Charity for LPSF consideration

Would we then take the same approach for candidates and ballot
measures? Almost the exact same language could work:

"The Libertarian Party supports market-oriented solutions instead of
government programs to address problems in society. To that end, we
provide the following list of candidates and ballot measures, along
with the names of those LPSF members
who endorse the candidate or ballot measure as a more Libertarian
solution than big-government alternatives."

  This suggests an approach of getting behind anyone who appears to be
more part of the solution than part of the problem, whether others
are better or not. Of course it could be argued that we would then
be derelict in our duty to try to pick the *most* pro-freedom
candidate we can find in each race and recommend him or her as a
group. Perhaps we would also be providing a public service by listing
only the most libertarian-oriented charities?

  Clearly, far more charities than candidates for office in San
Francisco would meet the threshold of being a net part of the
solution. To me this suggests that we should be choosier about which
charities to get behind than we are about candidates, since there are
more worthy applicants from which to choose and our donors' dollars
are limited. But I can also see the argument for a strategy of
listing as many charity groups as possible in order to give people
choices and show the vibrancy and diversity of private sector groups
working for the social good, as well as to win brownie points with
the organizations we list.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

It's the "being choosier" that worries me, since that, in my opinion
will lead to the paralysis of analysis I mentioned earlier. With
Rob's wording and the understanding that we support private solutions
over public ones, I believe we can have a good basis for posting some
charities on our website to help dispel our image as heartless Darwinians.