[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 18:45:47 EDT 2018
Exactly.
I mean - is this policy part of our diversity?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:36 PM Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 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
>
--
--
*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 --------------
Exactly.
I mean - is this policy part of our diversity?
[cid:1653a9dd1c7d299af1d1]
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:36 PM Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 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
[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
>> [3]http://www.lpmass.org/join
>>
>> Daniel Fishman for Auditor
>> Campaign Manager
>> [4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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:[9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> 2. [10]http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>>> 3. mailto:[11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> 4. mailto:[12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> 5. mailto:[13]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 6. mailto:[14]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [15]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. http://www.lpmass.org/join
4. http://www.AuditMassachusetts.com/
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
14. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
15. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list