Despite what you may think, I am not much of a “joiner.” Unfortunately, I have learned through experience that joining clubs or organizations, and then becoming involved in the mechanics of operating the organization, leads mostly to aggravation and frustration. It is simply too hard, or though it seems, for any organized group of human beings to come together in a completely harmonious blend of dedication and drive. Too many egos, too many opinions, too many bosses all combine for a volatile and often hostile environment. So generally I avoid all the headaches by not joining at all… until yesterday.
Yesterday I joined an organization known as Oath Keepers as a full member.
Read more at LibertyForAll.net
14 responses so far ↓
1 Steven Wilson // Jan 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm
I really wish the campaign spotlight had hit him nationally. Simple truth spoken by a simple man. Not perfect and understands his place. Voters could’ve heard a true statesman.
Peace to Lee and those like him.
2 paulie // Jan 24, 2013 at 12:25 pm
The link in the article here is to the whole Liberty for All website. The direct link to the full article is http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=8623
3 Brian Holtz // Jan 28, 2013 at 3:57 pm
The LP Pledge is to “oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals”.
The U.S Constitution expressly endorses the initiation of force for the goal of obtaining witnesses in favor of the criminally accused: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”.
Pop quiz: how can one reconcile the Pledge and the Oath?
4 Andy // Jan 28, 2013 at 4:00 pm
The US Constitution also allows for tariffs, duties, and excise taxes, a government run Post Office, and the power to declare war.
So yes, the US Constitution is not a completely libertarian document from a purist libertarian perspective.
The only thing that I can say is that we’d have a much more libertarian society if the US Constitution were actually followed than what we have now.
5 Robert Capozzi // Jan 28, 2013 at 4:34 pm
NOIF in the pledge was intended to disclaim violent revolution, not to advocate statelessness.
6 Andy // Jan 28, 2013 at 5:29 pm
“Robert Capozzi // Jan 28, 2013 at 4:34 pm
NOIF in the pledge was intended to disclaim violent revolution, not to advocate statelessness.”
I can see how some interpret the pledge to disavow violent revolution, but it actually does not disavow violent revolution. Why? Because Libertarians oppose the INITIATION of force (and fraud), not the use of force in self defense. The government initiates force and fraud on us on a daily basis, so I do not believe that violent revolt against the government violates Libertarian Party principles.
7 Robert Capozzi // Jan 28, 2013 at 9:35 pm
6 A, well, I’m just tellin’ ya what I recall The Nolan said about the pledge, as I recall it.
I favor government initiation of force for the foreseeable future, since I think the alternative – no government – would be worse. I stake the claim to the L mantle, so I disagree with your premise. My sense is that most people who call themselves L are also not anarchists (although I am a theoretical asymptotic anarchist, technically speaking), so your statement seems to write off most Ls as faux Ls. That, of course, is your business, but we happen to disagree with you.
Then again, I may be in the minority of Ls that don’t believe that machine-gun toting in the subway is protected by 2A, so can feel you, in that sense. There’s nothing “wrong” per se with issuing one’s “minority report,” but it does seem indicated to recognize one’s minority status in a minor party.
8 Andy // Jan 28, 2013 at 10:22 pm
“Robert Capozzi // Jan 28, 2013 at 9:35 pm
6 A, well, I’m just tellin’ ya what I recall The Nolan said about the pledge, as I recall it.”
Yes, I remember David Nolan saying that, and I understand why he said it, but I’m just pointing out that the Libertarian Party’s pledge does not preclude violent revolution against a tyrannical government.
9 Robert Capozzi // Jan 29, 2013 at 5:39 am
a, yes, I can see how you read it that way. Since the State is aggressing, violent revolution could be construed as a defense action, yes?
Indeed, if there were a nightwatchman State, the McVeigh’s among us could seethe about the penny in taxes and the speed limit on the last public road and the staff maintaining the missile defense system. This abomination, in McVeigh’s mind, of aggression MUST end!!! Smash the state!!!
10 Be Rational // Jan 29, 2013 at 5:44 pm
@9 So, RC, do you think that the people in Syria or in North Korea have the right to revolt and use violence to overthrow their governments?
11 Robert Capozzi // Jan 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm
10 br, rights is a concept, an invented one that I generally find to be serviceable enough. There are times when revolution is indicated, and those nations may well be ripe for revolt.
A nightwatchman-State US would not be ripe for revolt, nor is the current configuration. Too many variables for me to propose a rule of thumb for revolt, but like all wars, it seems to be a last resort.
12 Andy // Jan 29, 2013 at 11:11 pm
Robert Capozzi said: “There are times when revolution is indicated, and those nations may well be ripe for revolt.”
I’m not sure that the right to keep and bear arms situation is for people in Syria, but I can say that the people in North Korea would have a much more difficult time than the USA’s Founding Fathers did in engaging in an armed revolution due to gun control.
The best time to revolt is not after you are already living under a tyrannical regime that has disarmed the population, but rather before the regime reaches that level of tyranny.
“A nightwatchman-State US would not be ripe for revolt,”
A small government/night watchman would still not likely stand up to a libertarian purity test, but even so, it probably would not be worth staging an armed revolution against either.
“nor is the current configuration.”
I do not agree with you here. I think that the current US government is so corrupt that it does deserve to be on the receiving end of an armed rebellion. I’m not saying that this is feasible, because I know that there are not enough Americans that have enough courage to actually do it, and I would certainly prefer a more peaceful solution, but I’m just saying that I believe the current corrupt regime which we live under deserves it.
13 Robert Capozzi // Jan 30, 2013 at 7:32 am
A 12, we disagree far less than you seem to think. Of course I agree with you that the current configuration is corrupt, quite so. I would add, though, that the political class gives every indication of being unconscious as well. They are so absorbed in the game that they have lost perspective.
Ripeness is a function of feasibility. If there’s only a few McVeighs among us, whilst the rest are tolerably dissatisfied with the political set up, it’s on the McVeighs to convince a critical mass that it’s V for Vendetta time. My counsel to the McVeighs is to not waste your time…I’m not seeing even the MOST persuasive firebrand stoking a full-on rebellion that stands any sort of chance to bend the curve significantly toward liberty.
You may well be channeling the Founders by taking your position on machine guns in the subway. Still, others – being unconscious and unattuned as you are – don’t hear them from the firmament. The point is: if the students are unprepared, the teacher will be unable to transmit knowledge.
14 Dan Karlan // Feb 3, 2013 at 11:47 am
@3, to get back to the issue of a contradiction between the NOIF and the Constitution on just the matter of the subpoena power: compelling testimony in favor of your innocence is not the initiation of force for a political or social goal, it is self-defense. Thus there is no contradiction.
There might be other contradictions, but that isn’t one of them.
Leave a Comment