[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
Arvin Vohra
votevohra at gmail.com
Mon May 22 13:31:08 EDT 2017
Hi all -
This one is tricky. In general, I agree with the intent. Technically, I
agree with all of it. The only sticking point I have comes directly from
the platform. Whatever our intent is, that plank is read as a clear
endorsement of a standing army.
As I've been reminded this week, the technical truth or falsehood of a
statement often matters less than how it is interpreted. While the plank
can technically be interpreted to mean a non-State defensive organization,
it's unlikely that such an interpretation will be common.
At the same time, the LNC does not have the authority to alter the platform
at all.
It looks like it will pass regardless, but I will consider it further
before I vote.
-Arvin
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:24 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170522/c34d6b7d/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list