The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the LPPa forum. 
Feel free to join the discussions.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Let the newbies weigh in- NIF Pledge- Yea or Nea?  (Read 595 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
tweber78
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« 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?
Logged
JohnKOTR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #1 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.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2008, 09:18:35 PM by JohnKOTR » Logged
tweber78
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #2 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.
Logged
johngalinac
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 21



Email
« Reply #3 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?
Logged

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson
tweber78
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #4 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.
Logged
Dr. Awkcabeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #5 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?
Logged
klapton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #6 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.
Logged
tweber78
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #7 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......
Logged
Dr. Awkcabeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #8 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?Huh
Logged
bdively
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


Email
« Reply #9 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. 
Logged
Dr. Awkcabeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #10 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?
Logged
klapton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #11 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.

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......
Uhhh...  I have a voter registration card that says "Libertarian" on it.

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.

 Roll Eyes
Logged
bergie72
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


brianb_1972@hotmail.com luzernelp@yahoo.com
« Reply #12 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.  :-)
Logged
hkyriazi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #13 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
Logged
Dr. Awkcabeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #14 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?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com