Paul's Pledge is an expanded version of the current pledge and has major problems. Most egregious is there are so many terms that are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Most troubling is he seems to believe that if some punks are mugging an old lady on the sidewalk we should not do anything to intervene. No thanks. I won't be signing that pledge. Furthermore, we are supposed to depend on some unknown power to police our thoughts and words under penalty of expulsion from the party. I don't think so.
The Roberts pledge still remains a far superior pledge in my view. Especially if anyone bothers to read the whole essay with a critical mind. I'm moving more to the camp of doing away altogether with the pledge. I'm sorry to hear Ray passed. His voice will be missed. J R aka Vjklander > >Message: 17 > Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:44 pm (PDT) > From: "Paul" [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: The Oath > > >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 > > > > > > > ------------------------ 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/
