[Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...

Wed May 17 18:14:00 EDT 2017

I am going to speak in substantial agreement here with Joshua on the
official action thing and the "personal" versus "official" life.  Thank you
Joshua.

I disagree in some other areas, and have some thoughts, but it is not the
time or place.

I can tell you, Region 1 people are upset and angry, *and I do not blame
them one bit. * I completely appreciated the apology but then I saw another
comment today about public school teachers, and I absolutely cannot and do
it agree, nor will I appear to agree.

I in my own voice will say so, and I encourage others to do so.

-Caryn Ann

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Colleagues:
>
> Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with
> recent comments of one of our members.  I feel they are politically
> backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can
> bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my
> opinion.  Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these
> comments are "true but embarrassing."  I am not one who believes that we
> need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses.
> I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are
> wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to
> be either true or false.
>
> I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on
> any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension.  I would
> vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock."
>  Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take
> off our "hats" in public.  That's one reason I strive for a low social
> media profile - that's my personal vision of the position.  But when I
> speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do
> not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
>
> I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable
> activities carried out within office.  I do not believe it is appropriate
> to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.'  As
> I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some
> exceptions, except as members of this body.  Our power is to vote, not to
> direct things ourselves.  This cuts both ways.  We do not have the power to
> speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power
> by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion.  Lacking that
> power, we cannot do it wrong.
>
> Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair.  They are elected
> by the delegates.  I resent the implication that a few outspoken members
> should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention.  It is not our
> job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive
> messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
>
> It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging.
> Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking
> carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution.  It
> is our job, to agree with Mr. Somes, to construct a message so good, so
> coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud that no one: board member,
> candidate, or member, can be taken to speak for the party if they
> contradict that messaging or its tone.  If we believe that one person,
> speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message,
> then shame on us.
>
> Further, that hasn't happened.  It is primarily our own people who are
> angry.  I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see
> outrage outside Libertarian circles.  It will be objected that this is
> because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were
> larger, we could not afford to be silent.  That may very well be true.  Yet
> the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion,
> should.  Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true
> that our own messaging would be better.  I say let's deal with the meme in
> our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging.  (As an individual, I
> feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
>
> Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a
> fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of
> others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity?  As
> far as I am aware, there is not.  We are speaking about a person who has,
> in my view, governed well.  We do not always agree, but I always respect
> his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the
> same.  Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well.  The
> vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these
> were carried out badly or incorrectly.  Until I see allegations about those
> (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those
> responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
>
> In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed
> classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an
> Israeli source.  The travel ban is still working its way through the
> courts.  The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was
> impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying.  Democrats
> and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the
> freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist
> policies.  I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians
> to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and
> other issues.  In addition to rolling back the size and scope of
> government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing
> more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown
> themselves capable of doing.  After all, a more effective government will
> require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government.  The
> government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence.
> So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making
> other political missteps.  I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both
> personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire
> not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right
> and with strong ideals.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170517/473d7b0d/attachment-0002.html>