I don't know. I'm leaping from Starchild's comments.
________________________________
From: Gale Morgan <galemorgan@...>
To: John Bechtol <javlin@...>
Cc: "lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>; LP Platform Discussion <LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com>; "robert.kraus@..." <robert.kraus@...>; Dave Jones <davelibertyjones@...>; Aaron Starr <starrcpa@...>; Joseph Buchman <drbuchman@...>; Roy Minet <Roy.Minet@...>; John Wayne Smith <jwsmith42000@...>; nkleffman . <nkleffman@...>; Dianna Visek <Dianna.Visek@...>; Ann Leech <Ann.Leech@...>; christian padgett <libertychrisny@...>; Tom Rhodes <tomr62262@...>; Henry Haller <hehaller@mac.com>; Travis Nicks <tnicks@...>; "houselynn@..." <houselynn@verizon.net>; Brian Holtz <brian@...>; Andrew LeCureaux <alecureaux@gmail.com>; LP Radical Caucus <lpradicals@yahoogroups.com>; Sarah Bales <sarahrbales@...>; "sam8074@..." <sam8074@...>; Joe Hauptmann <joeh46250@...>; Alicia Mattson <agmattson@...>; Ken Prazek
<libertykenneth@...>; Mark Grannis <mgrannis@...>; Laura Delhomme <lauradelhomme@...>; Rebecca Sink-Burris <rebecca.sinkburris@gmail.com>; John Fockler <John.Fockler@...>; Debbie Schum <smudgesticks@juno.com>; Christopher R. Maden <crism@...>; Grassroots Libertarians Caucus <GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Missing plank in our Platform - Ending Drug ProhibitionJust to be clear, this is the LNC platform. Correct?
--
Gale
Ardently eschew obfuscation!
Cultivate perspicuity!
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard ShawOMG!!! "Glaring oversight" doesn't begin to describe that magnitude of outrageous negligence.
No
platform on the drug war?? Unf'n believable!!!! How is that
possible? The party leadership is junk!! The sooner it is replaced the
better.
Even Ron Paul, the Republican took a stand on that. Is there anyone home in the strategy department?
JohnBechtol707-623-6005
________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: LP Platform Discussion <LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Aaron Starr <starrcpa@...>; Joseph Buchman <drbuchman@...>; Roy Minet <Roy.Minet@...>; John Wayne Smith <jwsmith42000@...>; nkleffman . <nkleffman@...>; Dianna Visek <Dianna.Visek@...>; Ann Leech <Ann.Leech@lpo.org>; christian padgett <libertychrisny@...>; Tom Rhodes <tomr62262@...>; Henry Haller <hehaller@...>; Travis Nicks <tnicks@gmail.com>; houselynn@...; Brian Holtz <brian@...>; Andrew LeCureaux <alecureaux@...>; LP Radical Caucus <lpradicals@yahoogroups.com>; Sarah Bales <sarahrbales@...>; sam8074@...; Joe Hauptmann <joeh46250@...>; Alicia Mattson <agmattson@...>; Ken Prazek <libertykenneth@...>; Mark Grannis <mgrannis@...>; Laura Delhomme <lauradelhomme@...>; Rebecca Sink-Burris <rebecca.sinkburris@...>; John Fockler <John.Fockler@...>; Debbie Schum <smudgesticks@...>; Christopher R. Maden <crism@...>;
Grassroots Libertarians Caucus <GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; LPSF Discussion List <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:31 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Missing plank in our Platform - Ending Drug ProhibitionOne of the most glaring oversights of our post\-2006 Platform is its lack
of a plank on the subject of Drug Prohibition or the "War on Drugs".
I think creating a strong plank on this topic should be a high Platform Committee priority\. The public is moving our way on the issue, and the prohibitionist facade is cracking\.Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Aaron,
I can't help noting the similarity between the four values you want to pursue, and some of what was being promoted by the 2008 Platform Committee survey you forwarded\! :\-\) Nevertheless, your acknowledgment of the different approaches favored by different committee members is well taken\. For better or for worse you are probably right that we won't reach any broad consensus on direction, and it therefore seems likely that there will be differing views on most if not all of the individual planks that get put forward as well\. For this reason, we should probably expect and plan for having both majority and minority reports to be presented on most if not all plank proposals, and ensure that this be done in a manner that fairly reflects various perspectives and allows them to be heard by delegates\. While I recognize it is impossible as a practical matter to prevent any two or more committee members who may get together or talk to each other via phone, email, or whatever from discussing and working on Platform proposals on their
own, I see three strong reasons why we should encourage discussion and debate and the crafting of proposals to take place here among all of us, and discourage the formation of informal, behind-the-scenes groups doing this work. Namely:
1) Transparency
2) The role of the committee
3) The historical recordTransparency - During my time as a (L)ibertarian activist, I've become increasingly convinced that transparency is is an absolutely essential value for the Libertarian Party. Our members and supporters should always be able to see what the party's leadership, including appointed or elected bodies such as this one, are doing. If you don't know what your leaders are saying and doing, you can't effectively hold them accountable, and if you can't hold them accountable, you've lost control of your organization. I also feel it is
important that we "be the change we want to see in the world" as an organization by not just spreading libertarian values, but practicing them in our own operations and governance. I expect I'll have more to say on this at various points in our debate.
The role of the committee - The Platform Committee was established to draft proposed changes to the Libertarian Party Platform to present to convention delegates. It seems to me that we ought to do this work *as a committee*, in full view of anyone wishing to observe and comment on our debate or contact us with suggestions or feedback, rather than dividing into de facto subcommittees that were not necessarily intended or envisioned by the delegates who authorized this body.
The historical record - It could well be important to future Libertarians looking to modify and/or understand the party's platform, not to mention
historians and future generations, to be able to fully see our process, and the thinking and debate that went into shaping the proposals we put forward. It's impossible to know the extent to which what we do will matter in the future. It may turn out to be of little consequence, but it could also turn out to matter more than any of us readily imagine. It will be much easier to preserve this information for the record if committee members are working together in one forum.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Colleagues,
Last week I sent the email below to give folks a
historical perspective on what I believe delegates would like to see in their platform. I understand that there are some of us who embrace this approach and others who reject it outright. I understand that there won’t be a consensus reached on direction among a group of at least 20 of us, nor do I expect there to be; it’s very difficult to write proposals from scratch as a committee of the whole.
I could very well be wrong in the approach I would like us to take. Nonetheless, I do not wish to argue the merits here. Not because I am convinced I am right, but more because I do not find that to be a very productive way to spend time.
If you share with me the following values of what ought to be in a platform:
1) More of an
externally-focused document to market our party to voters.