Steve LaBianca asked "Tell me how ANY existence of the state would NOT violate the initiation of force principle?"
That depends on what you mean by the "initiation of force principle". The existence of the state does not violate what I call the Anti-Aggression Principle. I agree with Roy Childs contra Ayn Rand that it would violate the Zero Aggression Principle. For details, see the links near the bottom of http://libertarianmajority.net/.
There, I answered your question. Now, I asked you eight questions about various kinds of force initiation, and about whether you acknowledge any principled distinction between socialism and minarchism. I'm perfectly happy for you to ignore them and call them "B.S", because I guarantee you that this discussion will end with you ignoring a lengthy posting of mine (like my previous one). That's just how I roll. Given how busy I am, I'm fine with that happening sooner rather than later.
If you define "statist" as "not an anarchist", then congratulations, you've convicted me of the crime of statism. Further, if you define the Non-Aggression Principle as caring more about abstaining from force initiation than about opposing and minimizing it, then congratulations again, you've convicted me of upholding a principle that I consider to be superior too -- and more libertarian than -- your corresponding principle. Whether or not you think I qualify as libertarian, I still think you qualify, and I don't need to waste energy trying to make the LP's fundamental texts say that I'm more libertarian than thou. I've got a nanny state to dismantle. Don't you?
Susan, you didn't quite answer whether your fundamental principle is 1) that force initiation should be absolutely abstained from, or 2) that force initiation should be opposed and minimized. It's news to me that you're now a consequentialist anarchist. In the past you've given a perfect imitation of a vehemently deontological anarchist, saying that we cannot know what policies will lead to the least amount of force initiation, and so the best we can do is not initiate force ourselves. I'm glad to hear it if you apparently no longer find that position defensible. :-)
I'm also glad to see you whole-heartedly subscribe to my "spinal reflex" metaphor. You say the LP needs to grow a spine, but I say it needs to start thinking more with its brain, and less with the brain stem that the Rockbardians left behind. What I'd like to know now is: do you yet have enough "spine" to tell the delegates how many of the 30 elements of the <a href="http://libertarianmajority.net/no-1st-force-pledge"> No 1st Force Pledge</a> you endorse? I'm stilling willing to contribute $100 to your Radical Caucus if you're hardcore enough to endorse them all. And I'll double that to $200 if you endorse Rothbard's position that there should be no rules against parents letting their children starve to death. My cash is yours if you have enough spine here.
Steve Newton, it's not really disputable whether the rules say that LP members delegate ultimate power to their delegates. The only limit on that power are the rules about proper notice for certain things, but anyone who could hypnotize enough NatCon delegates can essentially do anything to the LP that she wishes. The Bylaws Committee is trying to foreclose the possibility of a hostile takeover by having the Judicial Committee members serve longer and staggered terms, so that a single convention can't elect a quisling JudCom. But that only protects the LP from the officers the delegates elect. Nothing can protect the LP from the delegates themselves.
