[Lnc-business] "No preferred flavor of statism" LP press release

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 27 00:07:17 EST 2016


	It is good and correct to state that the Libertarian Party does not have a preferred flavor of statism. On that central point, today's Libertarian Party press release from chair Nick Sarwark gets it right. 

	Nevertheless I think this was in several other respects a regrettable communication, especially after I raised the concern at our recent meeting that we should have supported the 2016 election recount effort (at the very least with words, if not with more direct material assistance that could have generated significant funds and publicity for the LP). 

	I urge anyone else involved in crafting this message, as well as the LNC and Libertarians generally, to consider the ways in which today's release may have been damaging:


• The release incorrectly presumes that the only reason anyone would support a recount in a situation like this is to help one statist faction or the other, when in fact there are strong reasons to support recounts or audits of the vote whenever there are widespread doubts about the legitimacy of the results, as a simple matter of promoting official accountability and upholding basic tenets of democracy

• In presuming that the purpose of the 2016 recount effort was strictly to help the Democrats, it unfairly impugns the motives of Jill Stein and the Green Party, thereby harming future prospects for cooperation among the leading alternative parties in fighting the status quo (If helping the Democrats had been the primary aim of Stein and the Greens, clearly they would not have run a presidential campaign in the first place but simply urged their supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton, since the Stein ticket was obviously competing more with her than with Donald Trump for votes)

• By suggesting that we only care about election fraud when Libertarians or the cause of freedom are directly harmed by it, the release makes us look self-serving and undermines our claim to being the "Party of Principle"

• The release gives would-be manipulators of the vote greater confidence that they can commit such malfeasance without raising the ire of the Libertarian Party, or (if the malfeasance is directed against us) without the Greens or others supporting us in protesting the fraud, since we've indicated our disinterest in such matters when a contest appears to be between different flavors of statism and signaled that we won't support others in similar cases


	With the above points in mind, I hope the chair and others involved in putting out future press releases and other communications will work to mitigate any harm, and remove any damaging doubts that may have been created here, by reaffirming in our messaging that:


• We recognize there are often good reasons to doubt the integrity of the electoral process in the United States, particularly when electronic voting is involved, and we support reforms to make the system more transparent and less subject to manipulation by insiders or hackers, as well as efforts to audit or recount the vote in cases where there appears to be credible evidence of significant vote-tampering

• We are committed to working with other alternative parties and independents in the United States to break the grip of the dominant two-party cartel, and are particularly concerned with demanding action to uphold the integrity of the vote in cases where cartel machinations appear to be aimed at disenfranchising or undermining non-cartel opposition

• We strongly oppose election rigging no matter who the beneficiaries are, because it is generally those in power who have the strongest motives and most opportunity to rig the vote, and we understand that failing to consistently speak out against such tactics normalizes them and reduces the political price to be paid by perpetrators, thereby helping dismantle an important roadblock on the road to tyranny


	I am putting this forward in the form of simple advice rather than a resolution, in the hopes that this will be sufficient to prompt ameliorative follow-up. But if the chair or others think I am off-base here, and that we should not reaffirm where we stand as outlined above, please let us know.

Love & Liberty,
                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                                 (415) 625-FREE
                                   @StarchildSF


On Dec 26, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Libertarian Party wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Dear Libertarian,
>  
> Some folks have asked me why the Libertarian Party is not participating in Jill Stein's recount efforts.
>  
> My answer is that Libertarians don't have a preferred flavor of statism. 
>  
> We know that there is no significant difference between the oppressively big government offered by the Republicans and the oppressively big government offered by the Democrats.
>  
> We don't prefer a Democratic War on Drugs or a Republican War on Drugs. We work to end the War on Drugs.
>  
> We don't prefer a Democratic "Patriot" Act or a Republican "Patriot" Act. We work to repeal it and protect Americans' natural right to privacy.
>  
> We don't prefer Democratic cronyism or Republican cronyism. We work to make government too weak to give any company special favors. 
>  
> And so on.
>  
> Simply put, Jill Stein's efforts are meant to benefit the Democratic Party. And we don't play that kind of politics. The Libertarian Party stands for liberty, not for helping a big-government political party gain more power or attention.
>  
> That's why the Libertarian Party chose not to participate in Jill Stein's recount efforts. 
>  
> We acknowledge the right of any person, including Jill Stein, to fight for her preferred brand of big, wasteful, meddling, intrusive government. But we will spend our time, financial resources, and expertise fighting for liberty instead.
>  
> As 2016 comes to an end, let me update you on our critical projects.
>  
> We are currently in court in Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, pursuing a fairer playing field for our future candidates.
>  
> We are also suing the Commission on Presidential Debates, towards that same goal.
>  
> We are preparing documents for a court case defending 2nd Amendment rights.
>  
> We are recruiting candidates for the many elections coming up in 2017 and 2018.
>  
> We are upgrading our IT infrastructure at Libertarian Party headquarters, to better serve our members and candidates and improve outreach to voters.
>  
> We are planning various ballot access petitioning drives to make sure that the Libertarian Party is again on ballots in all 50 states and DC in 2018, as we were in 2016.
>  
> This is the meaningful work we are doing right now, as we defend all of your freedoms, all of the time. 
>  
> Happy New Year, my friends!
>  
> 
>  
> Nicholas Sarwark
> Chair
> Libertarian National Committee
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  
>     
> 
>  
> Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314 
> Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
>  
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161226/ad09ab94/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list