[Lnc-business] Member feedback on proposed resolution

[Justin O'Donnell]

Ms Mason,

Having a debate about how property is justly acquired, and at which 
stage of history this justification begins is one thing, as it respects 
the notion that such property can be privately owned, merely 
philosophically disputes how one may come to own such property.

Socialist philosophy, on the other hand, disputes ones right to own the 
property in the first place, regardless of the manner of its 
acquisition, and as such, is incompatible with a platform and principles 
that respect the ownership of private property.

---
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 22:35, Jacqueline Mason wrote:
> What about wealth that was originally acquired through force or fraud?
> 
> 
> Your knee-jerk opposition to redistribution is based on the assumption
> that current property owners are the just owners of that property.
> That assumption ignores our country's shameful history of genocide,
> slavery, and legal discrimination against who may even own property or
> conduct business.
> 
> I assume we all agree that if someone acquires something through force
> or fraud, the government should protect the property rights of the
> victim it was stolen from and not the property rights of the thief,
> correct?
> 
> We merely disagree about how far back in history we should go, or what
> to do when no clear current just owner can be determined. This is
> something Libertarians can disagree about yet all still be following
> libertarian principles.
> 
> Love,
> Jackie
> 
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 22:12 Justin O'Donnell <justin.odonnell at lp.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> Ms Mason,
>> 
>> I believe that it is further clarified in Platform Plank 2.0
>> Economic
>> Liberty, we state "Each person has the right to offer goods and
>> services
>> to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in
>> the
>> economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes,
>> and
>> provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All
>> 
>> efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or
>> manage
>> trade, are improper in a free society."
>> 
>> I draw your attention specifically to the exclamation that "all
>> efforts
>> by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade,
>> are
>> improper in a free society." The collectivization and redistribution
>> of
>> property and business assets as described in recent rhetoric from
>> self-proclaimed socialists is entirely within the scope of what is
>> considered "improper in a free society" by our platform.
>> 
>> Also, Platform Plank 2.1 Property and Contract, we explicitly state
>> "As
>> respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and
>> 
>> prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to
>> obtain,
>> retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must
>> also be
>> upheld." Reaffirming one's right to profit from one's property,
>> which
>> according to the promoted Rhetoric "Rent is Theft" is in
>> contradiction
>> with the principles of socialist property views. Furthermore, our
>> implied support of one's right to make a profit in this plank, is
>> actually in blatant contradiction to most socialist learning and
>> teachings, that disparity of wealth and profit motives are
>> inherently
>> wrong.
>> 
>> Furthermore, Platform Plank 2.11, Labor Markets states "Employment
>> and
>> compensation agreements between private employers and employees are
>> outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be
>> encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We
>> 
>> support the right of private employers and employees to choose
>> whether
>> or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining
>> should be free of government interference, such as compulsory
>> arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain" whereas
>> self-professed
>> Libertarian socialists advocate for a complete surrender of these
>> rights
>> from the employer/property owner on behalf of solely the employee.
>> 
>> So while the definition of Justly acquired property might be up for
>> debate, the rights of property owners and business owners are not.
>> And
>> that is what this resolution addresses- a systematic perversion of
>> Libertarian philosophy to accommodate philosophical leanings that
>> dispell the rights of property and business owners. To be short, a
>> socialist philosophy.
>> 
>> ---
>> 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 [1]
>> 
>> On 2018-08-14 21:52, Jacqueline Mason wrote:
>>> Dear LNC,
>>> 
>>> The Libertarian Party platform is very specific in that it
>> qualifies
>>> its defense of property rights as applying to "justly acquired"
>>> property. Delegates are VERY picky about how things are worded.
>> That
>>> qualifier was not just thrown in for shits and giggles.
>>> 
>>> Georgists, LibSocs, and others differ in what counts as "justly
>>> acquired." What is "just" is a long-standing moral, philosophical,
>> and
>>> economic debate in which we can disagree yet still be
>> ideologically
>>> libertarian.
>>> 
>>> A resolution that ignores that libertarians can have legitimate
>>> philosophical differences over this does not just reaffirm the
>>> platform, it goes beyond it in an effort to silence and drive out
>>> left-libertarians of all stripes.
>>> 
>>> I urge you to vote no.
>>> 
>>> Love,
>>> Jackie
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.odonnell2018.org