[Libertarian] Re: The Oath

Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:44:18 -0700

No, because some people would stupidly think that means we could use
the military to defend "America's Friends".  I'd agree with you otherwise.


--- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would support that change,
> adding in the first sentence, "...or that of my
> family and friends."
>
> For life and liberty,
> David Macko
> Ohio Delegate
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 5:27 PM
> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: The Oath
>
>
> A better pledge would be...
>
> I ______________ fully support the non-aggression principle and never
> advocate using force for any reason other than my own defense.  I do
> not military interventionism or advocate using the military for any
> reason other than to defend my own country against actual attacks that
> have taken place already or are in the process of taking place.
>
> I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force
> as a means of achieving political or social goals and understand if my
> actions or words openly support the use of force for political gain or
> social engineering, my membership can be revoked.
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "James Stevenson" <vjklander@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
>









ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



SPONSORED LINKS
Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to