Talk:Dallas Accord

2008 comment

Should we merge this with anarcho-capitalism and minarchism? EVCM (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

the anarchist fraction

During the following years the number of anarchists in the party dropped by about half ....

From what ratio in 1974, to what ratio in what "following" year?

In ~1992 (if memory serves) Liberty magazine cited a poll that said anarchists were about 1/3 of both the LP and the libertarian movement at large; dunno if that helps any. —Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The source may not be great for factoids and is a sentence I would not have a problem with deleting. CarolMooreDC 02:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a member of the Libertarian National Committee and a leader in the Libertarian Party Radial Caucus which is mentioned in the article. I am a historical researcher on this topic who gives (unpaid) talks at conventions. I am the chair of a historical committee in the National Libertarian Party. I am a frequent commenter on the history of this topic.

Carynannharlos (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

The Dallas Accord comprised both implicit and explicit agreements made at the 1974 Libertarian National Convention to compromise between the larger minarchist and smaller anarcho-capitalist factions in order to avoid a Party fracture by amending the Platform and the Statement of Principles to refrain from explicitly stating whether it was desirable for the state to exist. The explicit agreement involved amending the Statement of Principles in order to expressly allow for anarchist thought within the Party and changing the role of any existing state from a positive duty to a negative one and officially adopting a position of agnosticism on the ultimate existence of the state. The implicit agreement is claimed to have included an agreement for the Platform to follow suit and that all debates as to whether or not a state must or must not exist would be tabled until such time as a minimal state might be achieved. At that time, the Platform underwent one change which added the word "existing" to the Trade and Economy plank as follows: "The only proper role of existing govemments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal frame- work in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by govemment to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society." Whether or not any portion of the implicit agreement was ever binding, or remains in effect, remains disputed, and Party members and candidates have certainly felt free to argue for their perspectives on the debate. The official Libertarian Party website follows the Statement of Principles in stating, "We believe that government’s only responsibility, if any, should be protecting people from force and fraud."

During the following years the number of anarchists in the party dropped by about half and more conservative-oriented and constitutionalist members joined. During the 2006 Libertarian National Convention delegates deleted a large portion of the very detailed Platform. They added the phrase "Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property." This development has been described as the "Portland Massacre". Some took this as meaning the Dallas Accord was dead. Delegates tried in 2008 to restore the Platform, without success. However, the only explicit agreement from the Dallas Accord, that of the amended Statement of Principles, remains in effect as required by the Party Bylaws.

The purpose of the Dallas Accord was to make the Libertarian Party of the United States a "big tent" that would welcome more ideologically diverse groups of people interested in reducing the size of government. Therefore, the 1974 platform focused on statements arguing for getting government out of various activities, and used phrases such as "where governments exist they must not violate the rights of any individual" It was agreed that the topic of anarchism would not even be on the table for discussion until a limited government were achieved.

Anarchists do continue to work in the party and run for office, and the activity of the anarchists in the Party is on the upswing with the formalization of the LPRadicals. Anarchist philosophies of no government still are supported by planks of the party Platform, one of which describes the "right to alter or abolish government" and another which states that "Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval." Further, a Preamble added to the Platform in 1984 paved the way for Platform planks to be transitory by explicitly stating with regards to the Platform planks that “These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands”, leaving the Statement of Principles to be determinative statement of Party goals.

The current Criminal Justice Plank states that "[t]he prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property” which is used as further argument that the Dallas Accord has been abrogated. Party anarchists assert that since the Platform may not contradict the Statement of Principles as amended in 1974, as well the Platform’s overtly stated transitory nature, such a statement does not entail the necessity of the state, merely the limitation of its role when it does exist. Others argue that the Party’s Statement of Principles gives support for "the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others," and "the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation" with the implication that a state would be required; however, the original language of the Statement of Principles from 1972 in which those items would be enforced by “laws” was struck by the amendments made in 1974 so opponents of this view would say this is not a valid conclusion.

Carynannharlos (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

reached out to other editor

I have put a note on the other recent editors talk page in order to see if consensus can be reached.

Notes on potential COIs- no one is being paid for any opinions, but this is a subject within a political party, and thus, as politics tend to do, there are disputes. The current editors are figures in intra-party discussions and disputes on the topic. I do not think that renders them with actual COIs. For myself, I am a member of the Libertarian National Committee but this is not a subject under consideration or vote. My interest is as a historical researcher and being a person who is impacted by this historical event. I have spent more time than any Party member in recent history on this topic and am considered by some to be a minor authority in the subject within the Party. I am a leader in a Party Caucus that has a position on this event, but the ecent editor is similarly situated. A balanced piece should be in place, and I am willing to work with any other editor to produce one. The current piece is disjointed and contains inaccurate facts. If there is a dispute on whether the facts are accurate, the dispute and alternative POV should be presented, which presently is not. The idea that part of the Dallas Accord was formalized does not, however, appear to be in actual dispute in recent public discussions on the topic - so I believe the majority of my suggested changes are substantially uncontroversial though other editors may wish to word differently. I welcome input.

Carynannharlos (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)