Rob,
Sounds good! Maybe some others will be able to make it on Monday too.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
You know, Marcy, it isn't a question of the LPSF officially supporting
polygamy, any more than it's a question of our supporting homosexuality
or drug use. Just the idea of keeping government out of private,
consensual affairs.
But, having said that, I must also acknowledge, as I've been wanting to
for some time, the splendid job you did on the issue of respecting other
organizations on the activities that they organize. I believe both
Michael E. and Starchild made the point that antiwar signs are always
appropriate at antitax demonstrations because the issues are connected.
But everybody sees connections among political issues, especially when
they involve money. So I very much appreciated your eloquence and
fair-mindedness on this point.
Dear Mike,
I do see your point about the question being should government be "in charge" of consensual relationships.
Marcy
Rob,
It sounds like you're presuming action beyond what we voted on at the
meeting. There was nothing said about my publishing any disclaimer
other than putting an asterisk after my title and the words "for
identification purposes only," which we voted to make group policy for
any time an LPSF official puts his or her title on a communication to
the public, unless what the person is putting his/her name to has been
approved by the LPSF. This has not been the standard in the past. As I
noted in what I think is a more relevant precedent, Ron Getty has
regularly had letters to the editor published using his title as
Initiatives Committee chair. We are all individuals, and Ron may not
have always made his points in the exact same way that you, or I, or
anyone else would have made them, but as long as he wasn't saying
things that go against libertarianism (and I trust no one here is
saying that the concept of marriage equality for poly people goes
against libertarianism) his title appearing without any disclaimer was
a good thing in my book. Allowing him (or any of us) to simply sign
his letters "Libertarian Party of San Francisco," without a name or
title, clearly implying a group position, would have been going too
far, and the letter I posted for feedback did not do that. However,
requiring each of Ron's letters to include an asterisk after his title
and the words "for identification purposes only" lest anyone mistake
his views for an official stance of the group (as we have now voted to
make our policy) is too restrictive, imho. Quite possibly the Examiner
or other papers may be unwilling to print that additional text, in
which case if the letter-writer is to be required to tell the
publication not to use the title at all, we will be sacrificing the
good publicity that is gained for the party when libertarian views are
published alongside party titles.
I believe the content of the LPSF.org website is an entirely separate
issue. I'm sorry you didn't like my opposition to listing certain
groups even if we listed them as recommended only by specific members.
That opposition was not specifically directed at you or Marcy, and I
hope you don't see it that way. Given that LPSF.org is a group
resource, and visibility on the site is a limited resource, it seems
to me that the group has more of an interest in ensuring that what is
prominently displayed there doesn't go against our message, than it
does in supervising what a single member chooses to go out and do on
his/her own time, initiative, and expense. The website controversy
arose when someone -- I don't recall now whether it was you, Marcy, or
someone else -- suggested that we recommend the Nature Conservancy,
and I argued against this because I'd read that they have collaborated
with the government in taking peoples' property (I will forward an
article I found about this issue in a separate email). Although the
Conservancy certainly does good work as well (I sent them money myself
in the past), it still seems to me that if we want to recommend an
environmental group, that we can probably find a more deserving one.
More generally, I feel that we should be a bit choosy in deciding whom
to prominently recommend on our site. But if a majority of voting LPSF
members feel otherwise, and don't mind having groups listed that some
of us see as of dubious merit, then so be it.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
I don't think the LPSF should support legally recognizing everything
under the sun that's peaceful, but certainly advocating not
prohibiting them is in order.
Warm regards, Michael
I think you misunderstood me. the "* for identification purposes only"
is itself the disclaimer. I wasn't suggesting any more than that.
Starchild wrote:
And, I'll repeat once again, as I have multiple times before, if you can
come up with a more Libertarian environmental group than the Nature
Conservancy, Starchild, then please speak up. I will support the most
Libertarian environmental group I can find, and so far, that's TNC.
Starchild wrote:
Michael,
I'm interested in finding better wording. How would you describe how
governments in the U.S. currently treat private polyamorous contracts?
I'm not sure it's completely accurate to say that government
"prohibits" such arrangements per se. If the authorities became aware
of some specific individuals planning to hold a marriage ceremony and
refer to each other as married, my guess is they would not move in to
prosecute; they simply wouldn't recognize their agreement as legally
valid.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
David,
A limited liability partnership? I'm not sure I understand how that relates to the marriage equality issue, or what you may be suggesting here as far as wording. Maybe I'm simply forgetting details of the previous list discussion that make the connection clear.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Rob,
Well, what is your definition of "environmental group?" Is promoting
free market environmentalism along with other work sufficient, or does
the environment have to be the group's main focus? Would there be a
problem with promoting specific books, films, projects, etc., that
take a libertarian approach toward environmental protection, or are
you bent on listing an entire, ongoing non-profit group?
Allow me to put on my Michael Edelstein hat and ask this question:
"If the 'most libertarian environmental group I can find' still
operates in ways that significantly go against libertarian principles,
then wouldn't it be better not to support any environmental group
until you find one that does not?"
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I think this could be a useful option for poly families to know about under the status quo (or same-sex couples in states that don't allow gay marriage), but it doesn't seem like a fair substitute for marriage equality. It's not just the cost -- setting up a limited liability partnership has to be a hell of a lot more complicated than simply going to City Hall and getting a marriage license. And of course there is the important symbolic value of simply being able to say "we're married." Denying state recognition to incorporations of all types might be an ideal solution, although I would want to look more closely at the implications of such a step, but clearly *that* change isn't coming any time soon, which leaves the issue of what happens in the meantime.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Moving the larger discussion to the lpsf-discuss list makes sense and
I'll try to post "discuss" type messages there, but I'll post this
comment here since it's short and relates directly to what goes on our
website. Given what you say below, how about specifically recommending
and linking to the The Nature Conservancy's PlantABillion program,
rather than TNC as a whole, until such time as we may discover an
entire organization that does beneficial environmental work of this
type without TNC's apparent disadvantages?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
well, to be completely honest Starchild - I seriously do not believe these egalitarian efforts are in any way related to libertarianism. I won't be surprised if you disagree with that, as others do in the lpsf, but the way I see it - in the end, government marriage is still a privilege and not a _right_ despite what those in the 'right to marriage' camp proclaim. I think libertarians should be focused on getting government out of marriage - not distracted into promoting parity of privilege in gov't marriage. In other words, egalitarism is not equal to freedom and a slippery slope philosophically as the individual always ends up losing freedoms in the end.
I'm sure you think this is right-wing or homophobe of me to state such things but I assure you I am not. I am more than happy for non-straight people to marry and I have personally stood on the steps of city hall to help them celebrate what is probably the happiest day of their lives. But as a (L)libertarian I'm adament about not supporting egalitarian efforts - even if they appear to increment personal freedoms.
More than happy to discuss over a beer at some point if you're interested in this view, but I think Ialready beat this horse to death on lpsf-discuss years ago so I won't retype all the gory details.. 
peace, out..
d
Starchild,
If group marriage is not prohibited, taxed, or regulated, this seems
the libertarian ideal to me. No?
Warm regards, Michael