<div dir="ltr">I'm glad the member sent this second clarification email, since I was unable to determine his view of livestreaming from his first email. :-)<div><br></div><div>Here are some businesses the LPCT is not in, and I am also not in:</div>
<div>1. Dealing with officious petty bureaucrats.</div><div>2. Being hassled by security at a building I supposedly own.</div><div>3. Being ignored by bureaucrats.</div><div>4. Having pointless arguments with Republicans asking me to violate national and state bylaws for the "emergency purpose" of nominating them for office.</div>
<div>5. Demanding time and date stamps on forms.</div><div><br></div><div>Yet I did all of those things. The LPCT is in the business of electing our members to office. Yet we, and I, need to do things outside of that specific mission. Organizations do lots of things not in their mission. My fire department has meetings. That's not what it was constituted to do. </div>
<div><br></div><div>This says nothing positive; it's just a response to the claim that being in the business of electing officials somehow conflicts with livestreaming meetings.</div><div><br></div><div>Is the LPUS in the business of electing candidate to office? Well, I would say yes in some general sense, although we actually have no candidates and no elections to run them in. Our affiliates are certainly in that business, though, and the LPUS coordinates and assists, so, sure. Is the LNC in that business? Well, the board of any organization is responsible for governing that organization, not carrying out its operations, so our business is actually governing the LPUS in its business of coordinating and assisting affiliates in their business of electing people to office. It's a useful shorthand, though. </div>
<div><br></div><div>We elect candidates to office for some reason, I would suggest. Presumably, we elect them to office because we believe that doing so is a useful and good way to move public policy and promote freedom. I agree entirely with this idea. If a Libertarian ended up as First Selectman, would we expect them to be transparent in governing? I think so, although we can't make them do so. It's a reasonable expectation that Libertarians like transparency in governance. We are a governing body. We're not obligated to be transparent since we're a private organization (although I believe that not all evil is done by states, or by initiation of force,) but if it's something we generally value, we are certainly in the right to act on that value.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But what about the RNC and DNC watching? That could be very dangerous, as a Dilbert cartoon once pointed out - to them. They could split their sides laughing. Suppose you had a livesteam of RNC meetings - what changes would you make to our party operations as a result? I have no idea what I'd do with that information.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But they wouldn't make one, you say - absolutely correct. They wouldn't do lots of things. That's not a reason for us not to, when libertarian values are involved. </div><div><br></div><div>
Their membership has different expectations (to the extent they have membership in the sense we do.) They need to do different things to win. Yes, we need to do different things from what we've done if we intend to win more often - but that won't always mean copying more successful parties, because they operate in a different environment. No one ever says "I want to vote for this Democrat, but I'm afraid I'll be electing a Libertarian if I do, so I'll just vote Green instead." We have obstacles to overcome that they do not.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One of those obstacles, created by our past last of success, is the perception that we cannot actually achieve in office what we say we will do. This may very well be true - many of our candidates do not demonstrate an understanding of how government works, while others do. Another obstacle is the belief that our ideas will not successfully order society - that libertarianism is just a bad idea for running a society. We disagree with that view, I think. There may be some of us who think statism works better but still favor libertarianism for a variety of moral reasons, but I think that most of us would not work and fight and give so much of ourselves and our energy without the belief, at the very least, that running a society on libertarian lines would have an outcome no worse than what statism brings. If we believe that, there is no reason we cannot apply those beliefs to governing our micro-society, also known as an organization.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Another point - how does one determine the business an organization is engaged in? One way is the mission statement or statement of principles. Another is to look at what the organization actually does. By the latter perspective, we are in the business of talking a lot about one state in particular; talking a lot about whether or not people should see us talking a lot about one state; arguing about whether or not boards are allowed to rewrite bylaws, then seek ratification of their rewriting from a membership as defined in their new bylaws; allowing bills due to exceed liquid assets; and a few other things. State affiliates are primarily in the business of getting ballot access and then losing it, but sometimes keeping it, and electing an average of just about 2 officials per state, none higher than county level.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If we are in the business of electing people to office, we've done a pretty poor job of it, especially if one calculates how much money has flowed through this organization in the years since its inception. We can do a better job of it with a more energized and supportive membership. When they know what we're doing, and we don't keep secrets from them, they will be more energized, more enthusiastic, and will have a greater belief that their actions and ideas matter in this party. Maybe, I don't know, but it's one possible outcome. Another possible outcome is that we'll behave more productively when we know that the people who donate money to us can be watching.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Joshua Katz</div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div><br></div><div>Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate</div>
<div>Libertarian National Committee</div><div><br>Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut</div></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Scott L. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scott73@earthlink.net" target="_blank">scott73@earthlink.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="blue">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">As you can probably tell from my
previous e-mail, I think live streaming LNC Meetings onto the Internet is a
stupid idea.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><br>
That being said, the people who agree with me have lost this battle - for the
time being.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The Libertarian Party is in the
business of electing our members to public office. We are not in the “transparency
business.”<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">To make the “mandate”
to stream the meetings a reasonably easy to achieve task, rather than a total
PITA, I suggest that we start out by NOT streaming the video. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">In other words – just stream
the audio. Once we master doing that, if our members really need to see
our beautiful (or handsome) faces, we can start working on a video stream.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><br>
Scott Lieberman <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>