Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:36:31 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: John Wilde's Response to "Status" To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., Mickey <Mickey@A...> wrote: > At 2:14 AM +0000 6/8/01, auvenj@m... wrote:
> >--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., "Robert Anderson" <randerson22@h...>
wrote: > > >
> >> Please state for the list Jason what FACTS were in
> >> dispute that needed finding.
> >
> >The fact of ALP, Inc. meeting the bylaw definition of a political
> >party was in dispute.
> >
> >--Jason Auvenshine
>
> Given that the provision was added to the bylaws with the express
purpose of keeping Inc. people off GovCom, how can you argue this?"The purpose of the debate is the education of the audience." -- Ernest Hancock
Where does ALP, Inc. get its legitimacy? Why do people join it, donate money to it, and vote for it in affiliation polls? What do you suppose would be some ossible effects if ALP procedurally arrived at the determination that ALP, Inc.'s status as a political party could not be established? What if the only way to keep ALP, Inc. officers from becoming ALP officers was to prohibit officers of organizations who were actually suing ALP from being officers? What might that outcome tell people about the true nature of the ALP, Inc. organization?
---
There seems to be a high correlation between Libertarians and those who dogmatically subscribe to the sanctity of "original intent." This is understandable, since in the case of the U.S. federal government the framers of our founding documents undoubtedly had far more libertarian intent in most cases than the current interpretation of those documents reflect. Thus, Libertarians rightly assume that we would live in a much more libertarian society if only strict original intent were enforced concerning the U.S. founding documents. In most cases this is correct, but not always. My belief is that the enforcement of original intent is secondary to the idea of building a libertarian society (one in which initiation of force is universally prohibited to citizen and government) and is just one tool to use in moving us in that direction. "Original intent" should not be held sacred when it conflicts with reality.
For example, when the founders of this country enshrined human rights in our founding documents, many/most of them did not intend to include blacks in the definition of "human." Does this mean that in 1800 a black man would not have been justified in claiming the originally intended definition of "human" did not reflect reality, and thus he ought to be offered the protections of the bill of rights even though the founders did not intend it to be so? Would such a challenge have benefitted the effort to achieve recognition of blacks as humans regardless of the outcome of the particular case? There were still plenty of people alive who could attest that the intent was to exclude blacks. They might even have asked, "How can you argue this?"
In the case of ALP, Inc., the original intent of the ALP bylaws was clearly to include ALP, Inc. in the definition of "political party". I do not contest that it was the original intent. What I contest is whether the intended definition actually reflects reality under the outcome of Meyers' ruling. I hope the rhetorical questions I asked above give some insight as to why I chose to contest that particular definition.
--Jason Auvenshine
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/