Protesters Are Heroes

Discussion
1

In the June issue of California Freedom, Aaron Starr used his "From the Chair" column to argue that Libertarians should avoid being seen as protesters and complainers because "people like to associate themselves with winners" and "people who protest and complain do not have power." The piece had the rather offensive title "Winners or Whiners."

Does Aaron believe that Libertarian activists like Paul Ireland, who was arrested at a Los Angeles County Post Office for bravely refusing to give up his right to free speech at an anti-tax protest, are "whiners?" Or does he "merely" want to distance the party from such acts of courage? Besides Libertarians like Paul Ireland and Ron Crickenberger, a tireless crusader against the "War on Drugs" whose arrest in front of the Department of Justice was also held up as a negative example in Aaron's column, I would like to remind Aaron of a few other people who he is thoughtlessly branding as "whiners" and "complainers":

• Lech Walesa (protested for the right to form independent unions and played a key role in bringing down the Soviet Empire)
• Lady Godiva (rode a horse naked through town to protest taxes)
• Organizers of the Boston Tea Party (threw tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes)
• Mahatma Gandhi (practiced civil disobedience in protest of British occupation of India)
• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (jailed for advocating equal rights)
• Emma Goldman (deported for promoting birth control)
• Andrei Sakharov (sent into internal exile and went on hunger strike to protest the Soviet regime)
• The nameless Chinese hero of the Tian 'anmen Uprising (stood down a line of Red Army tanks)
• Galileo (arrested for daring to publish a book suggesting that the earth revolves around the sun)
• The drag queens and other patrons of the Stonewall bar in Manhattan (rioted against police in response to anti-gay raids)

What do these individuals have in common? Simply this: At the time they chose to stand up for freedom, truth and justice, no one knew they would ultimately prevail and that history books would look back on them as winners. (Historical vindication of the Chinese patriot's action is yet to come, but I have no doubt that it will. In the eyes of much of the world, he has already won.) No doubt their actions would have made professional marketers highly uncomfortable. No doubt in many cases their opponents, and members of the public, tended to view them as "whiners" or "losers" promoting extremist causes which would never succeed.

In some ways this comes down to how much faith you have in the libertarian cause. Do you believe that freedom will ultimately prevail, and people like Paul Ireland and Ron Crickenberger will be remembered as the heroes they are? Or have you mentally "given up?" Are you assuming that our cause can only prevail if we turn our backs on the best and bravest among us; if we hide their noble acts like dirty secrets? Are these the actions of a winning team? Are winners obsessed with how their chances are viewed by others? No. Winners have confidence and faith in the future. Like Dr. King, like the Boston Tea Party patriots, we shall overcome!

Toward liberty, indeed!

- # -

Starchild is Outreach Director of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, former San Francisco county chair, three-time candidate for public office, recipient of the Advocates for Self-Government "Lights of Liberty" award, former Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee at-large representative, and current member of the state Judicial Committee.

2

Starchild,

You know how much I respect the fact that you are a true Libertarian.
No one has run for office, talked with friends and foes, got involved
in City and State issues more than you. You also know that since I
joined the LPSF three years ago, I have spoken out against
the "outsider" approach to politics. The heroes in your list deserve
our complete admiration, but none were working within political
parties, as we are. Walesa is the only one in your list that
suceeded in crossing the line from outsider to insider. Again, I
repeat myself, we are a political party, and as such, if we are to be
taken seriously by voters (which I submit is the objective of any
political party), we need to stop the whining.

By the way, I am also a recipient of Lights of Liberty.

Marcy

In the June issue of California Freedom, Aaron Starr used his "From

the

Chair" column to argue that Libertarians should avoid being seen as
protesters and complainers because "people like to associate

themselves

with winners" and "people who protest and complain do not have

power."

The piece had the rather offensive title "Winners or Whiners."

Does Aaron believe that Libertarian activists like Paul Ireland,

who

was arrested at a Los Angeles County Post Office for bravely

refusing

to give up his right to free speech at an anti-tax protest, are
"whiners?" Or does he "merely" want to distance the party from such
acts of courage? Besides Libertarians like Paul Ireland and Ron
Crickenberger, a tireless crusader against the "War on Drugs" whose
arrest in front of the Department of Justice was also held up as a
negative example in Aaron's column, I would like to remind Aaron of

a

few other people who he is thoughtlessly branding as "whiners" and
"complainers":

• Lech Walesa (protested for the right to form independent unions

and

played a key role in bringing down the Soviet Empire)
• Lady Godiva (rode a horse naked through town to protest taxes)
• Organizers of the Boston Tea Party (threw tea into Boston Harbor

to

protest taxes)
• Mahatma Gandhi (practiced civil disobedience in protest of

British

occupation of India)
• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (jailed for advocating equal rights)
• Emma Goldman (deported for promoting birth control)
• Andrei Sakharov (sent into internal exile and went on hunger

strike

to protest the Soviet regime)
• The nameless Chinese hero of the Tian 'anmen Uprising (stood down

a

line of Red Army tanks)
• Galileo (arrested for daring to publish a book suggesting that

the

earth revolves around the sun)
• The drag queens and other patrons of the Stonewall bar in

Manhattan

(rioted against police in response to anti-gay raids)

What do these individuals have in common? Simply this: At the time

they

chose to stand up for freedom, truth and justice, no one knew they
would ultimately prevail and that history books would look back on

them

as winners. (Historical vindication of the Chinese patriot's action

is

yet to come, but I have no doubt that it will. In the eyes of much

of

the world, he has already won.) No doubt their actions would have

made

professional marketers highly uncomfortable. No doubt in many cases
their opponents, and members of the public, tended to view them as
"whiners" or "losers" promoting extremist causes which would never
succeed.

In some ways this comes down to how much faith you have in the
libertarian cause. Do you believe that freedom will ultimately

prevail,

and people like Paul Ireland and Ron Crickenberger will be

remembered

as the heroes they are? Or have you mentally "given up?" Are you
assuming that our cause can only prevail if we turn our backs on

the

best and bravest among us; if we hide their noble acts like dirty
secrets? Are these the actions of a winning team? Are winners

obsessed

with how their chances are viewed by others? No. Winners have
confidence and faith in the future. Like Dr. King, like the Boston

Tea

Party patriots, we shall overcome!

Toward liberty, indeed!

- # -

Starchild is Outreach Director of the Libertarian Party of San
Francisco, former San Francisco county chair, three-time candidate

for

public office, recipient of the Advocates for Self-

Government "Lights

3

Marcy,

  Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate your tact and diplomacy, as always! But why is it important whether or not the people on my list "succeeded in crossing the line from outsider to insider?" Their causes were, with the one noted partial exception, victorious! Isn't that what matters? If the outcome is a free world, who *cares* if the Libertarian Party remains an "outsider" organization? Freedom is the party's proper objective, not "being taken seriously by the voters." The latter is only one means to the former, and there are many scenarios in which freedom could prevail without the LP ever being "taken seriously." Besides, if voters knew how much some Libertarians talk about their concern that the party isn't taken seriously, I'll bet a lot of them would say "Stop whining!"

  I understand your claim to be that people working in political parties shouldn't protest because it won't help them become popular and win votes. But many of the individuals I listed, and others who could be named besides (including conventional politicians like John Kerry and Tom Hayden who launched successful political careers as protesters), achieved significant popularity in their lifetimes directly *because* of their protests and complaining. By "being taken seriously by voters," do you mean anything other than getting votes as a result of being popular?

  If you stand by your use of the term "whining" as appropriate, I'd like to know which Libertarians you think are "whiners," and exactly what activities they should refrain from doing in order to "stop the whining." Are the thousands of Libertarians who protest at post offices and other locations across the United States each April 15 every year "whining?"

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

P.S. -

4

Starchild - I don't think Marcy, A. Starr or any
other Libertarians are anti-protest'. I think the
contention here lies with whether protesting should be
an official LP objective. When you say "Freedom is the
party's proper objective".. I actually disagree with
that. That is our ultimate goal, yes. But freedom as
an objective is so horribly vague it leaves no focus
for a group to rally around.

For instance, freedom is also the underlying objective
of ISIL, Cato, Bureaucrash and many others. But we
need something to distinguish us from what they are
trying to do. Trying to be all things to all people
isn't going to work (IMHO). Bureaucrash is always
going to be a better protest/activist group than the
LP, probably because they don't have to worry about
upsetting potential voters.

I saw this on the LNC notes from May, by the way -

"The core mission of the Libertarian Party is to "move
public policy in a Libertarian direction by building a
political party that elects Libertarians to public
office"

I think this is statement is fairly clear and concise
and outlines the basic objective of the party. Whether
or not all members agree with it or not (or think
electing libertarians to office is futile) it beside
the point. But by actually having clear goals and
objectives, we can have members and an image that is
highly focused.

I remember you mentioned at one point that you felt
many in the lpsf were 'reluctant activists'. Maybe
this is the reason why.

I have no doubt that there are many people who are
members of the LP simply because they want Freedom.
Meanwhile, the members who joined because they thought
they were helping to elect Libertarians to office get
disenchanted and leave. I know two or three off the
top of my head.

I brought this topic up at the last meeting during the
marketing discussion as well and was hoping it would
garner more interest. I don't see how we can do
effective 'outreach' without knowing who we are and
what we are trying to accomplish.

I'm definitely curious to know your thoughts on this.

cheers,

David

BTW - I agree 100% with Marcy's assessment of your
incredible accomplishments over the years and I'm not
trying to diminish that whatsoever.

--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

Marcy,

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate your tact
and diplomacy, as
always! But why is it important whether or not the
people on my list
"succeeded in crossing the line from outsider to
insider?" Their causes
were, with the one noted partial exception,
victorious! Isn't that what
matters? If the outcome is a free world, who *cares*
if the Libertarian
Party remains an "outsider" organization? Freedom is
the party's proper
objective, not "being taken seriously by the
voters." The latter is
only one means to the former, and there are many
scenarios in which
freedom could prevail without the LP ever being
"taken seriously."
Besides, if voters knew how much some Libertarians
talk about their
concern that the party isn't taken seriously, I'll
bet a lot of them
would say "Stop whining!"

I understand your claim to be that people working
in political parties
shouldn't protest because it won't help them become
popular and win
votes. But many of the individuals I listed, and
others who could be
named besides (including conventional politicians
like John Kerry and
Tom Hayden who launched successful political careers
as protesters),
achieved significant popularity in their lifetimes
directly *because*
of their protests and complaining. By "being taken
seriously by
voters," do you mean anything other than getting
votes as a result of
being popular?

If you stand by your use of the term "whining" as
appropriate, I'd
like to know which Libertarians you think are
"whiners," and exactly
what activities they should refrain from doing in
order to "stop the
whining." Are the thousands of Libertarians who
protest at post offices
and other locations across the United States each
April 15 every year
"whining?"

Yours in liberty,
    <<< Starchild >>>

<snip.

5

Starchild,

David Rhodes described my feelings more succinctly than I ever
could. I am not at all ani-protest, and I will be out there willing
to be arrested, beaten, whatever, if I ever perceive that there is no
political avenue for redress. Your example of Tom Hyden is a good
one, since it seemed during the Vietnam madness that there was no way
other than protest to end what so many perceived to be a useless
conflict. Otherwise, I will operate within the political
establishment, and will continue discouraging Libertarians from using
protest as a primary tool for change.

In answer to your questions:

The goal of a political party is to garner votes in order to
influence the path the community (country, state, city) takes.

My description of whining is the same as Aaron Star's.

....And, yes, I will stop whining (using your description) about
Libertarians not being taken seriously by voters! (Thanks for making
my day with your observation!)

To reiterate my suggestion (am I whining again?), I still say it
might be useful to have a few meetings outside of the regular monthly
meetings to discuss what is our purpose, our present goal as a
political party.

Marcy

Marcy,

  Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate your tact and

diplomacy, as

always! But why is it important whether or not the people on my

list

"succeeded in crossing the line from outsider to insider?" Their

causes

were, with the one noted partial exception, victorious! Isn't that

what

matters? If the outcome is a free world, who *cares* if the

Libertarian

Party remains an "outsider" organization? Freedom is the party's

proper

objective, not "being taken seriously by the voters." The latter is
only one means to the former, and there are many scenarios in which
freedom could prevail without the LP ever being "taken seriously."
Besides, if voters knew how much some Libertarians talk about their
concern that the party isn't taken seriously, I'll bet a lot of

them

would say "Stop whining!"

  I understand your claim to be that people working in

political parties

shouldn't protest because it won't help them become popular and win
votes. But many of the individuals I listed, and others who could

be

named besides (including conventional politicians like John Kerry

and

Tom Hayden who launched successful political careers as

protesters),

achieved significant popularity in their lifetimes directly

*because*

of their protests and complaining. By "being taken seriously by
voters," do you mean anything other than getting votes as a result

of

being popular?

  If you stand by your use of the term "whining" as

appropriate, I'd

like to know which Libertarians you think are "whiners," and

exactly

what activities they should refrain from doing in order to "stop

the

whining." Are the thousands of Libertarians who protest at post

offices

and other locations across the United States each April 15 every

year

"whining?"

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

P.S. -

> Starchild,
>
> You know how much I respect the fact that you are a true

Libertarian.

> No one has run for office, talked with friends and foes, got

involved

> in City and State issues more than you. You also know that since

I

> joined the LPSF three years ago, I have spoken out against
> the "outsider" approach to politics. The heroes in your list

deserve

> our complete admiration, but none were working within political
> parties, as we are. Walesa is the only one in your list that
> suceeded in crossing the line from outsider to insider. Again, I
> repeat myself, we are a political party, and as such, if we are

to be

> taken seriously by voters (which I submit is the objective of any
> political party), we need to stop the whining.
>
> By the way, I am also a recipient of Lights of Liberty.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>

wrote:

>> In the June issue of California Freedom, Aaron Starr used

his "From

> the
>> Chair" column to argue that Libertarians should avoid being seen

as

>> protesters and complainers because "people like to associate
> themselves
>> with winners" and "people who protest and complain do not have
> power."
>> The piece had the rather offensive title "Winners or Whiners."
>>
>> Does Aaron believe that Libertarian activists like Paul Ireland,
> who
>> was arrested at a Los Angeles County Post Office for bravely
> refusing
>> to give up his right to free speech at an anti-tax protest, are
>> "whiners?" Or does he "merely" want to distance the party from

such

>> acts of courage? Besides Libertarians like Paul Ireland and Ron
>> Crickenberger, a tireless crusader against the "War on Drugs"

whose

>> arrest in front of the Department of Justice was also held up as

a

>> negative example in Aaron's column, I would like to remind Aaron

of

> a
>> few other people who he is thoughtlessly branding as "whiners"

and

>> "complainers":
>>
>> • Lech Walesa (protested for the right to form independent unions
> and
>> played a key role in bringing down the Soviet Empire)
>> • Lady Godiva (rode a horse naked through town to protest taxes)
>> • Organizers of the Boston Tea Party (threw tea into Boston

Harbor

> to
>> protest taxes)
>> • Mahatma Gandhi (practiced civil disobedience in protest of
> British
>> occupation of India)
>> • Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (jailed for advocating equal

rights)

>> • Emma Goldman (deported for promoting birth control)
>> • Andrei Sakharov (sent into internal exile and went on hunger
> strike
>> to protest the Soviet regime)
>> • The nameless Chinese hero of the Tian 'anmen Uprising (stood

down

> a
>> line of Red Army tanks)
>> • Galileo (arrested for daring to publish a book suggesting that
> the
>> earth revolves around the sun)
>> • The drag queens and other patrons of the Stonewall bar in
> Manhattan
>> (rioted against police in response to anti-gay raids)
>>
>> What do these individuals have in common? Simply this: At the

time

> they
>> chose to stand up for freedom, truth and justice, no one knew

they

>> would ultimately prevail and that history books would look back

on

> them
>> as winners. (Historical vindication of the Chinese patriot's

action

> is
>> yet to come, but I have no doubt that it will. In the eyes of

much

> of
>> the world, he has already won.) No doubt their actions would have
> made
>> professional marketers highly uncomfortable. No doubt in many

cases

>> their opponents, and members of the public, tended to view them

as

>> "whiners" or "losers" promoting extremist causes which would

never

>> succeed.
>>
>> In some ways this comes down to how much faith you have in the
>> libertarian cause. Do you believe that freedom will ultimately
> prevail,
>> and people like Paul Ireland and Ron Crickenberger will be
> remembered
>> as the heroes they are? Or have you mentally "given up?" Are you
>> assuming that our cause can only prevail if we turn our backs on
> the
>> best and bravest among us; if we hide their noble acts like dirty
>> secrets? Are these the actions of a winning team? Are winners
> obsessed
>> with how their chances are viewed by others? No. Winners have
>> confidence and faith in the future. Like Dr. King, like the

Boston

> Tea
>> Party patriots, we shall overcome!
>>
>> Toward liberty, indeed!
>>
>> - # -
>>
>> Starchild is Outreach Director of the Libertarian Party of San
>> Francisco, former San Francisco county chair, three-time

candidate

> for
>> public office, recipient of the Advocates for Self-
> Government "Lights
>> of Liberty" award, former Libertarian Party of California

Executive

>> Committee at-large representative, and current member of the

state

6

David,

  Long before party leaders came up with this "mission statement" that you found in the notes of the LNC meeting, the party had what I believe was widely considered to be our mission statement: The Preamble of our platform, which reads as follows:

7

Marcy,

  When does a protest become "a primary tool for change?" Do you mean that it's OK for Libertarians to protest, so long as we don't do it too loudly or too frequently?

  I heartily agree that it would be useful to have more interaction outside our regular monthly meetings. However I'm not at all convinced that *talking* about the party's goals would be the most effective use of additional time spent meeting face-to-face. What do you see as the desired outcome of such meetings?

  You've stated what you believe the goal of a political party to be: "To garner votes in order to influence the path the community (country, state, city) takes." But in that statement, "garnering votes" is not described as a goal, but as a *means* toward influencing the path "the community" takes. If "influencing the community" is the real goal, it seems to me that we might reasonably see other opportunities to do this from time to time which do *not* involve gathering votes.

  What do you think of the goal as stated by the Libertarian Party's Preamble?

8

Starchild,

Very good questions! Let me try to address them, more to put my own
beliefs in focus than to argue with you.

1. I was clear as to when I thought protests were in order: when
there is no other avenue to redress a grievance. Otherwise, I believe
in working within the political system.

2. The outcome of a meeting to discuss LPSF's goals as a political
party would be to unearth a consensus, which I believe is lacking.
Although I agree with you time would perhaps be better spent in an
activity.

3. When I say "the goal of a political party is to garner votes in
order to influence the path a community takes," I mean for the two
parts of that statement to carry equal weight. By contrast I would
say the goal of the Cato Institute is to produce talking points in
order to accomplish the same influence.

4. I am afraid my approach to goals and objectives are permanently
tainted by business grad school! The goal as stated by the
Libertarian Party's Preamble is a statement of principle --
essential, but only a very basic beginning. From that basic goal,
objectives need to be spelled out.

Marcy

Marcy,

  When does a protest become "a primary tool for change?" Do

you mean

that it's OK for Libertarians to protest, so long as we don't do it

too

loudly or too frequently?

  I heartily agree that it would be useful to have more

interaction

outside our regular monthly meetings. However I'm not at all

convinced

that *talking* about the party's goals would be the most effective

use

of additional time spent meeting face-to-face. What do you see as

the

desired outcome of such meetings?

  You've stated what you believe the goal of a political party

to be:

"To garner votes in order to influence the path the community

(country,

state, city) takes." But in that statement, "garnering votes" is

not

described as a goal, but as a *means* toward influencing the

path "the

community" takes. If "influencing the community" is the real goal,

it

seems to me that we might reasonably see other opportunities to do

this

from time to time which do *not* involve gathering votes.

  What do you think of the goal as stated by the Libertarian

Party's

Preamble?

---------------------------------------------------------
Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all
individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is

forced to

sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential
precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud

must

be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom

can

peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any

activity

that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom
brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are

free to

follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference

from

government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and
enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is

nothing

more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to

this

end that we take these stands.
---------------------------------------------------------

  Would you be willing to take the Preamble's language as the

starting

point in a discussion of what the party's goal should be?

  Finally, you state that you will "operate within the

political

establishment." I don't really know what you mean by that. We have

been

talking of the Libertarian Party as being on the outside, and the

term

"political establishment" is usually applied to the Republicans and
Democrats, or to those who hold power in government. Do you mean

that

you intend (as a matter of principle? of convenience?) to obey the

law

as these government authorities dictate it to you (even when their
dictates violate the Constitution and basic human rights)?

  There is no shame in admitting that we are often forced to do

this

unless we wish to risk life and limb, but I certainly wouldn't want

to

hold up such a doctrine of obedience to tyranny as a model for
Libertarians. We should be seeking to persuade people to if

anything

increase their level of resistance, not lower it! The pressures not

to

resist are legion, and will be readily encountered without any help
from us.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

"Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our
lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands."

> Starchild,
>
> David Rhodes described my feelings more succinctly than I ever
> could. I am not at all ani-protest, and I will be out there

willing

> to be arrested, beaten, whatever, if I ever perceive that there

is no

> political avenue for redress. Your example of Tom Hyden is a good
> one, since it seemed during the Vietnam madness that there was no

way

> other than protest to end what so many perceived to be a useless
> conflict. Otherwise, I will operate within the political
> establishment, and will continue discouraging Libertarians from

using

> protest as a primary tool for change.
>
> In answer to your questions:
>
> The goal of a political party is to garner votes in order to
> influence the path the community (country, state, city) takes.
>
> My description of whining is the same as Aaron Star's.
>
> ....And, yes, I will stop whining (using your description) about
> Libertarians not being taken seriously by voters! (Thanks for

making

> my day with your observation!)
>
> To reiterate my suggestion (am I whining again?), I still say it
> might be useful to have a few meetings outside of the regular

monthly

> meetings to discuss what is our purpose, our present goal as a
> political party.
>
> Marcy
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>

wrote:

>> Marcy,
>>
>> Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate your tact and
> diplomacy, as
>> always! But why is it important whether or not the people on my
> list
>> "succeeded in crossing the line from outsider to insider?" Their
> causes
>> were, with the one noted partial exception, victorious! Isn't

that

> what
>> matters? If the outcome is a free world, who *cares* if the
> Libertarian
>> Party remains an "outsider" organization? Freedom is the party's
> proper
>> objective, not "being taken seriously by the voters." The latter

is

>> only one means to the former, and there are many scenarios in

which

>> freedom could prevail without the LP ever being "taken

seriously."

>> Besides, if voters knew how much some Libertarians talk about

their

>> concern that the party isn't taken seriously, I'll bet a lot of
> them
>> would say "Stop whining!"
>>
>> I understand your claim to be that people working in
> political parties
>> shouldn't protest because it won't help them become popular and

win

>> votes. But many of the individuals I listed, and others who could
> be
>> named besides (including conventional politicians like John Kerry
> and
>> Tom Hayden who launched successful political careers as
> protesters),
>> achieved significant popularity in their lifetimes directly
> *because*
>> of their protests and complaining. By "being taken seriously by
>> voters," do you mean anything other than getting votes as a

result

> of
>> being popular?
>>
>> If you stand by your use of the term "whining" as
> appropriate, I'd
>> like to know which Libertarians you think are "whiners," and
> exactly
>> what activities they should refrain from doing in order to "stop
> the
>> whining." Are the thousands of Libertarians who protest at post
> offices
>> and other locations across the United States each April 15 every
> year
>> "whining?"
>>
>> Yours in liberty,
>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>
>> P.S. -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Starchild,
>>>
>>> You know how much I respect the fact that you are a true
> Libertarian.
>>> No one has run for office, talked with friends and foes, got
> involved
>>> in City and State issues more than you. You also know that

since

> I
>>> joined the LPSF three years ago, I have spoken out against
>>> the "outsider" approach to politics. The heroes in your list
> deserve
>>> our complete admiration, but none were working within political
>>> parties, as we are. Walesa is the only one in your list that
>>> suceeded in crossing the line from outsider to insider. Again,

I

>>> repeat myself, we are a political party, and as such, if we are
> to be
>>> taken seriously by voters (which I submit is the objective of

any

>>> political party), we need to stop the whining.
>>>
>>> By the way, I am also a recipient of Lights of Liberty.
>>>
>>> Marcy
>>>
>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
> wrote:
>>>> In the June issue of California Freedom, Aaron Starr used
> his "From
>>> the
>>>> Chair" column to argue that Libertarians should avoid being

seen

> as
>>>> protesters and complainers because "people like to associate
>>> themselves
>>>> with winners" and "people who protest and complain do not have
>>> power."
>>>> The piece had the rather offensive title "Winners or Whiners."
>>>>
>>>> Does Aaron believe that Libertarian activists like Paul

Ireland,

>>> who
>>>> was arrested at a Los Angeles County Post Office for bravely
>>> refusing
>>>> to give up his right to free speech at an anti-tax protest, are
>>>> "whiners?" Or does he "merely" want to distance the party from
> such
>>>> acts of courage? Besides Libertarians like Paul Ireland and Ron
>>>> Crickenberger, a tireless crusader against the "War on Drugs"
> whose
>>>> arrest in front of the Department of Justice was also held up

as

> a
>>>> negative example in Aaron's column, I would like to remind

Aaron

> of
>>> a
>>>> few other people who he is thoughtlessly branding as "whiners"
> and
>>>> "complainers":
>>>>
>>>> • Lech Walesa (protested for the right to form independent

unions

>>> and
>>>> played a key role in bringing down the Soviet Empire)
>>>> • Lady Godiva (rode a horse naked through town to protest

taxes)

>>>> • Organizers of the Boston Tea Party (threw tea into Boston
> Harbor
>>> to
>>>> protest taxes)
>>>> • Mahatma Gandhi (practiced civil disobedience in protest of
>>> British
>>>> occupation of India)
>>>> • Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (jailed for advocating equal
> rights)
>>>> • Emma Goldman (deported for promoting birth control)
>>>> • Andrei Sakharov (sent into internal exile and went on hunger
>>> strike
>>>> to protest the Soviet regime)
>>>> • The nameless Chinese hero of the Tian 'anmen Uprising (stood
> down
>>> a
>>>> line of Red Army tanks)
>>>> • Galileo (arrested for daring to publish a book suggesting

that

>>> the
>>>> earth revolves around the sun)
>>>> • The drag queens and other patrons of the Stonewall bar in
>>> Manhattan
>>>> (rioted against police in response to anti-gay raids)
>>>>
>>>> What do these individuals have in common? Simply this: At the
> time
>>> they
>>>> chose to stand up for freedom, truth and justice, no one knew
> they
>>>> would ultimately prevail and that history books would look back
> on
>>> them
>>>> as winners. (Historical vindication of the Chinese patriot's
> action
>>> is
>>>> yet to come, but I have no doubt that it will. In the eyes of
> much
>>> of
>>>> the world, he has already won.) No doubt their actions would

have

>>> made
>>>> professional marketers highly uncomfortable. No doubt in many
> cases
>>>> their opponents, and members of the public, tended to view them
> as
>>>> "whiners" or "losers" promoting extremist causes which would
> never
>>>> succeed.
>>>>
>>>> In some ways this comes down to how much faith you have in the
>>>> libertarian cause. Do you believe that freedom will ultimately
>>> prevail,
>>>> and people like Paul Ireland and Ron Crickenberger will be
>>> remembered
>>>> as the heroes they are? Or have you mentally "given up?" Are

you

>>>> assuming that our cause can only prevail if we turn our backs

on

>>> the
>>>> best and bravest among us; if we hide their noble acts like

dirty

9

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I think that, regardless of one's position on their efficacy, it's
important to distinguish between levels of protest activity. I see three
levels:

1) Rally: like we do on the Ides of April, a rally is a legal,
non-disruptive awareness-raising event. This is used quite effectively by
the left in SF; any time there's a MMJ case heard, or a marriage equality
milestone, or a labor issue, folks rally on Civic Center or the
courthouse. This demonstrates to those uninvolved that there are
supporters of the issue, and is a good opportunity for the media and
passers-by to learn more.

2) Non-violent disruption: like the anti-war protests that took over the
streets or like Critical Mass, these protests are arguably legal, but even
if not, no one is directly hurt by them. These demonstrate massive support
for an issue, and send a signal to the powers that be that business as
usual should not continue. There is also a veiled threat - not necessarily
of violence, perhaps just of non-re-election - that with this many
supporters of a cause, politicians had better watch their steps.

3) Civil disobedience: like the folks at the PO in SoCal or like the SCLC
in the '60s, people peacefully and intentionally breaking bad laws with the
intent of arrest sends a clear message about their priorities and their
willingness to undergo discomfort to draw attention to these bad
laws. Done right, it is an excellent tool to draw public attention and
sympathy. However, there is the danger of being perceived as a "whiner";
attempts to change the law through the system should have been exhausted
before pursuing this, otherwise public opinion will likely go against the
protestors.

Personally, I think rallies are always OK. If overdone, the public burns
out on the issue and starts ignoring you, but I don't think there's any
danger of misperception. More specifically, I think they are fine for a
political party.

Non-violent disruption is a powerful tool and should be used sparingly; the
people whose business is disrupted may forgive it once or twice for a
burning issue, but will begin to be annoyed by the petty discomfort more
than they are sympathetic to the cause. I am not sure that these should be
done by a political party per se, since the party works within the system,
and this is by definition a deviation from the system. An analogy - a
terrible one, but the only one that comes to mind - is Sinn Fein and the
IRA. There may be the same people in both activities, but one should be
the in-the-system body and the other the cross-the-system group.

Civil disobedience should be used even more precisely and
sparingly. However, it's more appropriate for a political party in many
ways than disruption is, at least in cases where there is doubt about how
the system works vs. how it's supposed to work. Examples are the PO
arrests and Badnarik's and Cobb's arrests in St. Louis; freedom of speech
and freedom of assembly are inherently political freedoms, and if they are
denied to political bodies, they are pointless. Civil disobedience to draw
attention to those facts can be very powerful.

Then there's always 4) violence. Starbucks-smashers are just hooligans
using politics (instead of racism or football) as their excuse. This stage
should be reserved for when the system has utterly failed and it's time to
actually overthrow the system by violent revolution. At this point, it's
definitely not a political party any more.

IMO,
Chris
- --
Chris Maden, geek and gadfly: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
"Can [man], then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have
  we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" ~TJeff
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

10

Very useful analysis,Chris. I agree with you that first level rallies
are OK. Tabling, distributing flyers, candlelight vigils, are all
fine with me. However, in my own personal opinion the minute you
carry a sign (implicit symbol of aggression?), you step into level
two; and I would only use levels two and up very, very sparingly --
as I said, when I perceive that working within the political system
is impossible.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher R. Maden"
<crism@m...> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I think that, regardless of one's position on their efficacy, it's
important to distinguish between levels of protest activity. I see

three

levels:

1) Rally: like we do on the Ides of April, a rally is a legal,
non-disruptive awareness-raising event. This is used quite

effectively by

the left in SF; any time there's a MMJ case heard, or a marriage

equality

milestone, or a labor issue, folks rally on Civic Center or the
courthouse. This demonstrates to those uninvolved that there are
supporters of the issue, and is a good opportunity for the media

and

passers-by to learn more.

2) Non-violent disruption: like the anti-war protests that took

over the

streets or like Critical Mass, these protests are arguably legal,

but even

if not, no one is directly hurt by them. These demonstrate massive

support

for an issue, and send a signal to the powers that be that business

as

usual should not continue. There is also a veiled threat - not

necessarily

of violence, perhaps just of non-re-election - that with this many
supporters of a cause, politicians had better watch their steps.

3) Civil disobedience: like the folks at the PO in SoCal or like

the SCLC

in the '60s, people peacefully and intentionally breaking bad laws

with the

intent of arrest sends a clear message about their priorities and

their

willingness to undergo discomfort to draw attention to these bad
laws. Done right, it is an excellent tool to draw public attention

and

sympathy. However, there is the danger of being perceived as

a "whiner";

attempts to change the law through the system should have been

exhausted

before pursuing this, otherwise public opinion will likely go

against the

protestors.

Personally, I think rallies are always OK. If overdone, the public

burns

out on the issue and starts ignoring you, but I don't think there's

any

danger of misperception. More specifically, I think they are fine

for a

political party.

Non-violent disruption is a powerful tool and should be used

sparingly; the

people whose business is disrupted may forgive it once or twice for

a

burning issue, but will begin to be annoyed by the petty discomfort

more

than they are sympathetic to the cause. I am not sure that these

should be

done by a political party per se, since the party works within the

system,

and this is by definition a deviation from the system. An analogy -

a

terrible one, but the only one that comes to mind - is Sinn Fein

and the

IRA. There may be the same people in both activities, but one

should be

the in-the-system body and the other the cross-the-system group.

Civil disobedience should be used even more precisely and
sparingly. However, it's more appropriate for a political party in

many

ways than disruption is, at least in cases where there is doubt

about how

the system works vs. how it's supposed to work. Examples are the

PO

arrests and Badnarik's and Cobb's arrests in St. Louis; freedom of

speech

and freedom of assembly are inherently political freedoms, and if

they are

denied to political bodies, they are pointless. Civil disobedience

to draw

attention to those facts can be very powerful.

Then there's always 4) violence. Starbucks-smashers are just

hooligans

using politics (instead of racism or football) as their excuse.

This stage

should be reserved for when the system has utterly failed and it's

time to

actually overthrow the system by violent revolution. At this

point, it's

11

Marcy,

  You really think carrying a sign might be an "implicit symbol of aggression"??? What about writing a letter to the editor? Wearing a provocative t-shirt? Speaking forcefully at a public meeting? Could *any* of our free speech rights get by according to such a standard without being tainted by some association with the threat of violence?

  I would also like to point out that it is virtually *always* possible to work within the system. People who were arguably decent human beings did so even under the Nazi and Soviet regimes. It is simply a question of how much oppression you are willing to tolerate while remaining peaceful yourself. If the American founders could be transplanted into the present, I expect that they would consider it past time for a violent revolution. I am not advocating such a course of action, but I think it's a helpful thought experiment to put things in perspective.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

12

Starchild,

In answer to your first question: I do not see a symbolic connection
between a protest sign and a provocative T-shirt, unless what you
mean by provocative is lettering on the shirt calling for armed
revolution. If so, then yes, both are symbols of aggression, and not
particularly useful. By the way, carrying signs in a special setting
such as a parade is OK by me.

In answer to your second comment: There is a crucial difference
between the political climate of our founding parents and our own
today -- the ballot box. As I said, I am more than willing to
protest, get arrested, etc. etc. etc. if I do not see a political
avenue, such as the ballot box.

Marcy

Marcy,

  You really think carrying a sign might be an "implicit symbol

of

aggression"??? What about writing a letter to the editor? Wearing a
provocative t-shirt? Speaking forcefully at a public meeting? Could
*any* of our free speech rights get by according to such a standard
without being tainted by some association with the threat of

violence?

  I would also like to point out that it is virtually *always*

possible

to work within the system. People who were arguably decent human

beings

did so even under the Nazi and Soviet regimes. It is simply a

question

of how much oppression you are willing to tolerate while remaining
peaceful yourself. If the American founders could be transplanted

into

the present, I expect that they would consider it past time for a
violent revolution. I am not advocating such a course of action,

but I

think it's a helpful thought experiment to put things in

perspective.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

> Very useful analysis,Chris. I agree with you that first level

rallies

13

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 things to all people, whether or not we are the
only libertarian group in SF or not.

best,

David

--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

14

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 >>>

15

Cato is the perfect example of the advantages and disadvantages of
going maiinstream. In 1994 for a brief period, CATO caprured the
imagination of Ginrich's Congress. Presently, CATO's Social Security
initiative has the full support of President Bush. However, we have
seen what happened to Ginrich and the President's Social Security
initiative. The problem with CATO and the Social Security Initive is
that at it's intellectual core CATO is not Libertarian, but worships
at the alter of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School. Mike Denny
posted Lew's discussion of the chicago school as part of the Iraq
National Lp thread above. CATO's Social Security plan was dead on
arrival in Vongress because the American people are smart enough to
know that the financial system in this country is completely rigged,
and therfore to ask an individual to take responsibility for his
retirement is problematic when the risks of massive long term
instability are so great due to the fact we donot have a free market
banking and finacial system. The American public could never
articulate that, but they know it in thier gut. Cato's greatest
failure is that they have never embraced Austrian economics. I believe
this is because of an inner need to be semi mainstream. The result is
that Social Security reform will go down in flames, and no other
politician will dare touch libertarian ideas for quite a while. By
failing to address the rotton core of our economy, Cato has left a
hugh intellectual gap in the understanding of what is happening by the
entire Washington establishment. As the dollar resumes it's slide,
and the ravages of inflation and un employment morph into serious
social unrest, the intellectual vacuum is left to be filled by the
tiny Mises Institute, which has the goods on economic thinking but as
the outsider, unfortunately tends to go off the deep end on other
issues sometimes. The solution in Washington would be for Cato to
embrace Mises and Rothbard. The solution for all of us is to be strong
in our libertarian ideals never comprimise to be mainstream, and
steadfaxt in presenting ourselves professionally when appropriate, and
as protesters when appropriate. As the Bible and the Byrds said, to
everything, turn, turn , turn, there is a seadon, turn turn turn, and
a time for every purpose under heaven, a time to be born and a time to
die, a time for war and atime for peace, a time to embrace, and a time
to refrain from embracing.

16

Totally agree with Phil's sentiments. Especially the suggestion that
we behave "professionally when appropriate and as protesters when
appropriate." I assume this approach would leave it up to each one
of us as individuals to determine when is when.

Regarding CATO, the thought occurs to me that liberals have sometimes
used the "going down in flames" strategy to their advantage. I am
thinking of Hilary's health care plan several years ago. Her
specific plan went down in flames, but the idea of universal health
care was forever seared into the voters' mind, facilitating
incremental subsequent steps by the Democratic Party. Perhaps CATO is
trying the same strategy with their Social Security privatization
plan. Perhaps the LP could build upon that introduction, as the
Demos did with Hilary's, by addressing the benefits of free markets
and sound money.

BTW, CATO people are very often invited to express their opinion on a
variety of subjects on NPR Radio, and are always introduced as "so
and so" from the libertatian CATO Institute. I submit that the reason
they are invited is that they behave very professionally, they
refrain from extreme statements, and they address the specific
subject at hand. They are, therefore, not left to preach to the
choir, but are busy planting libertarian seeds in the minds of voters
at large.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "ricochetboy" <philzberg@e...>
wrote:

Cato is the perfect example of the advantages and disadvantages of
going maiinstream. In 1994 for a brief period, CATO caprured the
imagination of Ginrich's Congress. Presently, CATO's Social Security
initiative has the full support of President Bush. However, we have
seen what happened to Ginrich and the President's Social Security
initiative. The problem with CATO and the Social Security Initive is
that at it's intellectual core CATO is not Libertarian, but

worships

at the alter of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School. Mike Denny
posted Lew's discussion of the chicago school as part of the Iraq
National Lp thread above. CATO's Social Security plan was dead on
arrival in Vongress because the American people are smart enough to
know that the financial system in this country is completely rigged,
and therfore to ask an individual to take responsibility for his
retirement is problematic when the risks of massive long term
instability are so great due to the fact we donot have a free market
banking and finacial system. The American public could never
articulate that, but they know it in thier gut. Cato's greatest
failure is that they have never embraced Austrian economics. I

believe

this is because of an inner need to be semi mainstream. The result

is

that Social Security reform will go down in flames, and no other
politician will dare touch libertarian ideas for quite a while. By
failing to address the rotton core of our economy, Cato has left a
hugh intellectual gap in the understanding of what is happening by

the

entire Washington establishment. As the dollar resumes it's slide,
and the ravages of inflation and un employment morph into serious
social unrest, the intellectual vacuum is left to be filled by the
tiny Mises Institute, which has the goods on economic thinking but

as

the outsider, unfortunately tends to go off the deep end on other
issues sometimes. The solution in Washington would be for Cato to
embrace Mises and Rothbard. The solution for all of us is to be

strong

in our libertarian ideals never comprimise to be mainstream, and
steadfaxt in presenting ourselves professionally when appropriate,

and

as protesters when appropriate. As the Bible and the Byrds said, to
everything, turn, turn , turn, there is a seadon, turn turn turn,

and

a time for every purpose under heaven, a time to be born and a time

to

die, a time for war and atime for peace, a time to embrace, and a

time