https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRE-tHfkxIU&feature=youtu.be
via LP.org blog:
Libertarian National Committee Political Director Carla Howell was interviewed on January 4 on “RT International” (RT TV), discussing the peaceful protest against the feds in Oregon, over the sentencing of Hammond family members.
Hi Dave –
Thanks for your responses – I appreciate your perspective!
Best wishes…
Wolfefan> “I think that any time an armed group seizes control of someone else’s property it’s a use of force.
(a) They have not seized control of anyone’s property since the property doesn’t legally “belong” to anyone specifically, but (in this case) EVERYONE has a “usufructuary right” ***to use it,
***For example, a usufructuary right would be the right to use water from a stream in order to generate electrical power. Such a right is distinguishable from a claim of legal ownership of the water itself.
Wolfefan> “If I pull a gun on you and rob you, am I not using force even if I don’t shoot you?”
WHO do you THINK is being “robbed”????
Wolfefan> ” The militia inside the building has threatened to shoot anyone who tries to remove them”
From where I sit, the militia has simply informed the public that if anyone attempts to “initiate force against them” (to remove them) they will resist and defend their position.
Wolfefan> “They could achieve their goals through the ballot box the same way the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party, or an individual can”
LOL!!! You ARE joking, aren’t you?????
Wolfefan> “They read Article IV section III of the Constitution as saying that the federal government is prohibited from owning any property. I think this is self-evidently wrong.”
I think you should actually read Article IV section III again. It CLEARLY deliniates AND LIMITS the purposes for which the Federal Government may own or purchase LAND!!
Hi Dave – Thanks for your questions – I will give it a shot. 1) I think that any time an armed group seizes control of someone else’s property it’s a use of force. If I pull a gun on you and rob you, am I not using force even if I don’t shoot you? The militia inside the building has threatened to shoot anyone who tries to remove them, and say they are prepared to stay there for an extended period, even without snacks. 🙂 2) They could achieve their goals through the ballot box the same way the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party, or an individual can: by electing candidates who support their views and will try to either implement those views or move the law closer to them. The former is more difficult than the latter, but neither is impossible. 3) They read Article IV section III of the Constitution as saying that the federal government is prohibited from owning any property. I think this is self-evidently wrong.
Best wishes….
wolfefan> ” On the other hand is a group using force (albeit against the state)”
Please explain how the protestors are using “force” against the state.
w> “and coercion to seek to achieve social goals that they are unable to achieve through the ballot box,”
Please explain how they could possibly achieve their goals “through the ballot box”
w> “and laughably misinterpreting the Constitution while doing so.”
Please explain how they are misinterpreting the Constitution”
I am at work and unable to watch the video. I am looking forward to it – it seems to pit a couple of LP principles against one another. On the one hand is the involvement of the state in land ownership and management and the possible abuses of private property owners. On the other hand is a group using force (albeit against the state) and coercion to seek to achieve social goals that they are unable to achieve through the ballot box, and laughably misinterpreting the Constitution while doing so. (Not that the Constitution is necessarily a libertarian document, but there is overlap between libertarians and constitutionalists.)
Four minutes of “reason” by Carla certainly overpowers the thousands of self-serving & flamatory diatribes of the liberal news media. or the silly screed Jane Cutter.
The following is the letter that have sent to several news outlets here in Oregon.
Editor,
Some time ago, a hunter and his dog were lost in the forest of southern Oregon.
After a few days without food, the hunter pulled out his knife, cut off the dog’s tail
and threw it on the fire to cook. After he had devoured the meat; he threw the bones
to the dog, who licked his hand in gratitude. The name of that dog is Paiute Panderer!
As a American of Cherokee and Chickasaw ancestry, I find it appalling that a group
speaking for a kindred group of Amerindian people could possibly be reduced to such
abject self-debasement.
The statement that ANY of the land actually “belongs’ to the native people who live
here” is so absurd as to be laughable. The ‘Great White Father’ removed your tails
generations ago and you ONLY live here due to the U.S. Government’s largesse.
The armed gentlemen whom you denounce are your allies – NOT YOUR ENEMY!
David T. Terry
1636 NW 8th St.
McMinnville, OR. 97128
Nice work there Carla.
I know very little of the specifics of this Oregon situation (I don’t pay much attention to the news, because I can’t tell what’s true). But, assuming she’s fairly close to correct about the facts, this was a very good appearance by Carla.