<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is taking up some of Alicia’s points in the email
thread regarding Assemblyman Moore that as to do with input from the general
membership.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==What's the point of being there if you can't vote your
conscience? ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I left that statement in as necessary for the greater context
but not relevant here. We expect
Libertarians to have a conscience in line with Libertarian principles however –
which is relevant then as follows, LNC members have the same expectation (I am
not implying even remotely that anyone does not, just setting up the context).<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought
to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their
friends.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Every LNC member has to ultimately vote the way they think
they should vote. That has nothing to do
with whether or not they receive emails.
Emails from members can and SHOULD inform their decision, even if their
decision does not change. And the fact
is that this an unfair characterization of at least this iteration of the
LNC. I do not know for certain what
other LNC members do, but I am confident I am the most active at soliticing
member involvement. And NOT ONCE was it
“staged” (whatever that means) – nor was it organized (LOL) – and nor was it
from my “friends.” I take a bit of an
offense at that. I do not merely
represent my “friends” in Region 1 or more remotely, anywhere else in the
membership. I believe that would be
grossly unethical and wrong. I encourage
EVERYONE to write. I have encouraged
people to write who’s position on me was part of the “throw all the bums out of
the LNC” mantra. For reference this is
how I generally encourage people (with occasional personal encouragement in
meetings I attend):<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have a Regional Representative Website that contains this:
<a href="http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=11">http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=11</a><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I maintain a Region 1 FB page here: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/252474608447206/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/252474608447206/</a><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I help admin a general member discussion group on LNC
Business here: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/LNCBusinessDiscuss/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/LNCBusinessDiscuss/</a><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have a growing mailing that that I send newsletters
to. Examples of the newsletters can be
found here: <a href="http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=13">http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=13</a><span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">In some important issues that directly affect membership, I will make a more specific request to make voices known rather than a general statement.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== Should we be offended at a public official playing to his
constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">This seems to be saying that it is okay to change one’s
opinion merely because constituents feel a certain way. In which case, then
one’s mind should be changed by members. But that is not what I am saying
whatsoever. I am saying that we should
be willing to listen to and take members’ input into consideration. More on that in a bit.<br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==If I am not persuaded by a particular argument, I do not
find it suddenly more persuasive if it is repeated at a louder volume by having
10 other people email me to repeat the exact same argument.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is <b>unintentionally </b>insulting to members who write. I have found that most of them offer
thoughtful new angles on many items, even if it is around a central theme. I have never found bald repeating of the same
argument but often times new insight, or just general encouragements or
disapproval. And I have changed my mind
by such communications, or changed my approach - perhaps not yet on things we have voted on but certainly on anticipated controversies.
It certainly gives me appreciation for what the members are thinking and
grateful for the ones who take the time to care enough to write.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==It is even less persuasive when the message I receive says
"The Radical Caucus told me I was supposed to email you and say X. So here ya go!"==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alicia, seriously?
Please produce an email even remotely like that from this iteration of
the LNC. I have NEVER received anything
like that. And I find it interesting
that you choose to use the “Radical Caucus” as an example since I do not think
we have received one email purported to be from them, NOR DO I make pains to
represent them specifically although I am a Board Member on that Caucus as
disclosed upon my election to the LNC.
My Region does not comprise radicals only, and I was not elected to
represent the LPRC (or the Youth Caucus or the Pro-Life Caucus, both of which I
also belong to). This is the second time
in recent history where it was (the first time it was outright stated) that I
have some peculiar interest in merely representing the LPRC. Which is incorrect. In fact the members I referenced above that
wanted my head were LPRC members. The
only caucus I have ever forwarded anything from was the Audacious Caucus – with
whom I have sharp disagreement with their tactics (and I was deeply mortified
that they became personally abusive to you – that is not OKAY in any universe
and I condemn that) – and who are highly critical of the LPRC in part because
we condemn abusive tactics. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That was a bit of a ramble, but in fact we do not receive
emails like that in any way to make that a fair characterization. And if they occur
rarely, it is rarely.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==To change my mind, I need a more persuasive argument, not
louder volume.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That insinuates that members do not send persuasive
arguments. I received a very thoughtful
email opposing my motion to rescind to which I spent a good deal of time
responding. And it raised some points
that caused me to think.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==If I disagree with an idea, to have someone twist that
into an accusation that I disdain the membership...well, that's the sort of
campaign rhetoric misrepresentation that makes most of the public hate
politics.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alicia, I have been the one that has taken issue with the
multiple comments over the months about member input. I have never said mere disagreement means
disdain. I disagree with the membership and my fellow LNC members on many occasions. My issue comes when
member input is characterized as merely “louder volume” or “so and so told me
to write, so count me as writing.” It
isn’t. Or the one I previously objected
to in which because a comment was made that a caucus sending an email was
somehow “secret” when the membership list is public, and a question was raised
as to whether any might be Republican operatives. It is that kind of thing that I think does
not give proper place to our member comments.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==Rounding up lots of people to email the LNC and repeat the
same idea we've already heard==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is comments like that which are problematic. Who is “rounding up” and who is telling them
what to email and is it really repetition?
How do comments like that make the members feel encouraged to
write? That is my issue. The only issue that this might be even close to any reality was my motion to rescind, because members rights were being directly and permanently compromised. Going into groups and generally encouraging members to make their voice known is not "rounding up." I want all members and POVs to write, even the ones that think my POV is rotten.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== is essentially asking the LNC to do exactly what that
this motion would censure John Moore for doing, voting how he thinks his
constituents want him to vote as opposed to what he thinks he should do. ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Precisely NOT. It is
asking for input to make a decision and to know fully what the membership
thinks. Further this statement assumes
that all input would require that all options be on the table. Nothing could be further from the truth. We operate within the assumption that we will
be operating on Libertarian principles.
Even if 90% of the membership emailed urging a non-principled again,
should we listen. But if there are
various options that have principled arguments, we should welcome them. In this case, Moore was urged to use the
state to commit aggression through inappropriate usurpation of powers that do
not rightly belong to any government in a Libertarian worldview. No matter how many people urge unlibertarian
actions, should a Libertarian do it.
This argument makes this a zero sum numbers game, and that is not even remotely
close to what I have said. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I believe we have to be careful in what we say about member
input and do so in a way that encourages them to participate in a productive
way. I want an LNC culture that does so and that is the motivation for my attempts, as poor as they may be.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail-m_2859646389022103332gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>