[Lnc-business] Resignation from the LNC

[Starchild]

Patrick,

	I find myself in substantial agreement with much of what you've written here. In particular, your comment about wanting us to act from "a spirit of love for peace and freedom". That is very much the spirit I'd like to see us embrace, as contrasted with acting out of a desire or need to win for the sake of winning or being seen as winner(s), which I've sometimes sensed among some LP members and leaders. That motivation I consider psychologically unhealthy, and dangerous in politics (the current POTUS being Exhibit A!). But there are also many other parts of your message that had me nodding:


> I want to transcend beyond negativity to have meaningful discourse with the vast majority of Americans not yet members of the LP


	Same here! I want to transcend the current violence-based paradigm and have meaningful discourse with not just Americans, but everyone, about how to go from that paradigm to one in which we address social and political problems without initiating force – which in a way is the worst kind of negativity.


>  At this moment we could be focused on more important issues like the relentless erosion of civil liberties, the growing national debt, and foreign policy. 

	Just what part of me was thinking during our recent special electronic meeting called to seek our vice chair's suspension or censure!


>  The fact we have to keep addressing self-inflicted messaging wounds again and again is extremely disappointing.


	To you and me both. We just perceive different wounds. The major messaging wound I'm disappointed that we just inflicted on ourselves is our censure of the vice-chair for less objectionable remarks than some of those made, from a far larger party soapbox, by our vice-presidential candidate last year.


>  Being a leader is about inspiring others to live up to their fullest potential.


	Definitely! One of my recurrent themes while serving on the LNC has been the idea of the Libertarian Party as an organization being the change we want to see in the world (aka "leading by example"), by making our own governance and party structure and operations a model for the kind of reforms we want to see in entities like the U.S. federal, state, and local governments.

	This is why I fight for us to operate more transparently and with less secrecy and more participation, a more bottom-up and less top-down approach. To create a party culture and structures that can serve as an inspirational model for other organizations, most particularly governments, to be less about centralized control and more about empowering the individuals subject to their governance and holding leaders accountable. I'm sure you've heard me talk about this stuff over the past couple years.

	As to inspiring individuals to live up to their full potential, there are of course myriad gurus, coaches, executives, commanders, authors, public speakers, and others who have countless theories on how best to do this.

	But I think we as Libertarians can agree that limiting freedom tends to limit people from achieving their full potential, because to discover our potential we must be free to choose the paths that allow us to pursue our dreams. Freedom is only possible however if enough people want it badly enough to make the necessary changes in society. So what causes people to desire freedom? Two basic things, I think:

1) Seeing the negative effects of lack of freedom; and
2) Imagining how much better things could be with freedom

	For this reason, I think we need language which clearly communicates:

1) The harmful consequences that lack of freedom has caused and continues to cause
2) That freedom is a good thing, and as long as the Non-Aggression Principle is respected, the more of it people have the better

	I don't think we can effectively do these things by avoiding a strong libertarian message lest we offend anyone. Nevertheless I strongly agree with your statement that,


> I want to inspire people, not insult them. 


	...again I strongly agree! Insulting people is never ideal; ideally we would persuade everyone to embrace freedom without anyone feeling insulted. (One thing I've found useful to reflect on when I get too angry at government oppression is that we're ultimately fighting bad ideas, not bad people. Primarily we are fighting the idea that public policy based on aggression is okay. Or as our Platform puts it, the idea that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor.")
 
	Yet ironically, I feel somewhat insulted by what you write in the sentence immediately following the one in which you express a desire not to insult people (the one sentence in your post that definitely did not have me nodding):


> Sadly, this approach [inspiring people, not insulting them] does not appear to be shared by the majority of the LNC.


	The majority of the LNC, including myself, voted against suspending the vice-chair from this body, while you voted in favor, and it seems plain that your statement above is in reference to our difference of opinion on that question. To be clear, I don't think it was your intention to insult those of us in the majority on this question by suggesting that we favor insulting people, not inspiring them. I understand it can at times be difficult to talk honestly about one's feelings and what's going on in the world, without insulting people!

	When we say, for instance, that excessive government spending is jeopardizing the economy and burdening future generations – hardly a radical phrasing of the libertarian message, as one hears lots of Republicans using similar language even though their party bears so much responsibility for the continued excessive spending – we are implicitly insulting the management abilities and/or integrity of those who continue to vote for government budget increases. If I were a politician who votes for increased spending, I'd probably feel insulted by a whole lot of the messaging used by our party and its candidates.

	When we say that the "War on Drugs" has been a colossal failure and destroyed lives – hardly a radical phrasing of the libertarian message, as one hears lots of Democrats using similar language even though their party bears so much responsibility for the continuation of that "war" – we are implicitly insulting the intelligence and/or compassion of those who continue to push a criminal justice based rather than a treatment-based approach to drug abuse. If I were a drug warrior, I'd probably feel insulted by a whole lot of the messaging used by our party and its candidates.

	To what extent one communicates the libertarian message with sweetness and light, and to what extent one communicates it with fire and brimstone, is a matter of both style and circumstances. In some circumstances one approach or the other may feel more appropriate, and some libertarians are better at or more comfortable with one approach than the other in terms of their personal style and ways of writing and being. Personally I feel more in synch with Mary Ruwart's gentle, empathetic approach in "Healing Our World" than with Ayn Rand's unforgiving analysis in just about any of her works.

	Yet I can't deny that Ayn Rand, despite being extremely judgmental, has opened a lot of minds to the freedom message and helped bring a huge number of people into the movement, because I was one of them! Reading "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" was a big part of my personal journey toward libertarianism.

	Did she insult people? You better believe it! Anyone who would deny that, hasn't read much Rand. She wrote things that I have zero doubt many more people would find way more insulting and offensive than anything I've seen from any member of this committee. If you think messaging that large numbers of people are likely to find offensive and insulting is always wrong for the party and to be avoided, then the person you really want to be dissociating the LP from isn't Arvin Vohra, it's Ayn Rand! WIth all due respect to Arvin, she has had and continues to have a far greater influence than he has.

	Yet feeling insulted, offended and angry is just one way to respond to the kind of messaging sometimes used by libertarians like Rand and Vohra. One can also say to oneself, "Hey, I resemble that remark!" and instead of getting angry about it, view it as an opportunity for reflection on how much of one's self-identity may be tied to one's participation in or association with institutions engaged in systemic aggression, and a reminder to strive to live more at peace with others in accordance with the Non-Aggression Principle.


> The constant, counterproductive infighting is exhausting. 


	Yes, it certainly can be. Although I would not characterize this LNC term as one of "constant infighting". It's obvious there are substantive differences among us on many important issues, but for the most part I think we've gotten along amicably as a body, more so than I observed during my previous term on the LNC (2012-2014).

	However Patrick, I do find your comment about infighting a bit ironic. Personally I was more than willing to leave it to delegates at the upcoming LP convention to decide what if anything to do about the matter under contention and let the LNC focus on more productive work in the meantime, but some members including yourself felt differently, and voted to call a special meeting to try to remove a party officer.

	Now by resigning you and Larry are drawing focus back to the infighting again instead of moving on. You are creating a situation where we either lack representation for your region at our next LNC meeting in April, or members of Region 8 will need to divert some of their attention from outreach and party-building and so on in order to focus on appointing your replacements, when you could just wait a few more months until your terms will be up anyway. 

	What good do you think will be accomplished by this?

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                         RealReform at earthlink.net
                                  (415) 625-FREE
                                    @StarchildSF



On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:27 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:

>   During our time on the LNC, Larry and I emphasized the importance of
>   messaging and communication. I want to transcend beyond negativity to
>   have meaningful discourse with the vast majority of Americans not yet
>   members of the LP. This is the only way to grow the party and spread
>   our principles. Unfortunately, I no longer think these goals are
>   achievable as a member of the LNC.
>   The constant, counterproductive infighting is exhausting. Being an
>   effective leader isn't about calling people insulting names or being
>   offensive. Being a leader is about inspiring others to live up to their
>   fullest potential. It's about having empathy and people skills. We
>   should be trying to win supporters instead of winning arguments.
>   At this moment we could be focused on more important issues like the
>   relentless erosion of civil liberties, the growing national debt, and
>   foreign policy. The fact we have to keep addressing self-inflicted
>   messaging wounds again and again is extremely disappointing.
>   I continue to believe we should work to spread the message of liberty
>   to all Americans. But we should do so out of a spirit of love for peace
>   and freedom. I want to inspire people, not insult them. Sadly, this
>   approach does not appear to be shared by the majority of the LNC.
>   As such, I respectfully resign as Region 8 Representative effective
>   immediately. I will continue to focus on spreading the message of
>   liberty in New Jersey.
>   Region 8 plans to select a replacement Rep and Alternate by the end of
>   February.
>   In Liberty,
>   Patrick McKnight
>   Chair, New Jersey Libertarian Party

-------------- next part --------------
   Patrick,

   I find myself in substantial agreement with much of what you've written
   here. In particular, your comment about wanting us to act from "a
   spirit of love for peace and freedom". That is very much the spirit I'd
   like to see us embrace, as contrasted with acting out of a desire or
   need to win for the sake of winning or being seen as winner(s), which
   I've sometimes sensed among some LP members and leaders. That
   motivation I consider psychologically unhealthy, and dangerous in
   politics (the current POTUS being Exhibit A!). But there are also many
   other parts of your message that had me nodding:

     I want to transcend beyond negativity to have meaningful discourse
     with the vast majority of Americans not yet members of the LP

   Same here! I want to transcend the current violence-based paradigm and
   have meaningful discourse with not just Americans, but everyone, about
   how to go from that paradigm to one in which we address social and
   political problems without initiating force � which in a way is the
   worst kind of negativity.

      At this moment we could be focused on more important issues like
     the relentless erosion of civil liberties, the growing national
     debt, and foreign policy.

   Just what part of me was thinking during our recent special electronic
   meeting called to seek our vice chair's suspension or censure!

    The fact we have to keep addressing self-inflicted messaging wounds
   again and again is extremely disappointing.

   To you and me both. We just perceive different wounds. The major
   messaging wound I'm disappointed that we just inflicted on ourselves is
   our censure of the vice-chair for less objectionable remarks than some
   of those made, from a far larger party soapbox, by our
   vice-presidential candidate last year.

      Being a leader is about inspiring others to live up to
     their fullest potential.

   Definitely! One of my recurrent themes while serving on the LNC has
   been the idea of the Libertarian Party as an organization being the
   change we want to see in the world (aka "leading by example"), by
   making our own governance and party structure and operations a model
   for the kind of reforms we want to see in entities like the U.S.
   federal, state, and local governments.

   This is why I fight for us to operate more transparently and with less
   secrecy and more participation, a more bottom-up and less top-down
   approach. To create a party culture and structures that can serve as an
   inspirational model for other organizations, most particularly
   governments, to be less about centralized control and more about
   empowering the individuals subject to their governance and holding
   leaders accountable. I'm sure you've heard me talk about this stuff
   over the past couple years.

   As to inspiring individuals to live up to their full potential, there
   are of course myriad gurus, coaches, executives, commanders, authors,
   public speakers, and others who have countless theories on how best to
   do this.
   But I think we as Libertarians can agree that limiting freedom tends to
   limit people from achieving their full potential, because to discover
   our potential we must be free to choose the paths that allow us to
   pursue our dreams. Freedom is only possible however if enough people
   want it badly enough to make the necessary changes in society. So what
   causes people to desire freedom? Two basic things, I think:
   1) Seeing the negative effects of lack of freedom; and
   2) Imagining how much better things could be with freedom
   For this reason, I think we need language which clearly communicates:
   1) The harmful consequences that lack of freedom has caused and
   continues to cause
   2) That freedom is a good thing, and as long as the Non-Aggression
   Principle is respected, the more of it people have the better
   I don't think we can effectively do these things by avoiding a strong
   libertarian message lest we offend anyone. Nevertheless I strongly
   agree with your statement that,

     I want to inspire people, not insult them.

   ...again I strongly agree! Insulting people is never ideal; ideally we
   would persuade everyone to embrace freedom without anyone feeling
   insulted. (One thing I've found useful to reflect on when I get too
   angry at government oppression is that we're ultimately fighting bad
   ideas, not bad people. Primarily we are fighting the idea that public
   policy based on aggression is okay. Or as our Platform puts it, the
   idea that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of
   individuals and the fruits of their labor.")


   Yet ironically, I feel somewhat insulted by what you write in the
   sentence immediately following the one in which you express a desire
   not to insult people (the one sentence in your post that definitely did
   not have me nodding):

     Sadly, this approach [inspiring people, not insulting them] does not
     appear to be shared by the majority of the LNC.

   The majority of the LNC, including myself, voted against suspending the
   vice-chair from this body, while you voted in favor, and it seems plain
   that your statement above is in reference to our difference of opinion
   on that question. To be clear, I don't think it was your intention to
   insult those of us in the majority on this question by suggesting that
   we favor insulting people, not inspiring them. I understand it can at
   times be difficult to talk honestly about one's feelings and what's
   going on in the world, without insulting people!
   When we say, for instance, that excessive government spending is
   jeopardizing the economy and burdening future generations � hardly a
   radical phrasing of the libertarian message, as one hears lots of
   Republicans using similar language even though their party bears so
   much responsibility for the continued excessive spending � we are
   implicitly insulting the management abilities and/or integrity of those
   who continue to vote for government budget increases. If I were a
   politician who votes for increased spending, I'd probably feel insulted
   by a whole lot of the messaging used by our party and its candidates.
   When we say that the "War on Drugs" has been a colossal failure and
   destroyed lives � hardly a radical phrasing of the libertarian message,
   as one hears lots of Democrats using similar language even though their
   party bears so much responsibility for the continuation of that "war" �
   we are implicitly insulting the intelligence and/or compassion of those
   who continue to push a criminal justice based rather than a
   treatment-based approach to drug abuse. If I were a drug warrior, I'd
   probably feel insulted by a whole lot of the messaging used by our
   party and its candidates.
   To what extent one communicates the libertarian message with sweetness
   and light, and to what extent one communicates it with fire and
   brimstone, is a matter of both style and circumstances. In some
   circumstances one approach or the other may feel more appropriate, and
   some libertarians are better at or more comfortable with one approach
   than the other in terms of their personal style and ways of writing and
   being. Personally I feel more in synch with Mary Ruwart's gentle,
   empathetic approach in "Healing Our World" than with Ayn Rand's
   unforgiving analysis in just about any of her works.
   Yet I can't deny that Ayn Rand, despite being extremely judgmental, has
   opened a lot of minds to the freedom message and helped bring a huge
   number of people into the movement, because I was one of them! Reading
   "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" was a big part of my personal
   journey toward libertarianism.
   Did she insult people? You better believe it! Anyone who would deny
   that, hasn't read much Rand. She wrote things that I have zero doubt
   many more people would find way more insulting and offensive than
   anything I've seen from any member of this committee. If you think
   messaging that large numbers of people are likely to find offensive and
   insulting is always wrong for the party and to be avoided, then the
   person you really want to be dissociating the LP from isn't Arvin
   Vohra, it's Ayn Rand! WIth all due respect to Arvin, she has had and
   continues to have a far greater influence than he has.
   Yet feeling insulted, offended and angry is just one way to respond to
   the kind of messaging sometimes used by libertarians like Rand and
   Vohra. One can also say to oneself, "Hey, I resemble that remark!" and
   instead of getting angry about it, view it as an opportunity for
   reflection on how much of one's self-identity may be tied to one's
   participation in or association with institutions engaged in systemic
   aggression, and a reminder to strive to live more at peace with others
   in accordance with the Non-Aggression Principle.

     The constant, counterproductive infighting is exhausting.

   Yes, it certainly can be. Although I would not characterize this LNC
   term as one of "constant infighting". It's obvious there are
   substantive differences among us on many important issues, but for the
   most part I think we've gotten along amicably as a body, more so than I
   observed during my previous term on the LNC (2012-2014).

   However Patrick, I do find your comment about infighting a bit ironic.
   Personally I was more than willing to leave it to delegates at the
   upcoming LP convention to decide what if anything to do about the
   matter under contention and let the LNC focus on more productive work
   in the meantime, but some members including yourself felt differently,
   and voted to call a special meeting to try to remove a party officer.

   Now by resigning you and Larry are drawing focus back to the infighting
   again instead of moving on. You are creating a situation where we
   either lack representation for your region at our next LNC meeting in
   April, or members of Region 8 will need to divert some of their
   attention from outreach and party-building and so on in order to focus
   on appointing your replacements, when you could just wait a few more
   months until your terms will be up anyway.

   What good do you think will be accomplished by this?

   Love & Liberty,

                                       ((( starchild )))

   At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                            [1]RealReform at earthlink.net

                                     (415) 625-FREE

                                       @StarchildSF

   On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:27 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:

     During our time on the LNC, Larry and I emphasized the importance of
     messaging and communication. I want to transcend beyond negativity to
     have meaningful discourse with the vast majority of Americans not yet
     members of the LP. This is the only way to grow the party and spread
     our principles. Unfortunately, I no longer think these goals are
     achievable as a member of the LNC.
     The constant, counterproductive infighting is exhausting. Being an
     effective leader isn't about calling people insulting names or being
     offensive. Being a leader is about inspiring others to live up to
   their
     fullest potential. It's about having empathy and people skills. We
     should be trying to win supporters instead of winning arguments.
     At this moment we could be focused on more important issues like the
     relentless erosion of civil liberties, the growing national debt, and
     foreign policy. The fact we have to keep addressing self-inflicted
     messaging wounds again and again is extremely disappointing.
     I continue to believe we should work to spread the message of liberty
     to all Americans. But we should do so out of a spirit of love for
   peace
     and freedom. I want to inspire people, not insult them. Sadly, this
     approach does not appear to be shared by the majority of the LNC.
     As such, I respectfully resign as Region 8 Representative effective
     immediately. I will continue to focus on spreading the message of
     liberty in New Jersey.
     Region 8 plans to select a replacement Rep and Alternate by the end
   of
     February.
     In Liberty,
     Patrick McKnight
     Chair, New Jersey Libertarian Party

References

   1. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net