<div>The intent of that clause is simply to restate our Platform. Reading anything more into it is not necessary. Further I think the whole Accord is grossly misunderstood at times- it is referring to end game statements - it does not prohibit transitional statements which this must be interpreted as since it has existed since 1974 during the time of the Accord. If it is interpreted as requiring a state that would violate the Accord and the SoP- the Party is officially agnostic on that.</div><div><br></div><div>Many completely ignore the Accord. Others make it mean prohibitions on "things as they are now" statements - both are wrong. The Accord is embodied in the SoP. The platform can and should morph and change but shouldn't confuse people into purges which it presently does and is the one thing I don't like about our Platform that I generally like pretty well. </div><div><br></div><div>However I do believe the Accord was purposefully attempted to be buried (by some - certainly not all) in 2006 by not mirroring the SoP language on the state and I believe that is a wrong that must be righted. 2006 caused a terrible wound which would be easy to heal if people are truly interested in unity. We shall see. I have awakened many people to this through my activism.</div><div><br></div><div>The explicit parts of the Accord lead strongly a good faith adherence to the implicit portions and that has not been done and I think it violates the spirit of the SoP. I think portions of 2006 could have been successfully appealed to the JC and should have. But absent that - we are required by the SoP to interpret them not as ultimate sanction but as potential transition,</div><div><br></div><div>This clause however reflects identical wording all the way back to 1974. If we quoted a portion that I think was unjustly and divisively edited in 2006 (well the edits took place after that but I am simplifying here) I would oppose as a conscientious objector.</div><div><br></div><div>This is not such a case. Though I have had anti-anarchist purge-types try to throw this plank at me but it just shows an absence of knowledge of history.</div><div><br></div><div>-Caryn Ann </div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:12 PM Starchild <<a href="mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net">sfdreamer@earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-1823951776639452256Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Fair point, Caryn Ann. Perhaps the context here is what makes the phrase seem problematic – all the other uses of the term "military" within the resolution appear to be referring specifically to the U.S. government's military. But as you note in so many words, you're more familiar with the contents of the 1974 LP platform than I am. Perhaps you can say more about the context of the phrase as it appears in that document?</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><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><br></div><br></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>On May 20, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:</div><br class="m_-1823951776639452256Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>That wording is directly from our Platform and existed in 1974 at the time of the Dallas Accord and unless we think the actual delegates who made the Accord and in the years after were too daft to notice that, it must be interpreted as not violative of the Accord.</div><div><br></div><div>We don't have the authority to disavow as a body the Platform.</div><div><br></div><div>It does not necesssrily require a standing army.</div><div><br></div><div>I am relatively certain I have done more research on the Accord than most persons on this list.</div><div><br></div><div>-Caryn Ann</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 8:55 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"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692Apple-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_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692Apple-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_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692Apple-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_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692Apple-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_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692Apple-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_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692Apple-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_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692Apple-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></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><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_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div>We have an electronic mail <span class="m_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692gmail-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_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692gmail-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 world’s 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_-1823951776639452256m_427282577189643692webkit-block-placeholder"></div></blockquote></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote type="cite">
-- <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>.</blockquote></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote type="cite"><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></blockquote></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote type="cite">-- <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%2Bunsubscribe@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%2Bunsubscribe@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></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>
_______________________________________________<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 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>