Blog

February 2015

Viewing posts from February , 2015

My Vision For Libertarian Success



The Libertarian Party of LA County is going through the exercise of developing a strategic plan.  Part of that exercise includes adopting a vision statement.  Inspired by an earlier draft, I've put together my own vision.  It could be shorter, but is serviceable.

LPLAC Succeeds When:

The sum total of public discussion in LA County includes divergent views and dynamic cross-fertilization of ideas, but a clear majority of both the electorate and general population insists that all of these divergent views fit within a political framework that minimizes compulsory forms of government in favor of maximizing voluntary solutions, personal autonomy, and economic freedom. Los Angeles County and its environs develops a reputation as one of the leading libertarian-influenced and politically innovative regions in the world. Liberty and peace-loving people from all over the world desire to visit and reside here, including notable public opinion leaders who advocate for freedom-oriented policies and the end of government-sanctioned aggression locally and around the world.

Along the way, Libertarian Party candidates and are included on virtually every ballot in the county, are routinely included in debates, sought out for interviews, and covered in stories by both alternative and mainstream media. Candidates of other parties become substantially libertarian-leaning in key aspects. Libertarian Party candidates win offices and appointments while expressing views consistent with the non-aggression principle. Many Libertarians holding public office are supported by teams of activists and advisers, and are widely recognized as principled and effective leaders. Aided by their teams and motivated by the passion for liberty, these leaders grow in political influence and exploit every good opportunity to implement and expand liberty and non-aggression in public policy and legislation locally, regionally, in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. LPLAC and its members are seen as valuable members of the community, actively engaged in resolving issues of the day and effectively advocating for innovative solutions that expand personal liberty, prosperity, and justice.

We seek no dogmatic, static ideological endpoint and seek only to apply the non-aggression principle in the political sphere to the maximum extent possible given the constraints of the day. It is impossible to predict every social benefit that will be realized by the freed people of LA County, once they have learned to abhor the initiation of force for achieving political or social goals, and prefer to implement voluntary solutions to social problems. We nonetheless expect that fruits of our activism will include, in the long term, the widespread condemnation of wars of aggression, and strong public preferences for peace and voluntary exchange with people locally and around the world. Our residents will enjoy increased prosperity, privacy, security and justice. Equal opportunities to benefit from the fruits of their own labor will expand, while government-sanctioned monopolies, free riding on the labor of others, and economic stagnation will diminish. No person will be punished for conduct that does not harm or threaten an actual victim, and victimless crimes will become relics of the past. The rule of just laws will prevail, and justice will be administered by officers and service providers who are not above the laws they enforce. As general prosperity increases, the need for tax-funded welfare will diminish and care for the indigent and poor will gradually be transferred to volunteers and voluntary organizations. Corporate welfare and undue influence will diminish. Our environment will become cleaner and our food and water healthier by operation of just laws, vibrant free markets and public forums where truth is vigorously debated and authority questioned. Taxes will become more like fees for services rendered or reputation-enhancing donations, and less like compulsory payments made under threat of force. Authority will become more decentralized, wealth more evenly distributed, and collective social projects more voluntary in nature.

My Vision For Libertarian Success



The Libertarian Party of LA County is going through the exercise of developing a strategic plan.  Part of that exercise includes adopting a vision statement.  Inspired by an earlier draft, I've put together my own vision.  It could be shorter, but is serviceable.

LPLAC Succeeds When:

The sum total of public discussion in LA County includes divergent views and dynamic cross-fertilization of ideas, but a clear majority of both the electorate and general population insists that all of these divergent views fit within a political framework that minimizes compulsory forms of government in favor of maximizing voluntary solutions, personal autonomy, and economic freedom. Los Angeles County and its environs develops a reputation as one of the leading libertarian-influenced and politically innovative regions in the world. Liberty and peace-loving people from all over the world desire to visit and reside here, including notable public opinion leaders who advocate for freedom-oriented policies and the end of government-sanctioned aggression locally and around the world.

Along the way, Libertarian Party candidates and are included on virtually every ballot in the county, are routinely included in debates, sought out for interviews, and covered in stories by both alternative and mainstream media. Candidates of other parties become substantially libertarian-leaning in key aspects. Libertarian Party candidates win offices and appointments while expressing views consistent with the non-aggression principle. Many Libertarians holding public office are supported by teams of activists and advisers, and are widely recognized as principled and effective leaders. Aided by their teams and motivated by the passion for liberty, these leaders grow in political influence and exploit every good opportunity to implement and expand liberty and non-aggression in public policy and legislation locally, regionally, in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. LPLAC and its members are seen as valuable members of the community, actively engaged in resolving issues of the day and effectively advocating for innovative solutions that expand personal liberty, prosperity, and justice.

We seek no dogmatic, static ideological endpoint and seek only to apply the non-aggression principle in the political sphere to the maximum extent possible given the constraints of the day. It is impossible to predict every social benefit that will be realized by the freed people of LA County, once they have learned to abhor the initiation of force for achieving political or social goals, and prefer to implement voluntary solutions to social problems. We nonetheless expect that fruits of our activism will include, in the long term, the widespread condemnation of wars of aggression, and strong public preferences for peace and voluntary exchange with people locally and around the world. Our residents will enjoy increased prosperity, privacy, security and justice. Equal opportunities to benefit from the fruits of their own labor will expand, while government-sanctioned monopolies, free riding on the labor of others, and economic stagnation will diminish. No person will be punished for conduct that does not harm or threaten an actual victim, and victimless crimes will become relics of the past. The rule of just laws will prevail, and justice will be administered by officers and service providers who are not above the laws they enforce. As general prosperity increases, the need for tax-funded welfare will diminish and care for the indigent and poor will gradually be transferred to volunteers and voluntary organizations. Corporate welfare and undue influence will diminish. Our environment will become cleaner and our food and water healthier by operation of just laws, vibrant free markets and public forums where truth is vigorously debated and authority questioned. Taxes will become more like fees for services rendered or reputation-enhancing donations, and less like compulsory payments made under threat of force. Authority will become more decentralized, wealth more evenly distributed, and collective social projects more voluntary in nature.

GMO Foods and Principle

Something bothers me around the GMO Foods discussion in libertarian circles and that is that there does not seem to be enough treatment to what responsible and ethical action looks like with the ability to author life and living structure.
I make no arguments that anyone should mistake as a need for government regulation. I am putting out a cry that if we do not better understand how ethical action is manifest in these technologies that pitfalls will not be well understood until too late.

Are there legitimate questions of principle for how GMO Foods are or are not labled?

It is reasonable to assume in light of some 100+ years of fascist implementation that GMO products could be an issue that is used to destroy freedoms wholesale. We know what happens when someone’s irresponsible action causes so much fear in so many that principled social reaction will be impossible. Progressives have already begun influencing the debate and we are failing to answer it. I think that people who express concern over GMOs are doing so on grounds that the liberty movement should be owning, and developing on our own terms.

Let me pose a series of generalized solutions for consideration. Which is more principled? Forced labeling of GMOs, or a social recognition that selling “not salmon” as “salmon” is fraud on the face of it? Is allowing GMO products to be sold as if they were natural products principled?

Currently the law gives genetically modified products the cover of law for selling itself as the natural counterpart as long as they are aesthetically the same. This does not seem like a rational definition of fraud to me… matter of fact it seems like the definition of fraud turned upside down for the convenience of pathological liars. It is glaring in its inconsistency with principled action.

To say that GMO should be able to be sold as its natural look alike, you would have to contend that “natural” versus “not natural” is not a value component of people’s market decisions. For me, just on the face of it “natural” versus “not-natural” is a significant value in that market. The anti-GMO movement is a manifestation of that being true.

The need for principled positions and education

I will leave it to the reader to decide for themselves on GMO marketing, but I also invite you to, while considering a position, that you may have to let go of some perceptions inculcated by the defense of free business. Businesses especially bleeding edge ones are vulnerable to heavy handed regulation. I argue that we libertarians need to find answers to these problems that do NOT involve government action before the progressives use them to erode our rights, and the rights of innovators in the bio-tech space.

Consumers do have a right to demand truthfulness in labeling, and they should be able to seek damages if they are defrauded. But if we do not first, before the fascists do, cause people to feel secure in their market actions we will lose this fight. We must find a principled position on the matter of GMO products, we must find a bright line for what fraud is and is not on the question and educate people on ethical recourse.

Beyond labeling there are other issues that require real examination, what is the principled reaction to weaponized organisms, or organisms that turn out to be dangerous in unexpected ways? What about intellectual property injustices that are widely reported by farmers oppressed by GMO manufacturers using the law for market subjugation – What about the contamination of seed stock with GMO pollen or other such unwanted invasions of genetic material into populations? Is not the legal potential for government licensed monopolization of the food supply not a freedom issue? Where is the libertarian discussion for principle on these subjects?

If we are not more proactively forming solid positions on GMO ethics, I am afraid that we are going to hand the ball directly into the hands of the bad guys on this one, and it is going to entrench government and fascist institutions into greater privilege over an increasingly powerless people stripped of their rights by an incapacity to assert them. It seems like it would behoove us, while we are celebrating these revolutionary technologies and the great men and women who are bringing them; that we should also reflect on how their discoveries are considered within the ethics and responsibilities of releasing forms of automata into the world.

Discussion, and careful, thoughtful responses need formulation

I believe that our ethics are greatly strengthened if we ask some of the tougher questions at our principled allies in these technologies as softballs and get those great minds to demonstrate how common and natural law is enough to protect the public from duplicity in their less principled peers. Moreso, we should invite them to reflect on the ethics of their market interaction, if willing, to set examples of how the good guys do it without guns to their heads.

I would also invite my freedom minded friends to engage in honest rational discussion about what is principled action in the market where engineered lifeforms are introduced as products; and what are the ethical bright lines concerning organisms introduced to the genetic pool of life in general. The war for public opinon on this one is looming. I feel it is going to be critical to our movement’s success with a large segment of people that thoughtful and considered answers are well vetted, understood and ready for memespace.

I might start such a discussion with a strawman assertion such as:

“I contend that if genetic patterns are allowed to have the government privilege of patent, that to maintain the intellectual property, the owner of the privilege must mark all packaging with the patent, and license its use only with the condition that the patent be likewise displayed on the label to maintain the patent from the public domain.”

Then I might promptly abandon that thought as too weirdly close to condoning IP. Thanks all the strawman is burned. IP is too ooky for me to want to even tangentially condone it.

I think that the fraud angle has more merit. I assert this:

“A good piece of fish can be really expensive. If I buy salmon that turns out to be an Eel-Sea Urchin-Salmon homonculous, I should be able to sue the thieves that cheated me.”

Any takers?

The post GMO Foods and Principle appeared first on Alive Free Happy.

Libertarian Party Spends Equivalent to Annual Budget on Study Concerning Use of The Word "Asshole" on Facebook Group Page

*


In other news, the Libertarian Party of  Waffangeles County reported today that it has spent the equivalent of its annual income on a study of the use of the word "asshole" on its Facebook Group page, based on the Federal minimum wage and a count of words used by the study's investigators, assuming 2.35 seconds is required per word, on average, all factors considered.  The study found 100% of the uses of "asshole" by both posters and commentators within the Waffangeles County group to be appropriate.  A search of the forum turned up only one use of the offending word, which was not directed at any identifiable person or used to appeal to prurient interests.  The statistical breakdown is shown in Table 1:
Libertarian Party Spends Equivalent to Annual Budget on Study Concerning Use of The Word "Asshole" on Facebook Group Page
Table 1

The County's group page compared to favorably the Facebook page for the County's state parent organization, the Libertarian Party of Kalitaxya, which registered a 25% inappropriate use rate, 63% appropriate use rate, and 13% incidence of posts using an apparent close equivalent of "asshole" (labeled "Uncertain" in Table 2).
Table 2

The inappropriate uses in the LP Kalitaxya group consisted of references to identifiable persons participating in a discussion.  There were no uses found to appeal to prurient interest, and no suggestions that any person perform any act involving any real or imaginary "asshole" organ, human or otherwise.

Perhaps the most interesting finding of the study involved a post returned by Facebook's search engine that lacked any use of "asshole" or its known synonyms, in any known language.  This post consisted of a reference to this 2012 story contrasting Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson's position on legalization of marijuana and other drugs with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's proposal to make possession of two or more ounces of the "devil weed" punishable by death or life in prison. A faction of the investigators concluded that the article was most likely identified because Facebook's heuristic, artificially intelligent search engine was obviously evolving towards a sentient state, and had acquired enough reason and moral sense to recognize that, in the context of politics, a proposal to kill or imprison for life any person found with two or more ounces of an herb recognized for centuries as having medicinal, nutritional and industrial value represents unadulterated assholery.  This faction reasoned that, since the statement was identified as made by Newt Gingrich, the artificial intelligence was drawing an equivalence between Gingrich and "asshole" that met the study parameters for inappropriate speech.  A competing faction reasoned that, regardless of the reason for the search engine's flagging the post, any fool could understand the equivalence of "Gingrich" and "asshole" in the aforementioned context.  However, the faction reasoned that Newt Gingrich is a public figure who was not actually participating in any discussion taking place within the state party's Facebook group.  Therefore the competing faction concluded that the use met the study parameters for appropriate speech.  After long and tedious debate, during which both sides reminded each other of past grievances over petty slights and basked in the obvious rightness of their respective positions, no agreement could be reached.  The factions therefore "agreed to disagree" and settled on categorizing the incident as "uncertain."

The Waffangeles County Party Central Committee met to consider the study results and released the following statement:

"We note with some surprise the meager number of words that can be afforded at a rate of 2.35 seconds per word and Federal minimum wage until exceeding the equivalent of our annual budget, and the relative lack of imagination of our members and guests in their use, both appropriate and inappropriate, of the word "asshole" in public forums associated with the Libertarian Party statewide.  We are pleased, although not surprised, that our membership has attained absolute perfection in the appropriateness of "asshole" as expressed in our forum.  We hold up this up as a reflection and example of the moral perfection emanating from the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), of which our possession allows us to literally nap while we wait for our fellow Kalitaxya-ians to be drawn to the light.  The study should dispel once and for all the dispersions cast by our enemies, who label the Libertarians as a debate society dedicated to issues involving their own navels, by scientifically proving our capability to use at least one potentially offensive word in an entirely appropriate manner in our public outreach.   We are dismayed, but not surprised, that our state party has failed to attain the perfection we have achieved locally in policing of asshole incidents, and blame the leadership for this failure."

The Central Committee then announced a follow-on study concerning use of the phrase "horse's ass."
***
If you will now permit the author of the foregoing report to editorialize a little: as member of the Waffangeles Party Central Committee, I blush a little at the smug self-satisfaction and absorption sometimes expressed in our public statements, and the endless debates over trifles.  Nonetheless, I remain a loyal member.  It is preferable to the unsavory alternatives of, on the one hand, identifying with a party whose most prominent members have recently called for the death sentence for those caught with less than a salad's worth of a useful herb.  Or on the other hand, identifying with its principal opponent party, which despite possessing a majority in the legislature and control of the administration, studiously avoided any consideration of removing cannabis from Schedule 1 status, preferring instead to spend its political capital on further restricting Americans' relatively limited medical freedoms and cartelizing the health insurance industry.  Call me what you will, but I know when I'm being shat upon.  Bickering is just a natural if not inevitable result of renouncing the right to rule others by power of aggression, and forming a political party around a moral principle.
***
The foregoing post is entirely fictional, and any resemblance to any actual person or organization within is purely coincidental.












Libertarian Party Spends Equivalent to Annual Budget on Study Concerning Use of The Word "Asshole" on Facebook Group Page

*


In other news, the Libertarian Party of  Waffangeles County reported today that it has spent the equivalent of its annual income on a study of the use of the word "asshole" on its Facebook Group page, based on the Federal minimum wage and a count of words used by the study's investigators, assuming 2.35 seconds is required per word, on average, all factors considered.  The study found 100% of the uses of "asshole" by both posters and commentators within the Waffangeles County group to be appropriate.  A search of the forum turned up only one use of the offending word, which was not directed at any identifiable person or used to appeal to prurient interests.  The statistical breakdown is shown in Table 1:
Libertarian Party Spends Equivalent to Annual Budget on Study Concerning Use of The Word "Asshole" on Facebook Group Page
Table 1

The County's group page compared to favorably the Facebook page for the County's state parent organization, the Libertarian Party of Kalitaxya, which registered a 25% inappropriate use rate, 63% appropriate use rate, and 13% incidence of posts using an apparent close equivalent of "asshole" (labeled "Uncertain" in Table 2).
Libertarian Party Spends Equivalent to Annual Budget on Study Concerning Use of The Word "Asshole" on Facebook Group Page
Table 2

The inappropriate uses in the LP Kalitaxya group consisted of references to identifiable persons participating in a discussion.  There were no uses found to appeal to prurient interest, and no suggestions that any person perform any act involving any real or imaginary "asshole" organ, human or otherwise.

Perhaps the most interesting finding of the study involved a post returned by Facebook's search engine that lacked any use of "asshole" or its known synonyms, in any known language.  This post consisted of a reference to this 2012 story contrasting Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson's position on legalization of marijuana and other drugs with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's proposal to make possession of two or more ounces of the "devil weed" punishable by death or life in prison. A faction of the investigators concluded that the article was most likely identified because Facebook's heuristic, artificially intelligent search engine was obviously evolving towards a sentient state, and had acquired enough reason and moral sense to recognize that, in the context of politics, a proposal to kill or imprison for life any person found with two or more ounces of an herb recognized for centuries as having medicinal, nutritional and industrial value represents unadulterated assholery.  This faction reasoned that, since the statement was identified as made by Newt Gingrich, the artificial intelligence was drawing an equivalence between Gingrich and "asshole" that met the study parameters for inappropriate speech.  A competing faction reasoned that, regardless of the reason for the search engine's flagging the post, any fool could understand the equivalence of "Gingrich" and "asshole" in the aforementioned context.  However, the faction reasoned that Newt Gingrich is a public figure who was not actually participating in any discussion taking place within the state party's Facebook group.  Therefore the competing faction concluded that the use met the study parameters for appropriate speech.  After long and tedious debate, during which both sides reminded each other of past grievances over petty slights and basked in the obvious rightness of their respective positions, no agreement could be reached.  The factions therefore "agreed to disagree" and settled on categorizing the incident as "uncertain."

The Waffangeles County Party Central Committee met to consider the study results and released the following statement:

"We note with some surprise the meager number of words that can be afforded at a rate of 2.35 seconds per word and Federal minimum wage until exceeding the equivalent of our annual budget, and the relative lack of imagination of our members and guests in their use, both appropriate and inappropriate, of the word "asshole" in public forums associated with the Libertarian Party statewide.  We are pleased, although not surprised, that our membership has attained absolute perfection in the appropriateness of "asshole" as expressed in our forum.  We hold up this up as a reflection and example of the moral perfection emanating from the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), of which our possession allows us to literally nap while we wait for our fellow Kalitaxya-ians to be drawn to the light.  The study should dispel once and for all the dispersions cast by our enemies, who label the Libertarians as a debate society dedicated to issues involving their own navels, by scientifically proving our capability to use at least one potentially offensive word in an entirely appropriate manner in our public outreach.   We are dismayed, but not surprised, that our state party has failed to attain the perfection we have achieved locally in policing of asshole incidents, and blame the leadership for this failure."

The Central Committee then announced a follow-on study concerning use of the phrase "horse's ass."
***
If you will now permit the author of the foregoing report to editorialize a little: as member of the Waffangeles Party Central Committee, I blush a little at the smug self-satisfaction and absorption sometimes expressed in our public statements, and the endless debates over trifles.  Nonetheless, I remain a loyal member.  It is preferable to the unsavory alternatives of, on the one hand, identifying with a party whose most prominent members have recently called for the death sentence for those caught with less than a salad's worth of a useful herb.  Or on the other hand, identifying with its principal opponent party, which despite possessing a majority in the legislature and control of the administration, studiously avoided any consideration of removing cannabis from Schedule 1 status, preferring instead to spend its political capital on further restricting Americans' relatively limited medical freedoms and cartelizing the health insurance industry.  Call me what you will, but I know when I'm being shat upon.  Bickering is just a natural if not inevitable result of renouncing the right to rule others by power of aggression, and forming a political party around a moral principle.
***
The foregoing post is entirely fictional, and any resemblance to any actual person or organization within is purely coincidental.