[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
Whitney Bilyeu
whitneycb76 at gmail.com
Mon May 22 10:04:57 EDT 2017
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/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
>>>>
>>> --
>>> *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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170522/2f6cadb9/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list