Debate over the retention, elimination, or changing the Oath seems to be going to take up hours of rancorous squabbling at the convention. I'll weigh in with my perspective and let it rip from there.
I tend to lean to a desire to eliminate the oath altogether. I see advantages to having it, and disadvantages. In looking around to what others think about it, I found this essay by Ray Roberts which pretty much aligns with the way I was thinking thew Oath should be changed if it is to be retained: http://www.reformthelp.org/party/pledge/positive.php Snippet: A Better Pledge I believe force should only be used to protect life, liberty and property from attack. I propose the statement above as an improved Libertarian Pledge that is less ambiguous, more complete, and more accurate than the current pledge. It has advantages: It's a positive rather than a negative statement. This is what we believe! The word only makes it clear that force should not be used for any other purposes (unambiguous). It includes the fundamental rights we value... life, liberty, and property. ... from attack ensures that the preceding protect can't be interpreted to include government welfare (unambiguous). It should be acceptable to all flavors of Libertarians. It doesn't forbid tax-supported limited government. It's much easier to remember. J R aka Vjklander ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
