Jeffersonian Libertarian Reform Caucus scores stunning victory @ LP convention

[Caleb]

Incrementalist,

Unfortunately, I don?t have the time or energy to point out all the logical errors I encountered by my reading of Carl?s paper, so I will only highlight a few of the most glaring.

1)  In his very first paragraph, Milsted argues for a disingenuous course of action, advocating giving one reason for your action, while secretly holding another reason.  [[I find this morally repugnant]]

2)  In paragraph two, he focuses on the ?success? of the operation, defining success by how much infrastructure is left in place.  [[I define success through a moral lens.]]

3)  In paragraph three, he advocates for using violence to extort money from Americans for the purposes of ?freeing? other people.  [[I find this morally repugnant]]

4)  When he finally gets around to stating what wars he opposes, it seems that he only opposes wars that are mismanaged.  The question of legitimacy never seems to enter the picture. 

5)  In paragraph eight, he seems to indicate that George Bush is a ?cowboy?, standing in the way of the New World Order (unlike his Father, who was a tool of the New World Order.)  While I can certainly agree that Father George is a tool (in every sense of the word), Boy George has done more than any other President to advance the NWO?s agenda.

6) In paragraph nine, (under the subheading, ?But Didn?t We Initiate Force?), he draws a false dichotomy between morality for individuals and morality for governments.  Governments do not, in fact, exist ontologically.  They are a mere grouping for human social interaction.  To make the claim that a group of men can inherit rights unknown to any of the men who comprise the group is philosophically untenable.  At least in this paragraph Milsted acknowledges the moral illegitimacy of his entire argument:  ?Governments are morally questionable, albeit necessary organizations that have the potential to go really bad and hold an entire nation hostage.?  I personally think that the expression ?morally questionable? is a bit kind, but I can understand Milsted?s desire to soften it.

7) His subheading ?Time for world liberation?? presents 5 arguments for US unilateral action against dictators.  All five of the arguments are utilitarian (which is not surprising, since Milsted?s entire paper seems to focus on utilitarian, rather than moral, arguments.)

Like I said, I don?t have the time to go on with my critique.  It suffices to say, I was not impressed.

Btw, you don?t even want to know what I think of Neal Boortz.

Caleb

[Russell Kanning]

The morality of polititians never fails to disappoint.

[Russell Kanning]

Carl Milsted makes an excellent libertarian defense of overseas intervention here:
http://www.quiz2d.com/essays/lfa/Warmonger.pdf

NOTE: I do not agree with Milsted's argument, so I won't defend it in this thread!!!!

How can it be excellent .... but not right?

[Russell Kanning]

We have to live our lives now .... the way we want the world to work in the future.

Like ghandi said .... the means and end are connected.

or as Jesus said ..... love your neighbor as yourself.

[FrankChodorov]

We have to live our lives now .... the way we want the world to work in the future.

Like ghandi said .... the means and end are connected.

or as Jesus said ..... love your neighbor as yourself.

yes share the economic rent with your neighbors willingly and voluntarily to uphold their absolute right to their labor and self-ownership...

thus is what Leo Tolstoy preached!

[Lex]

thus is what Leo Tolstoy preached!

And Russell Kanning says that taxes are evil! So there! 

Who are you going to believe a Russian dead guy or a living New Hampshire liberty lover?

[Incrementalist]

Unfortunately, I don?t have the time or energy to point out all the logical errors I encountered by my reading of Carl?s paper, so I will only highlight a few of the most glaring.

As I said in my previous post, I don't agree with his position, so I won't attempt to defend it.  That said, I disagree with your assertion about utilitarian arguments and moral arguments.  His moral argument is that bringing freedom to others should be a libertarian ideal.  He couples this with his utilitarian arguments.  Once again, I disagree with his arguments, but it's important to discuss utilitarianism when you make a moral argument.  Nobody wants to hear about your morals unless you can show HOW to bring them about in an appropriate manner.

Like I said, I don?t have the time to go on with my critique.  It suffices to say, I was not impressed.

I wasn't either, but it's a belief held by many libertarians.

Btw, you don?t even want to know what I think of Neal Boortz.

You're right, I don't.  Half because I can ascertain your opinion from your statement above, and half because it's not helping the situation and the last thing a pro-liberty political activist such as myself needs to hear is more fragmentation in the ranks.

[Incrementalist]

Carl Milsted makes an excellent libertarian defense of overseas intervention here:
http://www.quiz2d.com/essays/lfa/Warmonger.pdf

NOTE: I do not agree with Milsted's argument, so I won't defend it in this thread!!!!

How can it be excellent .... but not right?

Quite easily.  I don't agree with socialism, but I consider some socialist protests to be truly excellent works of activism.  The ability to appreciate other factors surrounding something with which you do not agree is crucial.

[tracysaboe]

See, the problem with "Incrementalists" is that they shun the Anarchists and minarchists in their attempt to be all inclusive. Most of these so called "neo-libertarians"  spend more time attacking radial minarchists and anarchists for their beliefs and for not being practical then they do actually working to cut down the size of government.

I'd be extatic of all taxes were cut 10% right accress the board.

I'd be even more extactic if they were cut 50% or if just the incometaxwere abolished. (A very tenable thing. Government spending would only go back to the end of the clinton era by abolishing the income tax.)

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be even MORE extatic if all taxes were abolished al to-gether.

So that's what I fight for. I know it's not going to happen over night.  But lets face facts. If their weren't radicle minarchists and anarchists around pushing their ideas as well, the incramentalists job will be even more incremental.

Walter Williams once said that by being as radicle as he is (which in my mind -- isn't very) conservatives that weren't so principled wouldgot ellected and were at least more liberty friendly then others.

You need radicals. I don't see why the incrementalists and anarchists can't work together. But it seems to me incrementalists have their own really small tent. 

Tracy

[Caleb]

Nobody wants to hear about your morals unless you can show HOW to bring them about in an appropriate manner.

Well, it's pretty simple, really, Incrementalist.  I use the NIKE approach: I just do it!

I'm not pragmatic.  I don't strategize.  I just decide whether to do something or support something by whether I feel it is morally legitimate.  If everyone in the world did that, 90% of our problems would go away.  How many problems are caused because someone thinks a particular course of action is a "necessary evil"?  In my mind, there is no such thing as a necessary evil.  Something is either right, or it is not.  If it is evil, it is not necessary.  "All things that you want men to do to you, do likewise to them."  If the whole world would follow this simple teaching, the world would finally know peace.

Caleb

[Incrementalist]

See, the problem with "Incrementalists" is that they shun the Anarchists and minarchists in their attempt to be all inclusive. Most of these so called "neo-libertarians"  spend more time attacking radial minarchists and anarchists for their beliefs and for not being practical then they do actually working to cut down the size of government.

Incrementalists don't shun anarchists and/or minarchists.  I talk about a bigger tent, and that INCLUDES people on both the radical and the moderate end of the libertarian spectrum.  When I question radicalism on this board I question it as it is applied to activism and politics.  Both activism and politics are designed around effectiveness, and my questions and criticisms are designed to increase effectiveness in both theaters of action.

So that's what I fight for. I know it's not going to happen over night.  But lets face facts. If their weren't radicle minarchists and anarchists around pushing their ideas as well, the incramentalists job will be even more incremental.

Incrementalism is a misleading term.  I use it because it's the rhetoric in question, but it doesn't mean that I will always advocate incremental steps regardless of the goal.  Incrementalism, a political term made necessary by the paradigm created by party libertarians, means that I advocate steps toward liberty that stand a chance of being passed by the political body I lobby.  It's a matter of cost/benefit analysis.

You need radicals. I don't see why the incrementalists and anarchists can't work together. But it seems to me incrementalists have their own really small tent. 

I think you're missing the point, as I stated in the beginning of this message.  I support the work of Russell and Kat and their ilk.  I offer advice or criticism regarding the tactical, operational, and strategic deployment of their resources.  When we are talking activism, I don't speak about incrementalism.  I speak about the purpose and goal of protests or other actions, the methods to employ to maximize effectiveness, etc.  When we talk about politics, I defend the theater as one where success is the goal (hence, my support for incrementalism).

[Incrementalist]

Well, it's pretty simple, really, Incrementalist.  I use the NIKE approach: I just do it!

I'm not pragmatic.  I don't strategize.  I just decide whether to do something or support something by whether I feel it is morally legitimate.

This is fine for how you live your life.  It's how I live my life too.  The problems arise when you talk about political or sociological lobbying and action.  That involves strategy and pragmatism.  The concepts are essential to the success of any activism or political action.  If you want to just live your life, then "just do it", but if you want to bring about change in this world, it takes more than just living your morals.

If everyone in the world did that, 90% of our problems would go away.  How many problems are caused because someone thinks a particular course of action is a "necessary evil"?  In my mind, there is no such thing as a necessary evil.  Something is either right, or it is not.  If it is evil, it is not necessary.  "All things that you want men to do to you, do likewise to them."  If the whole world would follow this simple teaching, the world would finally know peace.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.  And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped.  Yes, if everyone in the world lived according to the golden rule we wouldn't have this problem.  But that's not the case.  And it will never spontaneously become the case.  That cruel fact is what we have to work with.  So where do we go from here?

[NC2NH]

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

[Caleb]

Incrementalist, I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying here.

I'm saying that the reason most people are able to justify their support for evil institutions is because they are able to create a false dichotomy between their "personal life" and the institutions which they support. 

I began to understand this when I started reading Tolstoy.  If you are a Christian, Tolstoy will change your life.  Even if you aren't a Christian, he will force you to see that government is, (and must always be), an institution which supports itself through violence or threats of violence.

So I think you are wrong when you say that a person can't accomplish anything just by living a moral life.  But we have to define the terms to show why.

If a person lives a moral life in his private life, but acquiesces to evil because it seems pragmatically necessary, you are very true:  that sort of morality cannot influence anyone because it does not cut to the core of the problem.

But if a person maintains consistency in his moral approach to life, it has great power, and I see that in everyday interactions.  Merely by holding governments to the same standards of morality, by unflinching steadfastness to moral principles at precisely the places where most people compromise them out of "necessity", by not permitting a person to compartmentalize their "private" and "political" morals, it is possible to erode those barriers and make people more conscious of the fact that the entire system of government is based on nothing more than violent coercion.  This is accomplished because you speak to something more powerful than the individual's intellect:  you speak to his conscience.

Political pragmatism destroys this necessary step at eroding the compartmentalism upon which the state depends for its very survival.

There's a reason Jesus said his disciples were the "salt of the earth," and it WASN'T a theological consideration.  It has everything to do with uncompromising morality condemning (in a sense) the world. 

I have seen this very effect when I speak with people.  They look down as they speak to you (not looking you in the eyes), and they lower their voice (so as to make it more difficult to hear their words).  These effects are the result of guilt.  The process of becoming aware is beginning, the conscience is stirring, and who knows where it will end?

Caleb

[tracysaboe]

See, the problem with "Incrementalists" is that they shun the Anarchists and minarchists in their attempt to be all inclusive. Most of these so called "neo-libertarians"  spend more time attacking radial minarchists and anarchists for their beliefs and for not being practical then they do actually working to cut down the size of government.

Incrementalists don't shun anarchists and/or minarchists.  I talk about a bigger tent, and that INCLUDES people on both the radical and the moderate end of the libertarian spectrum.  When I question radicalism on this board I question it as it is applied to activism and politics.  Both activism and politics are designed around effectiveness, and my questions and criticisms are designed to increase effectiveness in both theaters of action.

So that's what I fight for. I know it's not going to happen over night.  But lets face facts. If their weren't radicle minarchists and anarchists around pushing their ideas as well, the incramentalists job will be even more incremental.

Incrementalism is a misleading term.  I use it because it's the rhetoric in question, but it doesn't mean that I will always advocate incremental steps regardless of the goal.  Incrementalism, a political term made necessary by the paradigm created by party libertarians, means that I advocate steps toward liberty that stand a chance of being passed by the political body I lobby.  It's a matter of cost/benefit analysis.

You need radicals. I don't see why the incrementalists and anarchists can't work together. But it seems to me incrementalists have their own really small tent. 

I think you're missing the point, as I stated in the beginning of this message.  I support the work of Russell and Kat and their ilk.  I offer advice or criticism regarding the tactical, operational, and strategic deployment of their resources.  When we are talking activism, I don't speak about incrementalism.  I speak about the purpose and goal of protests or other actions, the methods to employ to maximize effectiveness, etc.  When we talk about politics, I defend the theater as one where success is the goal (hence, my support for incrementalism).

I'm not talking about you specifically Incrementalist.  I'm talking about my run-ins with typical increamentalists in general.

I know that your Big Tent actually includes the center pole that holds it up.  But if you go here http://www.qando.net/ and look at various other "Neo-Libertarian" blogs. You'll find that's not the case at all. You'll find that their suposed "big" tent -- is actually a Donut that excludes everything in the hole (The minarchists and anarchists and Constitutionalists and many-times even old-right conservatism.) 

Tracy