[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun May 21 00:37:11 EDT 2017
No problem. It is going off into the weeds anyhow.
I spend way too much time in those weeds.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:
> And I actually think the current plank requires contortions to be not
> interpreted in violation of the SoP and should be changed or challenged to
> the JC quite honestly. That was the over-reach of 2006 but too many people
> are just ignorant of the history. So I interpret it, with the convolutions
> needed, so that it doesn't violate the SoP which is agnostic on the state.
> Yes, it makes my head hurt too. We have confused members with this, and it
> is unnecessary.
>
> But here we are. It should go back to saying "existing governments" etc.
> But that is a discussion for another day.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Daniel, a nit to pick...
>>
>> == I am saying as per our bylaws, defending people from Aggression is
>> one of the only the only legitimate purposes for a government. ==
>>
>> Our Bylaws do not address that. Our Bylaws say the Statement of
>> Principles is the foundation of our ideology. Our SoP does not say that.
>> It did in 1972. It was amended in 1974 and that part was removed and
>> changed to say that a government, if it existed, must not violate rights.
>> This gets complex, but it is not quite correct to say that ultimately our
>> position that this is a legitimate function for government - it is a
>> legitimate use of force - and right now the government monopolizes
>> enforcement and thus if it defends against aggression without violating
>> rights, that would be legitimate and right now, it is often the only
>> defense we have. But I am not trying to get into the weeds here, just
>> trying to be clear our Bylaws don't say that. Our Platform says that, but
>> again, must be interpreted in light of our SoP.
>>
>> We have a state right now. It must defend us as it has made us dependent
>> on it. A minarchist is okay with that, an anarchist is not, but it is the
>> world we have right now. (one flaw is that we use the word government when
>> we mean state and sometimes vice versa).
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Starchild,
>>>
>>> I pulled it straight from the platform for a reason. I think it was
>>> important to frame it from the context of the voice of our delegates. It is
>>> from them that we derive our authority as a committee.
>>>
>>> I was not writing a plank on self defense. I am saying as per our
>>> bylaws, defending people from Aggression is one of the only the only
>>> legitimate purposes for a government. It was in that stead that members of
>>> the US military serve(d) and that they were not at odds with our platform
>>> just for being part of it.
>>>
>>> The purpose for this resolution is not to cast aspersions on the US
>>> military.. though it does indeed impugn the system we have in place and the
>>> way it has manipulated people, most of who have good and noble intentions.
>>> The purpose for this resolution is to say we need the unique perspective
>>> that members of the military can bring to the discussion. That is something
>>> that has been made unclear in recent times. They have seen up close and
>>> personal where the "ruling class" has manipulated good intentions into
>>> something else.
>>>
>>> It's also not the scope of this resolution to determine whether or not a
>>> standing army run by the government is the right solution to defense.
>>>
>>> As that first clause dates back at LEAST to 1974 as Caryn Ann had
>>> pointed out. I think it safe to say that it leaves open the possibility of
>>> a privatized military instead of a government run one. The reality is that
>>> we have the current defense we have. We need to walk it back. To help us
>>> do that we need people that have been and are on the inside.
>>>
>>> People become like the people they associate with. Wouldn't we want to
>>> associate with those currently in the role of defenders of the United
>>> States where we live? We can then keep in their mind the principles of
>>> libertarianism like the Non-Aggression Axiom. If we are going to achieve
>>> peace it helps to have the guys with the biggest guns with us and thinking
>>> like us.
>>>
>>> On a final note. Suicide in the military is an epidemic. If we can
>>> lighten the burden some of these members of the military carry and give
>>> them an outlet to help us achieve peace, I think that is the human thing to
>>> do.
>>>
>>> So backing up to your original question. I think the first phrase
>>> definitely could be any military force sufficient to defend the United
>>> States.
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On May 20, 2017, at 10:29 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/N
>>> ews-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/2015/0
>>> 1/28/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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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*
>
>
>
>
>
--
*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/20170520/5e28aa00/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list