From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 08:28:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) says:

>In article <parvin1.727909950@husc.harvard.edu> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>}bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>}
>}
>}>In a previous article, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) says:
>}
>}>>Would someone please post some of the objections to the pledge?  I didn't 
>}>>really have a problem with it, and I'm curious as to why anyone would object 
>}>>(note that I wouldn't have signed the pledge without that key word 
>}>>"initiation"...is it that there are some versions of the pledge without that?).
>}
>}6) It goes against the principles of a large number of libertarians who
>}support the down-sizing of government because it is by nature wasteful,
>}unimaginative, corrupt, etc.  These libertarians might not have a beef with a
>}theoretical utopian government that didn't exhibit these traits, but believe
>}that it is impossible in practice due to human nature, lack of individual
>}motivation, etc. Therefore, they pragmatically support a libertarian agenda  
>}and feel alienated by the categorical universality of the pledge.  They do
>}not hold to one shining guiding principle.
>
>Such people simply aren't libertarians, but conservatives.  There's no reason
>why we should make the LP a safe haven for conservatives.
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>
>"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
>oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
>
Okay, Tim:  I score 100/90 on the WSPQ.  I believe we should:

1.  Abolish the draft.

2.  End all censorship for any reason.

3.  Repeal all laws against sex by consenting adults.

4.  Repeal all drug laws.

5.  Repeal all immigration and emigration restrictions.

6.  Abolish farm subsidies.

7.  Abolish all tariffs.

8.  Repeal all minimum wage laws.

9.  Stops paying for the national defense of Japanese and Europeans.

What's missing?  I am not sure, in my heart, that we can completely 
eliminate involuntary taxation.  I checked that box "maybe", and I am willing
to have taxation continue in some form, if it cannot be *proven* that
the gov't can be funded by voluntary means..and I suspect that it cannot
be proven.  Since taxation, by definition, cannot be accompished without
the initiation of the use of force, *in principle* I should not sign
the oath.  But I do anyway, because it seemed to me at the time to be
an acceptable compromise.

So what does that make me?  Unprincipled?  Just "another conservative" who
should not be "granted haven" in the LP?

Or would you be willing to call me a libertarian and have me work with you
to try to move this country in a directio nwe both want it to go?

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian