While schollarly writting pertaining to Libertarian philosophy and Libertarian movement are not the intended content of LPN, in reading the mentioned policy manual one can see "(c) those discussing the tactics and strategy of Party political activities."
Now, the sholastic portion of this article was placed as a foundation for the main arguement of the article, wich pertains to the above quotation. Had the scholastic section been the main arguement then yes this piece would not belong in the LPN, however it was not the main argument. The claim that it is against policy is very debatable given these facts. I personaly am more concerened over one who advocates censorship than I am over the editors enterpretation of policy. --- In [email protected], "naisarid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I have posted on my blog (http://www.SmallGov.org/) publishing this > article in LP News is a violation of the LNC Policy Manual. I have > also sent an email to the entire LNC reminding them about that > troublesome document of theirs -- the LNC Policy Manual. > > This is not the first time that the editor has used the newsletter for > factional purposes. This should be a matter of great concern to all > LP members. > > Greg Dirasian > > --- In [email protected], marc guttman <marc_guttman@> wrote: > > > > > > The Forum > > > > > > Email this page > > Printer friendly page > > > > > > > > By Dr. Carl S. Milsted, Jr. > > Member, 2006 LP Bylaws CommitteeFeb 1, 2006 > > > > > > Are Libertarians anarchists? It's time to decide > > > > > > For the sake of argument, let us assume that the initiation of force > is the highest evil, that no social cause, be it feeding the poor or > protecting an endangered species, can justify the initiation of force. > > > > Does this assumption lead to a moral requirement for anarchy? Is all > taxation forbidden? > > > > The answer is no! Abolish a government and the most likely scenario > is war. Someone will try to fill in the power vacuum. Either it will > be another government or warlords within the region of anarchy. > > > > This is a net increase in the amount of force used. > > > > Recorded history has shown this time after time. When a government > collapses, either the people resort to tribalism, with every > able-bodied male a soldier; the rich use their personal bodyguards to > become feudal lords; neighboring peoples send in raiders to pillage, > loot, and capture slaves; other governments conquer the region; and/or > warlords within the region fight civil wars until a new government is > established. None of these outcomes are pleasant. > > > > All of them are less libertarian than a modern welfare state. > > > > Yes, there are some rare cases in recorded civilized history where > people have prospered without government as we know it. But these were > the aberrations, not the norm. And they happened in isolated areas > and/or among peoples who had shared traditions and religion. > > > > These conditions do not apply to the United States of the 21st > Century. The idea that well-behaved private protection services will > peacefully fill the power vacuum is highly speculative, unsupported by > experiment. Modern experimentation with zero government is best tried > with a small isolated country â" not a huge superpower. > > > > To abolish government in the U.S. would be an incredibly dangerous > experiment, likely leading to more tyranny, not liberty. > > > > Most freedom lovers favor some government, even though that means > supporting some taxation and regulation. For this reason, most freedom > lovers reject the Libertarian Party as it currently stands. > > > > The current LP membership pledge does not allow for limited > government. Some initiation of force is required for a government to > do its job. Some taxation is necessary. > > > > To obey the LP membership pledge requires calling for the effective > abolition of government. And many of the provisions in our current > platform reflect this mandate, especially our call for the "repeal of > all taxation." > > > > There is a moral libertarian case for some government. The > initiation of force will always be with us. The option of no such > force is not available; advocating such is equivalent to advocating > free energy or time travel. > > > > The best we can do is minimize the initiation of force, and the > overwhelming historical evidence indicates that this minimum requires > some government â" with some war, police and taxation authority. > > > > Should we succeed in implementing the current LP platform, our > nation will be at great risk of conquest and civil war. > > > > But we won't succeed, because most libertarians â" and virtually > all Americans â" refuse to support such a risky experiment. Most > libertarians understand the need for some government, for some > taxation. This is a major reason why our vote totals are so small. At > present, we are not a libertarian party, we are an anarchist party. > > > > It is time to decide: If we want to continue being an anarchist > party, we should practice truth in advertising, and change the name to > Anarchist Party. Or, if we want to be a truly libertarian party, we > need to either change or eliminate the membership pledge. > > > > We also need to update the platform to allow for that minimal state > that maximizes liberty. > > > > Which will it be? > > > > -- About the author: Dr. Carl S. Milsted, Jr., of Asheville, N.C., > is a member of the LP's 2006 Bylaws Committee, a former LNC alternate > representative, and Webmaster for the Libertarian Reform Caucus. > > > > > > - Published in the February 2006 issue of LP News - > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
