Appendix
The Non-Initiation Oath
A significant part of the Arizona debate has referred back to the non-initiation of force Oath, which the National Party and some, but not all, state parties require of their members. The Oath, which dates back to the founding days of the Libertarian Party, is an agreement that Party members will not support the initiation of force to resolve social or political issues.
The difficulty is that there is a lack of unanimity, to put it mildly, as to what this statement means. During my last National Chair campaign, I listened to many Libertarians as they explained their interpretation of the Oath to me.
The author of the statement is the Party’s Founder, David Nolan. Nolan has repeatedly said publicly that the oath is an agreement that we are a political party, and we are out to attain change through the peaceful use of orthodox political processes. No more grandiose interpretation was intended. In understanding the oath, one was supposed to recall the context of the times in which they were written. In 1972, left-wing anti-war activists were planting bombs, several each day, in government offices and other places across the United States. The Capitol Building itself was repeatedly attacked. The intent of the oath was to make clear that the Libertarian Party was not associated with the radical left revolutionaries of that period.
Within the Libertarian Party, one readily encounters a second interpretation of the Oath, namely that the Oath requires one to oppose any political action that could be termed ‘initiation of force’, with this phrase being very broadly interpreted. In particular, after an extensive exegesis, ‘opposition to initiation of force’ is taken to require one to oppose taxation and the products of taxation. Indeed, some Party members who support this interpretation claim that one can logically derive all moral conclusions from the non-initiation principle, a matter discussed in the Appendix to the Appendix.
A significant complication is that phrases very much like those in the Oath are attributed to the writings of Ayn Rand, where precisely these interpretations are invoked. Rand—a mid-twentieth century author and philosopher —was an active opponent of the Libertarian Party who condemned involvement in the Libertarian Party by her followers. It is my understanding that Nolan maintains he was not thinking of her words when he wrote the Oath, and therefore that her phrasings do not inform the meaning of the Oath that he wrote.
Within the Libertarian Party one also encounters many Libertarians who take an third interpretation of the Oath, an interpretation that precisely contradicts the second interpretation. In the third interpretation, it remains the specific duty of government to prevent the initiation of force, and therefore Libertarians mandatorily must support collection of taxes to maintain a justice system, a constabulary, and a military. If the second interpretation borders on support for anarchism, the third interpretation holds that anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with Libertarian beliefs. It is my impression that the three sides are similar in level of support within the LP, but not equally bellicose in expressing their faiths.
Under unfavorable circumstances, discussions between Libertarians who believe these interpretations can consume all the time of a Libertarian group, leaving absolutely no time for political activity. The National Party faced up to this question once. At an early National Convention delegates subscribed to the ‘Dallas Accords’, which in essence said that: We are so far from needing to settle the question that we shouldn’t argue about it. Partisans of the two sides agree not to use their statements to shut the other side out of the Party.
On a related topic…
Some people don’t understand the NAP is not a rejection of violence, per se.
But a rejection of initiating violence against others.
Sometimes violence is necessary in self defense.
And it’s not “not libertarian” to support a neighbor, friend, family member or another country even, when they’re fighting off aggression from others.
In this manner, Ukraine is currently fighting off unprovoked aggression from Russia. It’s not “not libertarian” to stand with Ukraine in their struggle to defend themselves, their families and their neighbors.
The Libertarian Party should issue a statement demanding Russia leave Ukraine and go back to Russia.
War over immediately.
Instead, LP ignorantly tweets this is “Zelensky’s War”.
Whoever tweeted that is beyond ignorant.
That, I think, came from the PaleoLibertarian strategy. In order to split the difference between free trading libertarians and isolationist PaleoConservatives, they substituted out the NAP, which allows for the use of force in defense, in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy.
It is easy to establish with them that the NAP allows for the use of force in defense and that Russia is the aggressor, so they fall back on opposing the use of tax dollars to support Ukraine. This despite the fact that much of the aid given is old equipment which is being replaced and would otherwise be destroyed, and few new tax dollars are going to help Ukraine. But, they don’t ever call for other relief for Ukraine, such as opening the US borders to Ukrainian refugees, the arrest of all Russian belligerents, or the seizure of Putin’s assets to help Ukraine.
I’m not even talking about giving aid to Ukraine, I don’t think USA should be giving Ukraine taxpayer funded anything.
I have no issue, however, with selling Ukraine weapons to defend themselves.
Ukraine owns trillions in mineral wealth. They can use that wealth to buy weapons to defend themselves, if they want.
I just want LP to admit through an official statement that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal, that Russia is the aggressor, and call for Russia to leave Ukrainian territory, which would end the war immediately.
Instead, McWilliams tweets Putin was provoked and this is “Zelensky’s War”.
Putin wasn’t provoked. That’s ignorant.
There is conflicting information about verbal promises made regarding NATO expansion, however, there is nothing in writing that NATO won’t expand.
Nothing.
Gorbechov said no promises were made. As have others who were involved.
The majority in the room state it was discussed, but nothing was promised or agreed upon.
There is already a NATO country on Russia’s border.
Why isn’t that an issue to Putin?
Because for the last 20+ years Putin has been talking about how Ukraine is still Russian territory, with Russian speaking people and one day will again be part of Russia. Go listen to some of his old speeches about the fall of USSR.
The Ukrainian Revolution was an uprising by the Ukrainian people against corruption and Russian influence in Kyiv, it wasn’t a “CIA Plot”, as these same people claim. The Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove Yanukovych, Putin’s puppet, unanimously. 328-0.
Russian propagandists in Russia immediately labeled it a “coup”.
This is about Russian territorial expansion for Putin.
Not NATO or a “CIA coup”.
Those are excuses to influence the ignorant.
More necessary than ever.
How do Libertarians feel about the NAP today?
A lot of LNC members need a timeout and a nap.