[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
john.phillips at lp.org
john.phillips at lp.org
Wed Aug 15 00:12:58 EDT 2018
This. I agree with this.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Elizabeth Van HornDate: Tue, Aug 14, 2018 1:51 PMTo: lnc-business at hq.lp.org;Cc: john.phillips at lp.org;Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
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
-------------- next part --------------
This. I agree with this.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell [1]217-412-5973
------ Original message------
From: Elizabeth Van Horn
Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2018 1:51 PM
To: [2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
Cc: [3]john.phillips at lp.org;
Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to
Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
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 [4]2018-08-14 14:26, [5]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][6]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:[7]217-412-5973
References
1. tel:217-412-5973
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:john.phillips at lp.org
4. tel:2018-08-14 14
5. http://john.ph/
6. tel:217-412-5973
7. tel:217-412-5973
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list