[Lnc-business] Movement solidarity
starchild at lp.org
Sat Jan 13 07:47:30 EST 2018
What follows may seem like a side point in this discussion, but I think it's actually quite important, so I'm going to comment on it.
Unless it's some kind of friendly competition (e.g. see who can collect the most signatures to end some government fiasco), I don't see the Libertarian Party as having "competition within the broader (small-L) movement". If one libertarian organization is seriously at odds with another, it is an indication that something has gone seriously wrong at one or both organizations.
All those who believe in a world free of aggression should be working together as brothers and sisters in the movement to advance the cause of freedom. The movement, which existed before the LP, is the true libertarian "we". Why would we want the LP to compete with these other groups, with ourselves? And for what? Money? Members? Should we treat resources as a finite pie, with LP leaders striving to get the party a bigger slice at the expense of other libertarian organizations? No! We should all be trying to help each other and grow the pie.
To the extent we as freedom activists pursue the narrow interests of any particular organization, such as the Libertarian Party, at the expense of the larger freedom movement by seeking to have our group compete rather than cooperate with our sister organizations (like the 25 groups listed at https://www.lp.org/liberty-links/) that make up our movement, we are betraying that movement.
The freedom movement of course has no set membership – my working definition of the movement is whichever individuals and groups are consciously seeking to advance libertarianism (individual liberty and non-aggression) at any given point in time. If the LP is to be true to this larger libertarian movement to which we belong, the groups who are our real competitors are those groups which are putting other values (equality, nationalism, profits, social conformity, empire-building, etc.) ahead of freedom. By definition they are not part of the movement.
Let those of us involved in the LP be eternally vigilant in not allowing the party to become one of those organizations by putting our narrow organizational self-interest or other goals ahead of the goal articulated in our Statement of Principles – a world set free in our lifetimes!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
RealReform at earthlink.net
On Jan 12, 2018, at 9:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> Thank you Ken.
> Arvin has gone way beyond the bounds of any rational good sense and is basically “forcing” the rest of us to be associated with that.
> I DON’T CONSENT.
> Do I want to now go raise money or get members?
> I disagree that arbitrary age lines are not an important issue I absolutely agree that there are much more principled and moral ways to address that include way more nuance and subjects other than giving cover for potential predation. Just because Facebook exists doesn’t mean it is the best venue for all discussions, and no leader worth their salt should need to be told that.
> -Caryn Ann
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:43 PM Ken Moellman <ken at moellman.com> wrote:
> All -
> While no longer a member of the body, I am a member of the party and I cannot remain silent on this matter. No response is necessary, because I've had all day to filter through everything. I ask that you simply consider what's going on.
> My facebook feed was dominated by this today. Our competition within the broader (small-L) movement has seized upon this. This is far, far worse than anything else that's happened. At this point, I'm convinced that Gary Johnson could be dressed as satan on Easter weekend, strip naked, and defecate on a picture of Ron Paul, and it would probably be less damaging than what has occurred.
> From a purely political perspective, there is literally no reality where anything resembling a condoning of pedophilia is a good plan.
> From a philosophical, moral, and ethical perspective, I see absolutely no justification for adults taking advantage of children through information asymmetry to obtain sexual satisfaction. In my view, it is fraudulent to intentionally use information you have to deceive others who don't. Voluntary exchange requires that both parties be informed. Where governments exist, the law should be set up to protect people from (and more appropriately, when possible, compensated for) aggression. Fraud is aggression.
> From a biological perspective, people are generally wired to protect their children. That's how our species continues to exist. (Google it.)
> So, this entire line of argument goes against politics, philosophy, morality, ethics, and biology.
> The arguments about arbitrary lines are ridiculous. As one who graduated from high school when I was just barely 16, I was personally affected by these arbitrary lines. And if we're going to have that discussion, we could use topics like alcohol, or cigarettes, or drivers licenses, or pretty much anything else. Not to mention the fact that many states already have added flexibility in the lines for sexual relationships, either through emancipation or so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws.
> There are real ramifications to this to internal party work, as well. I was planning to work on the mail server today. Instead, I was on Facebook all day doing various forms of damage control. I wasn't the only one. Everything that I saw from the entire established party machine was spent today doing damage control instead of growing the party. On this very body, Caryn Ann spent time writing an open letter. Daniel spent time trying to get people to ignore it. I think I saw a few others clipped, quoted, or screen-shot as well.
> This has good, longer-term activists looking to disassociate from the party entirely. Anyone who has been paying attention to the response today has probably seen the same thing.
> Seriously. WTF.
> As a former state chair and candidate for office, I can definitively say that there's a responsibility that comes with the title. You no longer speak with your own voice. You speak with the voice of those you represent. And in multiple groups today, it was voiced by others, both inside and outside of the party, that a lack of action by this body would be speaking for the party as a whole as to their position on this issue. And honestly, I can't disagree with that assertion.
> Ken Moellman
> Monthly Donor
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lnc-business