[ExI] Call To Libertarians

[Jeff Davis]

2011/2/22 Darren Greer <darren.greer3 at gmail.com>:

>> Quoting Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>:

>>> The essential element of libertarianism is the Non-Agression Principle.   No one has the right to initiate force against another.  This is equivalent to total freedom to do anything that does not harm, physically force, threaten physical force or defraud another.

> I like that principle Samantha. Very much. I am personally committed to it.  But I wonder how does one go about establishing system where the principle non-aggression is paramount, when natural aggression, both tribal and individual, seems to be a dominant feature of the human psyche nurtured by millions of years of evolutionary development?

Me:

Ah, yes, the question of the transition from where we are "here" to
the glorious Llibertarian utopia "there".  This is my problem with
libertarians -- particularly zealots-slash-purists.  They say our
current system is crappy.  (I agree).  They say life  would be perfect
in the Llibertarian utopia "over there".  But they .rarely seem
willing to propose a reality-based plan for getting from "here" to
"there"-- a plan for the transition.  And by reality-based I mean a
plan which acknowledges that any responsible transition must be
incremental.  They don't like the old way -- understandable, who
outside of the kleptocratic elite does? -- but they won't dirty
themselves with the sort of compromise with the current system that an
orderly transition implies. This annoys me.  There's real substance to
Llibertarian principles.  I'm looking for less bitching and moaning,
and more progress re implementation.

Which brings us back to Darren's question:  "...how do we go about
establishing a system where the principle non-aggression is
paramount,..."

Let's talk about the US of A in the year 2011.

How to begin the transition?

Oddly, it seems to require only that enough people behind the curtain
in the polling booth mark their ballot correctly. Which is to say, for
the candidates put forth by The Accountability Party.

"The Accountability Party? What's that?" you ask, puzzled, thinking
you've missed some newsworthy "announcement". You haven't.

The Accountability Party is my little fantasy, created at this most
opportune moment, when the Dems and Repubs are both out of favor.  To
be robustly resistant to destruction by fragmentation, The
Accountability Party is deliberately "preconfigured" to be
broad-based, having only two planks: Accountability and Jobs.

No other issue is relevant except as relates to these two concerns.
So, regarduing any other issue: the AP takes no position. No position
means NO POSITION. No position means being "agnostic" on EVERYTHING
else. Individual AP members have their own views of course, but as a
unified organization, the AP takes no position on: abortion, taxes,
gay marriage, gun rights, defense policy, campaign finance, racial
discrimination, immigration, terrorism, hate-speech, Israel, education
policy, environmentalism, global warming, etc.

The two issues which the AP devotes its exclusive focus are:
accountability: no one is above the law. Everyone, but in particular
persons in high position who have traditionally 'enjoyed' immunity
from prosecution, will now have their get out of jail free cards
voided.

And jobs: everyone who wants a paycheck gets a paycheck. EV-REE-ONE.

Now you might well ask -- certainly others will -- "How you gonna
implement the jobs program, and more to the point, how you gonna pay
for it?" To which I reply, "You must always remember that the AP
subordinates ALL OTHER ISSUES to paychecks/jobs and accountability, so
the details of the fiscal policy behind the "JOBS" commitment is for
the most part irrelevant. That said, the Treasury has a machine that
prints checks, so the policy is secured, "Move right along. Nothing to
see here." Whatever may be the details required to reconcile the jobs
program with fiscal reality, the program itself is in stone, and
non-negotiable. For the curious though, I would state the obvious:
print the money, borrow the money, or tax someone. In terms of
practical economics, it would be quite simple: The more robust the
private sector economy, the greater the proportion of jobs it
provides. The rest to be provided by govt, and financed,... however.
(Personally, I like a progressive income tax, or a flat tax based on
net worth, or a financial transaction tax, but I'll go along with
whatever the AP figures out AFTER THE ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN WON.)

A major innovation: the AP does not conduct its campaigns by
traditional methods. No TV, no radio, no interviews with mainstream
journalists.

TV, radio, and other conventional media are corporate. They are part
of the illegitimate "mainstream", of the illegitimate corporate
statist ruling elite. They are part of the political opposition.  They
are gatekeepers of the political process. If you pay them for TV and
radio ads, you are giving material support to your political
adversaries. The AP therefore, chooses to conduct its campaigns
DIRECTLY with the voters, over the internet, no gatekeeper, no
middleman -- no corporate mediation-for-profit of the political
process. A not-for-profit political process is crucial to the
elimination of corporate/govt corruption, and the restoration of a
healthy society. In this way, the AP terminates the age old linkage
between money and political power.

There's more, but this is a start.

Best, Jeff Davis

            "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                                                  Ray Charles