On the classical republican theory of government

In classical republican theory, government was to be a mixture of forms: the one, the few, and the many, each balancing the two others. In our Constitution, this mixture may be found, for example, in the offices of the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We, the people, fill each office in democratic elections, but the natures of these offices differ, being leadership-oriented, principle-oriented, and poll-oriented, respectively. Ideally the House of Representatives ought to reflect closely the wishes of the people between elections. Thomas Jefferson spoke of two requirements for just lawmaking: majority will and respect for the equal natural rights of the minority. I believe that Representatives should, as delegates, reflect the will of their constituents and that Senators should, as trustees, focus on whether or not a bill respects the natural rights of all. As a little-d democrat little-r republican, I believe ... that the American people ought to be able to stand in the way of any legislation whatsoever, especially through what should be the most democratic branch of our republic, the House of Representatives. I also believe that small-l libertarians ... ought to be elected to the Senate so as to prevent oppressive legislation, standing up for those great general interests—the Declaration and the Constitution.

Casey Bowman (1994)

This is an example of the noise we in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota made in 1994 in the debate over health care. In my last post, I mentioned how noisy we had been. I wanted to give an example.

Here's a reprint of the full article -

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Health

[W]e both ... love [the people] with parental affection. But you love them as infants whom you are afraid to trust without nurses; and I as adults whom I freely leave to self-government.

Thomas Jefferson (1816)

by Casey Bowman

On July 6, members of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota attended a town hall meeting on health care legislation, hosted by Wes Minter and broadcast live on WCCO radio (830 AM). Responding to questions from the audience and callers were four panelists: Congressman Rod Grams, Senator Paul Wellstone, Dr. John Goodman (co-author of Patient Power), and Ms. Lois Quam (Clinton task force member).

Minter began the show by citing a quote in that morning's Wall St. Journal, made by Senator Jay Rockefeller on April 18: "We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the American people." Indeed, some big-D Democrats have now become little-a anti-democrats. In a defense of his statement in a letter to the Wall St. Journal, July 21, Rockefeller went on: "My point has been that the half-truths and hysteria turned out by special-interest groups may have confused the public on some of the details of reform...." So Rockefeller was not blaming the people, only special interest groups. "... [R]eprehensible are those who sow such confusion and uncertainty," he wrote.

A full response I dared not broach live on the Wes Minter Show, but I shall now. In classical republican theory, government was to be a mixture of forms: the one, the few, and the many, each balancing the two others. In our Constitution, this mixture may be found, for example, in the offices of the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We, the people, fill each office in democratic elections, but the natures of these offices differ, being leadership-oriented, principle-oriented, and poll-oriented, respectively. Ideally the House of Representatives ought to reflect closely the wishes of the people between elections. Thomas Jefferson spoke of two requirements for just lawmaking: majority will and respect for the equal natural rights of the minority. I believe that Representatives should, as delegates, reflect the will of their constituents and that Senators should, as trustees, focus on whether or not a bill respects the natural rights of all. As a little-d democrat little-r republican, I believe, in contrast to Rockefeller, that the American people ought to be able to stand in the way of any legislation whatsoever, especially through what should be the most democratic branch of our republic, the House of Representatives. I also believe that small-l libertarians (hopefully some big-L ones, too) ought to be elected to the Senate so as to prevent oppressive legislation, standing up for those great general interests—the Declaration and the Constitution.

Other Libertarian Party members were vocal. Charles Test read aloud a quote from the Minnesota State Department of Health, which had been cited in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that morning: "The emphasis in medical savings accounts on individual autonomy and personal economic gain ... is largely incompatible with the policy goals of universal health coverage and managed care." Reflecting on this, Test asked, "Aren't individual autonomy and personal economic gain basic principles that America was built upon?"

Later Test quoted the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment affirms that the Constitution must respect the natural rights touched on by the Declaration of Independence that we, as individuals, retain.

Wes Minter followed up on Test's note of the Ninth Amendment by asking him how the founders might view the current policy debate. Test said they are all probably rolling in their graves. Minter asked which founders we Libertarians revere, Franklin, Jefferson? Test continued with a full list of founders, on up to Dolly Madison.

LPM member Evan Williams asked Dr. Goodman if it were true that 5% of Canadians are waiting for some medical procedure. Dr. Goodman responded by saying that 177,000 persons there are waiting for important surgery. Adding those waiting for non-life-saving surgeries, the total becomes one million, which all agreed was indeed about 5%.

Sen. Wellstone, at one point, claimed that a single-payer system would give people more choice rather than less choice. In reaction to one such remark, there was tumult in the audience. I remember, as one of the restless natives, crying out something about how part of the health care system closed down in Canada for a period. Wes Minter clearly enjoyed the enthusiasm exhibited by his audience. Wellstone also demanded that insurance companies never be allowed to deny anyone coverage, a remark in sync with Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest surreal lament on a morning show comparing insurance companies to car dealers who charge different prices for different cars and so restrict our choices.

In a parting shot at Rockefeller's remarks on special interests, I shall quote from an article written by the secretary and treasurer of the Arizona chapter of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Mr. Richard Fisher ("Behind the Task-Force Veil", Liberty, July 1994):

In February 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed suit under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ... to force the Clinton administration to reveal the task force's composition. In November, the admin[i]stration was ordered to comply. The documents thus made public suggest a very different picture of the task force than the White House has presented....

Among the special interests represented were United Health Care Corporation, Chicago Health Maintenance Organization, Aetna, Travelers, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Wausau Insurance Company, National Capital Preferred Providers Organization, Harvard Community Health Plan, Kaiser Permanente, U.S. Health Care, EDS Health Care, PCS Health Systems, First Health, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Alliant Health Systems....

One corporation represented on the task force was MCI Communications—the likely primary vendor for the 250 million cards Clinton's plan would require. Potential contractors for other parts of the Clinton plan were also amply represented, including the Rand Corporation, Alpha Center, Telesis, Cooper & Lybrand, Price Waterhouse, and the Principal Financial Group....

It is plain that ... Lois Qualm, vice president of United Health Care Organization, [and others] have conflicts of interest in helping formulate federal health-care policy. Yet these officials and executives of major managed-care concerns played significant task-force roles without obtaining waivers for conflicts of interest, despite the requirements of the law. ...

Rather than admit to the prominent participation of special interests in the formulating its health-care proposals, the White House chose the path of secrecy and closed doors. In doing so, it trampled on the law.

This article was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian (State Fair edition) August 1994. The author and the original publication are due attribution.

Message to a Bob Barr Meetup to be

Now that Bob Barr has won the nomination of the Libertarian Party, let's get together and brainstorm on what we can do. Bob Barr is in this to win. This is not just about sending a signal as it was in the past. After leaving the Democratic Party in 1988, I was active in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota in 1994 and 1995. We got noisy and urged the Republicans then to adopt the message of liberty. The libertarian message swept them into office. We gave them a chance. They failed. And the Democratic Party surely hasn't learned from their defeat then. Same old, same old. It's all the same old. And they speak of change.... Now it's our turn. 2008 is a moment of decision for America. Will we move forward again with our dream of freedom? Will we live up to our Declaration of Independence or will we sink back into the quagmire of history? Will we appreciate how lucky we are to have such a Constitution and due process? And will we work it? Please come help.



Version 1.1

Bob Barr - a check and a balance

Bob Barr states the obvious

Clearly something is way out of whack in our system of checks and balances. [2:19-2:24]

in an 18-minute interview at Townhall.

Bob Barr polling at 6%

Bob Barr - changing the game

Barr speaks here of his campaign.

The message that we bring of freeing up our economy, so that businesses and individuals can keep more of their money, reducing government regulation, reducing government interference in people's lives is really going to resonate with the American public.

Note: I do have an important difference with Barr regarding federalism. I'd separate church and state completely at both the federal and state levels, treating the gay-marriage issue legally as one would a contract, whereas Barr seems to want to eliminate only the federal role. There is the Ninth Amendment.

Bob Barr nominated - the American Revolution continues

The Libertarian Party has nominated Bob Barr as their candidate for President of the United States of America. The American Revolution continues. Long live the Declaration, the Constitution, and due process. This was a defining moment.

Libertarian Party Debate changed my mind - Barr/Gravel 2008

Barr-Gravel is the way forward, for American voters to rally around in sufficient numbers to protect our liberties and ensure that our office-holders feel accountable. At the beginning of the debate, I was thinking Barr-Root. We have to win in 2008. We are in crisis, as Barr says. How do we move America forward? ...as we must for our natural liberties, our civil liberties, due process. Where will we be otherwise in 2012?

Twitter witnessed my change of heart -

Mike Gravel is doing well so far, though I don't support him, though I did momentarily reconsider when he mentioned Solon.

I'm starting to think Barr-Gravel, instead of Barr-Root.

Root wants to privatize war on terror. Exactly the wrong answer. He's out. This is the exact problem with anarchist thought.

Barr makes key point on health care. 50% of his doctor's bill due to law not health.

laughing at Kubby's answer [on trousers and skirts]. Glad to hear Barr take a stand against his own "Defense of Marriage Act". Gravel- love, love, love.

"We are on the cusp of a libertarian era." - Bob Barr

Update (May 24, 2008): One more twitter to close the loop -

Libertarian Party debate changed my mind - Barr/Gravel 2008

Update (May 26, 2008, 1:00 am Central): Well, it's Barr/Root 2008. Barr wished to team up with Root, and Gravel wouldn't run for VP. I'm going to have to trust Barr on this one.

Listening in on Bob Barr live

What an amazing age we live in! I'm listening in on Bob Barr discussing issues at his booth at the LP National Convention. He's discussed habeas corpus, health care, the fall of the "status quo" parties, the elimination or near-elimination of certain federal departments (Education, Energy, Commerce, Agriculture), health care, the Fed & home mortgages, his experience growing up at times overseas (3 years in Baghdad, 1 year in Tehran, Peru, Panama,...). Barr's "been on the dark side", he says. He's now come to the light of freedom. He delights in the level of political discussion he's had at the Libertarian Party convention, more than he's experienced in the past 30 years at events hosted by other parties. He expresses gratitude for being there. At Republican Party meetings there's no discussion of substantial issues. All they're interested in is getting their candidates elected, keeping them in office, and raising money. The Democratic Party is falling into the same trap, the "trap of incumbency."

Barr expresses his belief that in the heart of every American beats the heart of a libertarian. He or she just isn't conscious of it. We have six months.

Free video streaming by Ustream

Update (May 24, 2008, 12:33 pm): Most interesting twitter from daveweigel - http://twitter.com/daveweigel/statuses/819070920

Even odds that the LP will reject Barr for an anarchist...

In a year full of defining moments (Ron Paul in January, America in November), tomorrow is the defining moment of the Libertarian Party.

Update (May 24, 2008, 1:55 pm): How Americans will judge the LP will depend not only on whether they choose Bob Barr as their nominee, but also on whom they nominate as VP. I don't see any rational alternative to a Barr-Root ticket. A Barr-Gravel ticket would be nice symbolically if only Gravel were more respectful of people's natural right to pursue health care and insurance peacefully, in peaceful society, deciding individually, and not through government use of force, health care free of government-enabled big-cat domination.

Update (May 24, 2008, 2:15 pm Central): A report from the American Spectator on the debate token deadline 15 minutes ago -

The final official number of Libertarian Party delegates registered as of this morning's cutoff time is 562. That means that presidential candidates hoping to participate in tonight's televised debate will need 57 tokens to qualify. (Each registered delegate is issued one token to give to the candidate of his, her, or its choice.) The cutoff time is 1 pm Mountain Time (3 pm Eastern) about ten minutes from now.

...

UPDATE: The Barr campaign just turned in 93 tokens to qualify their candidate for the presidential candidate. However, that sent up a cheer from supporters of Wayne Allyn Root, who turned in 94 tokens. This represents a strong showing by the pragmatist wing of the LP, since Root is also a telegenic ex-Republican. Meanwhile, candidate Christine Smith failed to meet the 10 percent threshold necessary to qualify for the C-SPAN debate.

UPDATE II: I've just been informed by a senior source with the Barr campaign that their token total was actually higher, but Barr shared some of his tokens with Mike Gravel in order to help the ex-Democrat qualify for the debate. "We wanted him in the debate...so we actually had by far the most tokens of any candidate," the source said.

I'm glad Bob Barr did that, if the report is true. It's important that Mike Gravel engage in the debate. Though, is it permitted by the rules? I suppose that it is since by their very nature tokens can move from hand to hand. Does anyone know the answer to this question?

The process of one candidate transferring his tokens to another reminds me of the process after the general primary in For a Truly General Form of Election.

Jesse Ventura's critique of Minnesota Libertarians

According to Damon Root of Reason Magazine in his article yesterday The Body is a Terrible Thing to Waste: Understanding Jesse Ventura's long, sad decline,

Plus, [Jesse Ventura]'s no longer so quick to identify as a libertarian, sneering nowadays that Minnesota's Libertarians "tend to want anarchy."

I have heard this theme repeatedly from former governor Ventura with his recent reappearance on the political scene.



I don't necessarily disagree with him. Thirteen years after I left the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, where I had been an active member in 1994 and early 1995, chairing the Legislative Committee, contributing to the libertarian groundswell of that day, I returned two evenings ago to see what I could do if Bob Barr were to win the nomination. Perhaps the Minneapolis Bob Barr Meetup could help gather signatures for Barr to appear on the state ballot. The executive meeting was open to the public and friendly.

This week there's tumult in the Libertarian Party at the National Convention in Denver. As I have written many times, "liberty and anarchy are opposed." Now the self-described "anarcho-capitalists" would describe themselves as "purists". They are mistaken. There is nothing pure about advocating vigilante justice, when one person accuses another of violating his or her rights. How can the market ensure "due process"?

On the other hand, the Libertarian Party risks losing the real message of liberty if candidates go forth with policies which brazenly violate people's rights, such as government control over everyone's pursuit of health care.

Both are unacceptable.

I believe the key point is taxation. There are those who insanely believe in no taxation, no government, now.

I share the point of view of founding father James Wilson, who wrote

by some politicians, society has been considered as only the scaffolding of government; very improperly, in my judgment. In the just order of things, government is the scaffolding of society; and if society could be built and kept entire without government, the scaffolding might be thrown down, without the least inconvenience or cause of regret.

and that of William Ellery Channing

Legislation has its limits. It is a power to be wielded against a few evils only. It acts by physical force, and all the higher improvements of human beings come from truth and love. Government does little more than place society in a condition which favors the action of higher powers than its own.

Wary of physical power, Channing looked forward to when moral power, "mightiest when most gentle," would "supersede the coarse workings of government" as "guardian of all right."

Until then we'll need a constitution. Indeed even afterwards we'll need one in case we slip back.

With the anarchists, I have noticed a proclivity for blustering language as well. This is unacceptable. Such language is unacceptable for a serious political campaign where civil behavior is a must.

On the other hand, we must insist on the presumption of liberty, on a respect for our rights. For example, I believe Mike Gravel has a ways to go. I do like his videos, and I hope he continues to engage and debate.

After reading Bob Barr's book The Meaning of Is (2004), I believe he's the candidate most capable of standing up for our civil liberties and due process. His election would be the next best thing to an impeachment, to send an important message to government office-holders that they are not above the law. Barr's track record as described in his book speaks volumes.

Last night I wrote a response to Jesse Ventura's characterization of Minnesota Libertarians as a comment on the Reason Magazine website,

I was an active member of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota in the heady days of 1994 when the Republican Party listened to our message, which was a goal, given our small numbers. It was around that time when I first heard Jesse Ventura announce he was a libertarian on the radio. His colleagues Jason Lewis and Peter Thiele from KSTP came to our LP convention along with the Republican Party House Minority Leader Steve Swiggum, who had a T-shirt saying "Vote Republican" on the front and "or Libertarian" on the back, which he had worn at the Republican convention earlier that day (and which had gotten wet in Barbara Carlson's famous hot tub in which she interviewed politicians). We made our presence known by the revolutionary acts of simply asking pointed questions at town hall meetings on health care, for example, courageously confronting politicians by breaking taboos, speaking repeatedly about the Constitution and the Declaration. We also fostered friendly relationships with those politicians who listened to our message, as did Rep. Swiggum after we had presented him with a petition for term limits at his office. Curious he asked us to stay and talked with us for 45 minutes or so. I remember mentioning how the idea of term limits went back to James Harrington and his influential book "Oceana" in the 1600s. Later he and two other house members met with us and invited us to run as Republicans, an invitation we politely declined.

Later in 1994 Jason Lewis visited with us at Gluek's Restaurant while we waited for the election results on Nov 8, when libertarian messages were predominant in political discussions and swept the Republicans into power. Interestingly Reform Party candidate Dean Barkley and his team joined us, too, there at Gluek's where he then saw the returns come in that qualified his party for major party status, which set the stage for Ventura's run 4 years later. The point I'm trying to make is that it was quite collegial across party boundaries.

Another point is that I have always been a strong advocate for the Constitution. Indeed I have written many times, "Liberty and anarchy are opposed." Where is there a market for due process? To my mind anarchy would lead to feudalism, which is more in line with a desire for old-world conservatism. Anyway I see myself as quite a principled advocate for liberty, for example in my advocacy for Hayek's denationalisation of money.

The other day at Jesse Ventura's book-signing at the Mall of America I handed him a copy of an article I had written in 1994 suggesting a form of election that would get us past the increasingly rigid two-party rule we suffer, by eliminating the problem of spoilers, allowing candidates to act as electors throwing their votes towards leading candidates after a general primary, leaving only two candidates in a mandatory run-off. I thought he'd be interested in this based on what he's said recently about the two parties and their hold on us. We chatted a bit, after he immediately repeated his view that libertarians are anarchists when he realized that my article had been published in The Minnesota Libertarian (State Fair issue, 1994).

I believe the Dallas Accord was silly, and I constantly am dealing with the confusion it wrought, along with the pledge, which should clearly allow for constitutionally limited taxation. I support Bob Barr and hope anarchists have nothing more to do with libertarian political activity. In the academic world, it's good to explore all ideas, but practically speaking when you're at a Ron Paul meetup and someone says that they can't wait for a private war, it can be a bit off-putting.

Here is where Jesse Ventura critiques the "two-party dictatorship." Here is my modest proposal on how to get past the two-party monopoly and save the republic.

• For a Truly General Form of Election

Version 1.1.1 (May 23)

Debates at John Adams Society

The chairman of the John Adams Society, who is also the state coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign here in Minnesota, where I met her, invited me to join in a debate this evening on immigration. I've debated twice at the John Adams Society before.

While Jesse Ventura served as governor of Minnesota, he pushed for a unicameral state legislature. I opposed this strongly, so strongly I had to say something, and the John Adams Society provided an opportunity on Sep. 15, 1999, for me to say what I had to say. In my argument, I reminded the audience of the theory of "the one, the few, and the many", which goes back to James Harrington in the 1600s and to Aristotle's Politics, and which was much discussed by the founders and in the debates at the time of the American Revolution and Constitutional Convention. John Adams himself brought such issues to the fore, reminding people of the world history that lay behind our constitutional arts, in his important work, Defence of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America. I understand from one of the other attendees, whom I saw again last month, that this debate was written up at the time in the local newspaper.

I returned for another debate at JAS last month, this time on the Fed. I argued in favor of Hayek's Denationalisation of Money. I did not reveal much of the argument, only one ancillary point with regard to how much less brittle a decentralized system would be, in a way the conservatives there might understand and appreciate given their intellectual context, mentioning names such as Friedman, Hayek, and James Buchanan, with whom they seemed to be familiar. To help open minds, I pointed out that Milton Friedman wrote a paper with Anna Schwartz in 1986 "Has Government any Role in Money?", which included a paragraph calling for an intellectual exploration of these ideas.

This month's debate is on immigration, an issue I tend to be relaxed about. The only strong feeling I have is that I do not want to see a fence built. I like what Jesse Ventura has to say on the subject. I also worry about the effect the new crowd of border police will have on North Shore locales such as Grand Marais, a town I considered moving to at one point. I imagine I'll be in the minority at the John Adams Society.

Ron Paul's attack against the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to babies born here repulsed me, as did the tone of one of his political advertisements against immigrants from Mexico. May no baby born here be left in the cold, outside of all countries, bereft of citizenship. Why couldn't our federal government negotiate with the Mexican government to make sure that the children of Mexican citizens who are here illegally and returned to Mexico obtain Mexican citizenship. If a baby is refused by the Mexican government, we should not refuse him or her here.

On the process of immigration, in principle I'd like a world where borders matter little, where common law has triumphed, guaranteeing natural and procedural rights for all. When Mexico and the US are both free, with power limited constitutionally by presumably mixed, federal, decentralized forms of government, Americans will find jobs in Mexico, and Mexicans here. The flow of labor will go in both directions. It will take some time though before the Mexican government is liberalized, in the classical sense. We Americans have a ways to go ourselves, of course.

Why not let states decide policy on who qualifies as a legal resident of the state? Why not have the Federal government limit itself to naturalization? Such a delegation of roles will afford more flexibility and less corruption in the inevitable flow of people from Mexico to the labor markets here.

Also it is imperative that our governments ensure that conditions of free labor exist for immigrants. After the civil war, the federal government stepped in to ensure that debt peonage in New Mexico would no longer be tolerated by the state. Recently I read the book Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy by John Bowe. Bowe tells three horror stories, where conditions of unfree labor have threatened the liberties of residents in modern-day America.

Version 1.0.1