[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 18:43:26 EDT 2018
Uh, it's IN the LP platform!
You made a whole email with quotes from the LP platform. Are our
members illiterate?!
I give our members more credit and think they're capable of
understanding from our LP platform. It's *why* we have one!
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On 2018-08-14 18:36, Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business wrote:
> How can we promote practical solutions to our ideological platform if
> we can't even agree on the fundamentals of our ideological platform?
>
> ---
> 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 18:34, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
>> 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