immediate repeal of all drug laws, without > > regard to kind of drug; > > <BH > > > > HP> I agree ... We can quibble with the use of the > > word "immediate". But > > what kind of drug would u like to prohibit ? pink, > > or blue ? Not > > politically popular ones ? <HP > > > > I don't have a list of drugs I want to prohibit. I > > just don't want > > anarchopurists to use the Platform as a cudgel > > against Libertarian > > candidates who advocate first decriminalizing (say) > > marijuana and steroids > > before (say) heroin and crack. Do you have any > > problem with the GH > > "sensations and substances" language above as being > > the entirety of the > > Platform's drug language? On weapons, do you have > > any problem with the > > Platform just saying: "We affirm the right to keep > > and bear arms."? > > > > BH> * immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws; > > * "repeal of all > > taxation" <BH > > > > HP> Immediate seems extreme again .... not the final > > concept <HP > > > > So we agree that "immediate" is extreme. Cool. Now, > > does the GH draft > > "debase libertarian beliefs" if it doesn't > > explicitly advocate eventual > > repeal of all taxation? It instead says: > > > > GH> The only proper role of existing governments in > > the economic realm is to > > protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and > > provide a legal framework > > in which voluntary trade is protected. We oppose all > > government interference > > with voluntary and contractual relations among > > individuals. People should be > > allowed to deal with one another as free traders; > > and the resultant economic > > system, the only one compatible with the protection > > of individual rights, is > > the free market. We seek to divest government of > > all functions that can be > > provided by non-governmental organizations or > > private individuals. <GH > > > > Doesn't that say it all? Does the Platform really > > need to say that > > minarchist libertarians are wrong for not wanting to > > repeal all taxation? > > > > BH> * replacement of all environmental > > protections with "trespass and > > nuisance" torts; <BH > > > > HP> If the laws can be classified as tresspass and > > tort violations, then the > > protection would be OK. Maybe the point here is that > > all environmental > > protections...like protections against > > murder...should be viewed as some > > sort of right violation ... and not just state > > mandate. <HP > > > > Right. The GH draft says " Pollution of other > > people's property is a > > violation of individual rights. We support the > > development of an objective > > system defining resource rights, including riparian > > rights, as individual > > property rights to prevent the inevitable > > over-exploitation of resources > > held communally and to manage negative externalities > > like pollution." Any > > problems there? > > > > BH> * "elimination of all government fiat > > money"; <BH > > > > HP> eventaul elimination of fiat money would be a > > good thing <HP > > > > The GH draft says "We favor free-market banking, > > with unrestricted > > competition among banks and depository institutions > > of all types. > > Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be > > free to use as money any > > mutually agreeable commodity or item. Regulation of > > financial and capital > > markets should be limited to prohibition of force > > and fraud." Do we need to > > say anything more than this about money? > > > > BH> * privatization of public roads. <BH > > > > HP> as would privatization of many state services > > like the mail and roads be > > good too. <HP > > > > The GH draft says "We seek to divest government of > > all functions that can be > > provided by non-governmental organizations or > > private individuals." Roads > > are a special case, as most minarchist libertarians > > accept the textbook > > economic argument that high fixed costs and > > vanishing marginal costs make > > roads -- especially uncongested local roads -- a > > canonical example of a > > natural monopoly > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly> . > > However, > > the GH language leaves the door open for > > anarchopurists to prove to the rest > > of us that all roads could be privatized. > > > > HP> in all above cases, I can see where the ideas > > are coming from ... none > > would I automatically eliminate outright. <HP > > > > The above exercise shows how easy it is for > > less-archists of all stripes to > > agree when we operate at the right level of > > abstraction. It's futile to > > exchange endless shouts of "principled!" > > "pragmatic!" "principled!" > > "pragmatic!". It's similarly unwise for the > > Platform to adopt the > > issue/principle/solution/transition format, in which > > each side gets to > > include in its "sandbox" all the language that > > infuriates the other side. > > If instead the Platform simply states the timeless > > principles that most > > less-archists agree on, our tactical differences > > will melt away, and we'll > > stand united against the nanny state that we all > > oppose. > > > > HP> Any position that primarily holds we supress or > > rid ourselves of > > ideas/planks because they are "extreme" , not > > popular debase libertarianism > > .... as there is no principle involved is such > > stands at all <HP > > > > The idea isn't to compose the LP Platform based on > > what 51% of the voters > > think. The idea is to make the LP Platform > > compatible with the various > > principled flavors of libertarianism, instead of it > > being a cudgel with > > which one faction (minarchist or anarchist) can > > pummel another. Again, > > principled and self-consisted non-anarchist > > libertarian 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; > > > > * 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; > > > > * the theory of negative > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_externality> > > externalities; and even > > * 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. > > > > There is no such thing as The One True > > Libertarianism, and > > anarcholibertarians do not have a monopoly on > > principle. Personally, I > > would argue that economics-based minarchism is more > > liberty-maximizing -- > > i.e. more libertarian and more principled -- than a > > bumper-sticker-based > > philosophy of anarcholibertarianism. But if we > > think we have to settle that > > argument in the Platform before we can unite to > > start rolling back the nanny > > state, then our cause is already lost, and the LP > > should be broken up into > > separate debating teams for each faction. > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! > Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes > sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses > http://fr.answers.yahoo.com > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. >
