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

Wed May 17 19:12:32 EDT 2017

No, but I am not obligated to vote for every motion we have the power to
pass.  There are certainly some exceptions to that belief as well, such as
a murdering spree.

Joshua A. Katz

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:

> Does that belief derive from Robert's Rules?
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 17, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/becc7bc7/attachment-0002.html>