RIP Ronald Reagan

[Radar]

I suppose then you don't vote for him next time, or you don't vote for those who appointed him. If his actions are overtly egregious, I suppose you could try to get him disbarred, or fired. If he is using force to violate the rights, property, or person of someone who has not committed a crime (as defined earlier), I suppose you could use force or violence in your own defense against the judge or those following his orders, though I tend to try to solve things peacefully until violence is used against me. Then I don't care whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Nobody is above an ass kicking.

[Undertoad]

I'm sorry, are you talking about now you as a NAP user, apply yourself to the present government? Or are you talking about the government that would result from application of the NAP? I am more interested in the latter.

[Radar]

Government is merely a tool. Its legitimate powers are limited to what rights we as individuals possess to grant to it and which have been outlined by our Constitution.

You asked me what we'd do if judges (presumabely in a government that is expected to adhere to the NAP) failed to act in accordance with the NAP. I responded with what I'd personally do.

If your question was what government would result if the government didn't adhere to the NAP, the answer is we'd have the government we have right now.

[Undertoad]

An improper government, to be sure.

What does the NAP say, then, about how you get to a NAP-Approved gov't, without which there will be a guaranteed level of improper force applied? And what does it say about how to maintain that level of NAP-Approval?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...that level of NAP-Approval?

Would that be NAPpiness?

[Radar]

I think it says, we have a duty to keep a very watchful eye on government and never to allow it to step beyond its extremely limited authority lest we end up with a government that violates rights instead of defending them. We can't let government exceed it's limited authority even for what we believe is a good reason, because it opens the door for others to overstep the bounds for bad reasons.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

It's not our party. It's MY party and the party of real libertarians and that excludes you and your ilk.

I can find no better sentence to illustrate the wrongness and futility of your thinking on this. You are preventing the growth and effectiveness of libertarianism. If you want libertarianism as much as you say you do, it's OUR party. Don't talk yourself into not having an effect on history because you got excluded. That would be [dramatic O'Reilly pause] ridiculous.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And to move the topic from "Are not!" "Am too!" -- just how much governmental intervention and governmental power is one willing to accept to guarantee the Non-Aggression Principle's force?

Our own tyrants? I ain't convinced we have any. We've got wannabes, not effective tyrants, thanks to the American habit of keeping power limited in both scope and time. Even the worst the regrettable Bill and Hillary Clinton could manage was "tyrants manqués."

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And to move the topic from "Are not!" "Am too!" -- just how much governmental intervention and governmental power is one willing to accept to guarantee the Non-Aggression Principle's force?

None.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Our own tyrants? I ain't convinced we have any. We've got wannabes, not effective tyrants, thanks to the American habit of keeping power limited in both scope and time. Even the worst the regrettable Bill and Hillary Clinton could manage was "tyrants manqués."

We have no tyrants? Tell that to the people in Iraq who were murdered by the Bush regime. Tell it to Americans who have been locked up without charges or access to a lawyer and kept in jail for years. Tell it to all of America who have had their civil rights attacked. Tell it to the families who lost their bread winners in an unconstitutional war started by a military deserter. Tell it to the families who lost thier bread winners and who have become homeless because of the drug war.

Tell it to me, who was arrested on tax day for handing out pamphlets on government property, which I'm entitled to be on and my activities are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The United States is responsible for tyrants within our borders, and nowhere else. The Military of the United States is for defending U.S. soil and ships and nothing else. The limited authority of the U.S. military ends where the U.S. borders end. The limited authority of the president doesn't include any war making powers.

I wish freedom for all people. And if you want them to be free so much, send your money, guns, and even yourself there to help fight for their freedom. But whatever you do, don't use the U.S. military to do it. You can get together a militia, buy a bunch of guns or other weapons, and organize a resistance in those nations, and I will applaud your efforts. But the second you use the U.S. military to attack anyone who has not directly attacked American ships or soil, you and I are going to have a big problem and it might get ugly.

[Radar]

I can think of no better way to tell you that you are not a libertarian. In fact you are very anti-libertarian. I'd love the party to grow by leaps and bounds, but I'd rather have it destroyed completely if it means allowing those with your jingoistic, backward, views into the party merely for the sake of growth.

We want all the libertarians we can find, but if you don't support military non-interventionism, neutrality in all disputes, and never initiating force against those who haven't used force against you, especially for social engineering or political gain such as overthrowing nations you don't think are up to snuff.

If the party never ever grows but keeps out bullies who don't recognize the sovereignty of other nations, and who want to misuse the U.S. military like you, I'll be a very happy man.

Yesterday while at the quarterly Executive Committee Meeting for the Libertarian Party of the state of California, I had to fight it out with a few of your ilk. But in the end with 5 minutes to go, I got enough support together to pass a resolution against the war in Iraq. We had three peace resolutions and the 2 better ones were shot down, but when they tried to close the meeting I forced it on the agenda.

Here's the wording of the one that passed:

A Resolution by the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee Affirming the National
Libertarian Party Principles and Platform Concerning Foreign Intervention and the Invasion of Iraq


Whereas, the National Libertarian Party Platform's Preamble states in part, "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others";

Whereas, the National Libertarian Party Platform's Statement of Principles states in part, "...we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others....";

Whereas, the National Libertarian Party Platform at Part IV.D.2. (Foreign Affairs / International Relations /Foreign Intervention), states in part, "The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them," and, "End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling";

Whereas the admittedly (by the President and Vice-president) pre-emptive ("before the fact") invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq by the United States was accomplished in blatant disregard for American constitutional requirements and international law under treaties to which the United States is a signatory, and upon an apparently false basis of manipulated information and manufactured allegations;

Whereas the continuing military occupation of Iraq is precipitating a deplorable loss of civilian and American lives, is exacerbating American deficit spending, and appears to be aggravating the terrorist threat worldwide;

Now, therefore,

Be it Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee hereby affirms the National Libertarian Party's Preamble, Statement of Principles and Platform, in particular for this case those portions cited herein; and Be it Further Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee finds, upon no tangible proof having been shown of Iraqi participation in the World Trade Center, etc. (9/11) attack, that the invasion of Iraq appears unwarranted; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee finds that the
continuing occupation of Iraq is inimical to the interests of the citizens of the United States as well as to the interests of the citizens of Iraq; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the United States government's declared purpose of "bringing democracy to Iraq" is an offensive imposition of the values of some of our citizens over a foreign sovereign people; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee formally petitions that the National Libertarian Party remain constant and adamant in demanding that the United States government cease and desist in the most safely expedient manner possible from all foreign economic and military interventions, Iraq in particular, and correct its international policies so that it may at last begin to facilitate world peace through the naturally benevolent function of the Free Market.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

That's why I didn't vote for Badnarik last general election -- he wouldn't have been able to address the evil that is totalitarianism. The sort of thing contained in that resolution leaves tyrants unmolested, and an unmolested tyrant will do everything in his power to stymie libertarianism. Who in the LP would want that?? Ridiculous.

I say again it is hardly Libertarianism to leave slavemakers in their stations. People under tyrants are unfree. Libertarianism is all about freeing the peoples, or it is about nothing at all.

You either have a political party that does something, or you have a debating society where the philosopher princes of the LP don't actually do any libertarianism, but lose themselves in contemplating its beauties. I think you know what I want to see.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

That's why I didn't vote for Badnarik last general election -- he wouldn't have been able to address the evil that is totalitarianism. The sort of thing contained in that resolution leaves tyrants unmolested, and an unmolested tyrant will do everything in his power to stymie libertarianism. Who in the LP would want that?? Ridiculous.

Everyone who is genuinely a libertarian would want it. This explains why you don't...because you are NOT a libertarian.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I say again it is hardly Libertarianism to leave slavemakers in their stations. People under tyrants are unfree. Libertarianism is all about freeing the peoples, or it is about nothing at all.

I say again, you're not in a position to say what is or isn't libertarianism because you're not one and don't seem to ahve a clue about it. People under tyrants are unfree. I wish them freedom and I hope they can overthrow their tyrants as we did. I think people who want to fight for their freedom should be allowed to do it as long as they don't use the U.S. military to do it.

You either have a political party that does something, or you have a debating society where the philosopher princes of the LP don't actually do any libertarianism, but lose themselves in contemplating its beauties. I think you know what I want to see.

We do have a political party that does something. We get people elected to reduce the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of our own government and demand that it adhere to the limits placed on it by the U.S. Constitution. We change public policy in our own country and hope for others to do the same.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And I cannot, after thought, bring to mind any such Constitutional requirements as the resolution references.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And I cannot, after thought, bring to mind any such Constitutional requirements as the resolution references.

The U.S. Constitution (The highest law in the land)says that ONLY Congress has war making powers. This means if we are going to take part in a war, it must be declared by Congress.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Breaking a tyranny is not the action of a tyrant, Radar. It seems to me more the action of an anti-tyrant.