[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun May 21 00:55:34 EDT 2017
That is my intent as that is my understanding of our platform, but I cannot
put my interpretation on my co-authors. I insisted that the NIFP be put in
the last clause and that to me covers the bases.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:47 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
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> *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*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170520/7ec73054/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list