[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Tue Aug 14 18:34:39 EDT 2018
Jeff, thank you! Well said. You've articulated the position of the
caucus I belong to.
-------------------
We even say:
"We celebrate our ideological diversity.
AS LIBERTARIANS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE ON EVERYTHING - AND THAT'S OK!
What we can agree on:
We need to elect Libertarians to state and local public office.
We need to promote practical solutions to our ideological platform."
-----------------
Cheers,
EVH
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On 2018-08-14 18:07, Jeff Lyons wrote:
> Good Afternoon,
>
> There are a bunch of different threads on this whole property
> rights vs. libsoc thing. I don't get where these discussions are
> going, I'm not going to go through it and as an Alternate my vote
> won't decide anything anyways. I just think this is a completely
> fruitless effort, a waste of time, and of brainpower.
>
> Some Libertarians have good ideas, some have bad ideas. The
> answer is MORE speech, more dialogue, more ideas, and the good ideas
> will always win eventually. People are smart enough to decide for
> themselves if socialism can be voluntary or if property should be
> personally / privately owned. Let them debate it all they want. I
> don't think anyone who can't make a serious case for whatever their
> ideology is will last long before they learn something new and
> inevitably evolve their position. Libertarians don't have to agree on
> everything and I don't think we should bother trying to force them to
> get along. The people will figure it out on their own, through their
> discussions.
>
> I respectfully disagree there is even a need for US to have this
> discussion and vote no on whatever the resolution is because I don't
> think we really need one. At all. Ever. That's not our job.
>
> --
> In Liberty,
> Jeff Lyons
>
> Region 8 Alternate
> (Acting Region 8 Rep)
>
> Libertarian Assoc. of MA
> Membership Director
> http://www.lpmass.org/join
>
> Daniel Fishman for Auditor
> Campaign Manager
> http://www.AuditMassachusetts.com
>
>
>
> On 2018-08-14 15:37, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
>> BS.
>> (all about brevity ; )
>>
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>
>> On 2018-08-14 15:34, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> The brevity caucus keeps the exegesis of our Platform out.
>>
>>
>>
>> It becomes necessary to apply and explicate.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:29 PM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
>> <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Then why not a resolution saying that the LNC stands in support
>> of
>> our
>> LP platform? Because, I think it's pretty obvious that we do.
>> (Although, I know that the Radical caucus, Mises caucus, and
>> libsocs,
>> all have their *own* platforms. I support our LP platform, and
>> that's a
>> founding point of the caucus I'm in, that we don't have a
>> separate
>> platform, we instead embrace the LP platform.
>> Do all the board members in various caucuses want to come out in
>> favor
>> of the *LP Platform*? I like to see that resolution.
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> On 2018-08-14 15:07, Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business wrote:
>> > This resolution is an affirmation of that platform and it's
>> underlying
>> > principles. It serves simply to acknowledge rhetoric contrary
>> to
>> our
>> > platform and affirm that the Libertarian Party stands by the
>> messaging
>> > and platform adopted by it's delegates in convention, as
>> opposed
>> to
>> > those who would argue otherwise. It does not purge anyone, but
>> simply
>> > distances the LP from their economic views. They are members,
>> and
>> many
>> > will remain so, but the resolution is to affirm that their
>> outspoken
>> > beliefs do not represent the party as a whole. Some of these
>> > individual members are even candidates in profiled races, where
>> they
>> > are espousing ideas contrary to our platform, and it is
>> incumbent
>> upon
>> > this body to recognize that this is a risk to the integrity of
>> our
>> > messaging. An individual or a candidate may proclaim whatever
>> platform
>> > they wish, but when they claim that it is representative of
>> > Libertarian Ideology when it is clearly contrary to our
>> platform
>> and
>> > statement of principles, it requires an acknowledgement from
>> the
>> LNC.
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Yours in Liberty,
>> >
>> > Justin O'Donnell
>> > LNC Region 8 Representative
>> > LPNH Alternate- LNC Platform Committee
>> > Chair- LPNH Platform Committee
>> > Candidate for US Congress, NH-2
>> > [2]www.odonnell2018.org
>> >
>> > On 2018-08-14 15:01, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
>> >> We have a platform that states what we stand for, and you were
>> the
>> >> platform committee chair for 2018. I was on that
>> committee,
>> as
>> >> were
>> >> several other members of this board.
>> >> Did we not do our duty? Did we leave the platform to be
>> ambiguous
>> >> and
>> >> confusing? I don't think so.
>> >> Our wonderful LP platform speaks for the LP, and tells
>> prospective
>> >> members where we stand. We educate from that document,
>> and I
>> know
>> >> that you understand this, as you were instrumental in doing
>> >> platform
>> >> plank posts on social media. You know that the platform
>> speaks for
>> >> us
>> >> on issues of property rights.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> >>
>> >> On 2018-08-14 14:55, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It is quite problematic that stating the Party's
>> foundational
>> >> Principles is controversial or thought to need a platform
>> change.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We have gone far from our roots.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -Caryn Ann
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:51 PM Elizabeth Van Horn via
>> >> Lnc-business
>> >> <[1][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I also would have supported the first effort (with my
>> language
>> >> changes)
>> >> as it was a clear support of capitalism. Too bad that
>> wasn't
>> >> embraced.
>> >> On this list I've seen multiple times someone talk about
>> past
>> >> actions as
>> >> a reason, (we denounced that, so why not this?) the more
>> times I
>> >> see,
>> >> the more this looks like a grudge match.
>> >> As the players in this drama, and yes it's a big drama on
>> social
>> >> media,
>> >> are ones that have had an ongoing war-of-words with the
>> targets
>> >> of
>> >> this
>> >> suggested resolution. Only, some of the players also
>> happen
>> to
>> >> be
>> >> on
>> >> the LNC, and are now using that position to escalate.
>> >> I was willing to support a resolution that embraced
>> capitalism,
>> >> as I
>> >> live my life as a capitalist. It is my economic system of
>> choice,
>> >> and I
>> >> make an effort to teach this to others.
>> >> Too bad this isn't about championing the wonderful
>> economic
>> >> system
>> >> of
>> >> capitalism, but instead is about targeting a few noisy LP
>> >> members.
>> >> ---
>> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> >> On 2018-08-14 14:26, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business
>> wrote:
>> >> > This is not the same language as was presented and
>> discussed
>> >> earlier.
>> >> > Just to clarify for people who may just be skimming.
>> >> > I probably would have gone along with the first.
>> This
>> one
>> >> is
>> >> toxic
>> >> > and
>> >> > the language clearly meant to be be a purge.
>> >> > If it was just a supporting of property rights I
>> would
>> >> absolutely
>> >> > support it. This is far more than that, and
>> honestly
>> far
>> >> exceeds
>> >> > the
>> >> > scope of the duties of this body. It is a direct
>> change to
>> >> policy
>> >> > seriously impacts current members and activists.
>> >> > If you want a platform change take it to Austin.
>> That
>> is not
>> >> our
>> >> > job.
>> >> > I will be voting no on this, and urge everyone else
>> to
>> >> seriously
>> >> > consider whether they support a precedent of purging
>> groups.
>> >> Not to
>> >> > mention how many of you during the JC discussion
>> were
>> >> treading
>> >> very
>> >> > carefully about not exceeding our scope, a point
>> that
>> was
>> >> well
>> >> taken
>> >> > after reflection, will you be consistent here?
>> >> > John Phillips
>> >> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6
>> Representative
>> >> > Cell [1]217-412-5973
>> >> >
>> >> > ------ Original message------
>> >> > From: Steven Nekhaila via Lnc-business
>> >> > Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2018 10:50 AM
>> >> > To: LNC-Business List;
>> >> > Cc: Steven Nekhaila;
>> >> > Subject:[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for
>> Resolution to
>> >> > Re-Affirm
>> >> > The LP's Stance For Property Rights
>> >> > Dear Colleagues,
>> >> >
>> >> > I invite you to co-sponsor the following resolution
>> which
>> >> disavows
>> >> > socialist & communist policies and re-affirms the
>> Libertarian
>> >> Party
>> >> > position on championing property rights.
>> >> >
>> >> > Co-Sponsors: Joshua Smith, Justin O'Donnel, and Caryn
>> Ann
>> >> Harlos
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party supports the free market
>> and
>> >> therefore
>> >> > the right of privatization of property as an extension
>> of
>> the
>> >> > individual;
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, the Statement of Principles of The Libertarian
>> Party
>> >> > explicitly
>> >> > supports the right to private property ownership,
>> including the
>> >> right
>> >> > to
>> >> > do business utilizing that property as capital;
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party strongly supports the
>> rights of
>> >> > individuals to own private property including land,
>> structures,
>> >> natural
>> >> > resources and other private space through homesteading,
>> >> purchase,
>> >> and
>> >> > other lawful libertarian means;
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, ownership of private property, including but
>> not
>> >> limited
>> >> to
>> >> > land and housing, does not require continual or
>> personal
>> use to
>> >> exist
>> >> > as
>> >> > justly owned property unless otherwise abandoned;
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, these have been part of the principles of the
>> >> Libertarian
>> >> > Party
>> >> > since its inception;
>> >> >
>> >> > THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that socialist and communist
>> >> property
>> >> > ownership schemes, including the collectivization of
>> property,
>> >> unlawful
>> >> > usurpation of property, and incorrect characterizations
>> of
>> >> private
>> >> > property, unless otherwise voluntarily agreed by all
>> parties,
>> >> are
>> >> > incompatible with the philosophy of the Libertarian
>> Party.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > In Liberty,
>> >> >
>> >> > Steven Nekhaila
>> >> > Region 2 Representative
>> >> > Libertarian National Committee
>> >> >
>> >> > Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
>> >> > "Those without power cannot defend freedom"
>> >> >
>> >> > References
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. tel:217-412-5973
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> In Liberty,
>> >> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> >> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
>> Secretary
>> >> - [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
>> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>> >>
>> >> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> >> We defend your rights
>> >> And oppose the use of force
>> >> Taxation is theft
>> >>
>> >> References
>> >>
>> >> 1. mailto:[4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> >> 2. mailto:[5]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>> - [6]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> We defend your rights
>> And oppose the use of force
>> Taxation is theft
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 2. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>> 3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 5. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 6. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list