Denver

On a brighter note, I talked with Ernest Hancock yesterday, and he
promises an energetic campaign for national chair. He has secured a
vendor table at the convention in what he said looks to be a high-
traffic location, as well as a hospitality suite for Saturday night.
He's currently working on an ad which will run in the next several
issues of LP News. Ernest supports the Five Key Values of the
Grassroots Libertarians Caucus (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
grassrootslibertarians/ ) and says a central theme of his campaign
will be emphasizing the broad interests of liberty rather than the
narrower interests of the LP.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

  Agreed about Ron Paul versus Wayne Allyn Root, although I'm not even
sure I'd want Root as an LP Senate candidate. But after the Paul
phenomenon, having *another* anti-freedom-of-movement libertarian
candidate for president could fatally tip the balance within the
movement on this issue, making it the first major issue on which our
collective stance was generally at odds with the Non-Aggression
Principle, and doing great harm to our ability to promote
libertarianism as a consistent set of beliefs derived from the idea
that people have the right to do what they want so long as it does
not involve initiating force against others.

  Unfortunately I was really disappointed with Steve Kubby's debate
performance. He read from his notes, and the material wasn't even
that detailed or complicated. He was on the defensive, and did not
appear very dynamic. He said he was getting over the flu, but even
so. I like Steve, and would still be inclined to vote for him if the
field doesn't change, but coming on the heels of my previous concerns
about his candidacy, at this point I'm desperate for a stronger
contender. Mary Ruwart (see http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/
mary-ruwart.html ) could be that candidate if enough people encourage
her to get into the race. I was one of the two delegates who wrote in
her name.

      ((( starchild )))

Having forwarded Tom Knapp’s hit piece yesterday, I should also
forward
Root’s response, <URL:
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/28/root-responds-to-knapps-
attack/ >.

I have to say I’m not impressed — by either one. Root asserts a
number
of factual errors and basic misunderstandings of Knapp’s, but he
does so
in a rather petty, unpresidential way. (Knapp responds further in
the
comments on that blog. Actually, the comments are in general worth
reading, as they form a long and detailed example of most of what is
wrong with the LP.)

I had a longish conversation with Scott Lieberman in the San Diego
airport after the convention, in which I was able to articulate
some of
my concerns with Root. I wouldn’t mind a newcomer to the LP who was
filled with the freedom spirit; I do mind a newcomer who had
significantly un-Libertarian positions until he started trying to get
our nomination. Yes, he may have actually educated himself and
genuinely changed his opinions, and may continue to become more
Libertarian. But I would rather he spend the next four years using
his
charisma and media contacts to build the party, maybe running for
Senate
as a Libertarian in Nevada, before asking to be our presidential
candidate. In many ways, I would rather have Ron Paul as our
candidate,
since at least his flaws are known and consistent. But I would
rather
have someone with known Libertarian positions who can learn to be a
better candidate; Phillies is an example of how speaking style and
presentation can grow by leaps and bounds, notwithstanding my few
small
disagreements with him on policy.

~Chris

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:lpsf-activists-digest@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:lpsf-activists-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> 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/

What's that supposed to mean?

More Pyhrric campaigns for Republican conservatives?

For all the talk about "emphasizing the broad interests of liberty," I haven't seen any broad-based outreach to progressives on issues we agree about. I haven't seen any principled approach to the rights of asylum seekers, lesbigay folk, drug users, etc.

It's a top-down approach -- either embrace Ron Paul, with all of his numerous flaws -- or be "cast out of the liberty movement." That's a very collectivist approach.

Let's face it -- the Ron Paul candidacy was a big steaming pile of failure. To propose it as a model for a so-called "movement that goes beyond the LP" is just plan nonsense.

Further, as an officer in the LP, Mr. Hancock would have a fiduciary duty to do what's right for the LP first and foremost. If his plan is to liquidate the LP or take actions that undermine the LP to the benefit of far-right-wing Republicans, then he by necessity cannot ethically take a position in the Libertarian executive. The chair of the Libertarian National Committee first and foremost has a fiduciary duty to the party, there's no escaping that. It's standard organizational ethics.

Cheers,

Brian

Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote: a central theme of his campaign
will be emphasizing the broad interests of liberty rather than the
narrower interests of the LP.

Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))

As noted, Ernest Hancock has embraced the agenda of the Grassroots
Libertarians Caucus (his exact words were "I'm very cool with all of
the 5 points"), which includes the following:

POLITICALLY BALANCED. We see a party which has become too
conservative in both style and substance. We seek to restore a
balanced approach to Libertarian Party policy-making and outreach
that strives to appeal to the political left as much as to the
political right and emphasizes personal liberty no less than economic
liberty.

  and:

RADICAL AND PROUD. We see a party that has become too ashamed of its
own ideals, a place where "idealist" is too often treated as a dirty
word. We seek a party in which Libertarians proudly share a sense of
solidarity as radical freedom fighters in a larger movement committed
to the vision of worldwide individual liberty expressed in the
Preamble and Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party's
national platform.

  If there are other candidates for national chair who strongly
support these positions, I have yet to hear about them. Why don't you
propose some broad-based outreach to "progressives" and see who among
the current or potential LP leadership is open to it?

  Where do you get this talk of people being "cast out of the liberty
movement" for not embracing Ron Paul? Not from Ernest Hancock. If
anyone's LP credentials are being unfairly questioned, it's the
Libertarians who've supported Ron Paul. Do you really believe the
interests of the LP and the interests of the libertarian movement are
always and will always be the same? I wish that were true, but
unfortunately the ideological grounding of our party cannot always be
taken for granted these days. "Fiduciary duty" is one of those terms
that boil down to "put your institutional loyalty ahead of your
principles." I reject such thinking. If I have to choose between the
interests of liberty and fiduciary duty, I hope I choose the former
every time. If Libertarians have come to value institutional loyalty
and "standard organizational ethics" over liberty, we are in big
trouble. Were the LNC to go on record as opposing equal rights for
gays, I would want a chair unafraid to buck the committee by refusing
to endorse such a stance, and I think that's the kind of chair Ernest
Hancock would be.

  As to Hancock's campaign theme, the term "libertarian movement" far
precedes Ron Paul's current run for president, and while he and I and
many others believe the interests of liberty include that campaign,
they also go way beyond it and could just as easily apply to a
libertarian-minded Democrat seeking public office. Samuel Konkin used
the term "partyarchs" to refer to short-sighted Libertarians for whom
it was all about the LP, and thus all about getting people elected,
not about educating the public or otherwise spreading liberty. That's
the kind of thinking that has undermined radicalism in this party and
resulted in the trashing of the national platform. We need leaders
committed to the ideas, not the institution.

  As to the Ron Paul campaign itself, of course you are correct. No
question it was a "steaming pile of failure," just like Alexander the
Great. After all, Alexander failed to conquer India, whereas the
Mongols and the British succeeded. Just as everyone today remembers
Alexander as a monumental failure, so will they remember Ron Paul.
Furthermore we all know that "winning," not spreading the libertarian
message, is how success must be measured. If only Paul had possessed
the common sense and will to victory to go after conservative
Republican primary voters by advocating for gay marriage and open
borders, he would be the GOP nominee. And black is white, up is down,
etc.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

What's that supposed to mean?

More Pyhrric campaigns for Republican conservatives?

For all the talk about "emphasizing the broad interests of
liberty," I haven't seen any broad-based outreach to progressives
on issues we agree about. I haven't seen any principled approach
to the rights of asylum seekers, lesbigay folk, drug users, etc.

It's a top-down approach -- either embrace Ron Paul, with all of
his numerous flaws -- or be "cast out of the liberty movement."
That's a very collectivist approach.

Let's face it -- the Ron Paul candidacy was a big steaming pile of
failure. To propose it as a model for a so-called "movement that
goes beyond the LP" is just plan nonsense.

Further, as an officer in the LP, Mr. Hancock would have a
fiduciary duty to do what's right for the LP first and foremost.
If his plan is to liquidate the LP or take actions that undermine
the LP to the benefit of far-right-wing Republicans, then he by
necessity cannot ethically take a position in the Libertarian
executive. The chair of the Libertarian National Committee first
and foremost has a fiduciary duty to the party, there's no escaping
that. It's standard organizational ethics.

Cheers,

Brian

  a central theme of his campaign
will be emphasizing the broad interests of liberty rather than the
narrower interests of the LP.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

> Agreed about Ron Paul versus Wayne Allyn Root, although I'm not even
> sure I'd want Root as an LP Senate candidate. But after the Paul
> phenomenon, having *another* anti-freedom-of-movement libertarian
> candidate for president could fatally tip the balance within the
> movement on this issue, making it the first major issue on which our
> collective stance was generally at odds with the Non-Aggression
> Principle, and doing great harm to our ability to promote
> libertarianism as a consistent set of beliefs derived from the idea
> that people have the right to do what they want so long as it does
> not involve initiating force against others.
>
> Unfortunately I was really disappointed with Steve Kubby's debate
> performance. He read from his notes, and the material wasn't even
> that detailed or complicated. He was on the defensive, and did not
> appear very dynamic. He said he was getting over the flu, but even
> so. I like Steve, and would still be inclined to vote for him if the
> field doesn't change, but coming on the heels of my previous
concerns
> about his candidacy, at this point I'm desperate for a stronger
> contender. Mary Ruwart (see http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/
> mary-ruwart.html ) could be that candidate if enough people
encourage
> her to get into the race. I was one of the two delegates who
wrote in
> her name.
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
>
>
>> Having forwarded Tom Knapp’s hit piece yesterday, I should also
>> forward
>> Root’s response,
>> http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/28/root-responds-to-knapps-
>> attack/ >.
>>
>> I have to say I’m not impressed — by either one. Root asserts a
>> number
>> of factual errors and basic misunderstandings of Knapp’s, but he
>> does so
>> in a rather petty, unpresidential way. (Knapp responds further in
>> the
>> comments on that blog. Actually, the comments are in general worth
>> reading, as they form a long and detailed example of most of
what is
>> wrong with the LP.)
>>
>> I had a longish conversation with Scott Lieberman in the San Diego
>> airport after the convention, in which I was able to articulate
>> some of
>> my concerns with Root. I wouldn’t mind a newcomer to the LP who was
>> filled with the freedom spirit; I do mind a newcomer who had
>> significantly un-Libertarian positions until he started trying
to get
>> our nomination. Yes, he may have actually educated himself and
>> genuinely changed his opinions, and may continue to become more
>> Libertarian. But I would rather he spend the next four years using
>> his
>> charisma and media contacts to build the party, maybe running for
>> Senate
>> as a Libertarian in Nevada, before asking to be our presidential
>> candidate. In many ways, I would rather have Ron Paul as our
>> candidate,
>> since at least his flaws are known and consistent. But I would
>> rather
>> have someone with known Libertarian positions who can learn to be a
>> better candidate; Phillies is an example of how speaking style and
>> presentation can grow by leaps and bounds, notwithstanding my few
>> small
>> disagreements with him on policy.
>>
>> ~Chris
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:lpsf-activists-digest@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:lpsf-activists-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> 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/