Phil,
I believe Michael's point was simply that the LP is not *philosophically* opposed to using violence in response to aggression. I have not heard anyone here suggesting that violent tactics are the way to go at this time.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
I have to disagree with Mike Edelstein here,
until the american public becomes immune
to the moral authority of non violence,
stooping to the states level only plays into
thier hands;and legitimizes thier blood
thirstyness. Ghandi should be our guide as
long as there is some hope that principled
non violence works. The Viet Nam war's
fate was sealed by a few bullets at Kent
State. Had the Kent State protesters been
violent, the War may have continued for a
much longer time. Once the first
amendment is completely dead, the
concentration camps operating and
peaceful protests routinely met by deadly
force, with no public outcry, along with
censorship and propaganda covering the
truth about violence perpetuated by the
state. In other words, once we have a full
blown faschist police state, and non
violence is laughed at, scorned, ,and it's
practioners violated without mercy,only then
it is time to give up peaceful non violence
and get very serious about viscious
unrelenting armed rebellion. Of course, by
then, it may be difficult to arm the
barricades, as Chris Daley would have
partnered with Dick Cheney, or his
doppleganger to disarm us all. Until then,
peaceful non violent proteest, turning the
other cheek to the bludgeons of the state, in
full view of the public, is the best way to
stop the beast. Any other talk for the time
being, is dangerous and non productive.---
In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com,
"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Clay,
>
> You ask what do Libertarians have
against force. To me, that's like
> asking what does socialism have against
free markets. Mixing
> ideologies is like mixing metaphors..
makes no sense.
>
> But, aside from the ideological reasons,
there are the pragmatic
> reasons for rejecting force (or requiring
the signing of the non-
> aggression pledge). The non-agression
pledge was originally
> instituted by the Founding Fathers of the
Libertarian Party to ensure
> that the LP was not confused with the
sundry anti-government groups
> of the 70's, who the FBI etc made sure
did not last long. And I can
> assure you the pledge and the non-
agression principle will come in
> handy today as the powers that be work
to rid this Nation of third
> parties.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com,
"brokenladdercalendar"
> <lpsf@> wrote:
> >
> > I tentatively reserved the Davies
conference room from June through
> > the rest of the year. In May, the 13th is
already taken, so if we
> > decided to use the conference room,
we could either do it another
> day,
> > or just put off starting there until June.
And if for any reason we
> > decide at the next meeting against
using this Davies conference
> room,
> > I can just cancel. I thought it would be
better to reserve it now
> > though, to be on the safe side.
> >
> > Cheerio,
> > Clay
> >
> > P.S. Why exactly is it that the
Libertarian party is against doing
> > things by force? Like what's wrong
with bombing an empty government
> > building and flattening some Police car
tires? Not saying I'd ever
> > have the guts to do something like that,
because I don't wanna spend
> > the rest of my life in jail, but
philosophically where does that
> stem
> > from?
> >
>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>