[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sat May 20 23:02:53 EDT 2017 

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 at 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 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 at googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at 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 at googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-votes mailing list
>> Lnc-votes at 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 at googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at 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 at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at 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 at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at 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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170521/311b2d27/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list