[Lnc-business] Letter to the LNC

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Tue May 23 22:46:52 EDT 2017



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
> Date: May 23, 2017 6:58:53 PM PDT
> To: Darryl W. Perry <darryl at freetalklive.com>
> Cc: LNC Discussion List <lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org>
> Subject: Re: Letter to the LNC
> 
> 
> Hi Darryl,
> 
> 	Thank you for writing to members of the Libertarian National Committee. I appreciate your defense of LP vice chair Arvin Vohra, and agree with your sentiments about the other political parties that "put (members of the U.S. government's military) on pedastals and pander for their votes". I have not yet decided how to vote on the resolution put forward by Daniel Hayes and other members of the LNC however. I did have some very strong concerns about part of that resolution, however those concerns have been at least partly addressed (see previous LNC list correspondence below). 
> 
> 	It may be that some members of the LNC feel the need to "do something", and that this resolution falls on the less harmful end of the spectrum of possible actions. I am still leaning against supporting it, but could be persuaded to do so if I see statements from the other co-authors that it is not intended to be a statement in support of a standing government army. Rest assured I am certainly not on the "Military is wonderful, and can do no wrong" train, nor I hope are any other LNC members. The resolution itself acknowledges some of the wrong that the U.S. government's military has done.
> 
> 	By the way, since you've written, I'd like to take the opportunity to publicly congratulate you and the rest of the New Hampshire LP on getting a second Libertarian legislator in your state (I saw the video of the press conference on that at which you were among the speakers), and a former Democrat at that! It's encouraging to see the presence of the Free State Project (http://www.FreeStateProject.org) in your state bearing more Libertarian fruit, which seems overdue. Your valuable lobbying work (see http://libertylobby.info/ ), as well as continued hosting on the excellent libertarian radio show Free Talk Live (http://www.FreeTalkLive.com) also deserve kudos, not to mention serving as New Hampshire state chair. Thank you once again for writing, and for all your substantial efforts on behalf of the cause of freedom!
> 
> Love & Liberty,
> 
>                                        ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                             RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                      (415) 625-FREE
>                                         @StarchildSF
> 
> 
> On May 20, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Darryl W. Perry wrote:
> 
>> I'm writing to you as a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, as one of the candidates for the 2016 LP Presidential nomination, and as a Conscientious Objector, and not in my official capacity as Chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.
>> 
>> I ask that you either vote NO on the "Libertarian National Committee Resolution on Military Members in the Libertarian Party" or consider changing your vote from YES to NO.
>> There are already at least 3 political parties (GOP, Dems & Constitution Party), possibly more, that put military members on pedestals and pander for their votes.
>> I can't tell you how often I hear people say "men and women have died or served time to make this great country free" or some other variation thereof. This is the trump card of the anti-Anti-War crowd, along with “freedom isn’t free” – which usually implies that people must die (the blood sacrifice) in order for you to have your freedom. She and others seem to believe that peace and freedom can only be achieved through bloodshed. Though even with much blood being shed the Congress has been taking away freedoms left and right for the past 100 years.
>> I'm really disappointed that some members of the LNC want to jump aboard the "Military is wonderful, and can do no wrong" train. With Memorial Day around the corner, we should be spreading the message of peace, and encouraging people to not fall for the lies of military recruiters!
>> Again, I respectfully ask you to vote NO on the Resolution on Military Members in the Libertarian Party, and to likewise vote against on the motion to remove Arvin Vohra as Vice Chair, unless there are specific bylaws violations that can be cited.
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> Darryl W. Perry
> 
> 
> 
> On May 22, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
> 
>> Hi all -
>> 
>> This one is tricky. In general, I agree with the intent. Technically, I agree with all of it. The only sticking point I have comes directly from the platform. Whatever our intent is, that plank is read as a clear endorsement of a standing army.
>> 
>> As I've been reminded this week, the technical truth or falsehood of a statement often matters less than how it is interpreted. While the plank can technically be interpreted to mean a non-State defensive organization, it's unlikely that such an interpretation will be common.
>> 
>> At the same time, the LNC does not have the authority to alter the platform at all.
>> 
>> It looks like it will pass regardless, but I will consider it further before I vote.
>> 
>> -Arvin
>> 
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:24 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com> wrote:
>> No
>> 
>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>> 
>> On May 22, 2017 9:05 AM, "Whitney Bilyeu" <whitneycb76 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes.
>> 
>> Whitney
>> 
>> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at earthlink.net
>>>>>>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>>>>>>                     
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes at 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170523/cf2eb3df/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list