Party goals, means, and priorities (was: Protesters Are Heroes)

Hi all,

I just noticed that our own Bylaws state, "The goal of the
Libertarian Party of San Francisco shall be to advance the cause
of liberty in every honorable way":

http://www.lpsf.org/bylaws081002.html

Cheers,
Justin

Starchild wrote:

We all agree with the *goal*! What we are hoping to determine is the
most effective specific objectives that will lead the Libertarian
Party to that goal! .."every honorable way" does not qualify as
specific objectives! The good news is that we are at least
discussing this subject.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Justin T. Sampson"
<justin@k...> wrote:

Thanks for the reminder, Justin!

  If we have switched from a discussion of the party's goal to a discussion of specific objectives, I'll consider that good news. I hope I never again hear the words "The goal of the Libertarian Party is to elect candidates to office."

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

OK,OK, I stand corrected. Here is my revised statement: The main
objective of the Libertarian Party is to elect candidates for office,
and to institute libertarian legislation, in order to achive its goal
of liberty. Again, the "by any means" does not help me choose the
most effective means.

Marcy

  Thanks for the reminder, Justin!

  If we have switched from a discussion of the party's goal to

a

discussion of specific objectives, I'll consider that good news. I

hope

I never again hear the words "The goal of the Libertarian Party is

to

elect candidates to office."

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

> We all agree with the *goal*! What we are hoping to determine is

the

Marcy,

  That sounds good to me. If we're coming up with a formal statement, I'd like to add something in the spirit of "by any honorable means," recognizing that while our goal must not change, our means should remain flexible. Here then is a proposed statement, with some revision in the wording of your language for clarity of intent and subject/predicate agreement:

"In order to achieve our goal of a free world, we view the main objectives of the Libertarian Party to be electing candidates for office and promoting libertarian changes to public policy. We have adopted these objectives in the belief that they are at present the most effective means at our party's disposal for engaging in the struggle for freedom. We realize that changing conditions, new information, or better analysis in the future may suggest a different approach. Should we decide that our cause would best be served by revising our objectives, we will not hesitate to correct our course, while remaining steadfast in the pursuit of liberty for all."

  What do you think?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Starchild,

I suggest we enshrine your statement in our ByLaws or something
(ByLaws Chair Chris Maden, what says you?)....and proceed to refining
the objectives into specific plans -- let's start with the
Libertarian Walking Tour!

We are all generating some positive vibes here, folks.

BTW, I need not comment on your sentiment that should things change,
we change. I have reiterated ad infinitum that I will be at the
barricades if not at the ballot box.

Marcy

Marcy,

  That sounds good to me. If we're coming up with a formal

statement,

I'd like to add something in the spirit of "by any honorable

means,"

recognizing that while our goal must not change, our means should
remain flexible. Here then is a proposed statement, with some

revision

in the wording of your language for clarity of intent and
subject/predicate agreement:

"In order to achieve our goal of a free world, we view the main
objectives of the Libertarian Party to be electing candidates for
office and promoting libertarian changes to public policy. We have
adopted these objectives in the belief that they are at present the
most effective means at our party's disposal for engaging in the
struggle for freedom. We realize that changing conditions, new
information, or better analysis in the future may suggest a

different

approach. Should we decide that our cause would best be served by
revising our objectives, we will not hesitate to correct our

course,

while remaining steadfast in the pursuit of liberty for all."

  What do you think?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

> OK,OK, I stand corrected. Here is my revised statement: The main
> objective of the Libertarian Party is to elect candidates for

office,

> and to institute libertarian legislation, in order to achive its

goal

> of liberty. Again, the "by any means" does not help me choose the
> most effective means.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>

wrote:

>> Thanks for the reminder, Justin!
>>
>> If we have switched from a discussion of the party's goal to
> a
>> discussion of specific objectives, I'll consider that good news.

I

> hope
>> I never again hear the words "The goal of the Libertarian Party

is

> to
>> elect candidates to office."
>>
>> Yours in liberty,
>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> We all agree with the *goal*! What we are hoping to determine

is

> the
>>> most effective specific objectives that will lead the

Libertarian

>>> Party to that goal! .."every honorable way" does not qualify as
>>> specific objectives! The good news is that we are at least
>>> discussing this subject.
>>>
>>> Marcy
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Justin T. Sampson"
>>> <justin@k...> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed that our own Bylaws state, "The goal of the
>>>> Libertarian Party of San Francisco shall be to advance the

cause

>>>> of liberty in every honorable way":
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lpsf.org/bylaws081002.html
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Justin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Starchild wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that running candidates should usually be at the top

of

>>>>> our priority list. But it is a *means to an end*, not an end

in

>>>>> itself, and therefore not a goal! I feel there is some

confusion

>>>>> here between goals, which is where we are going, and means,
>>>>> which is how we get there.
>>>>>
>>>>> While it's certainly true that we cannot be all things to all
>>>>> people, I believe in the importance of thinking outside the

box.

>>>>> Defining our mission narrowly might blind us to less orthodox
>>>>> opportunities for advancing liberty that would be a more
>>>>> effective use of our resources. For example, political parties
>>>>> traditionally do not get involved in conducting historical
>>>>> walking tours, but I think this could be a very fruitful
>>>>> initiative for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours in liberty,
>>>>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Starchild - Thanks for your response, however I remain
>>>>>> unconvinced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already agreed that liberty or freedom was the ultimate

goal

>>>>>> of the party, however I disagree that this is the same as
>>>>>> tangible objectives on _how_ we should achieve that end.

Maybe

>>>>>> 'vague' was not the best word to use to describe freedom. How
>>>>>> about 'exceedingly broad'. Using freedom as an objective for
>>>>>> the LP is like trying to start a charity with the objective

of

>>>>>> 'help all people'. I doubt you would find many serious

donors.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> That being said, I'm also not saying that running candidates
>>>>>> is the only legitimate agenda item, just the primary one.
>>>>>> Especially this year as it's off-cycle. If I had to list them
>>>>>> all in priority order it might look something like this -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 - Local candidate support
>>>>>> 2 - local legislation activities - referendums, position
>>>>>> papers, counter litigation etc
>>>>>> 3 - fund raising and outreach
>>>>>> 4 - protests (peaceful of course)
>>>>>> 5 - social and other internal activities
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course these are my opinions and I'm not even on the

Excom,

>>>>>> but at times I feel like the LPSF has these priorities
>>>>>> completely upside down. For instance, you and I both know

that