[Lnc-business] Liberty Links

[Ken Moellman]

Our caucuses sometimes seem to exist in a vacuum. I think creating a
procedure to get official recognition of a caucus by the party would be
pretty simple: 

1. You have a governing document. (Define how you exist) 
2. You have a mission statement: a goal or set of goals. (Define why you
exist) 

3. You have a board or other structure defined and filled. (You exist) 
4. You have X number of members. (Some people care about this caucus) 

Obviously, it's not required to be officially recognized, but if a
caucus wants to be listed as an "officially recognized caucus" I think
this minor amount of effort is worth it -- the LP would end up
advertising for that caucus through it's website and it's nice to be
official, like getting that Blue Checkmark on social media. New people
would see your caucus as legit. 

I really do think it would be beneficial to the party and its caucuses
to advertise the "legitimate" caucuses, whatever we define that to be.
Outright Libertarians, Radical Caucus, etc. would all benefit as people
who align wouldn't be left to accidentally meander into a caucus, but
would instead be pointed to them. 

It's just a thought. 

---
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee 

On 2016-12-12 15:33, Joshua Katz wrote: 

> 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 [1]
>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> (301) 320-3634 [2] 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]
 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.VoteVohra.com
[2] tel:(301)%20320-3634
[3] 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/e9e4b965/attachment-0002.html>