[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 15:05:44 EDT 2018


Re-sending as my text is scrunched together.
--------------------------------------------------
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 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]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:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org



More information about the Lnc-business mailing list