the immigration plank not only endorses intiation of force, it is irrational nonsense.--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
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/
