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

Wed May 17 18:56:28 EDT 2017

An expression of disapproval.  I believe that boards should reserve their
expressions of disapproval for disapproving of actions taken within or
regarding the organization, however.

Joshua A. Katz

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:

> What do members think a censure is?
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 17, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170517/386aeea5/attachment-0002.html>