Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest *Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/ --------------------Resolution Text-------------------- Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases Unity Statement We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases. While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts: 1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran. 2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base. 3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation. 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people. 5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples. 6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba. U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose. We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal. ---------------End of Resolution Text--------------- -Alicia
Yes On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
Yes ~David Pratt Demarest On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I vote NO. I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly. I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this. I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away... If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft". Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
Motion: The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection. As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms. On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists. Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion. Thoughts? ~David Pratt 2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less ~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Vice-Chair LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator David.Demarest@LP.org <mailto:David.Demarest@LP.org> Secretary@LPNE.org <mailto:Secretary@LPNE.org> DPDemarest@centurylink.net <mailto:DPDemarest@centurylink.net> DPrattDemarest@gmail.com <mailto:DPrattDemarest@gmail.com> Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement I vote NO. I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly. I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this. I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away... If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft". Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com <mailto:dprattdemarest@gmail.com> > wrote: Yes ~David Pratt Demarest On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com> > wrote: Yes On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com <mailto:agmattson@gmail.com> > wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest Motion: The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/ --------------------Resolution Text-------------------- Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases Unity Statement We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases. While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts: 1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran. 2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base. 3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation. 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people. 5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples. 6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba. U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose. We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal. ---------------End of Resolution Text--------------- -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I change my vote to no. Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here. ==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people. Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement. Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".=== -Caryn Ann On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
I agree that replacing “cities and States” with “private individuals” would be an appropriate rewording. Government revenue not stolen in the form of taxes to fund offensive military activities can be used privately by empowered individuals for charity and other private entrepreneur and volunteer social services. I change my vote to “Pass” until the wording is cleaned up with a clearer definition of the coalition commitment action limitations and removal the reference to “cities and States” that, despite being a better alternative to military spending, clearly has welfare state implications. Thoughts? ~David Pratt 2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less ~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Vice-Chair LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator David.Demarest@LP.org <mailto:David.Demarest@LP.org> Secretary@LPNE.org <mailto:Secretary@LPNE.org> DPDemarest@centurylink.net <mailto:DPDemarest@centurylink.net> DPrattDemarest@gmail.com <mailto:DPrattDemarest@gmail.com> Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 8:08 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement I change my vote to no. Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here. ==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people. Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement. Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".=== -Caryn Ann On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net <mailto:dpdemarest@centurylink.net> > wrote: I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection. As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms. On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists. Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion. Thoughts? ~David Pratt 2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less ~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Vice-Chair LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator David.Demarest@LP.org <mailto:David.Demarest@LP.org> Secretary@LPNE.org <mailto:Secretary@LPNE.org> DPDemarest@centurylink.net <mailto:DPDemarest@centurylink.net> DPrattDemarest@gmail.com <mailto:DPrattDemarest@gmail.com> Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> ] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement I vote NO. I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly. I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this. I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away... If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft". Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com <mailto:dprattdemarest@gmail.com> > wrote: Yes ~David Pratt Demarest On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com> > wrote: Yes On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com <mailto:agmattson@gmail.com> > wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest Motion: The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/ --------------------Resolution Text-------------------- Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases Unity Statement We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases. While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts: 1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran. 2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base. 3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation. 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people. 5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples. 6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba. U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose. We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal. ---------------End of Resolution Text--------------- -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
David, This is not our resolution. The language isn't going to get cleaned up. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 8:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I agree that replacing “cities and States” with “private individuals” would be an appropriate rewording. Government revenue not stolen in the form of taxes to fund offensive military activities can be used privately by empowered individuals for charity and other private entrepreneur and volunteer social services.
I change my vote to “Pass” until the wording is cleaned up with a clearer definition of the coalition commitment action limitations and removal the reference to “cities and States” that, despite being a better alternative to military spending, clearly has welfare state implications.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention
Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less
~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Vice-Chair LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator David.Demarest@LP.org Secretary@LPNE.org DPDemarest@centurylink.net DPrattDemarest@gmail.com Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 8:08 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention
Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less
~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Vice-Chair LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator David.Demarest@LP.org Secretary@LPNE.org DPDemarest@centurylink.net DPrattDemarest@gmail.com Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
Motion: The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
<Untitled attachment 00278.txt> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I vote No. Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee Member at Large 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 Indianapolis IN 46260 317-850-0726 Phone 317-582-1773 Fax On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
David,
This is not our resolution. The language isn't going to get cleaned up.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 8:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I agree that replacing “cities and States” with “private individuals” would be an appropriate rewording. Government revenue not stolen in the form of taxes to fund offensive military activities can be used privately by empowered individuals for charity and other private entrepreneur and volunteer social services.
I change my vote to “Pass” until the wording is cleaned up with a clearer definition of the coalition commitment action limitations and removal the reference to “cities and States” that, despite being a better alternative to military spending, clearly has welfare state implications.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 8:08 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
<Untitled attachment 00278.txt>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I agree with Alicia. My vote would be no. On Aug 28, 2017 8:46 AM, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:
I vote No.
Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee Member at Large 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 Indianapolis IN 46260 317-850-0726 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> Fax
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
David,
This is not our resolution. The language isn't going to get cleaned up.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 8:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I agree that replacing “cities and States” with “private individuals” would be an appropriate rewording. Government revenue not stolen in the form of taxes to fund offensive military activities can be used privately by empowered individuals for charity and other private entrepreneur and volunteer social services.
I change my vote to “Pass” until the wording is cleaned up with a clearer definition of the coalition commitment action limitations and removal the reference to “cities and States” that, despite being a better alternative to military spending, clearly has welfare state implications.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 8:08 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
<Untitled attachment 00278.txt>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Perhaps not, but I don't think it would hurt to make our concerns known to the originators. If they are wiling to reword it, great. If not, it could still influence how they word future efforts. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Aug 28, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
David,
This is not our resolution. The language isn't going to get cleaned up.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 8:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I agree that replacing “cities and States” with “private individuals” would be an appropriate rewording. Government revenue not stolen in the form of taxes to fund offensive military activities can be used privately by empowered individuals for charity and other private entrepreneur and volunteer social services.
I change my vote to “Pass” until the wording is cleaned up with a clearer definition of the coalition commitment action limitations and removal the reference to “cities and States” that, despite being a better alternative to military spending, clearly has welfare state implications.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention
Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less
~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Vice-Chair LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator David.Demarest@LP.org Secretary@LPNE.org DPDemarest@centurylink.net DPrattDemarest@gmail.com Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 8:08 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention
Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less
~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Vice-Chair LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator David.Demarest@LP.org Secretary@LPNE.org DPDemarest@centurylink.net DPrattDemarest@gmail.com Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
Motion: The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
<Untitled attachment 00278.txt> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I also do not agree with Trent and note that is not historically our position. This is force-funded money. We don't get to support a wishlist of "might be helpful" that is not obvious defense. Our principles are quite clear. If there is a state it must not violate rights. The only question that has been left purposefully muddy there is if a monopolized national defense violates rights- a question not relevant for the foreseeable future. Defensive use of force is the only justified use. The principle of the non-initiation of force should guide the relations between nations. If another country explicitly and non-coerced invites our presence, they can pay for it. If we don't stick fast to principles in even hypothetical situations we will cave at the first sign of expediency. -Caryn Ann On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Perhaps not, but I don't think it would hurt to make our concerns known to the originators. If they are wiling to reword it, great. If not, it could still influence how they word future efforts.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF
On Aug 28, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
David,
This is not our resolution. The language isn't going to get cleaned up.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 8:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I agree that replacing “cities and States” with “private individuals” would be an appropriate rewording. Government revenue not stolen in the form of taxes to fund offensive military activities can be used privately by empowered individuals for charity and other private entrepreneur and volunteer social services.
I change my vote to “Pass” until the wording is cleaned up with a clearer definition of the coalition commitment action limitations and removal the reference to “cities and States” that, despite being a better alternative to military spending, clearly has welfare state implications.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 8:08 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
<Untitled attachment 00278.txt>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
I vote NO. Whitney Bilyeu On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
I also do not agree with Trent and note that is not historically our position.
This is force-funded money. We don't get to support a wishlist of "might be helpful" that is not obvious defense.
Our principles are quite clear. If there is a state it must not violate rights. The only question that has been left purposefully muddy there is if a monopolized national defense violates rights- a question not relevant for the foreseeable future. Defensive use of force is the only justified use.
The principle of the non-initiation of force should guide the relations between nations. If another country explicitly and non-coerced invites our presence, they can pay for it.
If we don't stick fast to principles in even hypothetical situations we will cave at the first sign of expediency.
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Perhaps not, but I don't think it would hurt to make our concerns known to the originators. If they are wiling to reword it, great. If not, it could still influence how they word future efforts.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF
On Aug 28, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
David,
This is not our resolution. The language isn't going to get cleaned up.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 8:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I agree that replacing “cities and States” with “private individuals” would be an appropriate rewording. Government revenue not stolen in the form of taxes to fund offensive military activities can be used privately by empowered individuals for charity and other private entrepreneur and volunteer social services.
I change my vote to “Pass” until the wording is cleaned up with a clearer definition of the coalition commitment action limitations and removal the reference to “cities and States” that, despite being a better alternative to military spending, clearly has welfare state implications.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 8:08 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
<Untitled attachment 00278.txt>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I vote no. I was also concerned about this paragraph asserting to use savings to provide government services instead of reducing the debt or taxes. Tim Hagan From: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com>To: "lnc-business@hq.lp.org" <lnc-business@hq.lp.org>Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017, 6:09:12 AM PDTSubject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement I change my vote to no. Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here. ==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people. Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement. Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".=== -Caryn Ann On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection. As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms. On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists. Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion. Thoughts? ~David Pratt 2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less ~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Vice-Chair LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator David.Demarest@LP.org Secretary@LPNE.org DPDemarest@centurylink.net DPrattDemarest@gmail.com Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement I vote NO. I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly. I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this. I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away... If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft". Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote: Yes ~David Pratt Demarest On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Yes On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest Motion: The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/ --------------------Resolution Text-------------------- Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases Unity Statement We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases. While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts: 1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran. 2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base. 3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation. 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people. 5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples. 6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba. U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose. We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal. ---------------End of Resolution Text--------------- -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty,Caryn Ann HarlosRegion 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of ColoradoChair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles:We defend your rightsAnd oppose the use of forceTaxation is theft _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Daniel, good point. I change my vote to "No". On Aug 28, 2017 9:44 AM, "Tim Hagan" <timhagan-tyr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I vote no.
I was also concerned about this paragraph asserting to use savings to provide government services instead of reducing the debt or taxes.
Tim Hagan
------------------------------ *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> *To:* "lnc-business@hq.lp.org" <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017, 6:09:12 AM PDT *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I vote no. The coalition to close the bases is a good idea, and if we'd been invited to craft the language, we could have made it more libertarian. I find that signing on at this point makes us compromise our beliefs for little to no benefit. Brett C. Bittner Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee brett.bittner@lp.org 317.537.8344 **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos. On Aug 28, 2017 11:23, "David Demarest" <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel, good point. I change my vote to "No".
On Aug 28, 2017 9:44 AM, "Tim Hagan" <timhagan-tyr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I vote no.
I was also concerned about this paragraph asserting to use savings to provide government services instead of reducing the debt or taxes.
Tim Hagan
------------------------------ *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> *To:* "lnc-business@hq.lp.org" <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017, 6:09:12 AM PDT *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
If Dr. Lark chooses not to vote, I vote no as the Region 5 Alt. There are legitimate reasons to keep FOBs in foreign countries, and in some cases, those bases can aid in diplomatic relations and cultural trust. Don't get me wrong, we need to close many bases, but suggesting that all should be closed seems shortsighted. On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel, good point. I change my vote to "No".
On Aug 28, 2017 9:44 AM, "Tim Hagan" <timhagan-tyr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I vote no.
I was also concerned about this paragraph asserting to use savings to provide government services instead of reducing the debt or taxes.
Tim Hagan
------------------------------ *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> *To:* "lnc-business@hq.lp.org" <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017, 6:09:12 AM PDT *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
*2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
*Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *Trent Somes, III* Region 5 Alternate, Libertarian National Committee Founder, Westmoreland County Libertarians <http://fb.com/wclibertarians> National Chair, Libertarian Youth Caucus <http://fb.com/LYCaucus> Facebook <http://fb.com/trentsomes/> Twitter <http://twitter.com/TrentSomes/> Instagram <http://instagram.com/trentsomes/> Address <https://goo.gl/maps/gWqJw21CJZs> Cell: (412) 496 - 8552 Home: (412) 646 - 1872
I agree with the concerns raised here by others, and vote no on this motion. It is regrettable that the statement is not better worded, because I think coalition efforts of this sort are valuable for us to engage in. I would propose that the vice-chair let the originating group know that we are supportive of the broad goal but have concerns with some of the wording, and ask about the possibility of the resolution's wording being modified accordingly. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Trent Somes wrote:
If Dr. Lark chooses not to vote, I vote no as the Region 5 Alt.
There are legitimate reasons to keep FOBs in foreign countries, and in some cases, those bases can aid in diplomatic relations and cultural trust. Don't get me wrong, we need to close many bases, but suggesting that all should be closed seems shortsighted.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote: Daniel, good point. I change my vote to "No".
On Aug 28, 2017 9:44 AM, "Tim Hagan" <timhagan-tyr@yahoo.com> wrote: I vote no.
I was also concerned about this paragraph asserting to use savings to provide government services instead of reducing the debt or taxes.
Tim Hagan
From: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> To: "lnc-business@hq.lp.org" <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017, 6:09:12 AM PDT Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention
Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
Motion: The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- Trent Somes, III Region 5 Alternate, Libertarian National Committee Founder, Westmoreland County Libertarians National Chair, Libertarian Youth Caucus Facebook Twitter Instagram Address Cell: (412) 496 - 8552 Home: (412) 646 - 1872
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
To clarify my previous comment, I was referring to the concerns raised by Alicia Mattson, Tim Hagan, David Demarest, and Chuck Moulton. I do not agree with Trent Somes' view below that some U.S. government military bases outside the United States should be kept open – I favor closing all of them. (Although I would ideally prefer a resolution calling for the closing of all military bases maintained by governments outside their own recognized territory, and not focusing solely on the U.S. government.) Under the U.S. government such as it exists, diplomacy is better left to the State Department, and there are better, non-State means, of fostering cultural trust. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Aug 28, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Starchild wrote:
I agree with the concerns raised here by others, and vote no on this motion.
It is regrettable that the statement is not better worded, because I think coalition efforts of this sort are valuable for us to engage in.
I would propose that the vice-chair let the originating group know that we are supportive of the broad goal but have concerns with some of the wording, and ask about the possibility of the resolution's wording being modified accordingly.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF
On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Trent Somes wrote:
If Dr. Lark chooses not to vote, I vote no as the Region 5 Alt.
There are legitimate reasons to keep FOBs in foreign countries, and in some cases, those bases can aid in diplomatic relations and cultural trust. Don't get me wrong, we need to close many bases, but suggesting that all should be closed seems shortsighted.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote: Daniel, good point. I change my vote to "No".
On Aug 28, 2017 9:44 AM, "Tim Hagan" <timhagan-tyr@yahoo.com> wrote: I vote no.
I was also concerned about this paragraph asserting to use savings to provide government services instead of reducing the debt or taxes.
Tim Hagan
From: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> To: "lnc-business@hq.lp.org" <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017, 6:09:12 AM PDT Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I change my vote to no.
Chuck Moulton pointed this out, and I agree with him - there is another argument buried in here.
==> 4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
Many LP members and LNC members were justifiably upset with the Iraq Exit Strategy produced by staff in 2010 (I think?) because it suggested taking troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other places rather than simply reducing our military involvement.
Similarly, instead of simply suggesting eliminating military spending (and reducing taxes as Libertarians would like), this resolution suggests re-allocating the funds to social welfare programs which should be cringe-worthy for anarchists and minarchists alike. At least, that was my reading of "funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people".===
-Caryn Ann
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: I must admit that coalitions make me nervous unless they are confined to advocacy for specific actions like closure of all foreign military bases and reducing our offensive military presence on foreign shores and on the seas. While this motion is presented in the context of the broader Libertarian perspective, the proposed actions appear to be on target. I fail to see any “rent is theft” connection.
As to the environmental issue, it is a well-established fact that governments and their military arms are by far the worst polluters and stewards of the environment. Our 25 existing and proposed 15 additional carrier strike forces are certainly not green-friendly floating wind farms.
On the espionage issue, I am okay with privately sponsored foreign defensive espionage but government offensive espionage is a serious threat to not only the world community but inevitably trickles down into information gathering focused on citizens here at home for obvious unethical reasons disguised as scare-tactic protection from terrorists.
Aside from my interest in a little more definition on the proposed coalition and its action limitations, I support this motion.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention
Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less
~David Pratt Demarest
Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
LSLA Vice-Chair
LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
David.Demarest@LP.org
Secretary@LPNE.org
DPDemarest@centurylink.net
DPrattDemarest@gmail.com
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 6:00 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-18: Unity Statement
I vote NO.
I am TOTALLY in for closure of all foreign bases. I immediately paused at the language that Caryn Ann just pointed out about Environmental damage. I was worried I was going to be the only "No". I would have worn that one proudly.
I think I see another agenda from the authors here besides closing bases. I think we need to run away from this.
I don't think our position on foreign bases is unclear either. Run away.. bravely run away away...
If "we" sign this, next thing you know, we will have members saying something absurd and antithetical to the fundamental principles of libertarianism (like property rights) such as, "Rent is theft".
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:40 AM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
~David Pratt Demarest
On Aug 28, 2017 2:22 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:07 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
Motion: The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- Trent Somes, III Region 5 Alternate, Libertarian National Committee Founder, Westmoreland County Libertarians National Chair, Libertarian Youth Caucus Facebook Twitter Instagram Address Cell: (412) 496 - 8552 Home: (412) 646 - 1872
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I vote no. This is not just a resolution calling for closing foreign military bases. For one thing, it is an agreement to "commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases". We're joining an organization and promising various future cooperative endeavors. Also, it contains a number of claims that I don't believe stand up to scrutiny. I am not convinced that "military bases are the principal instruments of ... environmental damage". Nor do I believe that the world cannot continue to support life if we don't close the bases, as is suggested by the phrase, "the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a ... sustainable world." In item number 3, what is a "threat of...economic expansion" and why is it bad? Also, it seems to suggest that all espionage is improper. This resolution is about other subjects as much as it is about our military policy, and just because it has some things we may agree with, it's not enough for me to sign onto the entire statement. -Alicia On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
Alicia raises good points. Here are the two I am finding compelling and may persuade me to change my vote. ===environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation=== It names this as a principal cause. On further reflection, that claim is dubious and has the undertones of a certain environmentalist agenda we would not support. ===For one thing, it is an agreement to "commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases". We're joining an organization and promising various future cooperative endeavors.=== That is also very persuasive. Thank you Alicia. -Caryn Ann On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:26 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
I vote no.
This is not just a resolution calling for closing foreign military bases.
For one thing, it is an agreement to "commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases". We're joining an organization and promising various future cooperative endeavors.
Also, it contains a number of claims that I don't believe stand up to scrutiny. I am not convinced that "military bases are the principal instruments of ... environmental damage". Nor do I believe that the world cannot continue to support life if we don't close the bases, as is suggested by the phrase, "the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a ... sustainable world."
In item number 3, what is a "threat of...economic expansion" and why is it bad? Also, it seems to suggest that all espionage is improper.
This resolution is about other subjects as much as it is about our military policy, and just because it has some things we may agree with, it's not enough for me to sign onto the entire statement.
-Alicia
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
I vote no. I agree with (I do not think a sentence like this will be written very often) the points raised by Ms. Mattson, Mr. Hayes, and Ms. Harlos (and, by reference, Mr. Moulton). To me, the most decisive points are "economic expansion," espionage, and the assumption of re-purposing of expenses, which I agree is not a mindset onto which we should sign. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> Joshua A. Katz On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Dear colleagues: I hope all is well with you. I am writing in my capacity as Region 5 representative to vote "nay" on the motion. As always, thank you for your work for liberty. Take care, Jim James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee ----- On 8/28/2017 3:06 AM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*_Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. _* _Co-Sponsors:_ Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
_Motion:_ The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
I vote no. Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Sep 3, 2017 9:30 AM, "James Lark" <jwl3s@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I am writing in my capacity as Region 5 representative to vote "nay" on the motion.
As always, thank you for your work for liberty.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
On 8/28/2017 3:06 AM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. * *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I vote no. I also believe that this is a golden opportunity for us to publicly explain our view as to why we're voting no. We don't want to shut down military bases to waste money on garbage schools mismanaged by the state. We want to end both. It's an excellent time to publicly clarify our position here. -Arvin On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
I vote no.
Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On Sep 3, 2017 9:30 AM, "James Lark" <jwl3s@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I am writing in my capacity as Region 5 representative to vote "nay" on the motion.
As always, thank you for your work for liberty.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
On 8/28/2017 3:06 AM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. * *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
Voting has ended for the email ballot shown below: *Voting "aye":* (none) *Voting "nay":* Bilyeu, Bittner, Demarest, Goldstein, Hagan, Harlos, Hayes, Katz, Lark, Mattson, McKnight, Redpath, Starchild, Vohra With a final vote tally of 0-14, the motion FAILS. -Alicia On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 7, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Vohra, Bittner, Harlos, Demarest
*Motion:* The Chair is authorized by the LNC to sign the following petition on behalf of the LNC: http://noforeignbases.org/
--------------------Resolution Text--------------------
Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases
Unity Statement
We, the undersigned peace, justice and environmental organizations, and individuals, endorse the following Points of Unity and commit ourselves to working together by forming a Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases, with the goal of raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.
While we may have our differences on other issues, we all agree that U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Our belief in the urgency of this necessary step is based on the following facts:
1. While we are opposed to all foreign military bases, we do recognize that the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). Presently, there are U.S. military bases in every Persian Gulf country except Iran.
2. In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.
3. These bases are centers of aggressive military actions, threats of political and economic expansion, sabotage and espionage, and crimes against local populations. In addition, these military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation.
4. The annual cost of these bases to the American taxpayers is approximately $156 billion. The support of U.S. foreign military bases drains funds that can be used to fund human needs and enable our cities and States to provide necessary services for the people.
5. This has made the U.S. a more militarized society and has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Stationed throughout the world, almost 1000 in number, U.S. foreign military bases are symbols of the ability of the United States to intrude in the lives of sovereign nations and peoples.
6. Many individual national coalitions — for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany — are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the U.S. return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba.
U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.
We must all unite to actively oppose the existence of U.S. foreign military bases and call for their immediate closure. We invite all forces of peace, social and environmental justice to join us in our renewed effort to achieve this shared goal.
---------------End of Resolution Text---------------
-Alicia
participants (16)
-
Alicia Mattson -
Arvin Vohra -
Brett Bittner -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
Daniel Hayes -
David Demarest -
David Demarest -
Erin Adams -
James Lark -
Joshua Katz -
Patrick McKnight -
Sam Goldstein -
Starchild -
Tim Hagan -
Trent Somes -
Whitney Bilyeu