corruption and the nature of political parties

When I joined LPSF, did any of that money go to national?

I fully agree with Geoff on local action for local issues. But he shocked me with this:

Geoffrey Neale said:

Many people give far more than $25 per year, and they are the ones we listen
to most diligently - it's called the free market.

This is clearly not action based on principle, and I refuse to support it. I want to buy full-spectrum balanced Libertarianism, and they are selling something else. I will not subjugate my power (funds) to those who use it improperly. If national were to act on principle, I would fund them. But Geoff will get what he deserves, if he wants to pander to special interests. It's sad to see a party die (or stagnate) because of the bad leadership of a few.

Why do I keep getting the eerie feeling that the Libertarian party is heavily infiltrated with shills attempting to destroy us? Our leaders don't even get it, don't even meet the basic prerequisites. How the hell did they become our leaders? Hell, if they only care about membership, why don't they just become republican? Then they can get 50% of America on their side.

I think the best strategy I can take from here is to keep pushing the principles, but to avoid putting trust in just anyone who calls themself "Libertarian", and I cannot fund the party until and unless it's clean and trustworthy.

So PLEASE tell me that funding LPSF does not fund national.

-Mike

Sorry, Mike.

They're supposed to keep 7 of the 25 for national, and send 18 to
California, with part of that filtering down to San Francisco. But
they're several months behind on sending the payments to us.

Rob

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

Hello friends:

This information is shocking and confusing to me. In part, because it is something that I was not aware of. Please someone explain the corruption that sounds inherent in the, is it the National Party? I joined the LPSF and registered as Liberatarian in part because I hoped that since it is not involved with the Democrats or Republicans and as such I hoped for a corruption-free zone in which to exist politically. It sounds rather naive now, does it not?

I am greatly disturbed by this revelation.
Leilani

Rob Power <robpower@...> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sorry, Mike.

They're supposed to keep 7 of the 25 for national, and send 18 to
California, with part of that filtering down to San Francisco. But
they're several months behind on sending the payments to us.

Rob

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

Leilani,

What we are upset about is that the National party is willing to slant the libertarian message in order to draw in more members, and further, that they slant it in the direction of whoever pays them the most. Right now, they appear to be republican.

So... we were fooling ourselves thinking that there is a party of principle. There are only people of principle. And the party contains some people who don't keep to the full balanced principles. And those people are drawing in even more people who don't agree with the full balanced principles. Dilution.

The party is a business. The leaders have every right to do this. Government officials don't, but business people are private and do. But as customers, we don't have to buy their product.

That being said, the LPSF (or members thereof) can keep doing what it's doing, start giving minimal support to national, and work towards getting new blood.

-Mike

Leilani Wright wrote:

Mike - I have to step in and call you on this one. If
I had read this before we went out petitioning earlier
I would of brought it up then.

First of all, I don't see anywhere in these emails
from our national heads or on the lp.org website that
Libertarian core values are somehow being violated. I
agree that there are obvious omissions and slant in
certain areas, but I don't see how principles and core
values are somehow conflicted and corrupted. Do you
have examples of this?

Secondly, any ideology based organization ,no matter
how hard they try to the contrary, is going to end up
with a standard deviation/bell curve of its member's
convictions. I don't see how the LP - party of
principle or not - is going to somehow revoke this law
of humanity. We have both new members in the party in
for only a week and some that have been around for 30
years, so I doubt all us have managed to unlearn their
20+ years of public education and conventional wisdom
to the same degree. By the way, wasn't harmonization
of the populace (and fear of catholicism) the
instigation behind having a standard public education
in the first place?

So why is it suddenly that 1 or 2 'errant' emails from
lp.org and everyone is up in arms? Has the LPSF turned
into some authority as to what being Libertarian is?
To me this sounds like the power behind the Taliban
(albeit no AK's) or any other fundamentalist sect for
that matter.
I do think we could agree based on current trends that
the LPSF does not represent the 'top of the bell
curve' of all U.S. Libertarians so I suspect
suggestions by us for forced(or managed) diversity for
the party's sake will fall on deaf ears. Is it even
libertarian to expect such measures?

And what about the value of tolerance of ideas in all
this? For example, last night at the DAF I witnessed a
whole hoard of my LP peers have a go at the invited
guest because he was unclear on his stance over
imminent domain. What was the purpose of that!?
He was obviously backed into a corner but recovered
nicely by stating he would need to study the issue
before taking a stand. And that wasn't the first time
I've seen that. It happened with Fazio as well and at
a couple of chats where we had visitors. hmmm..

And thirdly, I seem to remember an email you sent out
after the W. Block event denouncing absolutism and
Randianism in the party. This situation seems to be in
conflict with that IMHO, but we can discuss this
offline.

Also, I hope you don't view this as a personal attack
or that this is just about you specifically, because
it's definitely not. I'm just become a little
frustrated with this whole affair, but I'm not upset.

Best Regards,
David
--- Mike Dilger <mike@...> wrote:

Leilani,

What we are upset about is that the National party
is willing to slant
the libertarian message in order to draw in more
members, and further,
that they slant it in the direction of whoever pays
them the most.
Right now, they appear to be republican.

So... we were fooling ourselves thinking that there
is a party of
principle. There are only people of principle. And
the party contains
some people who don't keep to the full balanced
principles. And those
people are drawing in even more people who don't
agree with the full
balanced principles. Dilution.

The party is a business. The leaders have every
right to do this.
Government officials don't, but business people are
private and do. But
as customers, we don't have to buy their product.

That being said, the LPSF (or members thereof) can
keep doing what it's
doing, start giving minimal support to national, and
work towards
getting new blood.

<snip>

David Rhodes wrote:

Mike - I have to step in and call you on this one. If
I had read this before we went out petitioning earlier
I would of brought it up then.

First of all, I don't see anywhere in these emails
from our national heads or on the lp.org website that
Libertarian core values are somehow being violated. I
agree that there are obvious omissions and slant in
certain areas, but I don't see how principles and core
values are somehow conflicted and corrupted. Do you
have examples of this?

I don't think core values are being violated (in the sense of crimes). I'm not terribly upset about a potentially innocent slant of the marketing either. But I don't like the notion of our party selling out. Just for clarity, my objection was just to this (which I hope was simply mis-spoken):
Geoffrey Neale said:
    > Many people give far more than $25 per year, and they are the ones
    > we listen to most diligently - it's called the free market.

If he really means that, then what is to stop Republicans from buying our party? Of course a true Libertarian would say "nothing, as it should be." But a true Libertarian would also seperate and start a new party that had the old values.

Secondly, any ideology based organization ,no matter
how hard they try to the contrary, is going to end up
with a standard deviation/bell curve of its member's
convictions. I don't see how the LP - party of
principle or not - is going to somehow revoke this law
of humanity.

I learn from generalizations like this, statistical statements, etc. But I don't let it rule the minutia of the day. For that, I have to use my clear and present conscious. So while you may be right, this viewpoint is irrelevant to me.

We have both new members in the party in
for only a week and some that have been around for 30
years, so I doubt all us have managed to unlearn their
20+ years of public education and conventional wisdom
to the same degree. By the way, wasn't harmonization
of the populace (and fear of catholicism) the
instigation behind having a standard public education
in the first place?

So why is it suddenly that 1 or 2 'errant' emails from
lp.org and everyone is up in arms?

I may have overreacted, but I still feel my stance is valid.

Has the LPSF turned
into some authority as to what being Libertarian is?

"Authority." :slight_smile: I am an authority over where I put my money. So yes.

To me this sounds like the power behind the Taliban
(albeit no AK's) or any other fundamentalist sect for
that matter.

Except that we all respect each other.

I do think we could agree based on current trends that
the LPSF does not represent the 'top of the bell
curve' of all U.S. Libertarians so I suspect
suggestions by us for forced(or managed) diversity for
the party's sake will fall on deaf ears.

Probably so. But you must operate from your own center. When you step outside to see the whole situation, and your motivations for yourself fail, you get dragged along to where you didn't want to go.

Other people are fighting for a more conservative website. We have to keep our end of the rope taught. I fully admit that maybe our best approach at doing that is to be nice to National.

Is it even
libertarian to expect such measures?

Expectation has nothing to do with Libertarianism AFAIK. But I do have a seperate philosophy on expectation, if you care to hear it.

And what about the value of tolerance of ideas in all
this? For example, last night at the DAF I witnessed a
whole hoard of my LP peers have a go at the invited
guest because he was unclear on his stance over
imminent domain. What was the purpose of that!?

I agree with you here. I think our comrades were trying to get something in exchange for helping the man. That makes some sense. But we ask for too much too fast.

He was obviously backed into a corner but recovered
nicely by stating he would need to study the issue
before taking a stand. And that wasn't the first time
I've seen that. It happened with Fazio as well and at
a couple of chats where we had visitors. hmmm..

And thirdly, I seem to remember an email you sent out
after the W. Block event denouncing absolutism and
Randianism in the party. This situation seems to be in
conflict with that IMHO, but we can discuss this
offline.

I want to understand the connection you are getting at here. I don't quite follow. I think you are saying that my viewpoint about National is some form of absolutism, is direspectful of other people's viewpoints. I don't think that stating my viewpoint disrespects anyone elses, nor does it presuppose my righteousness. I could be wrong. But I don't believe that I am. If I believed I was wrong, I wouldn't have spoken.

Also, I hope you don't view this as a personal attack
or that this is just about you specifically, because
it's definitely not. I'm just become a little
frustrated with this whole affair, but I'm not upset.

Not at all! I relish being challenged. Seriously. What I love more than anything else in life is gaining wisdom and resolve. And being challenged is the most wonderful way for me to get what I want.

Cheers!

-Mike