More ands more I am becoming convinced that the oath is a bad requirement. It is at the same time overly constricting and ambiguous. A very bad combination. Those that have the inclination should be allowed to work towards liberty with out feeling that their efforts are unappreciated.
BWS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric S. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:40 am Subject: Re: [Libertarian] The Oath > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > > So, what does the Libertarian Party do about the practical problem > that it has a membership requirement which is silly -- the LP > requires signing something whose meaning is not obvious and the > same to everyone -- rewrite it in plainer language, provide an > explanation (from the convention or the LNC) of what it actually > means? > If you do chose the explanation route, do you provide that > explanation along with the signature requirement, or spring the > actual meaning on them after they've signed? Before makes for a > crowded form, after sounds like "bait and switch", only worse. > > If you're going to include the explanation on the form, it had > best be short. If it's short, why not include the explanation as > part of the requirement? > > This whole series of practical questions avoids the one question > which no one has been able to answer to my satisfaction -- though > they are generally able to answer it to their own, and think that > should be enough to satisfy me -- why have this oath or any oath > at all? > > That's a rhetorical question, and has already been asked and > answered. At length. We've already gotten a huge collection of > incompatible answers, so I'll spare you my latest and perhaps > snarkiest. (E-mail me if you simply must know. Garrison Keillor > might find it amusing. Or not.) > > Bottom line: what do you think the LP ought to do about this > defective requirement? What do you think the LP will do about it? > -Eric > > -- > Eric S. Harris > > If this address ever fails, try visiting http://www.returnpath.net > > > > > > > ------------------------ 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------ 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 <*> 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/
