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.

Dude, I've seen some sample clips from their website.  It's HAWT!

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.

That might be a whole new discussion.  We can all debate when, "born" happens.

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.

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 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