Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
Personally, I do consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote. On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself! For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army. Explicit Libertarian Party support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any. It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are technically consistent with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind: • Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military sufficient to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion • The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, I must oppose the motion as written and accordingly vote no. On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words "support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and" can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Sponsor: Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
Motion:
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
That wording is directly from our Platform and existed in 1974 at the time of the Dallas Accord and unless we think the actual delegates who made the Accord and in the years after were too daft to notice that, it must be interpreted as not violative of the Accord. We don't have the authority to disavow as a body the Platform. It does not necesssrily require a standing army. I am relatively certain I have done more research on the Accord than most persons on this list. -Caryn Ann On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 8:55 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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 have heard from a super-majority of the Region 1 Chairs and cast my vote as yes. However, there were concerns expressed by Montana about language that I agreed to put on the record. The "policeman" language, while it is in the Platform, might be seen to impugn a legitimate policing function of - as 1.9 says - assisting in the defense of persons who request assistance. There might be another concern to be placed on the record about the use of the word "corrupt" - if I am asked to, I will note them. On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:00 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
That wording is directly from our Platform and existed in 1974 at the time of the Dallas Accord and unless we think the actual delegates who made the Accord and in the years after were too daft to notice that, it must be interpreted as not violative of the Accord.
We don't have the authority to disavow as a body the Platform.
It does not necesssrily require a standing army.
I am relatively certain I have done more research on the Accord than most persons on this list.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 8:55 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
-- *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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
Fair point, Caryn Ann. Perhaps the context here is what makes the phrase seem problematic – all the other uses of the term "military" within the resolution appear to be referring specifically to the U.S. government's military. But as you note in so many words, you're more familiar with the contents of the 1974 LP platform than I am. Perhaps you can say more about the context of the phrase as it appears in that document? Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On May 20, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
That wording is directly from our Platform and existed in 1974 at the time of the Dallas Accord and unless we think the actual delegates who made the Accord and in the years after were too daft to notice that, it must be interpreted as not violative of the Accord.
We don't have the authority to disavow as a body the Platform.
It does not necesssrily require a standing army.
I am relatively certain I have done more research on the Accord than most persons on this list.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 8:55 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I do consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit Libertarian Party support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are technically consistent with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military sufficient to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, I must oppose the motion as written and accordingly vote no.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words "support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and" can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Sponsor: Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
Motion:
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 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
The intent of that clause is simply to restate our Platform. Reading anything more into it is not necessary. Further I think the whole Accord is grossly misunderstood at times- it is referring to end game statements - it does not prohibit transitional statements which this must be interpreted as since it has existed since 1974 during the time of the Accord. If it is interpreted as requiring a state that would violate the Accord and the SoP- the Party is officially agnostic on that. Many completely ignore the Accord. Others make it mean prohibitions on "things as they are now" statements - both are wrong. The Accord is embodied in the SoP. The platform can and should morph and change but shouldn't confuse people into purges which it presently does and is the one thing I don't like about our Platform that I generally like pretty well. However I do believe the Accord was purposefully attempted to be buried (by some - certainly not all) in 2006 by not mirroring the SoP language on the state and I believe that is a wrong that must be righted. 2006 caused a terrible wound which would be easy to heal if people are truly interested in unity. We shall see. I have awakened many people to this through my activism. The explicit parts of the Accord lead strongly a good faith adherence to the implicit portions and that has not been done and I think it violates the spirit of the SoP. I think portions of 2006 could have been successfully appealed to the JC and should have. But absent that - we are required by the SoP to interpret them not as ultimate sanction but as potential transition, This clause however reflects identical wording all the way back to 1974. If we quoted a portion that I think was unjustly and divisively edited in 2006 (well the edits took place after that but I am simplifying here) I would oppose as a conscientious objector. This is not such a case. Though I have had anti-anarchist purge-types try to throw this plank at me but it just shows an absence of knowledge of history. -Caryn Ann On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:12 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Fair point, Caryn Ann. Perhaps the context here is what makes the phrase seem problematic – all the other uses of the term "military" within the resolution appear to be referring specifically to the U.S. government's military. But as you note in so many words, you're more familiar with the contents of the 1974 LP platform than I am. Perhaps you can say more about the context of the phrase as it appears in that document?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
That wording is directly from our Platform and existed in 1974 at the time of the Dallas Accord and unless we think the actual delegates who made the Accord and in the years after were too daft to notice that, it must be interpreted as not violative of the Accord.
We don't have the authority to disavow as a body the Platform.
It does not necesssrily require a standing army.
I am relatively certain I have done more research on the Accord than most persons on this list.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 8:55 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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
-- *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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
Starchild. The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords. "3.1 National Defense We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service." Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I do consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit Libertarian Party support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are technically consistent with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military sufficient to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, I must oppose the motion as written and accordingly vote no.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words "support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and" can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Sponsor: Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
Motion:
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Daniel, If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is not a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
"3.1 National Defense We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I do consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit Libertarian Party support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are technically consistent with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military sufficient to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, I must oppose the motion as written and accordingly vote no.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words "support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and" can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Sponsor: Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
Motion:
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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
Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations. -Caryn Ann On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
*"3.1 National Defense* We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
Starchild, I helped author this resolution. Everyone must interpret as they see fit but we are duty bound to interpret within the Accord framework of the SoP which allows for diversity of interpretation. You can't insist a minarchist make an anarchist interpretation. That is just as unjust as the converse under the Accord. -Caryn Ann On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
*"3.1 National Defense* We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
-- *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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
As an alternate, I vote yes If Dr. Lark chooses not to vote. On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 11:52 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Starchild, I helped author this resolution. Everyone must interpret as they see fit but we are duty bound to interpret within the Accord framework of the SoP which allows for diversity of interpretation. You can't insist a minarchist make an anarchist interpretation. That is just as unjust as the converse under the Accord.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
*"3.1 National Defense* We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
-- *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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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
-- *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
Bleh.. I said as per our bylaws and I meant as per our platform. Daniel Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Trent Somes <tsomes3@gmail.com> wrote:
As an alternate, I vote yes If Dr. Lark chooses not to vote.
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 11:52 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Starchild, I helped author this resolution. Everyone must interpret as they see fit but we are duty bound to interpret within the Accord framework of the SoP which allows for diversity of interpretation. You can't insist a minarchist make an anarchist interpretation. That is just as unjust as the converse under the Accord.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is not a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
"3.1 National Defense We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I do consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit Libertarian Party support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are technically consistent with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military sufficient to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, I must oppose the motion as written and accordingly vote no.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words "support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and" can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
> On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Sponsor: Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson > > Motion: > > Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world; > > Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military > were unjustly conscripted in the past; > > Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States > and, thereby, their property, families, and friends; > > Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for > purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts > to act as the world’s policeman; and > > Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways > in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense > against aggression; now, therefore, be it; > > Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian > principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a > vital part of our membership. > > > -Alicia > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-votes mailing list > Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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 Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 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
-- 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 Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 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
-- 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
I belatedly realized after sending that message that I should have asked for the the intent of the authors (plural), not just Daniel. I'm not insisting that any author make any particular interpretation, but being an anarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be minarchist, and being a minarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be anarchist. In cases where the wording itself is unclear, I do feel intent matters. If I felt otherwise then I would have to oppose the motion no matter what you all say, since as written I think the public perception of the resolution will tend to be that the language in question refers to the U.S. government's military. But I see Daniel has just written that his intent was for "military" to mean in this context what it evidently meant in the 1974 platform, i.e. not necessarily the U.S. government's military. Do you and any other co-authors agree? If so, I think it would be helpful to explicitly state your intent in this regard in the resolution in order to minimize misunderstandings that I expect will otherwise tend to occur, given the context, although spreading the word in places where the resolution is discussed or published can of course also help in this regard. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE On May 20, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Starchild, I helped author this resolution. Everyone must interpret as they see fit but we are duty bound to interpret within the Accord framework of the SoP which allows for diversity of interpretation. You can't insist a minarchist make an anarchist interpretation. That is just as unjust as the converse under the Accord.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is not a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
"3.1 National Defense We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I do consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit Libertarian Party support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are technically consistent with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military sufficient to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, I must oppose the motion as written and accordingly vote no.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words "support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and" can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Sponsor: Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
Motion:
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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 Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 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
-- 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 Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 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
That is my intent as that is my understanding of our platform, but I cannot put my interpretation on my co-authors. I insisted that the NIFP be put in the last clause and that to me covers the bases. -Caryn Ann On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
I belatedly realized after sending that message that I should have asked for the the intent of the *authors* (plural), not just Daniel. I'm not insisting that any author make any particular interpretation, but being an anarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be minarchist, and being a minarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be anarchist.
In cases where the wording itself is unclear, I do feel intent matters. If I felt otherwise then I would have to oppose the motion no matter what you all say, since as written I think the public perception of the resolution will tend to be that the language in question refers to the U.S. government's military.
But I see Daniel has just written that his intent was for "military" to mean in this context what it evidently meant in the 1974 platform, i.e. not necessarily the U.S. government's military. Do you and any other co-authors agree? If so, I think it would be helpful to explicitly state your intent in this regard in the resolution in order to minimize misunderstandings that I expect will otherwise tend to occur, given the context, although spreading the word in places where the resolution is discussed or published can of course also help in this regard.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Starchild, I helped author this resolution. Everyone must interpret as they see fit but we are duty bound to interpret within the Accord framework of the SoP which allows for diversity of interpretation. You can't insist a minarchist make an anarchist interpretation. That is just as unjust as the converse under the Accord.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
*"3.1 National Defense* We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/ News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/ department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017- presidents-budget-proposal/ ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
-- *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/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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
-- *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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
Starchild, You want this resolution to do things it was never intended to do. I can't help you there. Daniel Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 11:47 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
I belatedly realized after sending that message that I should have asked for the the intent of the authors (plural), not just Daniel. I'm not insisting that any author make any particular interpretation, but being an anarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be minarchist, and being a minarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be anarchist.
In cases where the wording itself is unclear, I do feel intent matters. If I felt otherwise then I would have to oppose the motion no matter what you all say, since as written I think the public perception of the resolution will tend to be that the language in question refers to the U.S. government's military.
But I see Daniel has just written that his intent was for "military" to mean in this context what it evidently meant in the 1974 platform, i.e. not necessarily the U.S. government's military. Do you and any other co-authors agree? If so, I think it would be helpful to explicitly state your intent in this regard in the resolution in order to minimize misunderstandings that I expect will otherwise tend to occur, given the context, although spreading the word in places where the resolution is discussed or published can of course also help in this regard.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Starchild, I helped author this resolution. Everyone must interpret as they see fit but we are duty bound to interpret within the Accord framework of the SoP which allows for diversity of interpretation. You can't insist a minarchist make an anarchist interpretation. That is just as unjust as the converse under the Accord.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is not a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
"3.1 National Defense We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I do consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit Libertarian Party support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are technically consistent with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military sufficient to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, I must oppose the motion as written and accordingly vote no.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words "support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and" can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
> On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Sponsor: Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson > > Motion: > > Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world; > > Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military > were unjustly conscripted in the past; > > Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States > and, thereby, their property, families, and friends; > > Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for > purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts > to act as the world’s policeman; and > > Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways > in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense > against aggression; now, therefore, be it; > > Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian > principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a > vital part of our membership. > > > -Alicia > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-votes mailing list > Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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 Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 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
-- 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 Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 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
In my capacity as a regional representative alternative, I vote Aye, pending Mr. Marsh's favor. In Liberty, Steven Nekhaila On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Starchild,
You want this resolution to do things it was never intended to do. I can't help you there.
Daniel
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 11:47 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
I belatedly realized after sending that message that I should have asked for the the intent of the *authors* (plural), not just Daniel. I'm not insisting that any author make any particular interpretation, but being an anarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be minarchist, and being a minarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be anarchist.
In cases where the wording itself is unclear, I do feel intent matters. If I felt otherwise then I would have to oppose the motion no matter what you all say, since as written I think the public perception of the resolution will tend to be that the language in question refers to the U.S. government's military.
But I see Daniel has just written that his intent was for "military" to mean in this context what it evidently meant in the 1974 platform, i.e. not necessarily the U.S. government's military. Do you and any other co-authors agree? If so, I think it would be helpful to explicitly state your intent in this regard in the resolution in order to minimize misunderstandings that I expect will otherwise tend to occur, given the context, although spreading the word in places where the resolution is discussed or published can of course also help in this regard.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Starchild, I helped author this resolution. Everyone must interpret as they see fit but we are duty bound to interpret within the Accord framework of the SoP which allows for diversity of interpretation. You can't insist a minarchist make an anarchist interpretation. That is just as unjust as the converse under the Accord.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
*"3.1 National Defense* We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/ News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/ department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017- presidents-budget-proposal/ ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
-- *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/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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
Yes. Whitney On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@gmail.com> wrote:
In my capacity as a regional representative alternative, I vote Aye, pending Mr. Marsh's favor.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Starchild,
You want this resolution to do things it was never intended to do. I can't help you there.
Daniel
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 11:47 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
I belatedly realized after sending that message that I should have asked for the the intent of the *authors* (plural), not just Daniel. I'm not insisting that any author make any particular interpretation, but being an anarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be minarchist, and being a minarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend to be anarchist.
In cases where the wording itself is unclear, I do feel intent matters. If I felt otherwise then I would have to oppose the motion no matter what you all say, since as written I think the public perception of the resolution will tend to be that the language in question refers to the U.S. government's military.
But I see Daniel has just written that his intent was for "military" to mean in this context what it evidently meant in the 1974 platform, i.e. not necessarily the U.S. government's military. Do you and any other co-authors agree? If so, I think it would be helpful to explicitly state your intent in this regard in the resolution in order to minimize misunderstandings that I expect will otherwise tend to occur, given the context, although spreading the word in places where the resolution is discussed or published can of course also help in this regard.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Starchild, I helped author this resolution. Everyone must interpret as they see fit but we are duty bound to interpret within the Accord framework of the SoP which allows for diversity of interpretation. You can't insist a minarchist make an anarchist interpretation. That is just as unjust as the converse under the Accord.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
*"3.1 National Defense* We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/N ews-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of- defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal/ ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0 1/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
-- *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/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Starchild, I pulled it straight from the platform for a reason. I think it was important to frame it from the context of the voice of our delegates. It is from them that we derive our authority as a committee. I was not writing a plank on self defense. I am saying as per our bylaws, defending people from Aggression is one of the only the only legitimate purposes for a government. It was in that stead that members of the US military serve(d) and that they were not at odds with our platform just for being part of it. The purpose for this resolution is not to cast aspersions on the US military.. though it does indeed impugn the system we have in place and the way it has manipulated people, most of who have good and noble intentions. The purpose for this resolution is to say we need the unique perspective that members of the military can bring to the discussion. That is something that has been made unclear in recent times. They have seen up close and personal where the "ruling class" has manipulated good intentions into something else. It's also not the scope of this resolution to determine whether or not a standing army run by the government is the right solution to defense. As that first clause dates back at LEAST to 1974 as Caryn Ann had pointed out. I think it safe to say that it leaves open the possibility of a privatized military instead of a government run one. The reality is that we have the current defense we have. We need to walk it back. To help us do that we need people that have been and are on the inside. People become like the people they associate with. Wouldn't we want to associate with those currently in the role of defenders of the United States where we live? We can then keep in their mind the principles of libertarianism like the Non-Aggression Axiom. If we are going to achieve peace it helps to have the guys with the biggest guns with us and thinking like us. On a final note. Suicide in the military is an epidemic. If we can lighten the burden some of these members of the military carry and give them an outlet to help us achieve peace, I think that is the human thing to do. So backing up to your original question. I think the first phrase definitely could be any military force sufficient to defend the United States. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is not a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
"3.1 National Defense We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I do consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/... ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit Libertarian Party support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are technically consistent with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military sufficient to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, I must oppose the motion as written and accordingly vote no.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words "support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and" can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Sponsor: Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
Motion:
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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
Daniel, a nit to pick... == I am saying as per our bylaws, defending people from Aggression is one of the only the only legitimate purposes for a government. == Our Bylaws do not address that. Our Bylaws say the Statement of Principles is the foundation of our ideology. Our SoP does not say that. It did in 1972. It was amended in 1974 and that part was removed and changed to say that a government, if it existed, must not violate rights. This gets complex, but it is not quite correct to say that ultimately our position that this is a legitimate function for government - it is a legitimate use of force - and right now the government monopolizes enforcement and thus if it defends against aggression without violating rights, that would be legitimate and right now, it is often the only defense we have. But I am not trying to get into the weeds here, just trying to be clear our Bylaws don't say that. Our Platform says that, but again, must be interpreted in light of our SoP. We have a state right now. It must defend us as it has made us dependent on it. A minarchist is okay with that, an anarchist is not, but it is the world we have right now. (one flaw is that we use the word government when we mean state and sometimes vice versa). -Caryn Ann On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Starchild,
I pulled it straight from the platform for a reason. I think it was important to frame it from the context of the voice of our delegates. It is from them that we derive our authority as a committee.
I was not writing a plank on self defense. I am saying as per our bylaws, defending people from Aggression is one of the only the only legitimate purposes for a government. It was in that stead that members of the US military serve(d) and that they were not at odds with our platform just for being part of it.
The purpose for this resolution is not to cast aspersions on the US military.. though it does indeed impugn the system we have in place and the way it has manipulated people, most of who have good and noble intentions. The purpose for this resolution is to say we need the unique perspective that members of the military can bring to the discussion. That is something that has been made unclear in recent times. They have seen up close and personal where the "ruling class" has manipulated good intentions into something else.
It's also not the scope of this resolution to determine whether or not a standing army run by the government is the right solution to defense.
As that first clause dates back at LEAST to 1974 as Caryn Ann had pointed out. I think it safe to say that it leaves open the possibility of a privatized military instead of a government run one. The reality is that we have the current defense we have. We need to walk it back. To help us do that we need people that have been and are on the inside.
People become like the people they associate with. Wouldn't we want to associate with those currently in the role of defenders of the United States where we live? We can then keep in their mind the principles of libertarianism like the Non-Aggression Axiom. If we are going to achieve peace it helps to have the guys with the biggest guns with us and thinking like us.
On a final note. Suicide in the military is an epidemic. If we can lighten the burden some of these members of the military carry and give them an outlet to help us achieve peace, I think that is the human thing to do.
So backing up to your original question. I think the first phrase definitely could be any military force sufficient to defend the United States.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
*"3.1 National Defense* We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/ News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod- releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal/ ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone. html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
And I actually think the current plank requires contortions to be not interpreted in violation of the SoP and should be changed or challenged to the JC quite honestly. That was the over-reach of 2006 but too many people are just ignorant of the history. So I interpret it, with the convolutions needed, so that it doesn't violate the SoP which is agnostic on the state. Yes, it makes my head hurt too. We have confused members with this, and it is unnecessary. But here we are. It should go back to saying "existing governments" etc. But that is a discussion for another day. -Caryn Ann On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com
wrote:
Daniel, a nit to pick...
== I am saying as per our bylaws, defending people from Aggression is one of the only the only legitimate purposes for a government. ==
Our Bylaws do not address that. Our Bylaws say the Statement of Principles is the foundation of our ideology. Our SoP does not say that. It did in 1972. It was amended in 1974 and that part was removed and changed to say that a government, if it existed, must not violate rights. This gets complex, but it is not quite correct to say that ultimately our position that this is a legitimate function for government - it is a legitimate use of force - and right now the government monopolizes enforcement and thus if it defends against aggression without violating rights, that would be legitimate and right now, it is often the only defense we have. But I am not trying to get into the weeds here, just trying to be clear our Bylaws don't say that. Our Platform says that, but again, must be interpreted in light of our SoP.
We have a state right now. It must defend us as it has made us dependent on it. A minarchist is okay with that, an anarchist is not, but it is the world we have right now. (one flaw is that we use the word government when we mean state and sometimes vice versa).
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Starchild,
I pulled it straight from the platform for a reason. I think it was important to frame it from the context of the voice of our delegates. It is from them that we derive our authority as a committee.
I was not writing a plank on self defense. I am saying as per our bylaws, defending people from Aggression is one of the only the only legitimate purposes for a government. It was in that stead that members of the US military serve(d) and that they were not at odds with our platform just for being part of it.
The purpose for this resolution is not to cast aspersions on the US military.. though it does indeed impugn the system we have in place and the way it has manipulated people, most of who have good and noble intentions. The purpose for this resolution is to say we need the unique perspective that members of the military can bring to the discussion. That is something that has been made unclear in recent times. They have seen up close and personal where the "ruling class" has manipulated good intentions into something else.
It's also not the scope of this resolution to determine whether or not a standing army run by the government is the right solution to defense.
As that first clause dates back at LEAST to 1974 as Caryn Ann had pointed out. I think it safe to say that it leaves open the possibility of a privatized military instead of a government run one. The reality is that we have the current defense we have. We need to walk it back. To help us do that we need people that have been and are on the inside.
People become like the people they associate with. Wouldn't we want to associate with those currently in the role of defenders of the United States where we live? We can then keep in their mind the principles of libertarianism like the Non-Aggression Axiom. If we are going to achieve peace it helps to have the guys with the biggest guns with us and thinking like us.
On a final note. Suicide in the military is an epidemic. If we can lighten the burden some of these members of the military carry and give them an outlet to help us achieve peace, I think that is the human thing to do.
So backing up to your original question. I think the first phrase definitely could be any military force sufficient to defend the United States.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
*"3.1 National Defense* We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/N ews-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of- defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal/ ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0 1/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
-- *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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
No problem. It is going off into the weeds anyhow. I spend way too much time in those weeds. -Caryn Ann On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com
wrote:
And I actually think the current plank requires contortions to be not interpreted in violation of the SoP and should be changed or challenged to the JC quite honestly. That was the over-reach of 2006 but too many people are just ignorant of the history. So I interpret it, with the convolutions needed, so that it doesn't violate the SoP which is agnostic on the state. Yes, it makes my head hurt too. We have confused members with this, and it is unnecessary.
But here we are. It should go back to saying "existing governments" etc. But that is a discussion for another day.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel, a nit to pick...
== I am saying as per our bylaws, defending people from Aggression is one of the only the only legitimate purposes for a government. ==
Our Bylaws do not address that. Our Bylaws say the Statement of Principles is the foundation of our ideology. Our SoP does not say that. It did in 1972. It was amended in 1974 and that part was removed and changed to say that a government, if it existed, must not violate rights. This gets complex, but it is not quite correct to say that ultimately our position that this is a legitimate function for government - it is a legitimate use of force - and right now the government monopolizes enforcement and thus if it defends against aggression without violating rights, that would be legitimate and right now, it is often the only defense we have. But I am not trying to get into the weeds here, just trying to be clear our Bylaws don't say that. Our Platform says that, but again, must be interpreted in light of our SoP.
We have a state right now. It must defend us as it has made us dependent on it. A minarchist is okay with that, an anarchist is not, but it is the world we have right now. (one flaw is that we use the word government when we mean state and sometimes vice versa).
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Starchild,
I pulled it straight from the platform for a reason. I think it was important to frame it from the context of the voice of our delegates. It is from them that we derive our authority as a committee.
I was not writing a plank on self defense. I am saying as per our bylaws, defending people from Aggression is one of the only the only legitimate purposes for a government. It was in that stead that members of the US military serve(d) and that they were not at odds with our platform just for being part of it.
The purpose for this resolution is not to cast aspersions on the US military.. though it does indeed impugn the system we have in place and the way it has manipulated people, most of who have good and noble intentions. The purpose for this resolution is to say we need the unique perspective that members of the military can bring to the discussion. That is something that has been made unclear in recent times. They have seen up close and personal where the "ruling class" has manipulated good intentions into something else.
It's also not the scope of this resolution to determine whether or not a standing army run by the government is the right solution to defense.
As that first clause dates back at LEAST to 1974 as Caryn Ann had pointed out. I think it safe to say that it leaves open the possibility of a privatized military instead of a government run one. The reality is that we have the current defense we have. We need to walk it back. To help us do that we need people that have been and are on the inside.
People become like the people they associate with. Wouldn't we want to associate with those currently in the role of defenders of the United States where we live? We can then keep in their mind the principles of libertarianism like the Non-Aggression Axiom. If we are going to achieve peace it helps to have the guys with the biggest guns with us and thinking like us.
On a final note. Suicide in the military is an epidemic. If we can lighten the burden some of these members of the military carry and give them an outlet to help us achieve peace, I think that is the human thing to do.
So backing up to your original question. I think the first phrase definitely could be any military force sufficient to defend the United States.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel,
If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way toward allaying the concerns I expressed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthilnk.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
Starchild.
The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.
*"3.1 National Defense* We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote.
On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/N ews-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of- defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal/ ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0 1/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!*
For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army.
Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any.
It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:
• Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion
• The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military
I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*.
On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes@hq.lp.org wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson
*Motion:*
Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world;
Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;
Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
-Alicia
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Lnc-votes mailing list Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
-- *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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
-- *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> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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*
participants (6)
-
Caryn Ann Harlos -
Daniel Hayes -
Starchild -
Steven Nekhaila -
Trent Somes -
Whitney Bilyeu