If you're in general agreement with the Five Key Values listed below, let me know, and I'll send you an invite. That goes for anyone who wishes to join who isn't already associated with another faction that represents different values.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild,
How do I join?
Best, Michael
From: Starchild
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 7:17 PM
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Grassroots Libertarians CaucusHi Marcy,
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it here -- it has around 40 members now, including some folks on this list. Here's the scoop:
We are a group of activists within the Libertarian Party of the United States, part of the global libertarian movement. Our caucus, founded in September 2005, exists to promote the following five key values for our party:
(I) BOTTOM-UP, NOT TOP-DOWN. We see a party that too often takes after the establishment parties and corporations rather than manifesting itself as a grassroots organization with revolutionary goals. We seek a decentralized Libertarian Party run by its members and activists rather than by a centralized clique of corporate-oriented professionals.
(II) 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.
(III) FUN, BOLD, AND FREE-SPIRITED. We see a party that has become too staid, timid, boring, and unimaginative. We seek a culture within the Libertarian Party that is bolder, more irreverent, more free-spirited, more creative, and more fun-loving.
(IV) 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.
(V) YOUTH-FOCUSED. We see a party that is largely failing to connect with young people. We seek a Libertarian Party whose style, structure, culture, and materials speak first and foremost to the younger generations who will hold the future in their hands.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>Hi Starchild,
You have brought up a new subject: drop in membership. And yes, I
would agree with some (not all) of the reasons you give.Have you told us about your Grassroots Caucus. Sounds interesting.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
wrote:
>
> Marcy,
>
> Thanks. I'm all for reform. That's why I started the
Grassroots
> Libertarians Caucus. But "reform" implies moving in a positive
> direction. I don't believe what the "ReformTheLP" people are
proposing
> would take us in a positive direction, therefore I don't think it
> should be called reform, and am glad to see you using the term in
> quotes.
>
> They claim ideology is holding the Libertarian Party back,
but they
> have no real evidence for this claim. How is ideology to blame for
> falling membership numbers? Here are a few likelier causes:
>
> - Upending the party's membership system by first planning to
double
> national dues, and then abolishing them entirely, based on a
foolish
> desire to "be like the major parties"
> - An expensive, dysfunctional piece of database/membership software
> - Very little attempt to build a strong connection with younger
voters
> (consequently older activists die or burn out and don't get
replaced)
> - Arrogant, friction-causing leadership in the largest state
affiliate
> (California)
> - A failure by the party to make itself more relevant by waging an
> aggressive post-9/11 campaign in defense of civil liberties (as I
just
> read again somewhere recently, the ACLU has seen a big jump in
> membership over the past few years while ours declined)
>
> Do these problems stem from having an unpopular ideology? No,
just
> from having poor leadership.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
> > Hi Starchild,
> >
> > Good arguments from you also. I find Allen's e-mail food for my
> > thoughts. However, I am not, at this point, agreeing or
disagreeing
> > with him. Also food for thought is reformthelp.org. I was hoping
> > people would check that website out and see that if they stayed
home,
> > they might wake up the day after the National Convention member
of a
> > *very* different LP.
> >
> > My reason for speculating as such are the numbers. Look at the
> > Secretary of State's Report of Registration as of 1/3/06: What I
see
> > are 15,810,412 registered voters in California, of which 83,465 or
> > 0.528% are Libertarians. In San Francisco, the percentage is
0.54%.
> > And, if I recall correctly these numbers show a decline, not an
> > improvement. I do not have numbers for the whole country, but I
> > would wager, they are not too different. So, there might be a
whole
> > lot of Libertarians out there ready for some "reform." The
reason I
> > am going to the National Convention is to cast my little bitty
vote
> > in hopes that if there is a "reform", it won't render the LP
> > unrecognizable.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Marcy,
> > >
> > > I strongly disagree with Allen Hacker's comments. Sure,
> > conservatives
> > > like the members of the xenophobic "Minutemen" group, the
> > Constitution
> > > Party, and the extreme right-wing John Birch Society would
probably
> > > feel more welcome under his proposal. They are more concerned
about
> > > preserving "the country" than about preserving liberty. They are
> > > nationalists, not libertarians. Their way is also a dead-end
road.
> > The
> > > future belongs to globalization and multiculturalism, and any
gains
> > we
> > > could derive from railing against diversity and immigration are
> > > short-term at best.
> > >
> > > Our platform should be based on freedom, not any state
> > document. The
> > > right to put what one wants into one's own body, and the right
to
> > > peacefully cross national borders, are non-negotiable. It is a
sign
> > of
> > > the danger we're in that such a proposal, advanced by prominent
LP
> > > members using such arguments, is being seriously considered.
> > >
> > > By challenging the "cult of the omnipotent state" and
> > defending the
> > > rights of the individual, we *are* taking an anti-state
position.
> > It
> > > does not mean we are necessarily anarchists, though some of us
are
> > and
> > > that's fine too. As Libertarians wisely agreed at Dallas in
1974,
> > we
> > > can cross that bridge of what to do about the last 10% or 5% of
> > > government when we get there. When firefighters are battling an
> > > out-of-control blaze, they do not worry about whether they
should
> > turn
> > > down their hoses lest they be viewed as "anti-fire."
> > >
> > > The fact that Allen is willing to dismiss freedoms I value
> > as "Bad
> > > behavior" tells me a lot about just how tolerant he is, his
desire
> > for
> > > more tolerance in the LP toward Christians notwithstanding. If
you
> > want
> > > to throw away the cause that Libertarians have been fighting for
> > over
> > > the past three decades, by all means follow his advice and vote
for
> > the
> > > misnamed "ReformTheLP" agenda to invite the conservatives to
come
> > in en
> > > masse and take over a party that is already tilting their
direction.
> > >
> > > Or we can stand up for liberty and fight to keep the
> > Libertarian Party
> > > libertarian.
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> > > <<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > > > For those not on the LPCal Peace Caucus list: A good essay by
> > Allen
> > > > Hacker on the state of the Libertarian Party. For those
> > interested in
> > > > more proposed changes that will be brought up in the upcoming
LP
> > > > National Convention you might want to check out the
Libertarian
> > Reform
> > > > Caucus at reformthelp.org.
> > > >
> > > > Marcy
> > > >
> > > > From: Amarcy D. Berry
> > > > To: amarcyb@
> > > > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 9:03 AM
> > > > Subject: Fwd: Re: [LPCalPeace] Fw: Proposed changes to LP
> > National
> > > > Platform
> > > >
> > > > --- In LPCalPeace@yahoogroups.com, Allen Hacker <allen@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Dave,
> > > >
> > > > Mark Selzer forwarded your request to
LPCalPeace@yahoogroups.com
> > I
> > > > consider myself to be one of those you describe, so I'll give
you
> > my
> > > > feedback, with which you may do as you will.
> > > >
> > > > There are millions of people who love the US and the
constitution
> > who
> > > > are either disenfranchised or affiliated with the
AIP/Constitution
> > > > Party despite its religious overtones. They don't like being
in
> > the
> > > > Jesus Party, but they have nowhere else to go. And they hate
to
> > the
> > > > death anybody who hints at trying to tear down the US.
> > > >
> > > > So they hate us.
> > > >
> > > > I was asked (in Texas) to a meeting of the Minutemen, a
> > > > border/property-defense group that we could get a lot of
support
> > > > from, if they didn't think we wanted to erase the country.
They
> > told
> > > > me that the Libertarians are _hated_ in California, that
there are
> > > > huge numbers of people there who automatically mobilize
against
> > > > everything we try to do because they fear us having any
modicum of
> > > > power.
> > > >
> > > > It's not really the moral issues that have them scared. It's
the
> > > > mindless anti-state positions.
> > > >
> > > > I told them that if they'd read the National Platform, they'd
see
> > > > that we have some room for improvement towards the
constitution,
> > but
> > > > that we are not anti-state by our platform. I think that most
> > > > Libertarians don't understand that. Yet consider that we
> > recognize
> > > > that while Man remains imperfect, there is a legitimate need
for
> > > > people to organize for mutual defense of person and property,
and
> > the
> > > > state is one whay to do that, given that's all it does.
> > > >
> > > > I know that the 2004 CA Convention pretends to have deleted
the
> > first
> > > > half of it in a misguided attempt to mainstream (I voted NO!),
> > but if
> > > > you look at the first line of the LP (National) Statement of
> > > > Principles, all is revealed: 'We the members of the
Libertarian
> > Party
> > > > challenge the cult of the omnipotent state, and defend the
rights
> > of
> > > > the individual.' (Note that this statement can't be altered
or
> > > > deleted by a state or county per National's affiliation
> > requirements!)
> > > >
> > > > That one line tells you everything you need to know about
> > > > Libertarianism, what the LP was created to do, and why it is
that
> > we
> > > > are not anarchists despite a vocal minority doing its
damndest to
> > > > convince everyone to the contrary.
> > > >
> > > > We are not here to challenge the state, we are here to
challenge
> > the
> > > > cult-think that says the state is omnipotent.
> > > >
> > > > That one misunderstanding is what causes all of our internal
> > strife
> > > > and makes us look silly and dangerous to the millions of
rational
> > > > reality-based liberty-lovers who stay away from us in droves.
> > > >
> > > > Don't yell at me, that's what they told me. And they were
> > astounded
> > > > when I told them it's not the state but the cult that we are
> > supposed
> > > > to be challenging, and that a lot of us were working to
clarify
> > that.
> > > >
> > > > They also don't like that we, too, have a defacto religion and
> > that
> > > > they are made to feel just as uncomfortable by objectivists
and
> > > > atheists who can't leave them alone about their faith, as are
non-
> > > > Christians made to feel pushed by evangelists for that faith.
> > > >
> > > > We could make great strides if we stayed to the point of our
> > > > (National) Statement of Principles and stopped trying to mis-
> > target
> > > > government as a generality. And stopped allowing our members
to
> > > > misrepresent us as having a defacto religion.
> > > >
> > > > I know, I'll take some flak for that last statement, because
> > > > anarchists don't like to be told they can't do destructive
things,
> > > > but hey, that's life in society with other people, and if they
> > don't
> > > > like it they can go back to living in a cave.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the Minutemen I met with said that they would join
the LP
> > in
> > > > a heartbeat and fight FOR it if they believed what I said was
> > true.
> > > > They can go along with our prohibition-based argument against
the
> > > > drug war (most of them had never listened to it before because
> > they
> > > > had already turned off). They are willing to forego pushing
> > morality
> > > > through legislation in favor of making their churches do their
> > jobs
> > > > and creating private charities to pick up the disaster slack.
> > They
> > > > are willing to let the abortion issue lie so long as no
governemt
> > > > assistance goes into it.
> > > >
> > > > They can do this because they hold one thing so dear that
they are
> > > > willing to kill for it: freedom! None of the other issues
matters
> > > > without freedom, they know this better than we do. But they
> > cannot
> > > > conceive of freedom existing without the US Constitution
properly
> > > > applied to guarantee it. (In the world as it is with people
as
> > they
> > > > are, neither can I!) So they WILL NOT let us succeed at
tearing
> > it
> > > > down.
> > > >
> > > > They want the same thing we do, and in my opinion, they are
more
> > > > rational in their approach to defending it and recovering
what's
> > been
> > > > taken away than we are, as a group.
> > > >
> > > > Think about it:
> > > > - challenge the cult rather than the state;
> > > > - leave religion and morality to the churches and social
> > ostracism;
> > > > - put social assistance into the realm of private charity and
then
> > > > put money where the mouth is.
> > > >
> > > > We can do these things. They can do these things. And if we
> > do....
> > > >
> > > > If we clean up our focus as I've suggested above, and conform
our
> > > > platform to the US Constitution (retaining the standard
> > > > disclaimer, "Governments, so long as they are necessary...."),
> > they
> > > > will adopt our Principle and Platform and join us.
> > > >
> > > > We can enlighten and absorb the AIP/constitution Party, the
> > rational
> > > > middle from both sides of the megaparty, and even the John
Birch
> > > > Society without trading off anything except an irrational
demand
> > for
> > > > everything right now. We could very quickly become the
biggest
> > > > political party in the US, just by showing everyone that
> > responsible
> > > > freedom and mutual respect are our primary values.
> > > >
> > > > Freedom is their primary value, and tolerance they can show,
if
> > > > intolerance against them goes away.
> > > >
> > > > It is true, you know this David, that long-standing
Libertarians
> > have
> > > > shown a lot of religious intolerance. You were standing near
me
> > at
> > > > the 2004 Atlanta LP Convention, at the end of Sheriff Mack's
> > > > speech, "Why as a Christian I must be a Libertarian". The
speech
> > > > showed a brilliant path to recruiting Christians into the
party
> > and
> > > > got a standing ovation. Yet just between the end of the
speech
> > and
> > > > the beginning of the cheering, I heard, and you must have
heard it
> > > > too, a fellow LP Founder standing a couple of rows behind me
> > > > remark, "What the hell was THAT?!"
> > > >
> > > > This needs to stop.
> > > >
> > > > If the LP Platform matched the US Constitution while
reserving the
> > > > intent to go even further toward freedom as plausibility
allows,
> > we
> > > > would be the premier party in the US. The US would
revitalize and
> > > > return to being the beacon and example to the rest of the
world.
> > And
> > > > the world would follow suit.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, we'd have to recognize and live with the rules
from the
> > > > constitution ourselves.
> > > >
> > > > - We'd have to separate religion and party; atheism is a
religion
> > and
> > > > so is objectivism, as they are both world-views and life
> > explanations.
> > > >
> > > > - We'd have to make a distinction between immigration and
illegal
> > > > entry, between immigrants and illegal aliens, so we'd have to
stop
> > > > defending illegals.
> > > >
> > > > - We'd have to stop making our drug position be about use, and
> > focus
> > > > on the prohibition/black-market aspects and on private
> > > > education/rehab solutions.
> > > >
> > > > - We'd have to recognize the value of the US under its
> > constitution
> > > > as the only real breadbasket of Liberty the world has ever
seen,
> > and
> > > > realize that the borders are there for a reason. That reason
is
> > NOT
> > > > to allow Mexican National La Raza racists into our cities to
> > foment
> > > > hatred against us and put forth death sentences against those
of
> > us
> > > > who are mature white men.
> > > >
> > > > - We'd have to reject the diversity crap spewed by the
Marxists
> > as a
> > > > way of dividing us against one another along sexual and ethnic
> > lines,
> > > > and return to meritocracy in choosing our friends and
employees,
> > thus
> > > > giving a single performance standard to everyone.
> > > >
> > > > - We'd have to give up all of our own social-control
structures.
> > > >
> > > > But in return, we'd become the majority that we truly are, and
> > we'd
> > > > win Liberty.
> > > >
> > > > Let's see... Bad behavior...Liberty. Bad behavior...Liberty.
> > > >
> > > > It's an easy choice and no compromise of principle is
required.
> > > >
> > > > Unless, of course, you prefer another 33 years of things
becoming
> > > > exponentially worse while we play Nero on the deck of the
Titanic.
> > > >
> > > > -0-
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Dave Nolan" <dfnolan@>
> > > > >Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:45 PM
> > > > >Subject: Proposed changes to LP National Platform
> > > > >
> > > > >Greetings! In case you are not aware, a group of this year's
> > > > Platform
> > > > >Committee members is proposing to rewrite several portions
of the
> > > > >existing Libertarian Platform to "bring our platform into
full
> > > > >compliance with the Constitution." What this means, in
practical
> > > > >terms, is that wherever our platform places more
restrictions on
> > > > >permissible federal government activity than are imposed by
the
> > > > >Constitution, they propose to eliminate the restrictive
language
> > and
> > > > >replace it with language calling for strict compliance with
the
> > > > >Constitutional provisions. (Their proposal is spelled out in
> > some
> > > > >detail on page 14 of the February, 2006 issue of LP NEWS.
You can
> > > > view
> > > > >it online at http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_938.shtml
> > > > >
> > > > >I have mixed feelings about this. As some of you know, some
40+
> > years
> > > > >ago I was active with the old Liberty Amendment Committee --
a
> > group
> > > > >organized to limit the U.S. government to only those
activitities
> > > > >specified by the Constitution. It's a great idea... as a
starting
> > > > >point. However, the Libertarian Party has deliberately
sought to
> > > > >place even greater restictions on government power, and the
> > changes
> > > > >that are being proposed would move us -- ever so slightly --
away
> > > > from
> > > > >the "pure" libertarian position and slightly closer to
> > > > advocating "big
> > > > >government."
> > > > >
> > > > >Please take a look at the proposal, and give me your
thoughts on
> > this
> > > > >matter. Do you think what's being proposed is a great idea?
An
> > > > >abomination? Somewhere in-between? If you were a member of
the
> > > > >Platform Committee, would you support or oppose these
changes?
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm sending this message to about 25 people who have a long
> > history
> > > > of
> > > > >activism in the LP and the broader libertarian movement. I
will
> > not
> > > > >reveal any individual's response (unless you authorize me to
do
> > so),
> > > > >as at the moment I'm just trying to get a sense of where
people
> > > > stand.
> > > > >
> > > > >I look forward to hearing from you soon!
> > > > >DFN
><image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>