[Lnc-business] Liberty Links

[Joshua Katz]

I agree with the Vice-Chair about many things here, but I think there's a
dangling conclusion unconnected to any premises.  Trump used Twitter.
Twitter is very different from link sharing.  The biggest difference, in my
view, is that you are promoting the other group through a specific thing,
not its entirety.  I think that's likely to be more effective - it shows
the point, it shows people what you are sending them over there for, and it
is a way out of endorsing everything on the page.

I don't like the disclaimer idea.  In my opinion, if it's far enough off,
just don't do it.  Even better, though, see above - link to what you want
to point to, not to what you don't.  If we tweeter a good BHL article, it
doesn't mean we're permanently endorsing everything that appears on that
page.

It depends, to some extent, on in what ways things are off as well.  For
instance, in today's political environment, I have to say, I'm not
comfortable with certain pages that grow out of the 1990's attempt to fuse
conservatism with libertarianism (as opposed to the earlier Meyer
attempt).  I was a huge fan of some such pages during their less right-wing
days, and one of them I credit with bringing me into the libertarian fold -
I wrote for them, and was endorsed by them when I ran for the LNC.  Today,
though, they are full of praise for Trump and attacks on immigration.

On caucuses: if the rule is "admit one, admit all" I think you're creating
a problem when you admit one.  As my colleague asks, what does it take to
be a caucus?  We're creating an entitlement to, if not an endorsement,
something that could be mistaken for one, with a relatively low bar to
qualify.

The solution proposed here is to have "official caucuses."  I don't think I
can agree with that either.  Caucuses exist to influence the LNC.  The
power to set minimal standards is the power to exclude, which doesn't shut
anything down, but does make some more powerful than others.  These are
meant to be independent groups of like-minded people; incorporating them
into the LP reminds me of some countries where there is a Department of
Approved Dissent.

Joshua A. Katz


On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> As Hillary Clinton pointed out, one of Trump's strategies was to encourage
> the growth of Alt-Right groups. With shared tweets, groups that had 11
> people grew to 11 million. This in turn, bolstered the Trump campaign and
> built loyalty.
>
> We are spearhead of the Libertarian movement. By helping other groups
> grow, we are helping the entire movement, which means helping ourselves. By
> educating new Libertarians, helping them convince family and friends, we're
> helping the party grow.
>
> There are some restrictions that we should keep in mind. First, internal
> caucuses should either be all included, or all excluded. I would prefer
> including them all, since it helps people get more deeply involved in the
> LP. That said, I could see issues coming up, so am fine with exclude them
> all.
>
> Large organizations that primarily support old party monkeys should be
> left out. For example, a link to the NRA would be spectacularly unstrategic.
>
> But size should not be a major consideration. We'll build more by helping
> small organizations grow than by redirecting people to large organizations
> who then redirect them to the statist duopoloy.
>
> -Arvin
>
>
>
>
> --
> Arvin Vohra
>
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161212/e2a5358c/attachment-0002.html>