Michael,
I appreciate your insight, and completely agree that we as
Libertarians should keep the goals you state in your e-mail firmly in
mind. My attemps for the few three years I have been a Libertarian
have been to develope specific objectives that accomplish the general
goal more efficiently than we have so far.
Regards,
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Michael R. Edelstein"
<dredelstein@t...> wrote:
Marcy,
For the past 25 years that I've been an LP member, I've witnessed
the
following scenario when Libertarian candidates run to "win": They
start thinking they can win. Consequently they water down their
message, sound like warmed-over Republican efficiency experts, and
avoid the L-word. (All to garner the few extra votes that will bring
victory.) On election day they typically total between 0% and 4%,
rather than the 51% they dreamed of. They feel burned-out and
disillusioned.
What did they accomplish? Usually very little of what they could
credibly accomplish, namely, informing the public the Libertarian
Party exists and it stands for cutting the heart out of oppressive
Govt and putting the control of each individual's life back into
their
own hands.
Best, Michael
From: "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...>
To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:13 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Party goals, means, and priorities
> 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
>> >>>>>>> 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