Harland Harrison wrote:
HH) the obligation of all armies to protect civilians (HH
BH) Positive "obligations" to "protect" people are a no-no for some Libertarians. (BH
HH) I don’t think an obligation of the government to avoid mass murder is a “no-no” to anybody, much less to libertarians. (HH
Those weren't the words you used. Context restored above. Libertarians are pretty literal when it comes to the Platform, especially concerning positive rights versus negative rights.
HH) If you like what I wrote about allowing only proper courts to take children from their homes, then just restore the 2004 language. I only changed the word order to help you understand it. It means the same thing. (HH
Your wording change helped me understand how you read it, but we'll have to disagree on whether your interpretation of the 2004 language is the most obvious.
HH) The platform should take a stand against nuclear weapons. (HH
All nuclear weapons, or just government ownership of them? Some of us advocated for language outlawing private ownership of WMDs, but others objected. I just can't agree that no principled libertarian can defend the U.S. government's possession of a nuclear deterrent.
Again, I think our language on parental rights is pretty clear, and I disagree on the need to discuss custody machinery in the Platform. I agree on torture, and would like to add the U.N. language I cited.
Thanks for the feedback. It was refreshingly constructive. On areas where we disagree, feel free to press your case with other Committee members, and to prepare floor amendments for Denver if your concerns aren't addressed.
