<div dir="ltr">It is not being bought off, it is not being trapped into the constant battle of having always to be opposed to all or nothing- we are outside that paradigm and thus can rise about the partisanship.<div><br></div><div>Saying one action is something we support is NOT the same as saying - as we so strongly have - that we do not care about the gross rights violations done. That is a false dilemna that we must avoid. We can do both, and that is what we (if we really are outside the right/left paradigm) must do.</div><div><br></div><div>And we care about ALL rights. I do not see in our SoP that we defend only the rights of individuals not wearing Armani suits or anywhere "only in a certain order." This reverse classism is not appropriate either- and that is what people are seeing in us. We stand for ALL rights. Wealthy and Poor and Middle Class. This horse-trading in rights never works and it is interesting that we, who are not believers in central planning, think we can centrally plan liberty. And this is precisely how nothing ever changes. No, we can't support striking that regulation because it isn't the first one *I would choose* to get rid of. This is what has been called Stockholm libertarianism - no one releases their captives - and we can be righteously indignant and but feel oh so good about it. I like making Libertarian froth as much as the next guy, but it accomplishes little.</div><div><br></div><div>We can make the valid points about how we would prefer regulatory abolition to proceed. We can make all those points. But we cannot be silent that we wish to eliminate regulation. I love how we cannot be pigenholed. It shows we are not the "centrists" that we are painted as, that we are more consistently left than the left and right than the right. And that is where we need to be.</div><div><br></div><div>We stand for the oppressed. But regulations oppress everyone, including the Armani-suit wearers, and we are flaming hypocrites if we only stand for our favourite oppressed.</div><div><br></div><div>It is a sad day if we can never say "reducing regulations" is a libertarian ideal even if we think the guy saying it is absolutely horrid on other issues- and one thing I am not is a fan of Trump on any level - personally, politically, or any other metric I can imagine. In fact, we can take that opportunity to once again point out the horrid things as well.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps this is good in some way because I used to be concerned that we were turning Republican-lite to my horror, now I see the extreme swing to the left. I want to remain solidly Libertarian. And IF we let only Trump have the narrative about eliminating regulation, WE have lost control of OUR talking point. Take it back now.</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br><div class="gmail-m_5140477716584658984gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><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></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Joshua Katz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com" target="_blank">planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I, for one, would like to speak in opposition, or at least caution. But first, let me say how proud I was to be a Libertarian this weekend. Our President provoked a humanitarian crisis, and a constitutional crisis, in pursuit of avowedly illiberal ends, and this party did not hem and haw. I want to thank staff and volunteers for quickly putting out content to address the crisis, and being loud and strong. Moreover, we weren't only great, we were good - that is, not only were we correct, but our communications were on-message and exactly the style and form of communication that I think boosts our credibility and, ultimately, electoral viability. Not from this party did one hear "but Obama did it too," not from us did one hear "well, at least he's doing something," or sarcastic snipes at liberals for daring to oppose this while favoring taxation. Not from us did one hear "well, technically..." Not from us did anyone hear "it's only 90 days, let's be reasonable." No. We stood up for the rights of those most in need of protection, and we did not reason with tyranny. Libertarians must be a voice for those who cannot speak, if we must choose whose voice to be, not a voice for those who own lobbyists. Freedom is the surest protection for the vulnerable, and we need to always make that case. Dissent does not end at the Armani's edge.<div><br></div><div>Now, let me turn to why I disagree. <i>Today, there are people detained in airports, illegally denied access to lawyers, despite 5 court orders demanding, variously, that they be provided attorneys, that they be released, and that they not be deported.</i> At least one person was deported to a war zone over the weekend, and a court order has been issued to go get him and return him to the United States, but he has not, to my knowledge, been returned. To lavish praise on Trump for his EO of yesterday, although it properly treats him like the 5 year old that he is, is to send a message to those detained in defiance of court orders - "You are forgotten." </div><div><br></div><div>It must be remembered that, despite the circumlocutions of many conservatives and some libertarians, the growth of tyranny we are seeing from this populist monstrosity is not normal. It is not "more of the same" or a difference of degree. It is a new level, of an entirely different sort from, say, the steady growth of government by regulation. We cannot compare the two, we cannot establish the trade between sending people to die and denial of due process, on the one hand, and decreasing the regulatory load on hair-braiding, on the other hand - as crucial as it is to cut those regulations. </div><div><br></div><div>Even under normal circumstances, let me point out, this party only ever engages in this sort of thing when the Republicans are in power. I do not recall praise from this party when, say, President Obama reestablished relations with Cuba, negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran, or pressed against his own party for freer trade (in fact, this party mostly opposed that last one, and its membership ridiculed our ticket for standing for trade). We tend to adopt the position of opposition when the Democrats are in power, but not when Republicans are in power, then wonder why we are mistaken for a part of the right-leaning coalition or worse.</div><div><br></div><div>But these are not normal circumstances, and, additionally, I think this would be a tactical error. Howard Dean, in speaking of the protests, yesterday remarked that these there not the "typical protesters" - that we were seeing the first strike of a globalized youth, more interested in rights than parties or national boundaries - and worried that the Democratic Party would be unable to "capture them." Let him worry. Their ideals are more aligned with those of the Libertarian Party than with those of any other. Mr. Somes and Mr. Sharpe pointed out that one could easily digest Trump's core message - "Make America Great Again," and that of Mrs. Clinton, while ours was murkier, involved multiple layers of meaning, and, as expressed by our ticket, was unclear and seemed to consist of a lot of "well, I'd think about it." What is a rallying point for libertarianism that focuses on what the voter gets, not what we get? Here's one -<b> "Break the bonds."</b> <i> We want to break the bonds of the oppressed. We want to break the chains that hold back the human imagination and prosperity - the very chains that bind the hands of the weakest.</i> This we share with the protesters and attorneys who came out, heroically, to fight for the right of human movement, to fight for due process - and yet, we now are discussed turning to those protesters and saying "yes, well, that's all nice, but we care more about the oppressed in Armani suits."</div><div><br></div><div>Cutting regulations can be done in a manner that greatly eases the burden on the most burdened. It can be, but nothing in the EO directs that this be done. It would be fully in compliance with such an EO to increase the burden on small businesses (true small businesses, even, the home-grown kind) while, twice as quickly, reducing it on big business, or even removing valuable protections. This is the structural problem - everything is a regulation now, and so getting rid of regulations can be done in a manner that enhances, or that fails to enhance, or that destroys, freedom. We should, I believe, push for a return to a system in which Congress legislates with accountability, and an end to a system that allows unelected agencies and one man such extraordinary power over the rules which govern us. We should not, in my view, celebrate the inappropriate power distribution that allows the President to make such orders.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, what does such praise hope to accomplish? Perhaps to encourage more of the same? I submit that this is an unlikely result. To allow conservatives unhappy with Trump to consider and vote for us? A good goal - but one that, I think, will be best accomplished by remaining the opposition through the Trump administration unless the tone is changed overall. If we want to attract anti-Trump Republicans, we will do so by standing firm for markets, not by saying nice things about Trump. I see nothing, tactically, to be gained by nice words for Trump, and plenty to be lost by those who see such messages and say, with disappointment, that we, who stood so strongly just days ago, can be so easily bought off.</div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail-m_7146915972374874528gmail_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></div>