<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I belatedly realized after sending that message that I should have asked for the the intent of the <i>authors</i> (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.</div><div><br></div><div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>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.</div></div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Love & Liberty,</div><div><br></div><div> ((( starchild )))</div><div>At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee</div><div> <a href="mailto:RealReform@earthilnk.net" target="_blank">RealReform@earthilnk.net</a></div><div> (415) 625-FREE</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On May 20, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>-Caryn Ann </div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the Book of Revelation is not Revelations.</div><div><br></div><div>-Caryn Ann </div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <<a href="mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net" target="_blank">sfdreamer@earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>Daniel,</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the phrase in this context is <b><i>not</i></b> 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.</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>Love & Liberty,</div><div> </div><div> ((( starchild )))</div><div>At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> <a href="mailto:RealReform@earthilnk.net" target="_blank">RealReform@earthilnk.net</a></div><div> (415) 625-FREE</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><br><div><div>On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:</div><br class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Starchild. </div><div><br></div><div>The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords.</div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0.5em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-style:initial;border-color:initial;outline-width:0px;outline-style:initial;outline-color:initial;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:24px"><strong style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">"3.1 National Defense</strong></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0.5em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-style:initial;border-color:initial;outline-width:0px;outline-style:initial;outline-color:initial;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:24px"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">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."</span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0.5em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-style:initial;border-color:initial;outline-width:0px;outline-style:initial;outline-color:initial;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:24px"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0.5em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-style:initial;border-color:initial;outline-width:0px;outline-style:initial;outline-color:initial;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:24px"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0.5em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-style:initial;border-color:initial;outline-width:0px;outline-style:initial;outline-color:initial;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:24px"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0.5em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-style:initial;border-color:initial;outline-width:0px;outline-style:initial;outline-color:initial;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:24px"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Daniel Hayes</span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0.5em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-style:initial;border-color:initial;outline-width:0px;outline-style:initial;outline-color:initial;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:24px"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">LNC At Large Member</span></div><div><br></div><br><div>Sent from my iPhone</div></div><div><br>On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <<a href="mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net" target="_blank">sfdreamer@earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Personally, I <i>do</i> 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. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal/" target="_blank">https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal/</a> ), 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 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html</a> ). 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>I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, <b>and</b> the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself!</i></div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Explicit <i>Libertarian Party</i> 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.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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 <i>technically consistent </i>with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind:</div><div><br></div><div> 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 <i>sufficient</i> 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</div><div><br></div><div> 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</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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, <b>I must oppose the motion as written and</b> <b>accordingly vote no</b>. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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 <i>"support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and"</i> 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.</div><div><br></div><div>Love & Liberty,</div><div><br></div><div> ((( starchild )))</div><div>At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee </div><div> <a href="mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net" target="_blank">RealReform@earthlink.net</a></div><div> (415) 625-FREE</div><div> </div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, <a href="mailto:lnc-votes@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-votes@hq.lp.org</a> wrote:</div><br class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div>We have an electronic mail <span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960gmail-m_-2669273614679168036gmail-m_1986229171992062500gmail-m_1181632840545237343gmail-m_5539741857281978456gmail-m_3269739548110022274gmail-m_-7417594590945562825m_-3106942960241565296gmail-m_2797144110872258469gmail-m_7277579120155508541gmail-m_9149391285218628846gmail-il">ballot</span>.<br></div><br><b><u>Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, <span class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960gmail-m_-2669273614679168036gmail-m_1986229171992062500gmail-m_1181632840545237343gmail-m_5539741857281978456gmail-m_3269739548110022274gmail-m_-7417594590945562825m_-3106942960241565296gmail-m_2797144110872258469gmail-m_7277579120155508541gmail-m_9149391285218628846gmail-il">2017</span> at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.<br></u></b> <br><u>Sponsor:</u> Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson<br>
<br><u>Motion:</u> <br><br>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;<br><br>Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military<br>were unjustly conscripted in the past;<br><br>Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States<br>and, thereby, their property, families, and friends;<br><br>Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for<br>purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts<br>to act as the worlds policeman; and<br><br>Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways<br>in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense<br>against aggression; now, therefore, be it;<br><br>Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian<br>principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a<br>vital part of our membership.<br><br><br></div>-Alicia<br><br></div><div><br class="m_-200456702128147130m_-5382873637632125960webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>Lnc-business mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br><a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br><br>-- <br>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.<br>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>_______________________________________________<br>Lnc-votes mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-votes@hq.lp.org</a><br><a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org</a><br><br>-- <br>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.<br>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Lnc-business mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br>Lnc-business mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br><a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div><div>-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee</span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">A haiku to the Statement of Principles:</span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>We defend your rights</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>And oppose the use of force</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>Taxation is theft</i></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee</span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">A haiku to the Statement of Principles:</span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>We defend your rights</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>And oppose the use of force</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>Taxation is theft</i></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Lnc-business mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>