[ExI] Call To Libertarians

[Samantha Atkins]

On 02/23/2011 02:08 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> 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.

Problem with this is that the vast majority (roughly 99%) of the 
government machinery is not subject to election at all.   And it is very 
resistant to major change by incumbents.

> "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.
>

Being agnostic on everything but these two ungrounded concepts cannot 
possibly lead to a good outcome.  No principles means no standards for 
what is desired and no means to judge future proposals systematically.

> 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.
>

Which laws?  Which laws are legitimate to start with?  How do you know?  
All now are equal under the law as a standing principle.  How would you 
make it more so?

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

WHAT?  Even if that can offer no value whatsoever in exchange?  How is 
this just and how does it lead to a better world?

> 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.

There is no accountability if there is no accounting for how wished for 
things can actually be done and what the implications of doing those 
things really are.


> 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.)

That will finish destroying the value of the dollar very very quickly 
and the country with it.  Progressive tax is regressive to actually 
growing an economy.  It has been seen over and over again.  Not to 
mention be utterly unjust and immoral.

> 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.
>

This a total non-starter.

- s