I went back and reread the Ray Roberts article that was linked in the email. His better pledge is also ambiguous. Who can use force and who decides when their life, liberty or property are being attacked? And yes upon analysis the current pledge is also ambiguous. But such pledges should be general in nature wrt principles and specific wrt actions.
BWS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric S. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, June 16, 2006 0:39 am Subject: Re: [Libertarian] The Oath > James Stevenson 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 > > > > > As it is currently worded, there is room for misinterpretation. > Some of > a cynical and/or suspicious nature suspect the lack of clarity is > deliberate. > > A substantial fraction of those who think it has a definite > meaning > think it prohibits all government: taxes, border quarantines, > subpoenas, > everything. A substantial fraction of those who think it has a > definite > meaning think it is just a "no terrorists allowed" membership > requirement. (You might want to conduct a poll at your next state > convention, if enough attend for the results to be statistically > significant.) > > Frankly, it doesn't matter to me what it "really" means. I > already know > the most important thing about its meaning: the meaning is not > obvious > to everyone (and the same to everyone who is convinced its meaning > is > obvious). > > I just want to know if the oath means that the LP is for > anarchists > only, or non-terrorists only, or what. > > Until it is clarified or eliminated, I'm not renewing my > membership, and > I will encourage others to do the same. > > If it is clarified, I'll either renew or abandon the LP forever, > depending on what the new wording turns out to be. > > If it's eliminated, I'll renew in a heartbeat (unless it is > replaced by > some membership requirement that is even worse). > > More info at the Libertarians for an Open Party YahooGroup. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LOP-General> -Eric > > -- > > Eric S. Harris > > If this address ever fails, try visiting http://www.returnpath.net > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- > ~--> > Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email > design.http://us.click.yahoo.com/yHUd1C/hOaOAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > -~-> > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XmUd6C/bOaOAA/cUmLAA/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/
