Party goals, means, and priorities


  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.


  Thanks for the reminder, Justin!

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


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


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


elect candidates to office."

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

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


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.


--- In, "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":


Starchild wrote:


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

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
lpsf support for candidates last year was nearly nil.(by
non-candidate members anyway) But again, if the LPSF wants to
engage in mainly protest activities, I won't get in the way
and I doubt the LPC will either.

Either way, I still don't think it's a good idea to be all
things to all people, whether or not we are the only
libertarian group in SF or not.



Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: