[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
David Demarest
dprattdemarest at gmail.com
Mon May 22 12:24:40 EDT 2017
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/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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170522/0bc512c2/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list