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

Sat May 20 23:23:02 EDT 2017

PS: I consider Libertarian anarchist and voluntaryist to be equivalent
terms and would easily identify as either.  They both require explanation
to outsiders and the term voluntarism has a theological history and
background that makes it not quite a good fit in my own mind thus I prefer
anarchist but either term describes me nicely.

And it was the LP that made me one.  For which I am forever in debt and
proud to be part of this diverse lot that includes people from the entire
spectrum as we are so far off from any semblance of a non-coercive world
that we are brethren, kindred spirits and fellow travelers.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:16 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ===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*
>
>
>
>
> --
*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/20170521/5e40c504/attachment-0002.html>