From: Thomas Oliver Martin <tom1@computerlink.com>
Jason Auvenshine wrote:
>
> From: "Jason Auvenshine" <auvenj@mailcity.com>
>
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 11:50:52 Thomas Oliver Martin wrote:
> >I think it makes sense to require that members explicitly agree
> >with the Statement of Principles. It might help to clarify one
> >point: Trafficking in stolen goods/wealth, including tax funds,
> >is illegal and immoral and not something a member of the Arizona
> >Libertarian Party would wish to do. Another point of clarification
> >might be that unnecessary (absent coercion) cooperation with
> >government efforts to limit freedom is good cause for ALP membership
> >revocation.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, Peter is a full-fledged member of the national LP,
> which means he signed the nonagression pledge. That didn't stop him from
> supporting the election laws which in my book are clearly aggressive.
I believe this makes him rightfully eligible for expulsion. If the national LP won't take that responsibility, who will? It's time we exercised integrity.
>
> Prohibit "trafficking" in tax funds? "I'm not trafficking, I'm returning them
> to the people in the form of a benefit of getting a Libertarian in office".
> Prohibit "unnecessary cooperation with government efforts to limit freedom"?
>"We're forced to cooperate because if we don't we are effectively excluded from
> politics". YES, such arguments are completely absurd. So is the argument that
> supporting the election laws was consistent with ALP, Inc.'s own constitution.
> So what -- it doesn't stop people who want to make such arguments from making
> them in order to justify whatever the heck it is they feel like doing.
The irrational defeats the rational when terms are ill defined. I'm
calling for clarifications so freedom can have a chance.
>
> There are things which the party can and should do to stand up for principle.
> Not giving active support to candidates who take tax money (or "cooperate" with
> government aggression) would be a good thing. Kicking individuals out for doing
> individual things the party may disagree with just leads to more legalistic
> wrangling.
You know well I'm speaking about basic principles here, Jason. The "open marriage" with Schmerl isn't working. I think revocation of membership for violation of principle would prevent legal problems. We'd be taking responsibility for our own party instead of leaving matters to the judgement of the State of Arizona.
> Should the party have the RIGHT to do so? Absolutely. Do I think it is a wise > and advisible course of action? No.
Failure to exclude counterfeit libertarians in effect excludes principled libertarians. The ALP, Inc. bylaws prove that.
I don't understand your counterintentions. Would you care to advise us of a wiser course of action?
Be gentle,
Thomas Oliver Martin