NAP Pledge Page: Facebook Campaign Supporting the Non-Initiation of Force Pledge

collage

The NAP Pledge Page is presently running a campaign asking Libertarians to send in their photographs showing their support for the Libertarian principle of the Non-Initiation of Force. The above is a collage of some of the pictures submitted thus far. These will be posted on the Facebook Page in the future. Here is the Campaign text from the Page:

Create your own at https://imgflip.com/memegenerator and send it in!! We will publish them to our page to show that the NAP has grassroots support across the LP. ‪#‎porcupinepride‬
‪#‎PledgeNAP‬

This Page was featured previously on IPR regarding the Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party here.

The NAP Pledge Page is run by a coalition of Libertarian Party activists. Full disclosure: This author is part of that team.

12/27/15: minor edits to grammar

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Colorado, Colorado State Coordinator for the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, as well as Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LPCO, LPRC, or LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

69 thoughts on “NAP Pledge Page: Facebook Campaign Supporting the Non-Initiation of Force Pledge

  1. Robert Capozzi

    Consider making it an irrevocable blood oath. Violations would be contractually punishable by death. 😉

  2. Dave Terry

    I don’t DO ‘facebook”, et al. But I WILL say this. Without the NAP, the LP is nada but smoke and mirrors!

  3. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Thank you for your support Dave… just posting is awesome. The NAP Pledge page supports the “pledge” but it is more than that, it is the NAP in the SoP that is the focus.

  4. Joe Wendt

    NAP is a great ideal that should be promoted. Unfortunately, I see this campaign as an act of passive aggression that uses facebook-based peer-pressure to achieve political/social goals and probably violates NAP in the process.

  5. paulie

    Unfortunately, I see this campaign as an act of passive aggression that uses facebook-based peer-pressure to achieve political/social goals and probably violates NAP in the process.

    Congratulations, you win most ridiculous comment of the day so far, and you had some very stiff competition.

  6. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Indeed. Social pressure and holding people accountable to the voluntary rules of voluntary association is about as libertarian as it gets.

  7. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    ==Congratulations, you win most ridiculous comment of the day so far, and you had some very stiff competition.==

    LOL, and I would include even most ridiculous including Facebook…. and I see some really ridiculous stuff on Facebook.

  8. Joe Wendt

    “Peer pressuring people on Facebook in no way violates the NAP”

    Considering in some instances, such as cyber-bullying, peer-pressure can result in tragic consequences, technically you are wrong. Provided that the peer-pressure is viewed as hostile and is viewed by the one receiving it as an act of aggression, it can violate NAP.

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    Seriously, Joe, how many Libertarians are persuaded by “peer pressure”? I don’t consider that a personality trait for most of the Libertarians I know.

  10. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Paulie, he’s going for bronze!

    Nevermind that the SoP pretty specifically states force s physical force.

    Voluntary social pressure, no matter how unpleasant it can be (and this is not… it is stating what we are for), is not a NAP violation. You have no right not to be mocked, pressured, etc.

  11. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    From the LP Statement of Principles:

    ==We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.==

    You do not have an inherent right not to be socially pressured, influenced, made to feel bad, mocked, or have a good time on the Internet. No one does. Someone doesn’t understand libertarianism.

    ==… accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others===

    Physical force. Not being made to feel bad about something someone said. Or not like it.

    And let’s perform a reductio ad absurdum. So…. in the same Statement of Principles the Libertarian Party states that others implicitly approve of the cult of the omnipotent state. People do not like being told they have a “god.”

    Should we put a trigger warning before our Platform?

  12. Wang Tang-Fu

    I must agree; Mr. Wendt’s comments are the biggest spewing of santorum to cross my translation program all day, in any language.

  13. Dave Terry

    P.> “Congratulations Joe, you now have both the gold and silver medals for most ridiculous comment of the day.”

    Just be grateful that Porky doesn’t know the difference between “silver” and “gold”. Most likely, he just awarded you plated brass metals

  14. Dave Terry

    Caryn Ann Harlos; Dec. 27, 2015

    “Paulie, he’s going for bronze!”

    This reminds me of the time that Paulie won a “gold” metal!

    He was so proud of it, he took it to his local sporting goods
    store and had them “bronze it!” :>)

  15. Dave Terry

    He’s disqualified from competition. Swallowed too much lead in his formative years.

    What? You haven’t heard! I’ve had all that lead converted into 9mm ammo, I’m saving it for the day AFTER, TSHTF!

    Molon Labe!

  16. Starchild

    Caryn – Thanks for spreading the word. I just responded to your email appeal with my image.

    But more specific information posted here on exactly where/how people should submit the images would probably be helpful.

  17. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Joe Wendt: Considering in some instances, such as cyber-bullying, peer-pressure can result in tragic consequences, technically you are wrong. Provided that the peer-pressure is viewed as hostile and is viewed by the one receiving it as an act of aggression, it can violate NAP.

    What is cyber-bullying? I don’t like bullying, but unless it gets physical, it’s a form of free speech. Can free speech ever be a violation of the NAP? If not, then technically, cyber-bullying is not a violation of the NAP.

  18. Jill Pyeatt

    I think someone can violate the NAP by cyber-bullying another person. For example, if the troll/accuser continues to post untrue/slanderous things, the accussee feels compelled to speak up to try to clear their name when they otherwise wouldn’t talk to the troll at all. The cyber-bullying I’ve experienced all year from my personal troll has violated the NAP by continuing to put his name in front of me when I don’t even want to think such a nasty person exists. I have never met this person and haven’t responded to any posts since April, yet the slander continues. I’ve put up with this almost a year.
    .

  19. Andy

    Jill, I think you made some good points, and I especially agree if it comes to a person making false criminal accusations or death threats. However, nobody was talking about anything like this in conjunction with the NAP.

  20. langa

    I think the standard for whether “cyber-bullying” would constitute a violation of the NAP would be the same as for any other type of harassment. That is, you would have to demonstrate an intentional infliction of emotional distress, and you would have to show that you have suffered tangible loss as a result of such action. Simply saying it annoyed you, or hurt your feelings, by itself, would not make it a violation of the NAP. Put simply, there is no right to not be offended.

  21. Wang Tang-Fu

    Who all are all the people in the graphic at the top? I recognize a couple of them but not the rest.

  22. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I don’t know if they want their names on IPR- but you know me and Paulie:). Mike Shipley of Outright Libertarians is in bottom left.

  23. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Hi Chuck, you know my position on the Pledge:) But my broader position, beyond this campaign, is that it in the Statement of Principles which is where I focus most of my energies.

    Very nice picture of you btw.

  24. Chuck Moulton

    Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

    Very nice picture of you btw.

    I wavered between that and the great pledge fight of 2008, which came to blows (as chronicled by Root’s Teeth Are Awesome). Figured the picture might juxtapose with the message (making my embracing of the certification less believable) though.

  25. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    LOLOLOL.

    As long as it was consensual it’s all good! You look like you are getting the better of it.

  26. Steve Scheetz

    Here is a question for those opposed to the NAP…

    Why are you opposed? Why do you feel that it is necessary to be able to initiate force OR FRAUD to achieve your goals?

    do you feel hamstrung when you pledge to not use violence or fraud against others unless defending yourself? Why is the NAP such a radical idea? Why is leaving people alone such a radical idea?

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

    P.S. I am also interested in understanding why it is that the “party of principle” would like to fill its ranks with those who are not interested in pledging their favor toward those principles?

  27. Chuck Moulton

    Steve Scheetz wrote:

    Here is a question for those opposed to the NAP…

    Why are you opposed? Why do you feel that it is necessary to be able to initiate force OR FRAUD to achieve your goals?

    do you feel hamstrung when you pledge to not use violence or fraud against others unless defending yourself? Why is the NAP such a radical idea? Why is leaving people alone such a radical idea?

    The question is what the pledge means. If it implies anarchy, then it excludes those who want to substantially lower but not eliminate taxes, regulation, spending, etc. Tom Knapp makes a compelling case here that’s exactly what is means:

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-pledge-allegiance-to-what.html

    As for me, I can agree to the pledge myself (as an anarcho-capitalist) while believing it is bad for the Libertarian Party to impose an anarchist pledge which excludes moderates who want to shrink the government on all issues without eliminating it entirely.

  28. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I see have to dig up Starchild’s very excellent post on why it is not an anarchist pledge… I certainly wasn’t an anarchist when I signed up. And those many people who pledged to it over the years were not anarchists and did not take it as such. Neither were the people who passed our Platform (which contains the exact same idea) nor the Statement of Principles (which contains the exact same idea). By your argument we either have an incomprehensible or an anarchist SoP and Platform. Which we don’t (though it gets it pretty close just right in not excluding it either–I am not one of those who hate the current Platform, though I think it could be better). Downright schizoid.

    I can see this circle will go round and round. I will just say that it will be a big surprise to the post-Portland crowd that they affirmed an anarchist Platform. Or to the rest of us that it is just hopelessly muddled

    Of course the more logical answer is that the Party recognizes (even if the anarchists reject it ultimately and the minarchists accept it) that there is an argument to be made that the monopolization of enforcement is not the initiation of force, ala a Randian scheme.

    I affirmed it as a minarchist, and I wasn’t so daft I walked into walls face first. Neither is the rest of the Party.

    Heck, if you believe the Pledge is more than the promise to not violently revolt against the state (and I agree with you if you do, contra Phillies), then Nolan (and many Party founders/initial members) sure were big dummies for approving of a pledge that excluded themselves. We wily anarchists sure fooled them!

    You see, it can’t be both ways.

    One: It was is simply a pledge not to violently revolt, in which case it isn’t anarchistic and we still have the SoP which contains the same idea.

    Two: It is a sneaky anarchist pledge and everyone who wasn’t an anarchist (the overwhelming majority) of people who approved it in the beginning and affirmed it since have been so stupid to not realize it. And so stupid to even pass the same concepts into our Platform.

    Those tricksy anarchists.

  29. William Saturn

    “The declaration of independence makes the case that it was responsive force, not initiation of force.”

    So under the NAP disliking the imposition of taxes justifies the destruction of property and killing of soldiers who are not initially committing violence (remember that it is most likely the Patriots fired the first shot at Lexington)?

  30. Chuck Moulton

    Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

    Of course the more logical answer is that the Party recognizes (even if the anarchists reject it ultimately and the minarchists accept it) that there is an argument to be made that the monopolization of enforcement is not the initiation of force, ala a Randian scheme.

    I affirmed it as a minarchist, and I wasn’t so daft I walked into walls face first. Neither is the rest of the Party.

    You keep saying minarchists are included too as if that makes the pledge inclusive enough. I disagree with your interpretation of the pledge as including minarchists, but even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that one, the pledge would still be a problem: there are libertarians who are neither anarchist nor minarchist — and those libertarians would be excluded by the pledge.

  31. langa

    So under the NAP disliking the imposition of taxes justifies the destruction of property and killing of soldiers who are not initially committing violence (remember that it is most likely the Patriots fired the first shot at Lexington)?

    Well, if the soldiers’ orders include enforcing laws that violate the NAP, then arguably, killing them would not violate the NAP, as it could be considered to be an act of self-defense.

    Having said that, the Continental army was filled (at least partially) via conscription, and was financed largely through a combination of government debt and (especially) massive inflation (which is where the phrase “not worth a continental” comes from). Thus, I would argue that, because of those factors, the colonialists did in fact violate the NAP. Of course, so did the British, to an even greater degree, as they weren’t even fighting in response to tyranny, but rather, in defense of it. Furthermore, I would argue that in all wars (or at least every one that has ever been fought that I am aware of), both sides have violated the NAP (usually through some combination of conscription, coercive financing, and the infamous “collateral damage”). This is the main reason why I am so disgusted when I hear “libertarians” like Gary Johnson proclaim their support for “humanitarian” wars.

  32. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Chuck Moulton: there are libertarians who are neither anarchist nor minarchist …

    Really? Anarchists believe in no government. Minarchists believe in minimal government. That leaves people who believe in sizable government. In what sense would those people be libertarian?

  33. Steve Scheetz

    Chuck,

    So a minarchist would not oppose using force and fraud to further their goals?

    Ken Krawchuk believes in the NAP, and he wrote a book about the virtues of minarchism… I believe you have read it.

    Anyway, I believe there are people who believe that there can be a government without force or fraud. Ken wrote about what it would look like. YET, he stands in support of the pledge. (his version of government runs on user fees and the like. Things like competition are in play as well.)

    Frankly, those who believe in taxation, or using aggressive force to achieve goals are using fraud to further their goals whatever they may be, when say that they are minarchists.

    I am also reasonably certain that I am not the only person with this opinion.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  34. William Saturn

    “Thus, I would argue that, because of those factors, the colonialists did in fact violate the NAP.”

    Let’s say those factors weren’t an issue. Imagine the rebel forces were all volunteer and financed by private donations. Under the NAP, would taxation without representation and British occupation justify the initiation of force against British soldiers if the soldiers were merely patrolling on public ways? If so, wouldn’t any government taxation or restriction in any scenario justify the initiation of force against government employees under the NAP?

  35. langa

    Anarchists believe in no government. Minarchists believe in minimal government. That leaves people who believe in sizable government. In what sense would those people be libertarian?

    Well, it depends on how broad your definition of “libertarian” is, but consider someone who wanted to cut the size of government by, say, 50% — which would still leave a government that is considerably larger than the typical “night watchman” state envisioned by most minarchists. In fact, even cutting government by 70% would still leave more than a true minarchist state.

    Nevertheless, I would contend that people who want to cut the state by such large amounts are, in fact, libertarians. In fact, some of the most well-known libertarian intellectuals, such as Hayek and Milton Friedman, have advocated that the government do things that go well beyond the minarchist ideal. I disagree with them, but I do not think they should be deemed unlibertarian.

  36. langa

    Under the NAP, would taxation without representation and British occupation justify the initiation of force against British soldiers if the soldiers were merely patrolling on public ways? If so, wouldn’t any government taxation or restriction in any scenario justify the initiation of force against government employees under the NAP?

    This is a question where different libertarians will likely give different answers, as it gets into the sticky issue of proportionality of retaliatory force. According to most interpretations of the NAP, you are justified in using force only when you are defending yourself or your property, and only when the amount of force you use is a reasonable response. For example, if someone pokes you in the chest with his finger, and you respond by stabbing him in the chest with a dagger, most libertarians would say that you have violated the NAP, because the force you employed to defend yourself was disproportionate to the threat.

  37. William Saturn

    Thank you for that answer. I’m on the fence about the NAP. It’s easy to pledge to support it but I’m quite sure if any situation presented itself where one felt it advisable to use force to protect the well-being of his family, he would not think about the proportionality of the force taken.

  38. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote:

    there are libertarians who are neither anarchist nor minarchist …

    Root’s Teeth Are Awesome wrote:

    Really? Anarchists believe in no government. Minarchists believe in minimal government. That leaves people who believe in sizable government. In what sense would those people be libertarian?

    Nope. Fallacy of the False Trilemma.

    langa wrote:

    Well, it depends on how broad your definition of “libertarian” is, but consider someone who wanted to cut the size of government by, say, 50% — which would still leave a government that is considerably larger than the typical “night watchman” state envisioned by most minarchists. In fact, even cutting government by 70% would still leave more than a true minarchist state.

    Nevertheless, I would contend that people who want to cut the state by such large amounts are, in fact, libertarians. In fact, some of the most well-known libertarian intellectuals, such as Hayek and Milton Friedman, have advocated that the government do things that go well beyond the minarchist ideal. I disagree with them, but I do not think they should be deemed unlibertarian.

    Exactly.

  39. Robert Capozzi

    langa: Hayek and Milton Friedman, have advocated that the government do things that go well beyond the minarchist ideal. I disagree with them, but I do not think they should be deemed unlibertarian.

    me: Big of you! I note the double negative…not unL! Meaning, I take it, that Hayek and Friedman should be considered L, yes?

    Both were theorists for the most part. They were not politicians or policy wonks*, largely. Theorists have longer time horizons. Politicians are generally dealing with the current cycle, which almost always involves 1-5 year periods.

    This, I submit, is an important distinction, one that the LP generally doesn’t seem to acknowledge. L run for office as theorists, discussing long-term outcomes, rather than as politicians, advocating near-term reforms.

    * Friedman was a wonk early in his career, advocating the wartime adoption of income tax withholding.

  40. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Chuck – I dealt with the more than minarchist argument before as well. But that is just shifting goalposts. Because I have already demonstrated it is NOT an anarchist-only pledge which is your claim. That has been soundly disputed.

    (This whole line was covered in the comments following the Hunt article.)

    And in fact the Pledge to me isn’t the pivotal issue. I would fight to keep it but such it isn’t the doomsday device. As when I argue with AWP, I don’t use the Pledge but the SoP – the issue to me is the NAP, not some iteration of acknowledging it.

  41. paulie

    Two: It is a sneaky anarchist pledge and everyone who wasn’t an anarchist (the overwhelming majority) of people who approved it in the beginning and affirmed it since have been so stupid to not realize it. And so stupid to even pass the same concepts into our Platform.

    And statement of principles.

    Seems rather counterintuitive.

  42. paulie

    So under the NAP disliking the imposition of taxes justifies the destruction of property and killing of soldiers who are not initially committing violence (remember that it is most likely the Patriots fired the first shot at Lexington)?

    The declaration details a lot more causes for separation than merely disliking taxes.

  43. paulie

    Having said that, the Continental army was filled (at least partially) via conscription, and was financed largely through a combination of government debt and (especially) massive inflation (which is where the phrase “not worth a continental” comes from). Thus, I would argue that, because of those factors, the colonialists did in fact violate the NAP. Of course, so did the British, to an even greater degree, as they weren’t even fighting in response to tyranny, but rather, in defense of it. Furthermore, I would argue that in all wars (or at least every one that has ever been fought that I am aware of), both sides have violated the NAP (usually through some combination of conscription, coercive financing, and the infamous “collateral damage”).

    I agree.

    This is the main reason why I am so disgusted when I hear “libertarians” like Gary Johnson proclaim their support for “humanitarian” wars.

    Gary does not support humanitarian wars. He has said he would not always rule them out in all circumstances. That doesn’t mean that he is eager to get involved in them like a bunch of people keep implying.

  44. paulie

    Let’s say those factors weren’t an issue. Imagine the rebel forces were all volunteer and financed by private donations. Under the NAP, would taxation without representation and British occupation justify the initiation of force against British soldiers if the soldiers were merely patrolling on public ways? If so, wouldn’t any government taxation or restriction in any scenario justify the initiation of force against government employees under the NAP?

    The declaration detailed a long train of abuses and explained under what circumstances it considered the natural right of people to alter or abolish their government. Theoretically that train of thought could be extended to all monopoly government, but the other side of the ledger has to be weighed – wars are never clean as in your theoretical example, the risks and costs have to be weighed, the damage (“collateral” and otherwise), and what will replace the prior regime.

  45. paulie

    Well, it depends on how broad your definition of “libertarian” is, but consider someone who wanted to cut the size of government by, say, 50% — which would still leave a government that is considerably larger than the typical “night watchman” state envisioned by most minarchists. In fact, even cutting government by 70% would still leave more than a true minarchist state.

    Well, cutting government by those amounts would certainly be a libertarian move. On the other hand, it would roll government spending all the way to what, the last Clinton administration, or one of the Bushes? Which, if true, makes me wonder why there were any libertarians before then, since we already lived in a libertarian bipartisan consensus.

  46. paulie

    And in fact the Pledge to me isn’t the pivotal issue. I would fight to keep it but such [that] it isn’t the doomsday device. As when I argue with AWP, I don’t use the Pledge but the SoP – the issue to me is the NAP, not some iteration of acknowledging it.

    Exactly!

  47. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth William Saturn:

    “So under the NAP disliking the imposition of taxes justifies the destruction of property and killing of soldiers who are not initially committing violence (remember that it is most likely the Patriots fired the first shot at Lexington)?”

    The Boston Tea Party was not about the imposition of taxes. It was about exemption from taxes as a form of corporate welfare. The British government levied a tax on tea, but exempted the East India Company from that tax, to the disadvantage of independent American importers of tea (their tea was more expensive than the East India Company’s, because they had to pay tax on it). The tea partiers boarded a ship full of East India Company tea and threw it overboard.

    I agree that there are good arguments for that being an initiation of force, although some don’t necessarily see it that way, instead seeing it as justifiable retaliation against a company that was itself initiating force by using the state to try to create a monopoly for itself.

  48. Steve Scheetz

    I find it interesting that the argument has added the dynamic “how much government is too much to be minarchist, etc…”

    The argument, particularly with regard to the pledge, is one of philosophical belief.

    Does one believe in the initiation of force or fraud to further goals, or not?

    I have heard and read the tired arguments regarding the specific circumstances which would constitute a violation of the pledge, and most read as people trying to create hypothetical scenarios which would create a “gotcha” moment..

    Like I said before: those who believe in taxation, or using aggressive force to achieve goals are using fraud to further their goals whatever they may be, when say that they are minarchists.

    So regarding the size of government that would fall under the minarchists’ scope. If they believe in the NAP, size would not matter, because natural forces would keep government in check provided that it worked in strict accordance with the Non Aggression Principle.

    Imagine a government that ran through user fees, NOT taxation.. A government whose services were actually in competition with the private sector… (I am thinking of the case of Lysander Spooner at the moment…) Imagine that a government had to compete using the best service at the best price in order to win business, and I will say that you will be imagining a minarchist style of government.

    Anything that is philosophically NOT this, is NOT minarchist. Certainly, there are plenty of us who work to change the status quo, and how do we get there from here is a solid question, and when answering these questions, putting forth practical policies that would have an end result in a minarchist or an anarchist state is not a “gotcha” But I will say that in my campaign literature, it says in big bold letters: “OPPOSES ALL TAXES” I am not going to make them all go away when elected, but I can stop new ones… I can push for legislation that would serve to halt the growth, and then, hopefully, find some allies who will help me begin to decrease the magnitude of what we are being bludgeoned with every day.

    Philosophically I am an Anarchist, but I recognize that Voluntaryism is the shining beacon on the hill. It is that place where we wish to be, and will work hard to educate and change the minds and hearts of people. One day, we will not have a government, because people will trade with each other, work with each other, not screw each other over, because it is the right thing to do, NOT because someone has a gun to their heads. At that point, government will be obsolete.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  49. langa

    Well, cutting government by those amounts would certainly be a libertarian move. On the other hand, it would roll government spending all the way to what, the last Clinton administration, or one of the Bushes? Which, if true, makes me wonder why there were any libertarians before then, since we already lived in a libertarian bipartisan consensus.

    This is why, unlike Chuck, I believe there are degrees of libertarianism. People who wish to cut the size of government substantially, while still leaving more than the “night watchman” state, are still “libertarian” in my book, but true minarchists are more libertarian than they are, and of course, anarchists are the most libertarian of all.

    I know you have frequently claimed that Gary Johnson is a “real” libertarian, and he’s certainly not a true minarchist. Heck, I’m not even sure that he would even cut government by as much as 50%. He certainly didn’t do that in New Mexico.

  50. paulie

    He would if he could. He was not the dictator of New Mexico. It’s an overwhelmingly Democratic state with strong Democratic majorities in the legislature the entire time he was governor, as well as before and since. He issued a record number of vetoes, and now says he wishes he had issued a lot more. His short term plan is to cut government spending by 43% but he would go further in the long term or if he thought it was even remotely feasible.

  51. langa

    Those are fair points about New Mexico, and I have no problem with including Johnson under a broad definition of “libertarian” — but, unless he has seriously misrepresented his actual views, he is still far from being a genuine minarchist.

  52. paulie

    He’s closer to being one than his public policy positions indicate. He doesn’t really talk about his long range goals on the campaign trail, just things he hopes to accomplish in a term or two if he somehow gets elected and what he thinks can be taken seriously by policy wonks and sizeable portions of the general public. That may or may not be the best approach to LP campaigns, but it’s the one he takes. His background is as a business and government executive, so he is always trying to be practical to some degree, unlike people with a background primarily as academians, authors and legislators, who tend to be of a more philosophical and/or long-term bent.

  53. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Update: This campaign is still going on with submissions still coming in. A collage video will be produced shortly of the submissions received so far.

  54. Marc Allan Feldman

    Just posting to support Joe Wendt for the comments that are as intelligent and thoughtful as any other in this thread. The NAP was never restricted to the actual use of physical force. Any time an individual or a collective has superior power, whether physical, financial, social, or otherwise, and uses that power to control the free decisions of peaceful people is a unacceptable aggression underr the NAP.

    I highly value all members of the Libertarian Party, including those who feel that the Facebook pledge program is helpful, and those who do not.

    Remember, Joe:
    “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives,”
    That means you, too. Joe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *