It has been discussed that we support Roe v. Wade. Makes sense to me. Maybe
we should just say so in the plank, instead of trying to make it look like
we aren't taking a position when clearly we are.
Henry, do you have specific wording in mind for a proposal? We can debate
proposals via our list, here, but can't vote on them until the in person
meeting (straw votes, we can do).
Debbie (Colorado)
(Attachment image001.png is missing)
(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)
In my opinion Roe vs Wade is an issue we should stay away from. There are
valid arguments on both sides and we do not want to be in a situation where
we lose half our membership over a single issue.
Roe vs. Wade is divided 5-4 and Obamacare is also divided 5-4 on the United
States Supreme Court. I think we are all opposed to Obamacare. One
retirement on the US Supreme Court and one shift and the whole thing could
crash.
Sam Sloan
(Attachment image001.png is missing)
(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)
It is useful to point out that Roe v. Wade is the result of government intervention in private affairs.
If government had been prohibited from interfering with reproductive choices, there would be no abortion issue and govcernment would not now be providing the most prolific abortion campaign in history.
This is about who is in charge of wombs:
1) women
2) government
The socialist fanatics behind abortion laws, set in place the machinery for this government-sponsored holocaust, at the same time they established police-power over a woman's womb.
They are the murderers. Meanwhile women have been in the successful business of producing the next generation for eons...or at least six thousand years, depending on your views.
Women have been waaaay better than the socialist fanatics, who are known for exterminating the next generation in one police-state after another.
The libertarians would lose few supporters when we are in favor of reproduction and the survival of the species. The proven way to accomplish this is to get government out of the business of reproduction.
________________________________
From: Sam Sloan <samhsloan@...>
To: LPSF Discussion List <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Henry Haller <hehaller@mac.com>; Mark Grannis <mgrannis@...>; Roy Minet <Roy.Minet@...t>; Brian Holtz <brian@...>; Joseph Buchman <drbuchman@...>; Sarah Bales <sarahrbales@...>; Grassroots Libertarians Caucus <GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; nkleffman . <nkleffman@...>; LP Sunshine Caucus <lpsunshine@yahoogroups.com>; Dianna Visek <Dianna.Visek@...>; Ann Leech <Ann.Leech@...>; christian padgett <libertychrisny@yahoo.com>; Tom Rhodes <tomr62262@...>; Travis Nicks <tnicks@...>; calibs <CALibs@yahoogroups.com>; houselynn@...; Laura Delhomme <lauradelhomme@...>; lpusmisc@yahoogroups.com; Aaron Starr <starrcpa@gmail.com>; Andrew LeCureaux <alecureaux@...>; John Wayne Smith <jwsmith42000@...>; sam8074@...; Starchild <sfdreamer@...>; Joe Hauptmann <joeh46250@...>; Ken Prazek <libertykenneth@...>; Alicia Mattson <agmattson@...>; LP
Radical Caucus <lpradicals@yahoogroups.com>; Rebecca Sink-Burris <rebecca.sinkburris@...>; John Fockler <John.Fockler@...>; Christopher R. Maden <crism@...>
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2014 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] RE: Abortion issueIn my opinion Roe vs Wade is an issue we should stay away from. There are valid arguments on both sides and we do not want to be in a situation where we lose half our membership over a single issue.
Roe vs. Wade is divided 5-4 and Obamacare is also divided 5-4 on the United States Supreme Court. I think we are all opposed to Obamacare. One retirement on the US Supreme Court and one shift and the whole thing could crash.
Sam Sloan
It has been discussed that we support Roe v. Wade. Makes sense to me. Maybe we should just say so in the plank, instead of trying to make it look like we aren’t taking a position when clearly we are.
Henry, do you have specific wording in mind for a proposal? We can debate proposals via our list, here, but can’t vote on them until the in person meeting (straw votes, we can do).
Debbie (Colorado)From:Henry Haller [mailto:hehaller@…]
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 3:53 PM
To: Debbie Schum
Cc: 'Mark Grannis'; 'Roy Minet'; 'Brian Holtz'; 'Joseph Buchman'; 'Sarah Bales'; 'Grassroots Libertarians Caucus'; 'nkleffman .'; 'LP Sunshine Caucus'; 'LPSF Discussion List'; 'Dianna Visek'; 'Ann Leech'; 'christian padgett'; 'Tom Rhodes'; 'Travis Nicks'; 'calibs'; houselynn@...; 'Laura Delhomme'; lpusmisc@...m; 'Aaron Starr'; 'Andrew LeCureaux'; 'John Wayne Smith'; sam8074@...; 'Starchild'; 'Joe Hauptmann'; 'Ken Prazek'; 'Alicia Mattson'; 'LP Radical Caucus'; 'Rebecca Sink-Burris'; 'John Fockler'; 'Christopher R. Maden'
Subject: Re: Abortion issueI would like to suggest that it is possible to "ride the fence" on the abortion issue\. I have supported this position before on the Platform Committee, but it has always been a non\-starter\. Not being one to give up easily, I will suggest it again\. The common definition of the end of life is the cessation of brain activity\. Thus, it would be logical to define the beginning of \(human\) life as the initiation of brain activity\. This idea is further supported by the idea that what distinguishes humans, who have rights, from other creatures, who do not have rights, is the ability to think\. With this in mind, I suggest taking a pro\-choice position up to the time when brain activity can be detected in the fetus, and a pro\-life position thereafter\. This position has the another advantage in that polls show that a majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal up to some point between conception and birth, and prohibited later in pregnancy\. The Libertarian Party would then hold a position consistent with the views of a majority, while no other party currently has that on this issue\. Although I think this position is eminently logical and clearly libertarian, I will not be offended if it is again rejected out of hand\.-- -- Henry Haller
Pa. alternateMark, I tend to agree with you, and this is my 3rd term on the platform committee.
Yes, most of what we hammer out as a committee will be slashed down by the delegates at the convention.
But I also saw that the required in-person meeting was overwhelming due to being unprepared. This email list is our opportunity to be better prepared.I understand what you are saying about the platform. So imagine my surprise a number of years ago to have people not registered as Libertarians be the ones to point out to me several state LP websites “issues” sections saying children should be allowed to be prostitutes, and/or children should have marriage equality. This did not come from the national LP platform, but neither did the national LP platform address this issue at all. Imagine the difficulty I faced in public debates about libertarianism, overcoming this and other pretty odd stances that were actually listed on some states LP websites. Stances my authoritarian opponents were able to clearly point to and I hadn’t even been aware of at all. I of course did not agree with these stances, but was left stammering, hemming and hawing, looking like an apologist and lone dissenter against my own party (which I don’t believe was actually the case). Audience members were rightly disgusted and
my credibility was completely shot.
I am gratified to see that those same issues sections now read that consenting adults should have marriage equality. OK, great.
But I also understand this: what makes the LP different than the redemopublicraticans is a philosophical principled platform. Supposedly, we don’t just create issue stances based on our emotions du jour. OK, I like that. Do you know our pledge comes straight out of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”? I’m ok with that. Yes, I understand that it has become fashionable to hate Ayn Rand. Personally, I think she was pretty cranky but spot on with her philosophy of objectivism.
It is not my intent to start an internal debate about Ayn Rand. It is my intent to point out that our platform needs to portray that our stance on all the various issues comes from philosophical principles. To correctly show that government IS philosophical principle, always has been always will be. In as brief but concise a way as possible.
For example (and this was a plank I tried to get passed unsuccessfully), WHY is marriage and prostitution for CONSENTING ADULTS and not CHILDREN? Let’s start with the hope that everyone on this committee agrees with that basic premise. I’m sure we’ll hear about it if this is not the case. The spot where I was able to put this together cohesively was after reading Badnarik’s book “Good to be King”. Rights, responsibilities, privileges. Even though he didn’t address children getting married or being prostitutes, it seemed pretty clear to me, based on the root concept of rights (that include responsibilities) vs. privileges. Children are not capable of the same responsibilities as adults (does this or does this not mean they don’t have the same rights as adults?). Which is why we as a society don’t allow 3 years old to pack around a .357 or drive the family car. Not because gun ownership or car driving is a privilege, but because of
the responsibility inherent. As an adult I have the right to carry a gun and the responsibility to make sure no one is unjustly harmed by my gun, correct? And if I am incapable of the responsibility (for example, as an extreme, I walk into the grocery store and start firing off rounds in all directions) then my right to bear arms should be infringed on by a government whose job it is to protect the rights of all individuals. To me, this is the same premise underlying the idea of why we don’t marry, or have sex with, children, or hire them as prostitutes. Social taboos aren’t just about emotional reaction. The philosophical principle is what causes the negative emotional reaction (in my opinion). And we need to be able to explain that very briefly and concisely.
I am hoping that the reason my various proposals about a plank regarding children and marriage were shot down is because I didn’t do a good enough job with wordsmithing (and not because most of you want to marry a child prostitute). And perhaps I’m just being too specific about children, marriage, and prostitution. Maybe this idea needs to expand out better. So people understand WHY libertarians take the positions that we do. To help others understand the concept at all of basic principles that move forward to positions, instead of it just looking like we somehow just come up with these seemingly random (and from their point of view) contradictory stances. They seem contradictory to authoritarians. Not to people who understand the root principle of liberty.
Another plank that has bothered me for a long time is the abortion plank. We have tried desperately to ride the fence and not actually take a position. This is not possible, and clearly our plank position is pro-choice. Which then makes the plank mealy mouthed, waffly. If we are pro-choice, so be it, say so. We need strong positions, not “trying to please everyone” mumbo jumbo like the redemopublicraticans put out. In my opinion, abortion is one of the few legitimately debatable planks. No, not because of how anyone FEELS about it, but because IF, as pro-life proponents claim, abortion is murder, then it IS something the government should be involved in (as an entity charged with protecting the rights of every individual, including the right to life, to not be harmed). Obviously, this is a medical/science/philosophy question that may never be satisfactorily resolved. Point being we, as libertarians, understand that smoking pot for example
isn’t a debatable issue. Why? Because it is an individual choice that involves or harms no other individual. Let me make clear that I do not use drugs and I am NOT “pro-drug” (but yes, I am anti-prohibition). But whether a fetus is an individual IS a worthy debate. Not one I’m suggesting we delve into necessarily, but that society in general certainly does and will continue to do. Meanwhile, it isn’t actually possible to ride the fence on this. We are pro-choice or we are pro-life. Either way, I do like that we mention in the plank that we welcome people from both sides of the debate, and we need to make plain that our candidates are allowed to come down on either side of this issue without being “out of line” with our platform. That debate about this issue is welcomed.
I would like, of course, to revisit the issue of the child marriage/prostitution issue (yes, I hear you veterans groaning) and hopefully I have articulated myself better this time around about what I’m trying to achieve with this and why, and making it more inclusive to other issues. Any comments, suggestions, proposals about achieving this?
Debbie (Colorado)From: Mark Grannis [mailto:mgrannis@…]
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 8:34 AM
To: Roy Minet
Cc: Brian Holtz; Joseph Buchman; Sarah Bales; Grassroots Libertarians Caucus; nkleffman .; LP Sunshine Caucus; LPSF Discussion List; Dianna Visek; Ann Leech; christian padgett; Henry Haller; Tom Rhodes; Travis Nicks; calibs;houselynn@verizon.net; Laura Delhomme; lpusmisc@yahoogroups.com; Aaron Starr; Andrew LeCureaux; John Wayne Smith; sam8074@...; Starchild; Joe Hauptmann; Ken Prazek; Alicia Mattson; LP Radical Caucus; Rebecca Sink-Burris; John Fockler; Christopher R. Maden; Debbie L. Schum
Subject: Re: Flawed 2008 platform questionnaireIt seems to me we're dealing with a document that is and will continue to be used in many ways by many people. In particular, there are definitely some people who consult the platform to see our positions on various issues, and other people who consult the platform to see our arguments for those positions. I myself have used the platform for each of these different reasons at different times: as a curious non-Libertarian, as a new Libertarian, as a candidate, and as an essayist. I think the current platform serves both purposes, and that our platform should continue to do so.
As a younger party, we necessarily spend more effort on education than the other parties do, and it is hard to see how we can win elections without talking a lot about the philosophy of liberty in broad philosophical strokes. But I think previous Platform Committees have been right to confine fundamental philosophy to the Preamble and Statement of Principles so that the numbered planks can be more crisp and direct. When voters ask candidates "where they stand on education" (or Medicare, or climate change, or any of the other categories in which non-libertarians so often think about elections), the candidate must have a reasonably concise statement of practical actions he or she will take to address practical problems. In that electoral setting, strong echoes of Locke or Mill (to say nothing or Rothbard or Hayek) seem to me unlikely to persuade most of the not-yet-persuaded; they may in fact distract more of a candidate's audience than they
attract, and make us seem farther "out there" than we are in fact. Robert Sarvis went a long way with "open-minded and open for business." I assume he is as committed to and well-versed in the philosophies of self-ownership and non-aggression as any of us, but he didn't need to talk about them in every answer to every question.
As a convention delegate in 2012, I had thought this division of labor between the preamble and the numbered planks was a piece of brilliant composition; now I learn from Aaron and Starchild that it may have been an uneasy compromise. Whatever its provenance, though, I think it's great. The document first declares the philosophical underpinnings on which the entire platform rests in a way that I think is unique among major parties, and then it proceeds to the short and direct statements that non-Libertarians want and expect to find there. For people who want more philosophy, there are plenty of books to read. For people who want more policy, there are plenty of research papers and thinktank seminars. But our platform can do something none of those other resources can do: namely, introduce voters to our party and its positions, with clear pointers toward directions for further inquiry.
Can we improve on the document we have? I certainly think so. But I think we should be trying to identify and fix specific problems rather than to reinvent the wheel. Are there planks that are just wrong? If not, then let's not propose any complete rewrites. Are there phrases that are clunky or misleading? If so, then by all means let's try to eliminate or replace them, but let's not be making what one of my colleagues used to call "happy-to-glad" edits. I would expect the output of this committee to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary; otherwise, I would expect to see most of our proposals voted down by delegates who, after all, are happy to count themselves members of the current party with its current platform.
I can't quite shake the feeling that this message will put me right in the middle of some chasm I still don't quite see, but if so, please indulge me. I speak for the neophytes.
Mark Grannis
(At large, from MD)I certainly hope the intended audience for the LP Platform is NOT the convention delegates. If it is, we are talking to ourselves and that is one very good reason why we are not making much progress at becoming a successful political party.
Clearly, we need to obtain the approval of said delegates for proposed changes, so they surely must be considered in that light. If there is no hope of getting "good" changes approved by the delegates, then we truly are wasting our time.
Roy Minet -- PA________________________________
From: "Brian Holtz" <brian@...>
To: "Roy Minet" <Roy.Minet@...t>
Cc: "Joseph Buchman" <drbuchman@...>, "Sarah Bales" <sarahrbales@...>, "Grassroots Libertarians Caucus" <GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com>, "nkleffman ." <nkleffman@...>, "LP Sunshine Caucus" <lpsunshine@yahoogroups.com>, "LPSF Discussion List" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>, "Dianna Visek" <Dianna.Visek@...>, "Ann Leech" <Ann.Leech@lpo.org>, "christian padgett" <libertychrisny@...>, "Henry Haller" <hehaller@...>, "Tom Rhodes" <tomr62262@...>, "Travis Nicks" <tnicks@gmail.com>, "calibs" <CALibs@yahoogroups.com>, houselynn@..., "Laura Delhomme" <lauradelhomme@...>,lpusmisc@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Starr" <starrcpa@...>, "Andrew LeCureaux" <alecureaux@...>, "John Wayne Smith" <jwsmith42000@...>, sam8074@..., "Starchild" <sfdreamer@...>, "Joe Hauptmann" <joeh46250@...>, "Ken Prazek" <libertykenneth@...>, "Alicia Mattson" <agmattson@...>, "LP
Radical Caucus" <lpradicals@yahoogroups.com>, "Mark Grannis" <mgrannis@...>, "Rebecca Sink-Burris" <rebecca.sinkburris@...>, "John Fockler" <John.Fockler@...>, "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@...>, "Debbie L. Schum" <smudgesticks@...>
Replying to an old 2014 email, just want you all to know about this. We'll be active at the convention. Please join if you'll be there. We'll have leaflets and buttons.