[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 15:34:48 EDT 2018
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 <
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
> > 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 --------------
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