[Lnc-business] Libertarian National Committee Resolution on Military Members in the Libertarian Party

Sat May 20 23:16:15 EDT 2017

===In consulting with LNC leadership, I have determined there is no bylaw
that requires a regional rep to poll their constituents and vote according
to the popular poll results that would, of course, ignore minority
desires.==

No there is not.  It is how I choose to operate in certain significant
circumstances depending on the totality of the situation.

I think it best.  And the general method in which I promised to those who
elected me.  But I would never vote against my conscience either.  To me it
is not either or and never has been.  I have 9 states over the largest
geographic region in the Party.  It is a good way to unify a diverse
group.  But in no shape or form has it ever involved violating my
conscience.  It would violate my conscience not to be what I considered to
be a representative.  If I wanted less ties to a region- for me- I would
have run for at large or officer.

Every region and rep is different.  How I choose is how I choose.  But I
would never betray my conscience and would take any consequences of voting
opposite if it came to that.

I believe in the servant leadership model taught to me by my faith and try
to model it.

That's just me.  My region supports me in that and they are my primary duty.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:06 PM David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> Daniel,
>
>
>
> Let me take a stab at answering your points in order.
>
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean by projecting. I was not aware that our vice
> chair seemed to say he is pandering to Ancaps. Incidentally, I am not an
> AnCap. I am a Voluntaryist as are most Libertarians that are incorrectly
> labeled with the broad brush of anarchism. Not much difference but worth
> noting.
>
>
>
> I suppose all people and all Libertarians use political correctness and
> pandering to some degree as a fact of living, particularly under the burden
> of moral dilemmas imposed on us by government. However, I avoid political
> correctness and pandering perhaps to fault in the eyes of some. Perfect?
> No, but pretty damn good and getting better thanks in part to the
> Libertarian Party. I consider political correctness and pandering to be
> lacking in intellectual honesty and an easy way out to avoid controversy
> and social ostracism. Point of fact, pandering to what you refer to as
> “AnCaps” is practically a guaranteed path to social ostracism in the
> Libertarian Party, particularly from some who have no interest in deep-dive
> root-cause analysis.
>
>
>
> Now as to the reasons how I arrived at my No vote in addition to why I
> voted No in my motion vote email. As I previously stated, I was dubious
> about the motivation and course the motion would take. I knew that what I
> had to offer had little chance of gaining a consensus. However, I was
> pleasantly surprised that the resulting motion was considerably better than
> what I expected at least in terms of soothing the hubbub. I noted a missing
> element regarding aggressive and unethical military recruiting and
> developed a version that included the mention of large enlistment bonuses
> and college education. In the spirit of smoothing the controversy, I
> removed the specific recruiting enticements because they could be
> considered as reigniting the hubbub rather than pouring oil over troubled
> waters.
>
>
>
> Upon reflection, my first inclination was to abstain in part because my
> sanitized recruiting statement was omitted even though the motion could
> easily have been amended as we did umpteen times in the Cuban Libertarian
> Prisoner motion. That omission did raise a red flag. However, when I saw
> the final version of the motion, in part triggered by comments for the
> chair from another state, I was uncomfortable with the political
> correctness tone of several statements and the fact that the sanitized
> version that I had offered on recruiting practices did not have the teeth
> in it that I thought would be required to get at the heart of the matter,
> namely helping veterans with their understandable moral dilemma stresses.
>
>
>
> All of us and especially veterans suffer under government-imposed moral
> dilemmas. My sanitized version, even if had been used, and the rest of the
> motion simply did not address the real needs of veterans. Down deep they
> know the moral questions they are faced with. Whitewashing those moral
> questions does them a disservice and does not help them resolve their moral
> concerns. Assuming that platitudes and pandering will satisfy them and meet
> their needs is an insult to their intelligence and a transparent attempt to
> gloss over their real needs merely to get votes. I find that unconscionable
> at least for me and accordingly decided to vote No and explain my reasons
> in detail. And, yes, I did thank the chair from another state for
> triggering me to reflect more carefully. The substance of what I reflected
> on had nothing to do with the chair from another state. My continued
> reflection had to do solely with my personal views on political correctness
> and pandering, both of which I consider to be intellectually dishonest, but
> more importantly, they do not get to the heart of the matters being
> considered and what solutions might really help resolve the underlying
> issues.
>
> The bottom line is that my “No” vote reflects my concerns that veterans
> need our well-thought-out assistance, not our crass pandering solely for
> the purpose of garnering their votes. Come on, folks – let’s help our
> veterans, not blow them insincere kisses for votes.
>
>
>
> Daniel, yes, my approach to communication is to get straight to the point,
> express the truth as I see it, and get Libertarian stuff done even if it
> does not contribute to winning a popular vote for me. As to representing
> Region 6, I have always made it crystal clear that I will listen to all
> thoughtful input but always, always vote my conscience. If they do not like
> that approach, it is easily remedied by convention delegate votes or
> removal for cause if justified which is not the case. However, that is a
> moot point since I advertised well in advance of these recent controversies
> that I would set an example by self-term-limiting myself to one term as
> Region 6 Representative. I have informed interested Region 6 parties and at
> least one well-qualified candidate is already campaigning to be my
> replacement.
>
>
>
> In consulting with LNC leadership, I have determined there is no bylaw
> that requires a regional rep to poll their constituents and vote according
> to the popular poll results that would, of course, ignore minority desires.
> There is also no bylaw that prohibits a regional rep from always voting
> their conscience. Count on it, I will always vote my carefully considered
> conscience dictates regardless of the consequences. It is a good long-term
> plan for candidates to consider.
>
>
>
> Daniel, thank you for asking questions that allowed me to add to my
> previous explanation of why I voted No with an explanation of how I arrived
> at the No vote. Some of your assumptions were incorrect but they deserved
> clarification on the missing information. Let me know if you have any
> additional questions.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell:      402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Daniel Hayes
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 20, 2017 7:52 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Cc:* Lex Green <lexgreen at lpillinois.org>; james at lpia.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Libertarian National Committee Resolution
> on Military Members in the Libertarian Party
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> Stop projecting. There is a difference between targeting and tailoring a
> message to an audience and pandering.  In his own words our vice chair
> seemed to say he is pandering to Ancaps.
>
> People need to stop being so hypocritical and look in the mirror. One
> could very reasonably construe you CCing a chairman from another state on
> your last insulting and inflammatory email as CLEAR pandering.  You had
> stated you would vote Yes for my motion.  Instead you have pandered to a
> group outside your region.
>
>
>
> Since you have this continued pattern of insulting, insinuating emails, I
> am pointing that out.   If you were representing your region your vote
> would have been a YES from what I gathered from your region's Chairs and EC
> members.
>
>
>
>  You're engaged in you own brand of political correctness. Stop pandering
> and start representing your region. Every email you write these days is
> filled with veiled insults and innuendo. It's not productive.
>
>
>
> Let me also be clear.  This isn't because you voted "no" to the
> resolution. It's the way in which you did it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
>
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 20, 2017, at 4:15 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
> wrote:
>
> Dear LNC Members,
>
>
>
> Upon careful reflection, I expressly vote *NO* on the “Libertarian
> National Committee Resolution on Military Members in the Libertarian Party”
> motion.
>
>
>
> This perhaps well-intended but knee-jerk response to our current
> discomforts disingenuously blamed on Arvin Vohra is a mixed bag that
> contains several excellent and accurate reflections of our principles on
> the overreach and abuses of the military-industrial-government monolith.
> Unfortunately, this motion is sullied by several politically-correct
> platitudes for the obvious purpose of enticing votes from veterans in
> support of top-down Libertarian candidates. These platitudes, ostensibly
> offered in the name of smoothing over the unintended consequences of this
> uninspiring political-correctness orgy, may feel good to some but will fool
> no one. Did similar politically-correct platitudes work in the 2016
> presidential election?
>
>
>
> I have empathy for hard-working “earned-luncher” veterans and citizens who
> embrace the rigors of the free market and are faced with moral dilemma
> decisions accompanied with associated guilt-feeling consequences that force
> them into the dismaying choice between economically non-competitive
> marginal subsistence or compromising their conscience in the food fight
> with the “free-luncher” consortium of authoritarian preference-dispensers
> and responsibility-abdicators who expressly avoid the rigors of the free
> market to gain votes or government-pandered preferences in exchange for
> votes paid for by “earned luncher” veterans and citizens.
>
>
>
> However, I have little empathy for Libertarians who succumb to the
> temptation to wallow in political correctness and political damage control
> for the express purpose of getting elected. We already have two parties
> with discredited political-correctness policies and platforms. We do not
> need a third. We can do better. We must do better if we seriously intend to
> achieve freedom, nothing more, nothing less, instead of becoming the third
> leg addition to the cronyism-riddled broken two-party system that is
> accelerating toward predictable cyclic economic and societal collapse.
>
>
>
> I urge other LNC members to thoughtfully examine their conscience, moral
> premises and the dangers of political correctness as they vote on this
> motion. There are better ways for Libertarians to gain the confidence of
> veteran voters. We would be better served to avoid political correctness
> orgies and work together with veterans and citizens to help them find
> solutions to the growing tsunami of government-imposed moral dilemmas. I
> volunteer to be part of that inspiring process that has a far greater
> chance of success than intellectually offensive, morally disgusting and
> transparent political-correctness orgies that fool no one.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell:      402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
> <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 20, 2017 1:30 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Libertarian National Committee Resolution
> on Military Members in the Libertarian Party
>
>
>
> The first clause of the resolution I drafted was the
> following...straightfrom 1.9.
>
>
>
> "*Whereas, the only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual
> rights—life, liberty, and justly acquired property—against aggression. This
> right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other
> individual or group.  "*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I dropped it. I didn't need to recreate the entire platform. I was trying
> to keep this tightly focused.  We libertarians tend to not know when to
> stop. We end up stepping in the minutia. We need to understand that
> sometimes less is more.  The shorter the read the more likely it is read.
>
>
>
> I leave people with this video gem to ponder.  *David Nolan Alert*
>
>
>
> https://youtu.be/056C4wM9niQ
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
>
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 20, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I have heard from a super-majority of the Region 1 Chairs and cast my vote
> as yes.
>
>
>
> However, there were concerns expressed by Montana about language that I
> agreed to put on the record.  The "policeman" language, while it is in the
> Platform,  might be seen to impugn a legitimate policing function of - as
> 1.9 says - assisting in the defense of persons who request assistance.
> There might be another concern to be placed on the record about the use of
> the word "corrupt" - if I am asked to, I will note them.
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> You receive them because you use an @iCloud email address.  When Jeff's
> situation happens, the Yahoo and Gmail users don't receive it.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> Apparently I think I get all of Jeff's emails.  Not sure if I get Tim's
> when they go awry. I don't think I do but I am just now paying more
> attention to that.
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 20, 2017, at 2:42 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> Yep, working on setting up my record-keeping now for it.  Thanks for
> passing along Jeff's message for me.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> Alicia,
>
>
>
> Not sure if you have to dig in the sever to see with the email hide and
> seek going on. Jeff and Tim have Co-sponsored.  With you that should be the
> 4 needed.
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 20, 2017, at 2:12 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I will co-sponsor.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:51 PM, <danielehayes at icloud.com> wrote:
>
> I am seeking co-sponsors for the following resolution.
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
> Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the
> United States against aggression and believe that the United States should
> both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as
> policeman for the world;
>
>
>
> Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize
> that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past;
>
> Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea
> and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property,
> families, and friends;
>
>
>
> Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many
> well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense
> against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements
> during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and
>
>
>
> Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to
> relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States
> military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role
> of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it;
>
>
> Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique
> and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the
> non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are
> welcomed as a vital part of our membership.
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> 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
>
> <Untitled attachment 01596.txt>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
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/20170521/880ceb55/attachment-0002.html>