[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members

William Redpath wredpath2 at gmail.com
Tue May 30 08:55:00 EDT 2017 

Yes.  Bill Redpath

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> I'm trying to decide how to vote on this motion, and wanted to ask the
> three of you as co-sponsors (Tim, Jeff, Alicia) your opinions on some of
> the language in the resolution – do you consider the phrase "we support the
> maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against
> aggression" to be a reference specifically to the U.S. government's
> military (i.e. an endorsement of a standing government military), or do you
> see it as a reference to *any* military force or forces (e.g. independent
> militias, etc.) sufficient to defend the United States against aggression?
> (See my previous message below for more thoughts on this.)
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                     ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                          RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>                                   @StarchildSF
>
>
> On May 20, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Starchild 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
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Alicia Mattson
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 20, 2017 1:02 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170530/0a2f69a4/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list