Harland Harrison wrote: HH> The principle of non-intervention described in that language goes way beyond just not initiating force. <HH
Which is why the rest of that old language did not belong in the platform of a party seeking to unite the electoral efforts of all Americans who seek less force-initiation. By contrast, that language makes perfect sense in the platform of a party of people who care more about having clean hands than about minimizing force-initiation. HH> The LP opposed the FIRST war in Iraq, in 1991. The US had not been attacked. <HH If you encounter a 10-year-old swinging a baseball bat at the head of a 5-year-old, do you just walk on by? HH> If the US had not intervened then, the world would certainly have been different. <HH Indeed. Instead of being tried and hanged by his own people, the genocidal tyrant Saddam would have the oil wealth of Kuwait and nuclear weapons. HH> Calling people names is never a good idea. Even if you have big, fancy, new names to call them, like "pup-tent" or "Testestarian" , name calling is still not a good idea. <HH Using the tent metaphor to accurately describe party inclusiveness is hardly name-calling, even when the description is made more colorful by saying "pup tent" instead of "small tent". Accurately diagnosing someone's use of an issue as a litmus test is hardly name-calling, even when the diagnosis is rendered in short-hand as LitmusTestItarian. Name-calling is when one uses words like "stupid" or "traitor" or "fascist" or "Nazi" when talking about a fellow Libertarian -- like you have done.
