[Lnc-business] Member input/emails

Sun Oct 23 11:06:50 EDT 2016

If it is within libertarian principles and debatable, generally yes.  If it
is advocating a violation of rights, no.  And that is how I present it when
speaking to my region.

And yes, that is the goal Ken.  But I get a lot of member emails now (well
not as lot as I would like) and the vast majority are not "loud" but
thoughtful.

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:

>
>
> If a majority of constituents (members) support an issue, would you not
> expect the person elected to represent those constituents (members) to act
> accordingly, even if it's against their personal viewpoint on the matter?
> Or maybe a representative isn't sure which way to go -- communication and
> information might help tip the balance or even swing someone moderately on
> one side to the other.
>
> The goal for a representative is to filter out the loud voices, and
> instead listen to all of the voices.
>
> And from the other side, the trick to winning issues is winning more
> people over before the vote is taken.
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-10-23 08:15, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>
>
> This is taking up some of Alicia's points in the email thread regarding
> Assemblyman Moore that as to do with input from the general membership.
>
>
>
> ==What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? ==
>
>
>
> I left that statement in as necessary for the greater context but not
> relevant here.  We expect Libertarians to have a conscience in line with
> Libertarian principles however – which is relevant then as follows, LNC
> members have the same expectation (I am not implying even remotely that
> anyone does not, just setting up the context).
>
>
>
> ==That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even
> if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends.==
>
>
>
> Every LNC member has to ultimately vote the way they think they should
> vote.  That has nothing to do with whether or not they receive emails.
> Emails from members can and SHOULD inform their decision, even if their
> decision does not change.  And the fact is that this an unfair
> characterization of at least this iteration of the LNC.  I do not know for
> certain what other LNC members do, but I am confident I am the most active
> at soliticing member involvement.  And NOT ONCE was it "staged" (whatever
> that means) – nor was it organized (LOL) – and nor was it from my
> "friends."  I take a bit of an offense at that.  I do not merely represent
> my "friends" in Region 1 or more remotely, anywhere else in the
> membership.  I believe that would be grossly unethical and wrong.  I
> encourage EVERYONE to write.  I have encouraged people to write who's
> position on me was part of the "throw all the bums out of the LNC" mantra.
> For reference this is how I generally encourage people (with occasional
> personal encouragement in meetings I attend):
>
>
>
> I have a Regional Representative Website that contains this:
> http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=11
>
>
>
> I maintain a Region 1 FB page here: https://www.facebook.com/
> groups/252474608447206/
>
>
>
> I help admin a general member discussion group on LNC Business here:
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/LNCBusinessDiscuss/
>
>
>
> I have a growing mailing that that I send newsletters to.  Examples of the
> newsletters can be found here: http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=13
>
>
>
> In some important issues that directly affect membership, I will make a
> more specific request to make voices known rather than a general statement.
>
>
>
> == Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents
> if we do the same thing as party officials?==
>
>
>
> This seems to be saying that it is okay to change one's opinion merely
> because constituents feel a certain way. In which case, then one's mind
> should be changed by members. But that is not what I am saying whatsoever.
> I am saying that we should be willing to listen to and take members' input
> into consideration.  More on that in a bit.
>
>
>
>
>
> ==If I am not persuaded by a particular argument, I do not find it
> suddenly more persuasive if it is repeated at a louder volume by having 10
> other people email me to repeat the exact same argument.==
>
>
>
> This is *unintentionally *insulting to members who write.  I have found
> that most of them offer thoughtful new angles on many items, even if it is
> around a central theme.  I have never found bald repeating of the same
> argument but often times new insight, or just general encouragements or
> disapproval.  And I have changed my mind by such communications, or changed
> my approach - perhaps not yet on things we have voted on but certainly on
> anticipated controversies.  It certainly gives me appreciation for what the
> members are thinking and grateful for the ones who take the time to care
> enough to write.
>
>
>
> ==It is even less persuasive when the message I receive says "The Radical
> Caucus told me I was supposed to email you and say X.  So here ya go!"==
>
>
>
> Alicia, seriously?  Please produce an email even remotely like that from
> this iteration of the LNC.  I have NEVER received anything like that.  And
> I find it interesting that you choose to use the "Radical Caucus" as an
> example since I do not think we have received one email purported to be
> from them, NOR DO I make pains to represent them specifically although I am
> a Board Member on that Caucus as disclosed upon my election to the LNC.  My
> Region does not comprise radicals only, and I was not elected to represent
> the LPRC (or the Youth Caucus or the Pro-Life Caucus, both of which I also
> belong to).  This is the second time in recent history where it was (the
> first time it was outright stated) that I have some peculiar interest in
> merely representing the LPRC.  Which is incorrect.  In fact the members I
> referenced above that wanted my head were LPRC members.  The only caucus I
> have ever forwarded anything from was the Audacious Caucus – with whom I
> have sharp disagreement with their tactics (and I was deeply mortified that
> they became personally abusive to you – that is not OKAY in any universe
> and I condemn that) – and who are highly critical of the LPRC in part
> because we condemn abusive tactics.
>
>
>
> That was a bit of a ramble, but in fact we do not receive emails like that
> in any way to make that a fair characterization.  And if they occur rarely,
> it is rarely.
>
>
>
> ==To change my mind, I need a more persuasive argument, not louder
> volume.==
>
>
>
> That insinuates that members do not send persuasive arguments.  I received
> a very thoughtful email opposing my motion to rescind to which I spent a
> good deal of time responding.  And it raised some points that caused me to
> think.
>
>
>
> ==If I disagree with an idea, to have someone twist that into an
> accusation that I disdain the membership...well, that's the sort of
> campaign rhetoric misrepresentation that makes most of the public hate
> politics.==
>
>
>
> Alicia, I have been the one that has taken issue with the multiple
> comments over the months about member input.   I have never said mere
> disagreement means disdain.  I disagree with the membership and my fellow
> LNC members on many occasions.  My issue comes when member input is
> characterized as merely "louder volume" or "so and so told me to write, so
> count me as writing."  It isn't.    Or the one I previously objected to in
> which because a comment was made that a caucus sending an email was somehow
> "secret" when the membership list is public, and a question was raised as
> to whether any might be Republican operatives.  It is that kind of thing
> that I think does not give proper place to our member comments.
>
>
>
> ==Rounding up lots of people to email the LNC and repeat the same idea
> we've already heard==
>
>
>
> It is comments like that which are problematic.  Who is "rounding up" and
> who is telling them what to email and is it really repetition?  How do
> comments like that make the members feel encouraged to write?  That is my
> issue.  The only issue that this might be even close to any reality was my
> motion to rescind, because members rights were being directly and
> permanently compromised.  Going into groups and generally encouraging
> members to make their voice known is not "rounding up."  I want all members
> and POVs to write, even the ones that think my POV is rotten.
>
>
>
> == is essentially asking the LNC to do exactly what that this motion would
> censure John Moore for doing, voting how he thinks his constituents want
> him to vote as opposed to what he thinks he should do.  ==
>
>
>
> Precisely NOT.  It is asking for input to make a decision and to know
> fully what the membership thinks.  Further this statement assumes that all
> input would require that all options be on the table.  Nothing could be
> further from the truth.  We operate within the assumption that we will be
> operating on Libertarian principles.  Even if 90% of the membership emailed
> urging a non-principled again, should we listen.  But if there are various
> options that have principled arguments, we should welcome them.  In this
> case, Moore was urged to use the state to commit aggression through
> inappropriate usurpation of powers that do not rightly belong to any
> government in a Libertarian worldview.  No matter how many people urge
> unlibertarian actions, should a Libertarian do it.  This argument makes
> this a zero sum numbers game, and that is not even remotely close to what I
> have said.
>
>
>
> I believe we have to be careful in what we say about member input and do
> so in a way that encourages them to participate in a productive way.  I
> want an LNC culture that does so and that is the motivation for my
> attempts, as poor as they may be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161023/998309be/attachment-0002.html>