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.
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.
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. Should the party have the RIGHT to do so? Absolutely. Do I think it is a wise and advisible course of action? No.
--Jason Auvenshine