Anthony Gregory wrote <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpradicals/message/2205> on LPradicals:
AG) I think decentralism is the only approach that's compatible with either anarchism or coherent, radical minarchism. [...] I see decentralism as the ONLY possible anarchist approach. Yes, there will be local statism under a decentralist system. And yes, there will be private crime in anarchy. You do not have to be for the rights of criminals, or pro-murder, to want the state governments to stop prosecuting these crimes. Similarly, you do not have to believe local statism is defensible to want to keep the feds away. (AG I tried recommending decentralism on LPradicals in April ( <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/1715> Radical federalism as common ground with anarchists) but my posting was censored. I made the same point again in September: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2144> LP anti-statists defend Leviathan from the best strategy for reducing it. Radical Caucus Censor-In-Chief Susan Hogarth confirms my diagnosis by replying to Gregory: SH) I'm fascinated to see anarchists discussing which form of government is 'best'. [...] be aware that as an anarchist supporting defederalization, you can easily be perceived - and used - as a proponent of local government. [...] Let the statists try to dream up a 'Fair Tax' or a 'good local government', and we will keep kicking against both of them, but there's no reason to do their -planning- work for them and say that such-and-such form/size/scope of government is better/best (SH The anarchist Gregory of course nowhere used the words "better" or "best", so this is an obvious strawman. And her "no reason" simply fails to engage Gregory's argument: decentralism reduces aggression and puts liberty closer to our grasp. Gregory also surely realizes (as Hogarth apparently doesn't) that almost all statists are centralists, and it's nice to see that Gregory isn't infected by the scented <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2169> hankie meme that afflicts even the often-sensible Tom Knapp. That idea is a standard one of anti-party voluntaryists like George Smith, but anarchist partyarchs who embrace it seem inconsistent. We constitutionalists on the Platform Committee are hoping to pass a plank that endorses decentralism without explicitly endorsing the legitimacy of the Constitution. Decentralized Government Problems should always be addressed at the most local level as possible, which ideally is the level of the peaceful honest individual. We support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and enforcement of the Tenth Amendment rule that the federal government has no powers beyond those delegated to it by the Constitution. We support the repeal or overturning of all Acts of Congress outside the narrow powers delegated to it in the Constitution, which are primarily national defense and providing an impartial judicial system. We oppose the President initiating military hostilities in the absence of a declaration of war by Congress. I also hope we reinstate some form of the original 1972 LP Platform's language on secession: We support the right to secede where: (1) secession is supported by a majority within the political unit, (2) the majority does not attempt suppression of the dissenting minority, and (3) the government of the new entity is at least as compatible with human freedom as that from which it seceded. Strict constitutional constructionism has been a core campaign theme of nearly every LP presidential candidate, including Ron Paul in 1988, Browne in 1996 and 2000, and Badnarik in 2004, and the Constitution is a core theme in 2008 for at least Ron Paul and Christine Smith. Strict constructionism (along with repeal of the income tax) is also the subject of the Liberty Amendment <http://www.libertyamendment.com/> , for which both David Nolan and Harry Browne worked before Nolan formed the LP. (The LA Committee's mailing list was used by Nolan to help bootstrap the LP.) The LA was endorsed by 9 states from 1959 to 1982, and Ron Paul put it before Congress in 2003. All LP presidential candidates should follow Ron Paul's lead and endorse the Liberty Amendment. We on PlatCom need to follow David Nolan's 2006 advice, and restore an endorsement of the Liberty Amendment to the LP Platform.
