Hi David,
I liked your observation of what would constitute a good ballot
proposal for us Libertarians...in the future. Today, I was hoping
for a vote on what we have (have had for the past couple of months!)
on the table right now.
You said you would vote in favor of any proposal that "Promotes a
large gain in liberty with minimal compromise of Libertarian values.
The primary objective being one directed at creating PR for the LP
and/or provoking controversy and public discussion rather than an
honest attempt to win." Does that mean you are voting in favor of
the proposal now on the table that would move transit riders away
from government owned vehicles into privately owned vehicles (i.e.
private jitney); and would give the LPSF, as a group, a chance to get
in the public eye? I do not see a clear yes or no vote in your words.
Regarding our on-line discussion, I too feel it is great! I just
wish more of us would participate.
Regarding your observation that you "agree with Starchild that the
ground rules seem a bit ambiguous on coming to consensus," I would
like to again say, as I did to Starchild, that since the rules seem
pretty clear to me (i.e., you either vote or you do not vote; you
either vote yes or you vote no), I would leave it up to Starchild (or
any one else) to implement a more sophisticated system. Frankly, I
am wishing more for a system that gets more Activists involved than
one that sets rules for voting; however, if these systems are one and
the same...I am all ears.
Regards,
Marcy
--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, David Rhodes <dfrhodes@y...>
wrote:
Marcy - I would vote for just about any proposition
proposal that meets either of the following criteria-A. Promotes an incremental gain in liberty, however
small that may be yet has a high chance of actually
passing.e.g. - decriminalization of prostitution or pot, fee
reversal of some sort, etc.B. Promotes a large gain in liberty with minimal
compromise of Libertarian values. The primary
objective being one directed at creating PR for the LP
and/or provoking controversy and public discussion
rather than an honest attempt to win.e.g. - curb ownership, anti-rent control motion,
smoking ban reversalIn either case, getting on the ballot is paramount. I
can't stress this enough. We're just wasting our time
otherwise.So in other words, I wouldn't vote for one that
requires a massive effort to pass, highly compromised
on liberty with minimal chance of acquiring the 10,000
odd signatures we need due to high complexity.I also want to say that I think this online discussion
is great, while we still have the time. I don't know
how many times at meetings someone has suggested we
'continue this discussion online' and it never seems
to happen. In addition, I agree with Starchild that
the ground rules seem a bit ambiguous on coming to
consensus. How do we confirm a quorum online for
instance?thanks,
David
--- "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...> wrote:>
>
> Justin,
>
> You wrote: "I had gotten the sense at our last
> meeting that touching
> the medallion system was seen as entirely futile.
> I'm curious why
> that is." As I recall, reason number one was that
> the medallion
> system is way too powerful and entrenched for us to
> bother with (I
> still feel that way). Thus, the alternative was
> proposed of leaving
> the system as is, but providing an alternate system
> of private
> transportation.
>
> I am not suggesting that was the only reason early
> on to put forth
> the "jitney" proposal, instead of a medallion
> proposal. Other
> reasons were the "green" angle, the possibility of
> assisting the
> poorer people who cannot afford cabs, the need to
> encourage mini-mass
> transit (oil, pollution, congestion, etc), the
> possibility of working
> with environmental groups, the possibility of
> getting the Green Party
> on board, avoiding immediate dismissal of our
> proposal by the city
> planning people who are responsible for the smooth
> flow of traffic
> (whether they should be or not is irrelevant here),
> avoiding
> immediate attack from environmentalists who are
> working to get
> polluting vehicles off the road.
>
> But, again, I will go with either proposal at this
> point. BTW, I
> have not seen any votes yet, except Michael
> Edelstein's.
>
> Marcy
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Justin
> Sampson <justin@k...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > You ask "Why did we abandon the idea of taxi
> medallion
> deregulation?"
> > > Someone correct me if I am wrong, but as I
> recall the
> transportation
> > > proposal contained on the list of initiatives
> presented for a
> vote dealt
> > > with curb rights, not medallions.
> >
> > Yeah, they all dealt with variations on leasing,
> selling, or zoning
> > portions of curbs for jitney pick-up and drop-off.
> I wasn't clear on
> > whether "curb rights" referred to that notion
> specifically
> or "encouraging
> > free markets for urban transit" more generally, as
> opposed to
> unrelated
> > issues such as marijuana decriminalization --
> which is what I had
> in mind
> > when I voted for sending "curb rights" to
> committee. At the same
> time I
> > had gotten the sense at our last meeting that
> touching the medallion
> > system was seen as entirely futile. I'm curious
> why that is.
> >
> > Justin
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent
> charitable web site for
> anyone who cares about public education!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
~->
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/