I’ve noticed that we tend to disagree a lot more when discussing local SF
issues than we do when discussing national/global issues. I think this is
probably because applying the non-aggression principle is much simpler
nationally than it is locally. Regardless of what people say at election
time, you can’t just go and live in another country. Canada doesn’t want
you. You’re stuck with whatever the national government wants to do to you.
But that’s no longer true though if, say, your landlord wants to raise the
rent. If you don’t like it, you really can just move out.
So then, where do city governments fall in the gradient between a national
government and a bad landlord? I don’t know! But I want to give ourselves a
venue to build that philosophy out, so I’d like to propose the following
new bylaws:
"The Executive Committee shall maintain a document titled Journal of Policy
Positions. Each entry in the Journal shall have 1.) a title that briefly
states a policy position, 2.) the date the entry was last modified, and 3.)
a body justifying the position. The body of a Journal entry must fully,
logically justify the position stated in the entry’s title relying only on
the Non-Aggression Principle, other Journal entries, and objective fact
(with citations provided where appropriate).
Journal entries shall only be added, removed, or modified by a majority
vote of the Executive Committee. The Journal shall be publicly available.
When speaking publicly as representatives of the LPSF, officers shall
ensure that stated positions are substantiated by corresponding Journal
entries. Comments made that do not meet this standard shall be added by the
officer as an agenda item at the next general meeting."
Having a public document like this would give us a productive forum for
discussing policy, align our messaging, and could become quite interesting
on its own as it’s built out.
Libertarians prefer to localize policy making as much as possible. Imagine how much worse a federal ban on sugar / hate speech / drag queens would be than a neighborhood ban! If you localize the policy enough - preferably to the individual - then it’s unanimous and consensual, and enforcing it is not aggression at all.
Accordingly, libertarians will disagree more when discussing hyper local policies, or federal policies that are difficult to localize.
Anyway, on to your suggestion.
Are you proposing that we have a platform and pass a bylaw to ensure LPSF reps stick to it? I’m not sure if LPSF has its own platform. I think we might have had one, but scrapped it in favor of the LPCA platform instead? Starchild would know!
The platform of LP California is an excellent document of applied libertarianism. It took radical principled positions on issues, including ones especially relevant to Californians and controversial ones not covered by the national platform.
It’s a lot of work to draft and maintain a platform. If you think LPSF needs to have its own, I think we should probably start with LPCA’s.
And yeah, LPSF officers should never promote aggression, or say that their personal preferences are the official position of LPSF!
Closing the Great Highway, for example, was something we were recently very
split on. We also frequently disagree on compensation for government
employees.
Are you proposing that we have a platform and pass a bylaw to ensure LPSF
reps stick to it?
No, I wouldn’t consider this a platform. A platform is a specific set of
goals / calls to action, so there is a subjectiveness as to which problems
are important and how to address them. Platforms also don’t justify their
planks from any particular principles. The LPCA platform for example just
says “We oppose government-mandated insurance, including automobile
liability insurance.” Why? What is the basis? I definitely don’t agree with
that.
This document would start from some premises that everyone agrees on
(non-aggression principle, objective fact), and provide some chain of logic
that ends in that policy position. If you disagree with the position, but
agree with the non-aggression principle and objective fact, then there must
be some mistake in the chain of logic that you can point to. In which case,
the LPSF can refine its position by fixing the mistake.
Libertarians prefer to localize policy making as much as possible. Imagine
how much worse a federal ban on sugar / hate speech / drag queens would be
than a neighborhood ban! If you localize the policy enough - preferably to
the individual - then it’s unanimous and consensual, and enforcing it is
not aggression at all.
Accordingly, libertarians will disagree more when discussing hyper local
policies, or federal policies that are difficult to localize.
Anyway, on to your suggestion.
Are you proposing that we have a platform and pass a bylaw to ensure LPSF
reps stick to it? I’m not sure if LPSF has its own platform. I think we
might have had one, but scrapped it in favor of the LPCA platform instead?
Starchild would know!
The platform of LP California https://lpedia.org/wiki/Document:California_Platform_2021 is an
excellent document of applied libertarianism. It took radical principled
positions on issues, including ones especially relevant to Californians and
controversial ones not covered by the national platform.
It’s a lot of work to draft and maintain a platform. If you think LPSF
needs to have its own, I think we should probably start with LPCA’s.
And yeah, LPSF officers should never promote aggression, or say that their
personal preferences are the official position of LPSF!
Please note that LP California no longer has a unique platform. Instead, it is designated that our platform is the national LP platform.
So you may wish to tap the final LP Calif. platform before that change was made, which, if I recall correctly, was in 2022 (or you may find gems that could apply to LPSF in even earlier versions). If you don’t see it archived somewhere on Ca.LP.org, check LPedia.org.
This e-message and any attachments are the property of Elizabeth C. Brierly. It is intended only for the correct addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message and destroy any copies. You are prohibited from copying, distributing, or disclosing this message or its contents to any other person or entity. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.
From: jeff via LPSF Forum [mailto:noreply@forum.lpsf.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 3:17 PM
To: elizabethb@brierly.org
Subject: Re: [LPSF Forum] [Discussion] Bylaws proposal
<https://forum.lpsf.org/user_avatar/forum.lpsf.org/jeff/45/532_2.png>
<https://forum.lpsf.org/u/jeff> jeff
March 22
I haven’t noticed so much disagreement <https://forum.lpsf.org/images/emoji/apple/sweat_smile.png?v=12>
Libertarians prefer to localize policy making as much as possible. Imagine how much worse a federal ban on sugar / hate speech / drag queens would be than a neighborhood ban! If you localize the policy enough - preferably to the individual - then it’s unanimous and consensual, and enforcing it is not aggression at all.
Accordingly, libertarians will disagree more when discussing hyper local policies, or federal policies that are difficult to localize.
Anyway, on to your suggestion.
Are you proposing that we have a platform and pass a bylaw to ensure LPSF reps stick to it? I’m not sure if LPSF has its own platform. I think we might have had one, but scrapped it in favor of the LPCA platform instead? Starchild would know!
The <https://lpedia.org/wiki/Document:California_Platform_2021> platform of LP California is an excellent document of applied libertarianism. It took radical principled positions on issues, including ones especially relevant to Californians and controversial ones not covered by the national platform.
It’s a lot of work to draft and maintain a platform. If you think LPSF needs to have its own, I think we should probably start with LPCA’s.
And yeah, LPSF officers should never promote aggression, or say that their personal preferences are the official position of LPSF!
_____
<https://forum.lpsf.org/t/bylaws-proposal/22272/2> Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.
</details>
Platforms also don’t justify their planks from any particular principles.
That’s the case for most parties, but they don’t call us the Party of Principle for nothing! I think most of the planks in the LPCA platform try to say how they derive from NAP, without being redundant.
The plank on insurance might need some work, but generally, libertarians oppose government mandates on anything, including insurance, because enforcing the mandates requires aggression, and there are voluntary alternatives. You could argue that private roads would all require automobile insurance for access, but I would disagree that this justifies government mandates.
If government has a monopoly on roads, and mismanages them so they are dangerous, it’s bad to solve this problem by further increasing government power. We should always look to solve problems at their root by reducing the scale and scope of power.
Thank you for inquiring about this! I’ve been having my own issues getting emails from the list, and not only did I not see your message, but I also didn’t see Jeff’s message to which you were responding, nor, I think, whatever message he was responding to, which doesn’t appear in the thread below.
So Jeff, whatever you’ve done to fix my email access apparently hasn’t worked, and others are having issues as well. What do you think can be done so this won’t continue to be an issue?
Hey, by any chance do you remember seeing my missive, below, sent on 3/23 to the LPSF list?
I feel like it hasn’t come through yet, and it’s been four days. Unsure how long the moderator does or should take to approve messages. (I was pretty sure I was successfully approved to join the group.)
Please note that LP California no longer has a unique platform. Instead, it is designated that our platform is the national LP platform.
So you may wish to tap the final LP Calif. platform before that change was made, which, if I recall correctly, was in 2022 (or you may find gems that could apply to LPSF in even earlier versions). If you don’t see it archived somewhere on Ca.LP.orghttp://ca.lp.org/, check LPedia.orghttp://lpedia.org/.
This e-message and any attachments are the property of Elizabeth C. Brierly. It is intended only for the correct addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message and destroy any copies. You are prohibited from copying, distributing, or disclosing this message or its contents to any other person or entity. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.
From: jeff via LPSF Forum [mailto:noreply@forum.lpsf.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 3:17 PM
To: elizabethb@brierly.org <mailto:elizabethb@brierly.org>
Subject: Re: [LPSF Forum] [Discussion] Bylaws proposal
jeff <https://forum.lpsf.org/u/jeff>
March 22
I haven’t noticed so much disagreement
Libertarians prefer to localize policy making as much as possible. Imagine how much worse a federal ban on sugar / hate speech / drag queens would be than a neighborhood ban! If you localize the policy enough - preferably to the individual - then it’s unanimous and consensual, and enforcing it is not aggression at all.
Accordingly, libertarians will disagree more when discussing hyper local policies, or federal policies that are difficult to localize.
Anyway, on to your suggestion.
Are you proposing that we have a platform and pass a bylaw to ensure LPSF reps stick to it? I’m not sure if LPSF has its own platform. I think we might have had one, but scrapped it in favor of the LPCA platform instead? Starchild would know!
The platform of LP California <https://lpedia.org/wiki/Document:California_Platform_2021> is an excellent document of applied libertarianism. It took radical principled positions on issues, including ones especially relevant to Californians and controversial ones not covered by the national platform.
It’s a lot of work to draft and maintain a platform. If you think LPSF needs to have its own, I think we should probably start with LPCA’s.
And yeah, LPSF officers should never promote aggression, or say that their personal preferences are the official position of LPSF!
Visit Topic <https://forum.lpsf.org/t/bylaws-proposal/22272/2> or reply to this email to respond.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.
I can see that most subscribers - myself included - received
Elizabeth’s post.
Starchild, forum messages to your email are still bouncing!
···
On 27 Mar 2025, at 21:50, Starchild wrote:
Hi Elizabeth,
Thank you for inquiring about this! I’ve been having my own
issues getting emails from the list, and not only did I not see your
message, but I also didn’t see Jeff’s message to which you were
responding, nor, I think, whatever message he was responding to, which
doesn’t appear in the thread below.
So Jeff, whatever you’ve done to fix my email access apparently
hasn’t worked, and others are having issues as well. What do you
think can be done so this won’t continue to be an issue?
Hey, by any chance do you remember seeing my missive, below, sent on
3/23 to the LPSF list?
I feel like it hasn’t come through yet, and it’s been four days.
Unsure how long the moderator does or should take to approve
messages. (I was pretty sure I was successfully approved to join the
group.)
Please note that LP California no longer has a unique platform.
Instead, it is designated that our platform is the national LP
platform.
So you may wish to tap the final LP Calif. platform before that
change was made, which, if I recall correctly, was in 2022 (or you
may find gems that could apply to LPSF in even earlier versions). If
you don’t see it archived somewhere on Ca.LP.org http://ca.lp.org/ , check LPedia.orghttp://lpedia.org/ .
This e-message and any attachments are the property of Elizabeth C.
Brierly. It is intended only for the correct addressee(s) and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this
message and destroy any copies. You are prohibited from copying,
distributing, or disclosing this message or its contents to any other
person or entity. Any dissemination or use of this information by a
person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be
illegal.
From: jeff via LPSF Forum [mailto:noreply@forum.lpsf.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 3:17 PM
To: elizabethb@brierly.org <mailto:elizabethb@brierly.org>
Subject: Re: [LPSF Forum] [Discussion] Bylaws proposal
jeff <https://forum.lpsf.org/u/jeff>
March 22
I haven’t noticed so much disagreement
Libertarians prefer to localize policy making as much as possible.
Imagine how much worse a federal ban on sugar / hate speech / drag
queens would be than a neighborhood ban! If you localize the policy
enough - preferably to the individual - then it’s unanimous and
consensual, and enforcing it is not aggression at all.
Accordingly, libertarians will disagree more when discussing hyper
local policies, or federal policies that are difficult to localize.
Anyway, on to your suggestion.
Are you proposing that we have a platform and pass a bylaw to ensure
LPSF reps stick to it? I’m not sure if LPSF has its own platform. I
think we might have had one, but scrapped it in favor of the LPCA
platform instead? Starchild would know!
The platform of LP California
<https://lpedia.org/wiki/Document:California_Platform_2021> is an
excellent document of applied libertarianism. It took radical
principled positions on issues, including ones especially relevant to
Californians and controversial ones not covered by the national
platform.
It’s a lot of work to draft and maintain a platform. If you think
LPSF needs to have its own, I think we should probably start with
LPCA’s.
And yeah, LPSF officers should never promote aggression, or say that
their personal preferences are the official position of LPSF!
I don’t know why messages to my email would be bouncing. Elizabeth said she hadn’t seen her post come through either. Do you think you can fix this, or do we need to communicate with tech support for the Forum platform, or what do you propose doing?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
···
On Mar 27, 2025, at 11:52 PM, Jeffrey Yunes jeff@yunes.us wrote:
I can see that most subscribers - myself included - received Elizabeth’s post.
Starchild, forum messages to your email are still bouncing!
On 27 Mar 2025, at 21:50, Starchild wrote:
Hi Elizabeth,
Thank you for inquiring about this! I’ve been having my own issues getting emails from the list, and not only did I not see your message, but I also didn’t see Jeff’s message to which you were responding, nor, I think, whatever message he was responding to, which doesn’t appear in the thread below.
So Jeff, whatever you’ve done to fix my email access apparently hasn’t worked, and others are having issues as well. What do you think can be done so this won’t continue to be an issue?
Hey, by any chance do you remember seeing my missive, below, sent on 3/23 to the LPSF list?
I feel like it hasn’t come through yet, and it’s been four days. Unsure how long the moderator does or should take to approve messages. (I was pretty sure I was successfully approved to join the group.)
Please note that LP California no longer has a unique platform. Instead, it is designated that our platform is the national LP platform.
So you may wish to tap the final LP Calif. platform before that change was made, which, if I recall correctly, was in 2022 (or you may find gems that could apply to LPSF in even earlier versions). If you don’t see it archived somewhere on Ca.LP.orghttp://ca.lp.org/, check LPedia.orghttp://lpedia.org/.
This e-message and any attachments are the property of Elizabeth C. Brierly. It is intended only for the correct addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message and destroy any copies. You are prohibited from copying, distributing, or disclosing this message or its contents to any other person or entity. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.
From: jeff via LPSF Forum [mailto:noreply@forum.lpsf.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 3:17 PM
To: elizabethb@brierly.org <mailto:elizabethb@brierly.org>
Subject: Re: [LPSF Forum] [Discussion] Bylaws proposal
jeff <https://forum.lpsf.org/u/jeff>
March 22
I haven’t noticed so much disagreement
Libertarians prefer to localize policy making as much as possible. Imagine how much worse a federal ban on sugar / hate speech / drag queens would be than a neighborhood ban! If you localize the policy enough - preferably to the individual - then it’s unanimous and consensual, and enforcing it is not aggression at all.
Accordingly, libertarians will disagree more when discussing hyper local policies, or federal policies that are difficult to localize.
Anyway, on to your suggestion.
Are you proposing that we have a platform and pass a bylaw to ensure LPSF reps stick to it? I’m not sure if LPSF has its own platform. I think we might have had one, but scrapped it in favor of the LPCA platform instead? Starchild would know!
The platform of LP California <https://lpedia.org/wiki/Document:California_Platform_2021> is an excellent document of applied libertarianism. It took radical principled positions on issues, including ones especially relevant to Californians and controversial ones not covered by the national platform.
It’s a lot of work to draft and maintain a platform. If you think LPSF needs to have its own, I think we should probably start with LPCA’s.
And yeah, LPSF officers should never promote aggression, or say that their personal preferences are the official position of LPSF!
Visit Topic <https://forum.lpsf.org/t/bylaws-proposal/22272/2> or reply to this email to respond.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.
Since Taxation is Aggression ( aside from slavery & theft ), pretty much every govt scheme/scam program gets indicted under such a policy. Instead of whining ad nauseam about Problems Libertarians oppose, how about a Public Initiative that touts Common Sense Libertarian Solutions & Strategies?
The entire “dragster” cult hysteria is dubious — with grown men going around anonymously with grotesque amounts of creepy bizarro horrific makeup — completely concealing their true identities ( perhaps because many are peadophiles & sex offenders or other felons who cannot find other opportunities & makes it even more creepy why they aim to work in #govtschools exposing themselves to young children against the wishes of Parents/Families … ) — & never revealing their actual names in public or online ( unlike every other comic actor entertainer ) — aren’t the types of characters I care to defend or support — especially when they are obsessed with crude insulting over-sexualized juvenile caricatures which demean misrepresent lampoon all Women & Girls which would insult anyone who loves their own Mother or has Biologically Female Friends ( BFFs ).
