[ExI] Call To Libertarians

[Jeff Davis]

Samantha, how sweet.  We haven't chatted in a while.  And now i see
that you're a studied libertarian (L?).  I suppose if I'd been paying
closer attention, I'd have known that.

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 02:08 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> 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.

Bureaucratic inertia.  Subject to legislative direction, no?  But also
a giant interest group/voting block in its own right.  Don'[t you just
hate democracy sometimes?  Paraphrasing something  de Toqueville may
have said, 'the American republic (democracy?) will last until the
govt discovers that it can bribe its citizens with their own money.'

[Googled it:  "The American Republic will endure until the day
Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's
money."]


>> 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.

                                        <snip>

> Being agnostic on everything but these two ungrounded concepts cannot
> possibly lead to a good outcome.  No principles means

Not committing the party a priori to a menu of positions hardly means
having no principles.

Why take a position that can only splinter the party and weaken it.
With the result being lost power, and interment in the ash heap of
history.  The party can poll its members later during the legislative
session, work out niggling details, and get on with exercising power
on issues that matter.

>
>> 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?

Honestly?  I would start with war crimes.

By "accountability" I essentially mean subject the ruling class  in
general and the power elite in particular to a strong dose of "ethic
cleansing", so the entire society could start over with a clean slate.
 Start over, but with the former upper reaches of society on notice
that the law now applies to them.  No, really.

> Which laws are legitimate to start with?

Sort that out later.

> How do you know?

Apply libertarian principles? Why not?   We'll certainly have to sort
that out.  Let's talk it over.

> All now are equal under the law as a standing principle.

A standing principle for the semi-washed masses, perhaps.  We both
know that US Presidents and legislators have never been prosecuted for
war crimes.

>  How would you make it more so?

Easy.  Prosecute the formerly unprosecuted.  All of them.

This doesn't imply draconian penalties.  It isn't about revenge.  It's
about starting over with a clean slate and a "rule of law" that does
its job.

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

Now, now, don't get upset.  People vote their pocketbooks.  Economics
is all.  Establish a principle that everyone is ***ENTITLED*** to
their piece of the economic pie, and they should vote for you in large
enough numbers to guarantee that you get the power to implement
necessary reforms.

It's the Lombardi principle: winning is everything.

> Even if that can offer no value whatsoever in exchange?

Yes, if needs be.   (But your question presumes no value.  I do not
propose a "no value" exchange.)

> How is this just

It reconfigures the economic system, eliminating the "war of all
against all".  High level political and economic crime will be
deterred.  There will be a societal shift away from parasitism and
toward greater productivity.   Economic activity will then
equilibrate, and life will go on.  But better.

Rinse and repeat.

> and how does it lead to a better world?

See above.  And by the way, if at first you don't succeed, tweak , and
tweak again. (Till you get it right, or stop breathing.  Is there
another choice?)

>> the Treasury has a machine that
>> prints checks, so the policy is secured, "Move right along. Nothing to
>> see here."

> That will finish destroying the value of the dollar very very quickly and the country with it.

No it won't.

> Progressive tax is regressive to actually growing an
> economy.

No it isn't.

>  It has been seen over and over again.

No it hasn't.

>Not to mention be utterly  unjust and immoral.

Nothing could be more moral and just than to confirm, and apply, the
principle that every person is ENTITLED to a living wage from the
economic pie.

By the way, I base my challenge to your assertions about the economic
consequences of taxation, on the claim that it's just ruling class
propaganda.  No doubt you will counter with some conservative or
"Austrian" economist  as authority.  It's the same old story from the
dim recesses of time.  The intellectual class provides "scholarly"
justifications for the predation of the wealthy.

And one other thing: we're on the same side , seek the same end.  Hard
to believe, but true.  Libertarian principles-wise.


>> There's more, but this is a start.
>>
>
> This a total non-starter.

Glad to have you on board.

Best, Jeff Davis

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at
you, then they fight you, then you win."

                     Mahatma Gandhi