Along with Harry Browne, two-time Libertarian presidential candidate, I believe the main goal of the LP should be to educate the public about the benefits of libertarianism and the tragic costs of statism. A major means toward this end involves running Libertarian candidates.
Best, Michael
Michael,
Topsy turvy approach for a political party, IMHO.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Michael R. Edelstein"
<dredelstein@t...> wrote:
Along with Harry Browne, two-time Libertarian presidential
candidate,
I believe the main goal of the LP should be to educate the public
about the benefits of libertarianism and the tragic costs of
statism.
A major means toward this end involves running Libertarian
candidates.
Best, Michael
From: "Starchild" <sfdreamer@e...>
To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Party goals, means, and priorities> 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
>>>>>>> lpsf support for candidates last year was nearly nil.(by
>>>>>>> non-candidate members anyway) But again, if the LPSF wants
to