[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
Steven Nekhaila
steven.nekhaila at lp.org
Wed Aug 15 09:50:42 EDT 2018
John,
Firstly, calling this resolution a resemblement of fascisn is extremely disingenious. Secondly, this is not a purge, a purge would seek to kick out members who disagree, this resolution does not accomplish that but instead reaffirms that we stand behind our principles and have not lost direction and that we are sticking to the course for our objectives which include defending private property rights and capitalism from violence.
Our job is not to be liked by everyone, there will be people who disagree with us and hate us for our beliefs. I am not apologetic nor will I compromise on those beliefs to satisfy others. This resolution clearly reaffirms what we stand for, the arguments I have seen against it are all from those of competing ideologies. The fact that there are conflicts goes back to square one, the need to reaffirm our principles.
I don’t mind if LibSocs, Georgists, Mutualists stay and work in the Libertarian Party. That is there will and there is nothing I can do to stop them; but everyone needs to know that this resolution is what the organization supports, period.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila
Region 2 Representative
impotentes defendere liberatum non possunt
“Those without power cannot defend freedom”
>
> On Aug 15, 2018 at 2:30 AM, <john.phillips--- via Lnc-business (mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org)> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have already answered that question in detail many places Ms Harlos, and your attempt to "gotcha" me is quite sad really.
> Since you asked though, I will very clearly explain it, in detail, and at length. Plus I will include some extras.
> I believe that the resolution violates the SPIRIT of the party. I also believe that while TECHNICALLY it is what the party holds, it is phrased poorly.
> Not just poorly, but intentionally so. In a way to attack current membership, for you to draw attention to yourself, and for you and others to get even for previous slights, real and perceived.
> Honestly I think that given the personal history KNOWN between at least 3 of the sponsors of this motion and the targets of it that at the very least you and Mr Smith should have recused yourselves from all discussion of it, sponsorship of it, and voting on it. I think it is clear from your rhetoric here and elsewhere that you can not separate your personal feelings on the matter. Nor is this the first time in just the month since I came onto the LNC.
> I think the actions and rhetoric on this disturbingly resemble fascism.
> I think your claims of not being a "purge" are disingenous at best. I believe that a person of your, and the other authors, high intelligence should understand the parallels between your words and other historical idealogue purges, and that your claim otherwise proves your being blinded by other things and my thought that you should recuse yourself from any vote or discussion on the matter.
> I find it amusing that you and others feel oh so threatened by an idea that we all know won't work and was so obviously rejected in NOLA. Maybe I should call Senator McCarthy in.
> Yet at the same time find it very sad that you have so little faith in the ideals of liberty, capitalism, and libertarianism to overcome these other silly ideas you are so frightened of. I am also saddened by the apparent lack of attention you have given others replies on the subject given your poor grasp of their meaning, as evidenced by your asking this question.
> I am not angry with you, I am sad for you, and a bit frustrated because I thought far more highly of you.
> I am a die hard capitalist. I have lived in the small business realm for far too many years to be otherwise.
> I am also anti purge, because of the lessons history has taught us.
> Lastly, and maybe most importantly, I am anti wasting time with crap when we have far more important things to do, people are dieing, and candidates and affiliates looking for support.
> I am secure enough that the ideals of liberty and free capitalism are strong enough to overcome.
> I believe that the reason our party has such potential, and our country grew so strong, is the free exchange of ideas, NOT hiding in echo chambers.
> I do not think I can make that any clearer.
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
> ------ Original message------From: Caryn Ann HarlosDate: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 12:23 AMTo: 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
> So are you claiming John that resolution is NOT what the Party holds?
> Be specific where. Because that is truly troubling.
> -Caryn Ann
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> That statement of Nolan has conditions attached. NON-AGRESSION which depends on property rights.
> Do I need to find for you the huge number of times he condemned socialism?
> In LPNEWS ISSUE NUMBER 1 he denounced left economics.
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:39 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Well said sir
>
> John Phillips
>
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>
> Cell [1]217-412-5973
>
>
>
> ------ Original message------
>
> From: Jeff Lyons via Lnc-business
>
> Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2018 5:08 PM
>
> To: [2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
>
> Cc: Jeff Lyons;
>
> Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to
>
> Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
>
> 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 [5]2018-08-14 15:37, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
>
> > BS.
>
> > (all about brevity ; )
>
> >
>
> > ---
>
> > Elizabeth Van Horn
>
> >
>
> > On [6]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[7]]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 [8]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][9]www.odonnell2018.org
>
> > >
>
> > > On [10]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 [11]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[12]]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 [13]2018-08-14 14:26, [14]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][15]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:[16]217-412-5973
>
> > >>
>
> > >> --
>
> > >>
>
> > >> --
>
> > >> In Liberty,
>
> > >> Caryn Ann Harlos
>
> > >> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
>
> > Secretary
>
> > >> - [2][17]Caryn.Ann.[18] Harlos at LP.org or[19] Secretary at LP.org.
>
> > >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[20] 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[21]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> > >> 2. mailto:[5[22]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > In Liberty,
>
> > Caryn Ann Harlos
>
> > Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>
> > - [6][23]Caryn.Ann.[24] Harlos at LP.org or[25] Secretary at LP.org.
>
> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[26] 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[27]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> > 2. [28]http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>
> > 3. mailto[29]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> > 4. mailto[30]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> > 5. mailto[31]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> > 6. mailto[32]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
>
>
> References
>
>
>
> 1. tel:217-412-5973
>
> 2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> 3. http://www.lpmass.org/join
>
> 4. http://www.AuditMassachusetts.com/
>
> 5. tel:2018-08-14 15
>
> 6. tel:2018-08-14 15
>
> 7. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> 8. tel:2018-08-14 15
>
> 9. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>
> 10. tel:2018-08-14 15
>
> 11. tel:2018-08-14 14
>
> 12. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> 13. tel:2018-08-14 14
>
> 14. http://john.ph/
>
> 15. tel:217-412-5973
>
> 16. tel:217-412-5973
>
> 17. http://Caryn.An/
>
> 18. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
>
> 19. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
>
> 20. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
>
> 21. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> 22. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> 23. http://Caryn.An/
>
> 24. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
>
> 25. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
>
> 26. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
>
> 27. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> 28. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>
> 29. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> 30. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> 31. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> 32. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,Caryn Ann HarlosLibertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - 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 rightsAnd oppose the use of forceTaxation is theft
> --
> --
> In Liberty,Caryn Ann HarlosLibertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - 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 rightsAnd oppose the use of forceTaxation is theft
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
John,
Firstly, calling this resolution a resemblement of fascisn is extremely
disingenious. Secondly, this is not a purge, a purge would seek to kick
out members who disagree, this resolution does not accomplish that but
instead reaffirms that we stand behind our principles and have not lost
direction and that we are sticking to the course for our objectives
which include defending private property rights and capitalism from
violence.
Our job is not to be liked by everyone, there will be people who
disagree with us and hate us for our beliefs. I am not apologetic nor
will I compromise on those beliefs to satisfy others. This resolution
clearly reaffirms what we stand for, the arguments I have seen against
it are all from those of competing ideologies. The fact that there are
conflicts goes back to square one, the need to reaffirm our
principles.
I don’t mind if LibSocs, Georgists, Mutualists stay and work in the
Libertarian Party. That is there will and there is nothing I can do to
stop them; but everyone needs to know that this resolution is what the
organization supports, period.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila
Region 2 Representative
impotentes defendere liberatum non possunt
“Those without power cannot defend freedom”
On Aug 15, 2018 at 2:30 AM, <[1]john.phillips--- via Lnc-business>
wrote:
I have already answered that question in detail many places Ms Harlos, and your
attempt to "gotcha" me is quite sad really.
Since you asked though, I will very clearly explain it, in detail, and at length
. Plus I will include some extras.
I believe that the resolution violates the SPIRIT of the party. I also believe
that while TECHNICALLY it is what the party holds, it is phrased poorly.
Not just poorly, but intentionally so. In a way to attack current membership,
for you to draw attention to yourself, and for you and others to get even for pr
evious slights, real and perceived.
Honestly I think that given the personal history KNOWN between at least 3 of the
sponsors of this motion and the targets of it that at the very least you and Mr
Smith should have recused yourselves from all discussion of it, sponsorship of
it, and voting on it. I think it is clear from your rhetoric here and elsewhere
that you can not separate your personal feelings on the matter. Nor is this th
e first time in just the month since I came onto the LNC.
I think the actions and rhetoric on this disturbingly resemble fascism.
I think your claims of not being a "purge" are disingenous at best. I believe th
at a person of your, and the other authors, high intelligence should understand
the parallels between your words and other historical idealogue purges, and that
your claim otherwise proves your being blinded by other things and my thought t
hat you should recuse yourself from any vote or discussion on the matter.
I find it amusing that you and others feel oh so threatened by an idea that we a
ll know won't work and was so obviously rejected in NOLA. Maybe I should call
Senator McCarthy in.
Yet at the same time find it very sad that you have so little faith in the idea
ls of liberty, capitalism, and libertarianism to overcome these other silly idea
s you are so frightened of. I am also saddened by the apparent lack of attention
you have given others replies on the subject given your poor grasp of their mea
ning, as evidenced by your asking this question.
I am not angry with you, I am sad for you, and a bit frustrated because I though
t far more highly of you.
I am a die hard capitalist. I have lived in the small business realm for far to
o many years to be otherwise.
I am also anti purge, because of the lessons history has taught us.
Lastly, and maybe most importantly, I am anti wasting time with crap when we hav
e far more important things to do, people are dieing, and candidates and affilia
tes looking for support.
I am secure enough that the ideals of liberty and free capitalism are strong eno
ugh to overcome.
I believe that the reason our party has such potential, and our country grew so
strong, is the free exchange of ideas, NOT hiding in echo chambers.
I do not think I can make that any clearer.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Caryn Ann HarlosDate: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 12:23
AMTo: 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 R
ights
So are you claiming John that resolution is NOT what the Party holds?
Be specific where. Because that is truly troubling.
-Caryn Ann
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrot
e:
That statement of Nolan has conditions attached. NON-AGRESSION which depends on
property rights.
Do I need to find for you the huge number of times he condemned socialism?
In LPNEWS ISSUE NUMBER 1 he denounced left economics.
-Caryn Ann
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:39 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <lnc-business
@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Well said sir
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell [1]217-412-5973
------ Original message------
From: Jeff Lyons via Lnc-business
Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2018 5:08 PM
To: [2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
Cc: Jeff Lyons;
Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to
Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
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 [5]2018-08-14 15:37, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
> BS.
> (all about brevity ; )
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
>
> On [6]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[7]]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 [8]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][9]www.odonnell2018.org
> >
> > On [10]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 [11]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[12]]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 [13]2018-08-14 14:26, [14]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][15]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:[16]217-412-5973
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> --
> >> In Liberty,
> >> Caryn Ann Harlos
> >> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
> Secretary
> >> - [2][17]Caryn.Ann.[18] Harlos at LP.org or[19] Secretary at LP.org.
> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[20] 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[21]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> 2. mailto:[5[22]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> --
>
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [6][23]Caryn.Ann.[24] Harlos at LP.org or[25] Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[26] 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[27]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. [28]http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 3. mailto[29]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto[30]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 5. mailto[31]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 6. mailto[32]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
References
1. tel:217-412-5973
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. http://www.lpmass.org/join
4. http://www.AuditMassachusetts.com/
5. tel:2018-08-14 15
6. tel:2018-08-14 15
7. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. tel:2018-08-14 15
9. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
10. tel:2018-08-14 15
11. tel:2018-08-14 14
12. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. tel:2018-08-14 14
14. http://john.ph/
15. tel:217-412-5973
16. tel:217-412-5973
17. http://Caryn.An/
18. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
19. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
20. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
21. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
22. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
23. http://Caryn.An/
24. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
25. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
26. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
27. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
28. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
29. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
30. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
31. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
32. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,Caryn Ann HarlosLibertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.Chair, LP Historical Pr
eservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:We defend your rightsAnd oppose the use o
f forceTaxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,Caryn Ann HarlosLibertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.Chair, LP Historical Pr
eservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:We defend your rightsAnd oppose the use o
f forceTaxation is theft
References
1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list