[Lnc-business] Enough pussyfooting. Time for a fearless platform.

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Mon Jan 2 10:31:06 EST 2017


No reason to be brutal- agreeed.

-Caryn Ann

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:21 AM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> There's a difference between being strong and being brutal.
>
>
>
>
>
> Calling for the end of the publicly-funded bureaucratic boondoggle known
> as public education - strong.
>
>
>
>
>
> Calling teachers "babysitters" - brutal.
>
>
>
>
>
> There's no reason to be brutal.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-01-02 02:49, Starchild wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Ken,
>
>
>
>
>       You write, *"We can be strong, hardcore libertarians."*
>
>
>
>
>
>       How do you propose to ensure that the Libertarian Party is run by
> strong, hardcore libertarians on an ongoing basis, if we use less than
> strong, hardcore language in our Platform, and allow people with less than
> strong, hardcore beliefs to vote in party elections? I'm honestly
> interested in hearing creative, effective solutions to this problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>
>                                ((( starchild )))
>
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
>
>                               (415)625-FREE
>
>
>                                 @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Moellman
> Sent: Jan 1, 2017 5:49 PM
> To: Caryn Ann Harlos
> Cc: Libertarian National Committee list
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Enough pussyfooting. Time for a fearless
> platform.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "*No [one] is advocating being offensive in the platform.* That is a red
> herring and I think incredibly disrespectful to the intent of the email
> chain starter when you can easily start your own on this particular topic."
>
>
>
>
>
> Is that more or less offensive than calling people in a particular
> profession glorified babysitters?   (Sorry, you did put that ball right on
> the tee, and I couldn't resist taking a swing.)
>
>
>
>
>
> I also see the comments on the LP Facebook Page.  Generally, the angry
> comments come from idiot trolls or people who either don't understand, or
> genuinely disagree with, the philosophy.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have no issue with taking the controversial stand on policy.  Certainly,
> our positions run counter to those who worship at the altar of the
> omnipotent state, and for good reason; the philosophy behind our political
> platform.
>
>
>
>
>
> It is our duty, as leaders of this organization, and by-proxy leaders of
> this philosophical movement, to try to convert as many as possible to our
> viewpoint.  The LP Facebook Page should not be a place where we throw red
> meat to our supporters.  It should be an outreach tool.
>
>
>
>
>
> Likewise, our platform should be an attempt to reach out, and not push
> away, potential supporters.  I don't like the entire platform as it exists
> today. I've voted against some portions of it, and was out-voted. And
> that's fine; there's no party (or any group, for that matter) that will be
> 100% of what you want.
>
>
>
>
>
> We can be strong, hardcore libertarians.  I'm not seeking a discussion
> about philosophy, but about wording.
>
>
>
>
>
> IMO, our platform should be politically relevant and worded in an inviting
> way.  Let's talk about why our desired way is better, rather than saying
> "the status quo sucks".
>
>
>
>
>
> Our current education plank, while not exactly what I'd like to see, is
> worded in a positive way:
>
>
>
>
>
> *2.9 Education*
> *Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality,
> accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing
> that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would
> restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children,
> without interference from government. Parents should have control of and
> responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd like to see this strengthened further to talk about the positive
> effects of free market education. Replacing a top-down one-size-fits-all
> education policy with education options tailored to a student's strengths
> and weaknesses, as unique as the individual themselves. Something about
> modern education for a modern world.  Positives, positives, positives.
> We're better because we're better, not because they're worse.
>
>
>
>
>
> The dirty little secret is that we're all radical libertarians; no one
> else would invest the time and treasure into the party that we all do,
> otherwise.  But how we choose to convey those principles is a very
> important matter.
>
>
>
>
>
> So, I would ask the next Platform Committee to please consider making our
> platform even more positive.  Liberty is awesome.  Tell people why our
> platform - liberty - leads to better outcomes.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-01-01 20:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I will note one thing about the comments in that post - and I am putting
> aside the issue of whether the wording was right as I think that a
> different post - MANY OF THE COMMENTS were "offended"
>  at our ACTUAL position.  And there isn't any way to lie about our
> position.  The complete separate of education and state.  I read that
> thread. And I saw and was regretful that some teachers were offended.  I
> certainly don't like that. But I saw that by far the vast majority of the
> "offense" was at our position. And that is just life.  That IS our
> position.  And it would be our position no matter how sweetly we worded.
> Those who oppose it would see it for what it is.
>
>
>
>
> Again, not arguing in this thread about the very unfortunate insult taken
> by school teachers - so many of which truly love and care about serving and
> giving to children and youth.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I read the Facebook page daily. And without commenting on that post, we
> have similar comments to ALL posts.  There are also positive comments on
> that post that you seem to be ignoring (again, I'm not choosing to argue
> about that post but about how FB goes in general - I spend hours and hours
> a week on the national FB page - I tend to think I know what I am talking
> about.).
>
>
>
>
> And yes, I still think rabbit trailing this discussion is inappropriate.
>
>
>
>
>
> *No is advocating being offensive in the platform.* That is a red herring
> and I think incredibly disrespectful to the intent of the email chain
> starter when you can easily start your own on this particular topic.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's not different at all.  Wording matters.  Words matter.  I chose to
> focus on this Facebook post because it makes my point.
>
>
>
>
>
> Our platform can have the same effect.  The words we choose really do
> matter.  That's my entire point.  I have no issue with being consistent,
> even bold, in our platform.  What I do worry about is HOW it is conveyed.
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a thing within the broader libertarian circles on trying to
> "out-libertarian" other libertarians, and often this turns into a "I'm such
> a libertarian, I think we should ______" where the process of filling in
> the blank spirals downward into the realm of the most ridiculous and most
> offensive way of saying things.  I call this the "libertarian dick-size
> contest".  It is extremely counter-productive. It drives away potential
> future members - people who only need a little coaching to see the light -
> because someone wanted to prove how hardcore they are.
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not saying that this was the impetus behind the particular Facebook
> post.  In fact, I don't really think it was, in this case. But it can be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I strongly encourage everyone to go read the comments on this Facebook
> post, on our official Facebook page, and see how words really do matter.
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/libertarians/posts/10154865568037726
>
>
>
>
>
> Some highlights in reaction simply in labeling public school teachers
> "babysitters" prove my point.  That one idea - that one concept - of
> calling them "babysitters" has elicited some pretty legitimate backlash.
> Here are some highlights:
>
>
>
>
>
> *"This has to be communicated in a less confrontational way. I taught with
> some excellent teachers who did everything they could to help their
> students succeed. I also taught with some lazy incompetents. The post reads
> as though teachers are universally bad, which isn't the case."*
>
>
>
>
>
> *"I'm a Libertarian, and a public school teacher. You just spit on every
> hard working teacher like me."*
>
>
>
>
>
> *"To label the teacher as a babysitter is a crushing disservice. The
> problem is that the system is trying to turn our teachers into babysitters.
> Privatizing education is a big and interesting idea, but I agree with the
> statement that it should be communicated more effectively and not at the
> insult of dedicated and hardworking educators."*
>
>
>
>
>
> Words matter.  One word, one concept, has unnecessarily elicited a ton of
> negative feedback.  And again, that's my point.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-01-01 19:47, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think that is a different subject than this thread or the thread
> starter's intention so I will not rabbit trail this one.  You might wish to
> start another discussion out of respect for the discussion at hand.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How we frame discussions and the words we use do actually matter.  And
> beyond that, it does a significant disservice to our party and our platform
> to be jerks to people by broadly classifying them.
>
>
>
>
>
> I'll again point out that there are public school teachers who could
> become Libertarians.  If we push them away by attacking them, rather than
> the broader system, then they won't.  Because someone decided we needed to
> call public school teachers "babysitters" yet again, I'd like to reiterate
> my point by directly quoting the words of a commenter on the post...
>
>
>
>
>
> *As a public school teacher, I don't particularly care for the current
> public education system. As a concept, I'm not sure how I feel about public
> education. However, to suggest that we public school educators are
> incompetent is not only false, it's fucking insulting. I'd be willing to
> bet that most of the people who trash us, including the party's vice chair,
> haven't been in a K-12 classroom since they graduated high school.
> Basically what I'm trying to say is that until you have some experience in
> the modern classroom - and I mean actually observing it instead of picking
> up your kids on the curb or walking into the office to pick them up - you
> should probably take your criticism of educators and shove it into the
> deepest part of your ass.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This person, assuming they're writing in good faith, is a public school
> teacher like some of the ones I know.  They don't like the current state of
> public education.  They're open to new ideas.  But, we decided to denigrate
> them and call them "babysitters".
>
>
>
>
>
> There are people out there being actively repulsed because of what is
> being said in the name of the party.  Maybe someone really does hate public
> school teachers.  Okay.  But is that the message we want to convey as a
> party?  The Libertarian Party has no respect public school teachers?
> Because that's what the post says, and the reaction quoted above is the
> result.  A potential member, a potential new libertarian, has been repulsed
> because someone has decided that "public school teachers" are just
> "babysitters".
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not making this idea up. And this is not the only instance. This is
> just the most-recent example of the broader problem.  The words we choose
> to use do, in fact, matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-01-01 18:27, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>
>
>
> And that is done through explaining our Platform not by watering it down
> or turning the core document into the Libertarian equivalent of
> seeker-sensitive churches.
>
>
>
>
>
> Being seeker sensitive is indeed our job - as individual communicators -
> in varying tailored situations.
>
>
>
>
>
> But for that to work, the foundation must be clear solid and unabashedly
> clear.
>
>
>
>
>
> One can build many different kinds of buildings for different purposes for
> different peoples and uses - but it is all for naught without a solid
> foundation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:22 PM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't think we should ever advocate anything against our principles.
> However, I also think there's value in paying attention to how things are
> packaged.  "Marketing" is a thing, because it has value.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's not always what you say, but how you say it, that matters.  Half of
> the time, in politics, there's a fight over the language in the debate
> because language helps set the context, which can and does effect the
> outcome of the policy issue.  A great example of this is "illegal
> immigrant" versus "undocumented worker".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Another example:  A recent Facebook post by the LP Facebook Page called
> teachers "babysitters".  As one who has worked with some school public
> teachers on the Common Core issue, this didn't sit well with me at all.
> There are good teachers out there; teachers we can help see the light and
> flip to our side. But when our official party social media outlet
> denigrates all teachers (and ironically, falling into a collectivist trap
> by calling all public school teachers "babysitters") it turns people away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The goal of the Libertarian Party is, in part, to spread libertarianism
> and convert more people to it.  We can't do that if we're actively pushing
> people away, whether intentionally or unintentionally.  We must consider
> our words carefully.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My favorite "libertarian" platform of all time was the Boston Tea Party's
> platform. It was simple and to the point.  "We support reducing the size,
> scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and oppose
> increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any
> purpose."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Even this "extreme" platform from the former BTP is acceptable to people
> who work for government.  Everyone in government knows there's bloat and
> waste.  From the local level, where land swap deals and favoritism reign
> supreme; to the state level, where bureaucracy exists primarily to
> perpetuate itself; to the Federal level, where the elected officials engage
> in a show for the people while the bureaucracy runs the show.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We must espouse our philosophy in a way that helps people see the light.
> Not all people come to the LP overnight.  The ones I call "the light
> switchers" -- the ones that woke up one day, the light went on, and they
> realized they were libertarians -- are a good-sized chunk of our
> membership.  And that's fine.  But for the other people -- the ones who,
> like me, spent years of soul searching and rectifying core beliefs into
> logical consistency -- we need to help the on that journey. We need to
> bring them along.  They will come.  I've switched a number of people in my
> life using this method.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's my $0.02.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-01-01 16:19, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Attached is David Nolan's Condensed Version from 1977.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But in more serious tones, I echo everything Arvin said.  Hiding the ball
> doesn't fool those those hate our ball - hidden or not -  and only
> frustrates though that are just dying to find it.  I am not ashamed of what
> we believe and drastic societal/economic/political change is accomplished
> by clear bold principled stands.  No one goes to the metaphorical stocks
> for an uninspiring lawyered-up vision.  We favour the complete and utter
> separate of _______ and state. (you can put nearly anything in there - and
> certainly with Arvin's position -  education and state).    I personally
> love what CO did - set forth clear principled stands but made it clear that
> we would support any true step to liberty (i.e. we are not "all or nothing"
> - we will take what we can get and then continue to press for the prize):
> From CO:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Implementation*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We support any measure that actually reduces, and does not replace,
>  illegitimate governmental action or violations of the rights of the
> individual as put forth in our Preamble and Statement of Principles. While
> recognizing that change often takes the form of increments and transitions,
> the policies in the planks that follow are to be taken as quickly as
> possible. (the "and does not replace" is a recommendation of this year's
> LPCO Platform committee).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For every somewhat committed person we think we are gaining  by disguising
> our principled positions (and I believe the next two years will show that
> is not the case) I hear form multiple "all in" people who say this is the
> last chance they are giving the LP. They have had it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In any event, head counting and popularity tests fail when it comes to an
> ideological movement.   Principles. Clear principles are the only thing
> that is sure.  Our founders knew that which is why they implanted the
> Statement of Principles with a depth charge, and I thank them for it.  If
> the Party itself balks at stating what we believe we can't expect anyone
> else to buy what we are saying.  The storekeep must be willing to sample
> his own wares.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am now in favour of Sam's suggestion since Bittner opposes it.
>  #NeverBittner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> While I am a fan of that, I like a bit more specificity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The State: Boo, hiss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Was floated in a group I belong to.  We opted for something more detailed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Nolan's abbreviated platform was quite nice.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I will suggested my 2004 platform revision that I presented
>
>
>
> at the Platform Committee meeting prior to the Atlanta
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Convention:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Replace the entire platform with two sentences:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We don't like government.  Let's get rid of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sam Goldstein
>
>
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Member at Large
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Indianapolis IN 46260
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 317-850-0726 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> Fax
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AMEN!!'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I make the same commitment as Arvin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:36 PM Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If 2016 showed us one thing, it's that timid positions are neither
> necessary nor effective in current politics.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Our current platform is designed to technically be accurate, while not
> scaring anyone too badly. This is a losing proposition. A clear, inspiring,
> and immediately comprehensible platform is far better than the fine-print
> pretending to be marketing we have now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Take the education plank, for example:
>
> Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality,
> accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing
> that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would
> restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children,
> without interference from government. Parents should have control of and
> responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
>
>
> What it means: Eliminate all public schools. Let people choose between
> free, world-class, online offerings, homeschooling, and private education
> in any form.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Intransigent supporters of public schools won't be fooled by the current
> obfuscation. Opponents and potential opponents won't be inspired.
>
> Our job is to convince people of our positions, not to mask our positions
> and pander. In order for people to be able to be convinced of our
> positions, they first must understand what the position is.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I intend to support people for platform committee who will commit to an
> honest, comprehensible, fearless platform.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In Liberty,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Arvin Vohra
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Vice Chair
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lnc-business mailing list
>
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.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/20170102/3b58414f/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list