|
Title: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: tweber78 on May 04, 2008, 08:24:37 AM I am not sure if this is already being discussed in the forum. I understand it is being discussed on an LP discussion board that I do not have access to.
What do you think of the NIF pledge? Are you for it or against it? Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: JohnKOTR on May 04, 2008, 08:06:49 PM The problem with the NIF pledge is that it is terribly vague. What does and does not count as force? Are we talking about purely physical force or is coercion included? And if we know for a fact that the government, law enforcement, and other authorities will initiate force in response to any peaceful resistance that we attempt in the face of unjust rule, are we justified in pre-empting that force or are we breaking that pledge? In the end, I see the pledge as something of a disclaimer rather than a truly binding arrangement.
Now, my opinion on the matter is as follows. I do not believe in the initiation of force or coercion to achieve political or social goals. However, I do believe that we are justified in pre-empting force and coercion with force and coercion. I also cite the following texts. Quote We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security(..) Quote No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! We have not quite reached the point where a call to arms in necessary, but yet we are not far off from it. We have one great advantage for which our colonial brethren had not and that is the ability to oust our elected leaders and install new ones who will effect our wishes. However, as time passes and power amasses in the hands of the elitists in Washington and our respective state capitals, it is becoming apparent that our window of opportunity to strike and reclaim our government is fading, and fading fast. It has never been more difficult for a third party to succeed. The rules of the election process have never been more tilted in favor of an elite few. The two-party dictatorship is shredding the Constitution, strangling our Republic, and bringing 'We The People' to our knees with oppressive taxation, intrusions and other violations of our privacy and civil rights, and the burden of countless foreign wars in competition for resources and power that do not rightly belong to us. And all the while this modern lifestyle is destroying the very thing that makes it all possible, our environment. We've got to do something quick. We've got to make progress lest we find ourselves with no alternative than to take up arms. If that is our only recourse, we can count it as our own failure that we could find no other way, and God help us if it comes to that. Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: tweber78 on May 05, 2008, 09:48:22 AM I agree with you that it is vague. And perhaps you have hit on the very thing that makes me uneasy about it.
I resist the idea of a pledge, that is forced upon the individual as a prerequisite of membership to any party, group, or loose affiliation, that would insist on taking away the very thing that very well may be the last resort to undo said party, group, or loose affiliation. Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: johngalinac on May 05, 2008, 10:06:00 AM Do you have some link to the current state of the pledge so that people can look it over?
Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: tweber78 on May 05, 2008, 11:09:16 AM Do you have some link to the current state of the pledge so that people can look it over? This is, I believe the Pledge as it is written, I do not have a link, I will find one however.... Non-initiation of force oath All new members must make the following oath: ___ I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force or fraud as a means of achieving political or social goals. ___ I do not agree to the non-initiation of force oath. Please treat me as a Libertarian Penn (state newsletter) subscriber, not a member. Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: Dr. Awkcabeman on May 05, 2008, 05:32:19 PM I do not think I could agree to this. I suppose I will only get a newsletter?
Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: klapton on May 05, 2008, 07:08:46 PM To whom is this supposed to apply? Is this a statement that GOVERNMENT should not initiate force for political or social purposes? Or is it supposed to apply to ME?
For individuals, I don't necessarily believe that initiating force is always wrong. They simply must be prepared to face the consequences of their actions. For example, if someone was to blatantly insult someone I care about, I might just punch em in the mouth. This might result in them hitting me back (and me losing the fight) or that I might have to stand in front of a judge and say, "Yes, I did it, and would do it again" and take whatever punishment the law might impose. For governments, I also do not believe that we should have to wait for someone else to initiate force before we use it. For example, the Cuban Missle Crisis. Fortunately for all of us, the blockade and THREAT of force was enough to get the Soviets to withdraw their missles. If the blockade had failed, I would have had no qualms whatsoever with bombing the hell our of those missle sites in Cuba. For a more recent example, consider know terrorist organizations like Al Qada. People can rant all they want about how US imperialism and interventionism further fuels the fires of anti-American terrorism. But the fact remains that there are jerks out there who would do our people harm -- innocent people who had nothing to do with US foreign policy decisions. I have no problem whatsoever with taking these people out. (I would say, however, that terrorism is a covert operation, and should be counteracted by covert means, NOT by invading other countries.) Oh yeah, I also believe in a parent's right to spank their child. A child's backside is amply padded such that a properly administered spanking causes no real harm to the child, but sends a powerful message that negative behavior has negative consequences. A message that, when heeded, results in a more self-restrained adult that doesn't need laws to tell him or her that doing wrong is wrong. Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: tweber78 on May 05, 2008, 07:45:10 PM This is intended for you. If you want to be a member of the Libertarian Party of PA. You must sign this oath, or all you will get is the newsletter. It the LPPA's way to force you tow the line and be a good little libertarian.
I too think there are times when force is appropriate. However the debate will rage about "initiation of first force", or who did what to who first.... The oath is unnecessary; because you can always point to some action as the justification for the use of force...... Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: Dr. Awkcabeman on May 05, 2008, 09:02:30 PM If I understand it, The Libertarian ideology is not to intentionally adversely affect others by your actions. Unless you yourself have been affected by someone else,and then you can resort to force. I can only assume that force is still the last resort, and that diplomacy would be advocated first????
Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: bdively on May 05, 2008, 10:29:01 PM I signed the NIF a long long time ago, feeling it suggested that i will not use force (forced taxation primarily) or fraud in anyway. That is clear cut and made sense to me. What is nebulous to me is whether i wait for someone to pull the trigger of a gun before I use force and take them out. Being in the party for a while, I would say that most would say defensive force is permitted. I think most Libs where for going after Afghanistan. Libs are strong on defense, key word defense.
An analogy I hear Neal Boortz say all the time is I won't wait until my neighbor's house burns down before i will go over and put it out. Sorta goes with if WWII and our involvement. To me, this is what makes the NIF so confusing and inconsistent. It likely will be discussed at the national convention. I think it will need 2/3rds vote to remove it. Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: Dr. Awkcabeman on May 06, 2008, 06:30:21 AM So are you saying- Force is like pornography, I can not explain it; but I know it when I see it?
Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: klapton on May 06, 2008, 01:01:05 PM This is intended for you. If you want to be a member of the Libertarian Party of PA. You must sign this oath, or all you will get is the newsletter. It the LPPA's way to force you tow the line and be a good little libertarian. Uhhh... I have a voter registration card that says "Libertarian" on it.I too think there are times when force is appropriate. However the debate will rage about "initiation of first force", or who did what to who first.... The oath is unnecessary; because you can always point to some action as the justification for the use of force...... Do you mean there is actually a document somewhere that I would be required to sign to "be a good little libertarian?" I'm unsure what "or all you will get is the newsletter" means. I don't want paper and postage wasted on sending me a newsletter either. Does this mean that I could not, for example, run for a local office as a Libertarian without signing this document? Sorry folks. But this flies in the face of what "Libertarian" means in my book. This very requirement smacks of fraud. I'm a Libertarian, but I'm not. I've been bamboozled. I am deprived of exercising my conscience in the party of my choice because I take issue with a vaguely written, simplistic pledge that is somehow supposed to summarize my views on what is obviously a complex issue that cannot be summarized in a single sentence. ::) Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: bergie72 on May 06, 2008, 02:31:18 PM Do you have some link to the current state of the pledge so that people can look it over? ___ I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force or fraud as a means of achieving political or social goals.I think the key here is "I do not believe in or advocate".. This doesn't say "I will never", or "you should never"... I think there are some cases where as an individiaul you need to initiate force, especially if there are real and credible threats against you. As a country however, I think the initiation of force or fraud should seldom, if ever be used. I won't say "never", because there may be some cases, but as a principle, it should not be used. Just my $.02 worth. :-) Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: hkyriazi on May 06, 2008, 08:23:06 PM I had no problem signing the pledge. Notice that it doesn't say flat out that one does not believe in or advocate the initiation of force for any reason, but only in the attainment of social or political goals. But now that I think about it, it is a bit vague. Certainly we think it's OK to use force to stop crimes, but which crimes count? Only the ones we think are real crimes, like robbery, rape, and murder, but not income tax evasion or smoking pot or participating in a plural marriage. Many, however, would view non-payment of taxes as fraudulent -- taking public benefit without payment.
But the NIF pledge is not as vague as some have argued on the board-discussion list. It doesn't say anything about the way you choose to raise your children -- spanking or "time outs" or whatever to achieve a "socialization" goal. It doesn't say anything about your S&M sexual habits or other games you play in the bedroom, or what you do on a football field, etc. Everyone seems to be arguing that it's held to be the guiding principle in a libertarian's life, and I suppose it's more precise that "live and let live, " which I think all of us would agree with. But one reason it's there is to tell the government and others, "Hey, look, we may be anarchists, but we're not bomb-throwing anarchists." We're not currently abandoning the soap box, ballot box and jury box, and going for the ammo box. In terms of its being vague, which is Mik's main criticism, at least it's easy to understand how it applies to the tax issue: if you don't pay, eventually men with guns will come to your door. But the same is true if you don't make your mortgage payments, which we'd argue is OK. (I'd argue that paying land value taxes is essentially the same as paying rent for an apartment, or a merchant paying a lease for space at a shopping mall, so I'm OK with that "tax," at least.) Where I see it getting most vague is with regard to the (surprise!) land question. Mik alluded to this, with talk about folks who don't pay the taxes to maintain the streets, etc., still reaping the benefit (unfairly to those who do shoulder the burden). Geo-libertarians like myself and Fred Foldvary would argue that any individual or group that chooses to secede must also come to terms in some way to pay for services that continue to be rendered and used. A more pointed example would be a Robinson Crusoe situation, where Crusoe would tell a washed-up Friday to "Go find your own island, this one is taken!" (Rothbard's "1st user = eternal owner" nonsense). I maintain that Friday would be well within his rights to claim half of the island's natural, unimproved value, and would only owe Crusoe any labor Crusoe had "mixed" with the land Friday claimed. (Of course, I would maintain that he'd have to negotiate with Crusoe, to accomodate Crusoe's wishes, and inconvenience him as little as possible in his own enjoyment and use of land.) If Crusoe refused to let Friday use some of the land, and an altercation occurred, who would be the aggressor? I maintain it'd be Crusoe, whereas I think most self-professed libertarians today would, if push came to shove, argue that it'd be Friday for trespassing, and that Crusoe was merely "enforcing the law" in his attempts to throw Friday out into the ocean. Certainly if the situation were with a homeless person trying to use an unused plot of land to grow food, or live in a long-abandoned house, that's what they'd say. Well, having said all that, I have to say I'm still up in the air about the pledge. On the one hand, it is somewhat vague, but on the other hand, I think we need some kind of pledge to have some objective criterion by which to kick people out of the party for violating libertarian principles. Maybe we could change the pledge to something like, "I believe in, and advocate, a Live-and-Let-Live philosophy, whereby a person who keeps his word and doesn't directly harm anyone else should not be subject to force or coercion, and government force should be applied only to those who initiate force or fraud against others." --Harold Kyriazi Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: Dr. Awkcabeman on May 06, 2008, 11:02:20 PM But the NIF is the only thing we are asked to take an oath on... Why is that?
Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: tweber78 on May 06, 2008, 11:18:30 PM Here is the verbage used in the Bylaws for the LPpa.
Quote ..."ARTICLE II. MEMBERSHIP Section 1 - Establishing a Membership A person shall become a member of the Party by fulfilling all of the following qualifications: · Making application. · Paying such dues as prescribed by the Board of Directors. · Explicit agreement with the following statement, either by signature or electronic means: "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force or fraud as a means of achieving political or social goals." You can read it for your self at the following link http://www.lppa.org/documents/lppa_bylaws.pdf Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: caomhin10p on May 06, 2008, 11:22:38 PM I'll agree it's a bit vague, and I have not yet joined the party and for one reason it is due to the pledge here. I would aboslutely agree that it is not acceptable to initiate force upon another for social or political goals except in certain circumstances or consequences. If you view fighting terrorism and terrorist ideology that advocates open and indiscriminate force, as such many radical Islamic terror groups do indeed target civilians, then I would disagree with this. You can argue the case that foregin policy may create more terrorists, a point I disagree with, but one can not disregard the fact that al Qaeda and such groups are not ones that can be reasoned with. A person or organization with no value for their own regard nor that of the population as a whole is met with force as the consequence. Similary, someone who commits murders is met with force and rightfully so. There are also such cases where force is necessary in terms of stand off or hostage situation. I would agree with this is force is used as a right of last resort to protect individual liberties and the right of the people to survive or ensure their freedoms and not used wantonly as means to attain stated political objectives.
Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: Mik on May 07, 2008, 01:03:53 AM Clearly I am not the only one who sees the irony in being required to take a non-initiation of force pledge (by the way, to get back to the main website from the forum, to look at the bylaws for example, click on the banner at the top of the page). We force our members to pledge to not initiate force.
There are those who use NIF and the zero-aggression principle (ZAP) to rule out any government authority whatsoever (read anarchist). Others use it to define who is a good Libertarian. Take this little gem from L. Neil Smith: "...I've maintained that the first priority of any real libertarian is to ensure everybody knows and thoroughly understands that anyone who refuses to take the Zero Aggression Principle seriously, as the central, indispensable tenet of the movement—or in the case of the LP, to take the oath of zero aggression—should not be regarded as a libertarian at all, but just another thug reserving a right he mistakenly imagines he has to initiate force against his fellow human beings whenever he finds it convenient." I'm sure all those who have a full understanding of the ZAP and agree with it will have no trouble agreeing to the 30 points put forth by Brian Holtz here: http://libertarianmajority.net/no-1st-force-pledge I still think it would be more straightforward to agree to do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you. This works better in the negative although some religions phrase it in the positive. There is a proposal to be considered at the national convention that would only require the pledge to be taken by voting delegates at the convention and national (party) office holders. The proposal can be viewed here: http://lpbylaws.blogspot.com/2007/09/draft-proposal-membership-definition.html I will again say in this forum it seems to me NIF is rather like the Tao in that the more you try to define it the farther it slips from your grasp. It is also like pornography in that it is difficult to define, but most people know it when they see it. The problem is everyone sees it differently. Maybe the pledge we ought to require of LP members is adherence to the pornographic Tao. That might be more interesting. Mik Robertson Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: klapton on May 07, 2008, 07:16:26 AM Maybe the pledge we ought to require of LP members is adherence to the pornographic Tao. That might be more interesting. Dude, I've seen some sample clips from their website. It's HAWT!Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: klapton on May 07, 2008, 07:37:01 AM Thanks for the link. I found at least one thing I found alarming...
Quote I will publicly declare my mental reservation to any oath or affirmation to preserve, protect, or defend any Constitution insofar as it authorizes the initiation of force. So, I guess Veterans need not apply? Here. I'll make my oath AGAIN for you all, and you can ban me or whatever if you like. I meant this oath when I first spoke it, and the many times after.I, Larry Hill, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, that I will bear true faith an allegiance to the same, that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me according to army regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so help me God. Quote I will never accept any employment financed in any significant part by coercive taxation. No, I won't give back my military pay, nor my GI Bill that paid for my college, tyvm.I found another quote on that wiki: Quote LP founder David Nolan created the Pledge in 1971 to protect the party from possible accusations that the LP seeks violent overthrow of the U.S. government. This makes sense. This lock-step, religeous zeal is complete bullshit. Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: tweber78 on May 07, 2008, 08:06:08 AM I have to say that I agree with both MIK and klapton.
I do not see the necessity for the pledge. Haven't we already made a tacit decision to live our lives as we see fit, in-so-much as doing so, does not infringe on another's right to so the same. And while I have never served in any branch of the military, I do hold those that do in high regard. And respect the decisions and actions that they have made. I carry around a small pocket copy of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would defend it and with Force. If that precludes me from the party then so be it. The quote from, L. Neil Smith was very interesting; however it is just his opinion and nothing more. I could say the same thing... Any individual seeking personal liberty and freedom, abiding to and in so swearing, accepts and promotes any pledge or oath, demanded of them by another, for the sole propose of membership to any group, party, or loose affiliation, is not, nor ever will be a Libertarian; but rather an opportunistic conceptionalist yada yada yada.... Whatever, let's just say that it is hypocritical to be forced to sign a pledge about not tolerating force. Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: klapton on May 07, 2008, 04:38:16 PM So, does NIF apply to Homo Sapiens who aren't born yet?
Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: tweber78 on May 07, 2008, 04:52:27 PM That might be a whole new discussion. We can all debate when, "born" happens.
Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: JohnKOTR on May 07, 2008, 06:08:20 PM So are you saying- Force is like pornography, I can not explain it; but I know it when I see it? Pornography is anything that you are no longer interested in after you ejaculate. Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: JohnKOTR on May 07, 2008, 06:31:57 PM I suppose that my interpretation of what is and is not force might differ from others'.
If the government attempts to take my property away from me to build a shopping mall (or for any other reason that is not a public emergency) and I refuse and they attempt to arrest me and remove me from the premises, I have no reservations about using force to protect myself and my property. If the government attempts to revoke the constitution, institutes martial law, and attempts to confiscate my guns, then I have no reservations about using force to "(..)to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America(..)" and what I describe as my individual sovereignty. If a group of individuals illegally enters this country and begins to destroy it, I have no problem using force to removing and returning them to their point of origin. If a nation places nuclear ballistic missiles 90 miles off-shore in a third-party nation, I have no problem using force to hit them. If any of that is a violation of the oath then you better just suspend my membership right now, cause I am not going to change my opinion on the matter. Of course, you might as well just close down shop and disband the Libertarian Party, too, cause we're never going to get anywhere with a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap pledges that force us to sit on our hands while people take advantage of us and the world crumbles. Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: tweber78 on May 09, 2008, 02:59:30 PM Will someone from the LPPA other then the chair, Mik Robertson, respond? Is there as much division in the party elite as there appears to be in the rank and file?
Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: djahn on May 10, 2008, 10:30:22 AM Will someone from the LPPA other then the chair, Mik Robertson, respond? Is there as much division in the party elite as there appears to be in the rank and file? There is spirited debate in every party on many of the issues that come before them. Topics involving principles elicit greater debate. Regarding the oath, I tend to accept the notion that it originated as a way for the party to avoid being labeled subversive. Many states, if not all, have laws addressing subversives. It would be possible for those in power to dismantle a party by having the courts declare it subversive. It seems to me that the oath would certainly negate any such a claim against the Libertarian Party. Others believe the oath has much deeper meaning and attempt to apply the non initiation of force principle to every aspect of life. Some take it to the zero aggression level and attempt to apply that. Coincidentally, these interpretations do fit well with libertarian principles and may even be helpful to those struggling to comprehend the concepts of libertarianism. I tend to avoid these debates regarding the true meaning of the oath as much as possible. I don't need the oath to define libertarian. Dictinoary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian) defines Libertarian as: -noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. 2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian). –adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty. 4. maintaining the doctrine of free will. That definition works for me. Some folks enjoy debates, and I suppose we could debate this until the cows come home, but I have never found this debate productive. Whenever I run for office, I tend to define libertarian in much simpler terms such as being respectful of the property and rights of others. Most people just sign the oath and move on. There are a few folks that hesitate or refuse. I'm not sure that it really serves any useful purpose at this point and suspect that it may be debated once again at the upcoming national convention. Should I sign it? What does it really mean? Should it be a requirement? The debate goes on. I can't be bothered. I'm too busy out here trying to save a country by getting libertarians elected. I hope that helps. David Jahn Title: Re: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea? Post by: tweber78 on May 10, 2008, 03:04:44 PM I don't need the oath to define libertarian. Dictinoary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian) defines Libertarian as: -noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. 2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian). –adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty. 4. maintaining the doctrine of free will. That definition works for me. Should I sign it? What does it really mean? Should it be a requirement? The debate goes on. I can't be bothered. I'm too busy out here trying to save a country by getting libertarians elected. I hope that helps. That does help actually. & Thank You.
Powered by SMF 1.1.4 |
SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com |