Dear LNC:

I am pleased to learn that Lee Wrights’ position on the LNC is officially recognized, once again. Hopefully, this is part of a trend toward more reconciliation within our party.

The healing must take place so we may move forward as the unified force. This is required if we are to effectively challenge the cult of the omnipotent state.

In liberty,
Scotty Boman
Michigan Delegation

For every action there is the action itself and the meaning and reason behind it. It is the different meaning and reasons that we draw the distinction at.

Simple example of one man killing another comes to mind. Is it using force? Absolutely. But if he’s doing it to defend himself, we don’t call it initiating force. If he isn’t defending himself, then it is initiating force. The reason he kills does matter, and it’s not enough to look at the action alone.

But using force on others is by definition authoritarian, because by doing so one attempts to establish their authority and control, even if it means re-establishing their own authority and control.

This rather contradicts my understanding of libertarian thought, which holds that coercion or aggression (the initiation of force) is qualitatively different from the simple application of force.

My understanding is that we have force as a tool in dealing with others. It can be applied defensively or offensively, and libertarianism only proscribes the offensive use of force. Pacifists do not draw this distinction.

Your position seems confusing to me, because you seem to be saying that you make a distinction and that defense is ‘justifiable’ but still ‘authoritarian’. I think you’re introducing needless complexity here, as the word ‘authoritarian’ in libertarian lingo usually carries an unmitigated negative connotation.

Hopefully the Judicial committee will not need a third appeal in order to view this issue, should it come to pass. Hopefully the party’s radical wing will realize that they should vote against this motion.

No, that’s not so. Initiating force against others is an authoritarian means. Using force in defense of life, liberty, or property is not. Using force to retaliate against those who have attacked life, liberty, or property either for the purpose of recovering what has been taken or for the purpose of thwarting any future attempts by those attackers is also not authoritarian.

A philosophy of liberty is not a philosophy of pacifism. There can be no peace without justice, no justice without freedom, and no freedom without weapons.

It ought to go without saying that leaving the weapons in your closet while being confronted by hooligans like Starr and Repdath is a poor choice.

Got rebar?

I’m glad to hear that there are enough votes to “re-appoint” Lee to a seat that was never vacant.

Once again, however, the seat isn’t vacant, and therefore no one can be appointed to fill it.

This is important.

Hopefully, the LNC will overturn the chair’s ruling as to the existence of a vacancy.

If the LNC fails to overturn that ruling, hopefully the Judicial Committee will impose the bylaws pursuant to the instant appeal instead of allowing the LNC to proceed on a course of rebellion against those bylaws.

Simply saying that someone’s dues are not current is not enough, or any other reason. It needs to be shown to be the case and the committee as a whole should be making that decision. We need to avoid the grudge problem. I have seen it, the grudge problem, and been on the receiving end of it in the LP twice.

Yes, there probably are

Sorry if I wasn’t clear… there definitely are enough votes, not just probably. 9 people have already voted to appoint Lee. Unless someone switches votes at the last minute, he’s back.

Once the vote ends I’ll try to post the results on my charts — assuming I’m able to get the vote soonish rather than waiting for next meeting’s minutes.

http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2010/voting/

Yes, I spose defending oneself against an unjust State official is cause to defend oneself. But my goodness I’d want to be REAL careful with this idea…unless one is angling for a McVeigh/martyr type end. Didn’t seem to end so well for Tim.

Yes, there probably are — but once again, this isn’t about Wrights as much as it is about whether or not that alleged vacancy exists.

According to the secretary, with the backing of the chair, the vacancy exists.

According to the bylaws, the vacancy doesn’t exist.

This thing needs to be settled unambiguously in favor of the bylaws. Allowing the secretary to remove members of the LNC, as long as he can get the chair to connive with him in doing so, would be extremely bad precedent.

Got rebar?

Defending yourself from government swine is not an ‘authoritarian means’, even if violence is used.

Got rebar? lol

As for the perpetrators, I’m not at liberty to discuss anything.

And to answer the last statement, applying authoritarian means to authoritarians to remove them from being authoritarians or acting like it can result in libertarian ends. Enforcement of individual rights against the government oppressors comes to mind immediately.

However, it does not seem to me to end there, and I definitely don’t agree with Peter @23 that the LP should “move on” and forget about this situation. The secretary and the chair have done very bad things here, improper things.

You guys moved on and left the same evil people in place after the Angela Keaton fiasco, and look what they did next. You can’t seriously imagine that having the same thugs running the LP as officers and staff is going to work well.

Unless you believe in some sort of magic, I don’t see how authoritarian means can result in libertarian ends.