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

Wed May 17 18:32:45 EDT 2017

If that last comment wasn't clear, Joshua was persuasive that the power of
censure etc, which is what people are calling for is not a power we have if
we believe in the separation between personal and official voice. Which I
absolutely do.

I believe we personally can disagree in our own voices as can affiliates
and members.

-Caryn Ann

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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*
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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/20170517/203db42b/attachment-0002.html>