Talk about a false choice – if we accept that, we don’t have to be invaded, we’ve already given up.

The argument may be satiric, though – Balph Eubank is an Ayn Rand anti-hero character.

To be honest Balph, you arugment is so devoid of any intelligential merit it is hard to tell if that was really your argument.

As to your first paragraph, if by “politcal realism” you mean giving into the use of force, then you should no longer call yourself a libertarain. I know we argue about a “real” liberatarian is, but to me, as a starting point is that pledge. If a member isn’t willing to do thier best to commit to the nonintiation of force, then they can go join the repubcrats, or moderate libertairans.

Of course, the very act of running for office is a violation of the pledge. Participating in an election contributes to the use of forced representation. The Republicans and Democrats who lose to a Libertarian are forced, against their will, to be represented by a Libertarian. I don’t see how any true libertarian could ever violate our principles in such a terrible manner.

You’re probably aware that “forcing them to be free” is a red herring. If they wish to live in an authoritarian commune, they should be perfectly free to do so, but not to force the rest of us to live there too. As for the first part of what you said, there are grounds to argue that (whether you know it or not) but also good counterarguments. See

http://praxeology.net/blog/2006/11/06/in-defense-of-voting-sort-of/

And links therein.

Balph,

Yeah you’re right…..we should be governed by well-funded warlords, and choose among who leads them through elections. That’s what you said?

For other libertarians, the Oath is a true goal. We want to have an underfunded military so we can experience the intensity of existence that comes with being invaded by a barbarous hoard. We want to choose between bands of warlords instead of that decadent practice called voting. We want to fully engage the more primitive parts of mind to stave off the ennui of modernity. It is only with a mighty struggle for existence that we can be truly happy.

The folks who want to get rid of the pledge probably want to run for office and win. As Col. Hogan said, we need to kick them out of the party.

Dagnammit.

I’ve read of several attempts to have “the pledge” removed from the LP membership form. While the pledge has so far survived, I’ve not been satisfied with it the intensity of its defense by members. These attempts should be met with outrage and expulsion.

The reason? I don’t want to see the LP become “Socialist Party C.”

One individual, who seems to be spelling impaired, is an example of a member (if he is a member) who stands woefully lacking in libertarian acumen. Some serious remedial reading seems to be in order. Begin with Miss Manners.

At least two of my comments from this AM seem to have been black holed.

A. Bring up old campaign scandels from years ago.
B. Complain that the LP is dead because of changes made at convention.
C. Complain that the LP is dead because of changes not made at convention.
D. Encourage libertarians not to vote because Diebold has it rigged anyways
E. Encourage libertarians not to vote because that gives credibility to the secret Mason/Mormon/Jewish/New World Order/Illuminati/Nazi/or Martian run government which we think is our own.
F. Rant about a former or current state chairman who did me wrong
G. Rant about a former or current county chairman who did me wrong
H. Bemoan that not every LP candidates agrees with me on every issue.

I hope more Libertarians join me in this endeavor. Only then we will succeed! To the keyboard and to victory!!!