I replied to Terry privately and in more detail before realizing that his message was going to the group, but I'll summarize a few main points here:
1) The Boston Tea Party _does_ have a pledge. One becomes a member by certifying that one supports its platform. 2) The Boston Tea Party doesn't belong to me. It belongs to its members -- coming up on 100 now, and I expect 500 or more by the organizational convention next month. In creating it I assigned myself a very limited "caretaker" role until that convention. I have no intention of exceeding or re-defining that role and tinkering around with stuff before the members get their hands into the process. If the members want a pledge like the LP's or whatever, they can write one into the permanent bylaws. I'll have one vote on that question, just like everyone else. That said, I believe that the LP's pledge proved its ultimate uselessness this last weekend in Portland. The old arguments were about what it meant and whether or not it was necessary. Those arguments gave way to a third and indisputable argument in Portland: It doesn't work. If its purpose was, in fact, to keep the "impure" out of the LP, then it didn't have that effect. The "impure" came into the party, the "impure" went to Portland as delegates and platform/bylaws committee members, and the "impure" came out of Portland with significant victories. The real gauge of how seriously LP members take non-initation of force was not the vote to ditch or keep the pledge. It was the passage of the new immigration plank. Under Rule 7, Section 9 of the convention rules, it would have only taken 10% of the delegates to have appealed that plank to the Judicial Committee as repugnant to the Statement of Principles. Did such an appeal even take place? If not, then more than 90% of the delegates thereby implicitly stated that they endorse the initiation of force. Since the plank is still there, either the appeal did not take place, or the Judicial Committee upheld the plank on the appeal, or 3/4th of the delegates or more voted to overrule the Judicial Committee if it vetoed the plank. Any way you cut it, it was not just 1/3+1 who rejected the ZAP, it was at LEAST 75% and probably more than 90% of the delegates. The pledge is therefore, at the very MOST, a pro forma ticket to punch with no real force or effect. Tom Knapp ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/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/
