[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Aug 14 15:12:00 EDT 2018
I want to know which of the whereas clauses that anyone on the LNC
disagrees with?
-Caryn Ann
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:07 PM Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 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
> 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]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
>
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <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*
-------------- next part --------------
I want to know which of the whereas clauses that anyone on the LNC
disagrees with?
-Caryn Ann
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:07 PM Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 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