I'm glad to hear that. If you or anyone else is interested in joining the LOP-General YG, and -- more important -- join the Libertarians for an Open Party to work towards creating an effective political party for libertarians and others to use to reduce government, take a trip to <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LOP-General>.
There's plenty to be done. -Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > -- Eric S. Harris If this address ever fails, try visiting http://www.returnpath.net ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Take a stand. Make a choice. Join the Citizen Philanthropists at DonorsChoose! http://us.click.yahoo.com/qGwc0C/pPaOAA/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/
