Busy Bodies

Discussion
1

Dear Leilani,

Thanks for that. I should have said we should stop "acting" like
busy-bodies instead of "being" busy-bodies as I feel this behavior is
unbecoming, unLibertarian and should be avoided. For example, I would be
a busy-body if I devoted an inordinate amount of time involving myself
in another person's decision to kill their own spawn (abortion), a
practice I despise. As I feel this grisly practice is real murder, I can
never feel the same way about overfed animals killed for food as
apparently some on this list do. But that's OK. I can handle it and
completely accept it and even be friends with people with whom I
disagree on this subject. And of course, I would never use government to
force them to act in a manner that is more consistent with my values or
sneak this food into something I served them.

Likewise, I expect the same out of the people I interact with. Whether I
am right or wrong about the morality of killing one's own spawn, eating
meat or the noodling of ducks, I expect the same tolerance I show those
with whom I disagree on this other very emotional subject. Still, some
on this list have suggested that we need government force and even
approve of the destruction of other's property in an effort to interfere
with choices other's have carefully made that do not coincide with their
own values. In my opinion, the practice of messing with someone with
whom you disagree (I'm talking disagreeing here, not crime), and I
consider lobbying government to interfere with my rightful choices is
messing with me, is being a "busy-body". Do you agree with this
definition?

So if you were acting in a manner consistent with the above description,
and I'm not saying you were, I of course would not be calling YOU a
busy-body. I would be calling a particular behavior the act of being a
busy-body. You are of course a person I love and I would never call you
names.

Does that clarify things? Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

XXXOOO

Mike

2

Dear Mike:
I truly appreciate the apology.
And just for the record, whilst there are many things that I dis-agree with. I do not believe in forcing anyone to change their behaviour. When appropriate, such as during a discussion, I will share my point of view. I have been in a small way responsible for the decrease in veal consumption by informing people of the true facts. And these are facts that I know to be true from my own observation, as I was privileged (gulp) to visit a veal farm. I feel fortunate to have done so, because I can speak from my own knowledge.
Leilani
Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:
Dear Leilani,

Thanks for that. I should have said we should stop "acting" like
busy-bodies instead of "being" busy-bodies as I feel this behavior is
unbecoming, unLibertarian and should be avoided. For example, I would be
a busy-body if I devoted an inordinate amount of time involving myself
in another person's decision to kill their own spawn (abortion), a
practice I despise. As I feel this grisly practice is real murder, I can
never feel the same way about overfed animals killed for food as
apparently some on this list do. But that's OK. I can handle it and
completely accept it and even be friends with people with whom I
disagree on this subject. And of course, I would never use government to
force them to act in a manner that is more consistent with my values or
sneak this food into something I served them.

Likewise, I expect the same out of the people I interact with. Whether I
am right or wrong about the morality of killing one's own spawn, eating
meat or the noodling of ducks, I expect the same tolerance I show those
with whom I disagree on this other very emotional subject. Still, some
on this list have suggested that we need government force and even
approve of the destruction of other's property in an effort to interfere
with choices other's have carefully made that do not coincide with their
own values. In my opinion, the practice of messing with someone with
whom you disagree (I'm talking disagreeing here, not crime), and I
consider lobbying government to interfere with my rightful choices is
messing with me, is being a "busy-body". Do you agree with this
definition?

So if you were acting in a manner consistent with the above description,
and I'm not saying you were, I of course would not be calling YOU a
busy-body. I would be calling a particular behavior the act of being a
busy-body. You are of course a person I love and I would never call you
names.

Does that clarify things? Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

XXXOOO

Mike

3

While I do respect Leilani, Starchild, and Steve as Libertarians, and
apologize for hurting anyone's feelings, I absolutely do not respect the
organizations like PETA that are clearly an enemy to liberty, as the following
article so vividly illustrates:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/7946572.htm

I myself have, in the past, been a member of several non-libertarian
organizations (Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, etc.), because I agree with a
majority of their mission and vision and only disagree with a smaller
percentage. But I do make a point to argue with those organizations' leaders
when they propose laws that try to legislate morality at the expense of
individual liberty. I think gay bashing is wrong and immoral, but when HRC
tried to get all of those "hate crimes" laws passed, I clearly voiced my
opposition. I think private clubs that ban people on the basis of race or
creed are wrong and immoral, but when the ACLU tries to use the force of
government to open up those clubs to certain minorities, I made sure to let
them know that what they're doing is wrong.

So, that's why I expect Libertarian PETA/ALF members who believe that eating
meat is wrong and immoral to stand up and speak out against the organizations
when they propose to legislate morality. That's all. Nothing more than I
require of myself, really.

Yes, we're all still "friends in liberty", as long as, by definition, we
refrain from trying to restrict each other's freedom. Just understand that,
while you give money to PETA to lobby for veganism at gunpoint, I'm going to
be giving money to the other side to protect my freedom to have the omnivorous
diet that my species has consumed for tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of
years. May the best lobbyist win. In the meantime, yes, let's all kiss and
make up.

Rob

4

Rob,

  How does the article about PETA's request for the town of Slaughterville, Oklahoma to change its name to Veggieville "clearly" illustrate that the group is an "enemy of liberty" as you claim below? PETA isn't demanding that the town be forced to change its name; their letter was simply a clever attempt at getting some publicity. Obviously it worked.

  My bottom line remains as I said: I don't want to let disagreements over matters like this interfere with us getting along or working together for liberty in the many, many areas where we agree. Yet I am troubled that you don't seem willing to acknowledge, as I did in regards to your position, that from our perspective, it is *you* who is advocating the initiation of force at the expense of individual liberty -- in this case the individual liberty of billions of non-human animals.

  In your latest email on the topic, you demand that we "stand up and speak out against (animal rights groups) when they propose to (seek laws protecting animals)," and compare PETA's agenda to efforts by groups like the Human Rights Campaign to promote laws limiting freedom of association or criminalizing certain types of speech which we can all (I hope!) agree are unlibertarian.

  The implication of your comments is that PETA's goals are as obviously unlibertarian as HRC's proposed hate crime laws, and that there is no legitimate philosophical debate over what makes a creature deserving of legal protection. It make me think that you still don't get my point that animal rights is an issue like abortion, where libertarians can apply the philosophy of non-aggression in good faith and yet reach radically different conclusions.

  This also makes me curious -- how *do* you feel about abortion? Do you agree that libertarians can hold good faith beliefs on both sides of that issue? Or do you believe that there is only one clear libertarian position on abortion, and that those on the other side are wrongly trying to "legislate morality?"

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

5

Starchild, quite possibly the best thing about no longer being an officer is
that I get to say this in response to your request.

"I don't have to."

After trying to make the case (widely held by libertarians) that veganism at
gunpoint is an unacceptable infringement on privacy and individual liberty,
with only one brave soul backing me up, and several others outright
questioning my morality, you frankly couldn't pay me a million dollars to
talk about something as contentious as abortion on this list.

I'm going to be spending my time on more important issues. In the past
several months, I've become less and less interested in debating the
minutiae of libertarian theory and would instead prefer to just try to
accomplish the few things all of us libertarians can agree on (e.g., going
after the IRS and DEA).

I plan to set my lpsf-discuss subscription to "daily digest" mode, so don't
expect me to respond very quickly to any future messages to this list. And
if you have a question directly for me (such as Outright, Pride, or DevCom),
even if you decide to send it to the whole list, make sure to carbon-copy my
email address, so I won't lose it in the digest on a busy day.

For those who are interested, this weekend's MECA marriage caravan from
Sacramento to Redding was incredibly successful. There should be an article
in Monday's Chronicle. Thanks, Chris, for getting involved in MECA and
putting me in touch with Molly. I think I've found my new cause. It sounds
like they're going to have a really cool parade entry in Pride this year, so
I'd like to suggest that LPSF/Outright/all other interested libertarians
volunteer for an Outright/LPSF booth as usual, but not do a separate parade
entry and instead join MECA for the parade. What does everyone think about
that?

Rob

6

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'd like to suggest that LPSF/Outright/all other interested libertarians
volunteer for an Outright/LPSF booth as usual, but not do a separate parade
entry and instead join MECA for the parade. What does everyone think about
that?

I think it's a good idea if we can get away with it. I think it's very
important that we keep our Libertarian identity in the parade. I certainly
don't mind marching with and supporting marriage equality activists, but
the benefit is lost if we're not "Libertarians for Marriage Equality". And
unfortunately, I think that under Pride rules, if we have a clearly-defined
identity, we'll need to be a separate parade entry. Plus, we have a slew
of candidates who ought to be in the parade (not as candidates, of course)
and MECA might not be cool with that.

Glad you had fun in Sacramento; there are already some pictures on SFGate,
and it sounded like fun. [Still not sure why anyone wants to be married,
really, but that's just me being snarky.]

~Chris
- --
Christopher R. Maden, Chair, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
The Party of Principle: individual freedom and personal responsibility
<URL: http://www.lpsf.org/ > +1.415.775.LPSF
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

7

Good point about the candidates. But I'll have to insist that people
commit to being in the parade before I start filling out these
applications. We need all of the candidates, and each of them needs
to recruit 5 supporters. Last year was a rebuilding year, so to
speak, but this year I want us to have at least 40 people before I'll
consider our parade entry not to be an embarrassment to the Party.
(We MUST be bigger than the Greens this year!)

So, who's in? The parade is Sunday, June 27. The sooner I get this
application in, the better our chances of getting where we want to be
in the lineup. Same with the booth. Can we decide by email whether
we want the usual two-day booth and if we need any extras (such as
electrical power, etc.)? For more details, see:

http://www.sfpride.org/assets/forms/parade_app.pdf

and

http://www.sfpride.org/assets/forms/np_exhibitor.pdf

- -----Original Message-----

8

Although we in the East Bay have not yet discussed participating to the
extent we did in 2003, I will stick my hand up and volunteer as an
individual to assist in Pride again this year. The event was so
successful, I have no doubt that regional officers will be happy to do
it again, so I'll put it on the agenda for our next general meeting..

Also, I noted that the ACLU is planning their national membership
conference at the San Francisco Hilton on July 6-8, 2004. Would the
LPSF be interested in co-sponsoring an outreach table at this event as
we did at last year's NORML Conference?

Terry Floyd, Treasurer
Libertarian Party of California, East Bay Region

9

Considering recent discussion on this list about eminent domain, I
thought I'd recommend a film I saw yesterday that deals with this
subject in an interesting fashion. Although the term is never used in
the film, the primary conflict of the story is about a land developer
who has paid off a Chicago Alderman to railroad through an urban
redevelopment project on the city's southside that threatens the future
of the neighborhood barbershop of the title. In addition, there is a
good lesson in free market economics with a subplot involving a
franchise chain hairstyling salon that opens across the street (owned by
the same developer).

I found it refreshing to see these topics addressed in a film targeted
at the urban youth market. While the first film dealt with the
barbershop simply struggling to stay open in a difficult economic
climate (and the owner's doubts about whether he really wanted to
continue running his father's business), it also raised controversy by
criticizing Jesse Jackson and Rosa Parks, who both sued to have comments
about them edited out of the film. Fortunately, the filmmakers refused
to back down and Cedric the Entertainer's dialogue, "Fuck Jesse Jackson"
and "Rosa Parks just sat her black ass down on a bus and was too tired
to get up" stayed in the film (though the studio issued a written
apology to both).

Both films are worth seeing as entertainment and as hypothetical
economic exercises for young audiences --- not to mention the irony of
seeing the son of unrepentant socialists Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden (Troy
Garrity) co-starring in a film that celebrates the superiority of free
enterprise.

Terry Floyd, Treasurer
Libertarian Party of California, East Bay Region

10

Terry,

  Thanks for being here as a liaison with your region and proposing action on these items. Having a booth at the ACLU conference sounds like a great idea, provided it's not too expensive. If it does cost a lot, perhaps we could set something up outside on the street or in front of the venue. (I doubt they would want the publicity that could result from trying to get a group removed from outside their gathering! Can you imagine the headlines?)

  When you bring this stuff up at the next EBLP meeting, would you be willing to formally raise the idea of creating an email discussion list for the EBLP similar to this one? I think such a move would help EBLP activism as well as facilitate coordination between our regions. I'd be happy to serve as LPSF liaison by subscribing to such a list.

Yours in liberty,
          <<< Starchild >>>

Although we in theEastBayhave not yet discussed participating to the extent we did in 2003, I will stick my hand up and volunteer as an individual to assist in Pride again this year. The event was so successful, I have no doubt that regional officers will be happy to do it again, so I’ll put it on the agenda for our next general meeting..

Also, I noted that the ACLU is planning their national membership conference at the San Francisco Hilton onJuly 6-8, 2004. Would the LPSF be interested in co-sponsoring an outreach table at this event as we did at last year’s NORML Conference?

Terry Floyd, Treasurer

Libertarian Party of California, East Bay Region

From: Rob Power [mailto:robpower@robpower.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:29 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Pride

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Good point about the candidates. But I'll have to insist that people
commit to being in the parade before I start filling out these
applications. We need all of the candidates, and each of them needs
to recruit 5 supporters. Last year was a rebuilding year, so to
speak, but this year I want us to have at least 40 people before I'll
consider our parade entry not to be an embarrassment to the Party.
(We MUST be bigger than the Greens this year!)

So, who's in? The parade is Sunday, June 27. The sooner I get this
application in, the better our chances of getting where we want to be
in the lineup. Same with the booth. Can we decide by email whether
we want the usual two-day booth and if we need any extras (such as
electrical power, etc.)? For more details, see:

http://www.sfpride.org/assets/forms/parade_app.pdf

and

http://www.sfpride.org/assets/forms/np_exhibitor.pdf

- -----Original Message-----
From: Christopher R. Maden [mailto:crism@maden.org]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 1:39 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] MECA/Pride

*** PGP Signature Status: good
*** Signer: Christopher R. Maden <crism@maden.org>
*** Signed: 2/16/2004 1:38:55 AM
*** Verified: 2/16/2004 2:00:31 AM
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***

>I'd like to suggest that LPSF/Outright/all other interested
>libertarians volunteer for an Outright/LPSF booth as usual, but not
>do a separate parade entry and instead join MECA for the parade.
>What does everyone think about that?

I think it's a good idea if we can get away with it. I think it's
very
important that we keep our Libertarian identity in the parade. I
certainly
don't mind marching with and supporting marriage equality activists,
but
the benefit is lost if we're not "Libertarians for Marriage
Equality". And
unfortunately, I think that under Pride rules, if we have a
clearly-defined
identity, we'll need to be a separate parade entry. Plus, we have a
slew
of candidates who ought to be in the parade (not as candidates, of
course)
and MECA might not be cool with that.

Glad you had fun in Sacramento; there are already some pictures on
SFGate,
and it sounded like fun. [Still not sure why anyone wants to be
married,
really, but that's just me being snarky.]

~Chris
- --
Christopher R. Maden, Chair, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
The Party of Principle: individual freedom and personal
responsibility
<URL: http://www.lpsf.org/ > +1.415.775.LPSF
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

*** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***

Yahoo! Groups Links

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBQDEKAXAHrGzARaBAEQJEsQCgi3KxkeGN6TGNh/DUQNtu8Rs4bmMAnjVf
KJwzPIBYjkBZeY+hcHfDdfJz
=ek20
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

11

Terry,

  Thanks for being here as a liaison with your region and proposing action on these items. Having a booth at the ACLU conference sounds like a great idea, provided it's not too expensive. If it does cost a lot, perhaps we could set something up outside on the street or in front of the venue. (I doubt they would want the publicity that could result from trying to get a group removed from outside their gathering! Can you imagine the headlines?)

  When you bring this stuff up at the next EBLP meeting, would you be willing to formally raise the idea of creating an email discussion list for the EBLP similar to this one? I think such a move would help EBLP activism as well as facilitate coordination between our regions. I'd be happy to serve as LPSF liaison by subscribing to such a list.

Yours in liberty,
          <<< Starchild >>>

Although we in theEastBayhave not yet discussed participating to the extent we did in 2003, I will stick my hand up and volunteer as an individual to assist in Pride again this year. The event was so successful, I have no doubt that regional officers will be happy to do it again, so I’ll put it on the agenda for our next general meeting..

Also, I noted that the ACLU is planning their national membership conference at the San Francisco Hilton onJuly 6-8, 2004. Would the LPSF be interested in co-sponsoring an outreach table at this event as we did at last year’s NORML Conference?

Terry Floyd, Treasurer

Libertarian Party of California, East Bay Region

From: Rob Power [mailto:robpower@…]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:29 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@...m
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Pride

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Good point about the candidates. But I'll have to insist that people
commit to being in the parade before I start filling out these
applications. We need all of the candidates, and each of them needs
to recruit 5 supporters. Last year was a rebuilding year, so to
speak, but this year I want us to have at least 40 people before I'll
consider our parade entry not to be an embarrassment to the Party.
(We MUST be bigger than the Greens this year!)

So, who's in? The parade is Sunday, June 27. The sooner I get this
application in, the better our chances of getting where we want to be
in the lineup. Same with the booth. Can we decide by email whether
we want the usual two-day booth and if we need any extras (such as
electrical power, etc.)? For more details, see:

http://www.sfpride.org/assets/forms/parade_app.pdf

and

http://www.sfpride.org/assets/forms/np_exhibitor.pdf

- -----Original Message-----
From: Christopher R. Maden [mailto:crism@…g]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 1:39 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] MECA/Pride

*** PGP Signature Status: good
*** Signer: Christopher R. Maden <crism@...>
*** Signed: 2/16/2004 1:38:55 AM
*** Verified: 2/16/2004 2:00:31 AM
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***

>I'd like to suggest that LPSF/Outright/all other interested
>libertarians volunteer for an Outright/LPSF booth as usual, but not
>do a separate parade entry and instead join MECA for the parade.
>What does everyone think about that?

I think it's a good idea if we can get away with it. I think it's
very
important that we keep our Libertarian identity in the parade. I
certainly
don't mind marching with and supporting marriage equality activists,
but
the benefit is lost if we're not "Libertarians for Marriage
Equality". And
unfortunately, I think that under Pride rules, if we have a
clearly-defined
identity, we'll need to be a separate parade entry. Plus, we have a
slew
of candidates who ought to be in the parade (not as candidates, of
course)
and MECA might not be cool with that.

Glad you had fun in Sacramento; there are already some pictures on
SFGate,
and it sounded like fun. [Still not sure why anyone wants to be
married,
really, but that's just me being snarky.]

~Chris
- --
Christopher R. Maden, Chair, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
The Party of Principle: individual freedom and personal
responsibility
<URL: http://www.lpsf.org/ > +1.415.775.LPSF
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

*** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***

Yahoo! Groups Links

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBQDEKAXAHrGzARaBAEQJEsQCgi3KxkeGN6TGNh/DUQNtu8Rs4bmMAnjVf
KJwzPIBYjkBZeY+hcHfDdfJz
=ek20
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

12

I can help with the Pride booth (both days) and an ACLU booth. (I'll bring all the OPH materials, help give people the quizzes, and type up the inquiries, but I'm not volunteering to help make the reservations or organize the volunteers, and I don't want to try to do anything electrical.) I've marked my calendar.

Kelly