No. Have a great time!
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Survey on proposed Libertarian Party
platform changes
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, February 29, 2012 12:19 pm
To: Francoise Fielding <francoise@thefieldingcompanies.com>
Cc: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.comFrancoise,
You’re welcome, and thank you for your kind words. Are you coming to the state convention this weekend?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Starchild:
Great work. Thanks so much for getting this out.
Francoise
Subject: Survey on proposed Libertarian Party platform changes
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, February 29, 2012 3:32 am
To: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>Greetings,
I wanted to let you know about the survey currently online about changes to the Libertarian Party platform. Unfortunately, the conservative-leaning majority on the LP Platform Committee have a bunch of bad changes proposed which they’re trying to push on us this year.
In 2010, there were 24 committee proposals, of which I supported 13 and opposed 11. This year’s committee has 18 proposals (they are labeled 1-16 along with two additions, 1b and 2b), of which I consider only two – proposals #11 and #16 – to be worth supporting. Of the others, proposal #5 appears to be a relatively unnecessary but harmless style change that would not affect the meaning of the plank it would revise. The rest I consider to be misguided efforts which I encourage you to vote down.
I also wrote an open letter to members of the Libertarian National Committee, included at the bottom of this email, on the problems with how the survey is being conducted. If you would like to contact them, here’s a list of their names and email addresses:
Rebecca Sink-Burris <rebecca.sinkburris@gmail.com>
Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu>
Dan Karlan <dankarlan@earthlink.net>
Jim Lark <jwlark@lp.org>
Brad Ploeger <Brad.Ploeger@lp.org>
Scott Lieberman <scott73@earthlink.net>
Mary Ruwart <mary@ruwart.com>
Randy Eshelman <Randy.Eshelman@lp.org>
Mark Hinkle <mark@garlic.com>
Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein@lp.org>
Andy Wolf <Andrew.Wolf@lp.org>
Mark Rutherford <vicechair@lp.org>
Bill Redpath <wredpath@his.com>
Kevin Knedler <Kevin.Knedler@lp.org>
Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com>
Marakay Rogers <Marakay.Rogers@lp.org>
Vicki Kirkland <Vicki.Kirkland@lp.org>
Carl Vassar <lib203@yahoo.com>
Doug Craig <Doug.Craig@lp.org>
Wayne Allyn Root <rootintl@aol.com>
Stewart Flood <sff@ivo.net>
Norman Olsen <Norman.Olsen@lp.org>
Guy McLendon <guy@mclendon.net>
David Blau <david.blau@lp.org>
Dianna Visek <Dianna.Visek@lp.org>The Libertarian Party National Committee’s email discussion list is <LNC-Discuss@hq.lp.org>.
The survey on the platform, including the committee majority’s arguments for its recommended changes and my own responses to each proposal, are copied below from the survey website, so you can read and think about the proposals before going online and clicking through the 17-page document to send in your own responses, if you wish to, at www.lp.org/phpQ/fillsurvey.php .
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Member, Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee (2011-2013)*
Outreach Director, Libertarian Party of San Francisco**for identification purposes only – all views expressed in this letter are my own, although they may be shared by many others.
Platform Committee Report 2012
INTRODUCTION:
The Libertarian Party Platform Committee’s job is to recommend changes to the platform, to be voted on by the delegates to our national convention.
Four years ago, based on survey feedback by thousands of you, the 2008 Platform Committee learned what type of platform you wanted. This critically important feedback helped us construct proposals to successfully rebuild our party platform in a new style – short, bold and outwardly focused, yet still in keeping with our core values.
Thanks to your input, the 2008 convention delegates were able to accomplish an amazing feat, getting the 2/3rds agreement necessary to rebuild a complete platform in a single convention day.
Then in 2010 the Platform Committee focused on editorial cleanup, as the 2008 platform was rebuilt with cut-and-paste passages from past platforms, which left some subject matter holes and some readability shortcomings.
With the 2012 convention just around the corner, our convention delegates will soon be voting on improvements to the platform. Again, this year’s Platform Committee focused on polishing existing language and filling in subject matter holes to address current issues not previously covered.
The 2012 Platform Committee met in December and adopted a series of 16 recommendations. Each is presented here with a note from the committee chair describing the purpose. By completing this survey you will be able to share with us your thoughts on our recommendations, many of which were inspired by written comments received on the 2008 and 2010 surveys.
Your responses will be very helpful. If you identify important factors we overlooked, or if you can think of improvements for the proposals, the Committee will have an opportunity to modify our report when we meet again in Las Vegas just before the convention in May.
Thank you for taking a few minutes to participate in the process by completing this survey which allows you to show support/opposition for each recommendation as well as an opportunity to provide comments on each.
Alicia Mattson
Platform Committee ChairNOTES ABOUT THE SURVEY SOFTWARE: As a measure to prevent abuse of the online survey, at the end you will be asked provide a valid email address to which we can send a confirmation code. For reasons not always evident to us, sometimes due to spam filters, sometimes not, some people are not receiving the confirmation codes. If you do receive it, please use it to confirm your valid email address for us. If you do not receive it, don’t worry…your survey answers ARE still saved, and your time was not wasted. The software merely files your record in a category for manual review to make sure the system isn’t being abused before those records are added to the survey results.
LEGEND: Unchanged existing language - language to be added - language to be deleted
#1a
Plank 1.0 - Personal Liberty
Purpose:
The first sentence of the existing language seems to say that individuals are “free to…accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make” as opposed to it being an obligation to do so. The foreign policy content of the second sentence doesn’t belong in a plank regarding personal liberty, and the non-initiation-of-force concept is already covered in plank 3.0. This proposal remedies both of these problems, improves the general readability and style, and additionally gives our candidates protection against accusations that we think 3-year-olds can choose whether or not to use heroin, drive cars, and carry guns.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
Libertarians recognize individual self-ownership and the right to make personal choices. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices does not mean that we approve or disapprove of those choices. With rights come responsibilities, and the right to make a choice depends on both understanding that it has consequences and accepting responsibility for them. Government’s proper role is to protect the rights of every individual.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
“Individuals should be free…” is a much better opening for a plank on Personal Liberty than “Libertarians recognize…”
More importantly, many Libertarians do NOT believe government has any proper role, and the proposed language would misrepresent their beliefs.
This proposal, with its heavy emphasis on responsibility and light emphasis on freedom, sounds way too conservative.
We don’t need to further conservatize or water down our platform!
#1b
Plank 1.0 - Pending Amendment
Purpose:
The committee also recommended that the delegates consider substituting an alternate proposal as shown below for the proposal above.
In a 2008 survey which asked our constituents what type of platform they ultimately wanted to see, there was a strong preference that we find positive wording to emphasize the benefits of Libertarian policies to the reader. This alternative proposal is offered by the Platform Committee to give delegates such a stylistic choice.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
The very foundation of America is our recognition of the right of individuals to make choices, even those of which we may personally disapprove, provided they bear the consequences of those decisions. The right to make a choice depends on both understanding that it has consequences and accepting responsibility for them. This ideal creates unrivaled freedom and abundance, and allows the greatest number to pursue happiness in their daily lives. Libertarians seek to preserve and enhance this distinctively American quality and view government’s proper role as ensuring the right of individuals to make personal choices for themselves and voluntarily in concert with others.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
I prefer the first recommendation above over this one.
I prefer this recommendation over the first one above.
I support neither of these two proposals for this plank.
I would prefer either of these proposals over the existing plank.
(I support neither of these two proposals for this plank.)Comments:
We should retain the language about not initiating force – the Non-Aggression Principle is the heart and soul of libertarianism, and deserves to be more heavily emphasized in our platform, not deleted!
Once again this proposal represents an attempt to give our “Personal Liberty” plank a more conservative tone. It adds the unnecessary nationalism of referring to the “foundation of America”, and to a “distinctively American quality”, when in fact libertarianism is a universally applicable philosophy that is not restricted to any one country or people.
#2a
Plank 1.2 - Personal Privacy
Purpose:
The proposed new first sentence introduces the philosophical underpinning of self-ownership as the rationale for the rest of this plank. The rewrite of the last two sentences emphasizes the privacy aspects of personal choices, rather than the criminalization aspect, so as to eliminate the redundancy with plank 1.5 titled “Crime and Justice”.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
1.2 Personal Privacy and Self-Ownership
Libertarians recognize that each individual owns himself and therefore has the right to privacy. Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what media and substances they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
The language proposed for deletion is NOT redundant to what appears in the “Crime and Justice” plank (1.5).
The language that conservative-oriented platform chair (for life?) Alicia Mattson wants to delete, sets forth in clear, simple, powerful language the important principle that “victimless crimes” that do not infringe on the rights of others are not crimes at all:
Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating ‘crimes’ without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
This language could be moved to plank 1.5, but it should not be deleted.
Also, “each individual owns himself” is not gender-inclusive in line with current phrasing.
#2b
Plank 1.2 - Pending Amendment
Purpose:
The committee also recommended that the delegates consider amending the final sentence of the above proposal as shown below.
The LP is often criticized as not making sufficient distinctions between adults and children. This pending amendment would allow delegates the option to directly address this criticism.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
Individuals Adults have the freedom and responsibility to decide what media and substances they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this amendment to the final sentence of the above proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
As human beings, children have rights. How could rights be “inalienable” if people do not possess them from birth? Children merely delegate certain freedoms to their parents until such time as they choose to become legally independent and assume full responsibility for their own actions.
This looks like an ageist attempt to write children’s rights out of our platform.
#3
Plank 1.4 - Abortion
Purpose:
This is the first of two proposed changes to the 1.4 Abortion plank.
The platform already acknowledges that there is more than one legitimate position as to when the right to life begins. The proposed additional sentence makes explicit that individuals with different viewpoints on this subject are welcome in our party.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. We welcome both pro-life and pro-choice members into the Libertarian Party.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
Where is the proposed platform language stating that “We welcome both anarchist and minarchist members into the Libertarian Party”?
This proposal is one more attempt to make the Libertarian Party more conservative!
#4
Plank 1.4 - Abortion
Purpose:
This is the second of two proposed changes to the 1.4 Abortion plank.
Though pro-life and pro-choice Libertarians may have their disagreements, they can usually agree on this additional language.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. Taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
This needs to be balanced by language stating that taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidize organizations that discourage sex or counsel people not to have abortions.
As the proposal includes no such balancing language, it constitutes yet another attempt to further conservatize our platform and our party.
#5
Plank 1.5 - Crime and Justice
Purpose:
This preposition change switches to the more common usage of the word “restitution” - that it is the thing which is offered to the victim to make them whole, rather than the act of making the victim whole.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
1.5 Crime and Justice
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
My understanding is that we would be saying the same thing in either case, since “making the victim whole” is metaphorical, not literal.
Therefore, unless I’m missing some hidden legal distinction connected with replacing “of” with “to”, this is an insignificant change that should be handled by the Style Committee.
While I do not oppose the change itself, I marked “oppose” because I think to include it here is a waste of convention delegates’ time.
At least this is the one proposal so far which does NOT seek to advance a conservative agenda (although I notice it also fails to propose adding the stronger language that the conservative-leaning committee members want to delete from Plank 1.2, which is not a bad reason to oppose it unless it gets amended, since it changes nothing important).
#6
Plank 1.6 - Self-Defense
Purpose:
This proposal begins the plank with an emphasis on the benefits of freedom. It then broadens the plank scope to cover “personal defense weapons” such as knives and tasers in addition to just “firearms” and “ammunition”, but it doesn’t broaden so far as to give the impression that we would treat WMDs the same way. The existing “all” and “any” language leaves no room for juries to restrict weapons rights of those with a history of using them to harm others. The proposed new last sentence addresses a growing trend of state governments banning the possession of defense weapons in certain types of private businesses (for example, any restaurant that serves alcohol).
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
1.6 Self-Defense
Societies are safer when the self-defense rights of peaceable individuals are not abridged by laws prohibiting or regulating the ownership, possession and transfer of personal defense weapons. The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the possession or use of personal defense weapons on their own property.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
This proposal begins the plank with an appeal to safety, not freedom. Bad change.
It also strikes out the clear libertarian language that “We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition” and replaces it with weaker language that refers only to property owners and only to “personal defense weapons”.
#7
Plank 2.4 - Government Finance and Spending
Purpose:
This proposed rewrite uses language that is more positive, emphasizes to the reader the benefits of our policies, gives better general coverage of the topic, and improves the logical flow and general readability of the plank.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
2.4 Government Finance and Spending
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
People should be free to keep the fruits of their labor and live the American dream without having their success taxed for pork projects, social engineering, special favors to lobbyists, bailouts of failed private investments of others, subsidies for private industries, charities chosen by the government rather than by the donor, and funding the consequences of other individuals’ irresponsible personal choices. We call for the federal government to be scaled back to its Constitutional limits, which would allow the elimination of income, payroll, and many other taxes. Future generations should not be born into a debt burden from previous generations, as it is taxation without representation, so government has a responsibility to eliminate its long-term debt and operate under balanced budgets.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
This proposed rewrite again seriously waters down our message.
It would delete three important statements from our current platform:
(1) our call to eliminate unconstitutional departments and programs
(2) our call for employers not to be compelled to serve as tax collectors; and
(3) our call for government to operate without going into debt.
All of these things are important and worth saying clearly and strongly. All that has to happen for short-term debt to become long-term, inter-generational debt is for government to fail to pay it off (because there’s other more popular stuff they’d rather spend money on than balancing the books).
#8
Plank 2.5 - Money and Financial Markets
Purpose:
Though the plank title is “Money and Financial Markets”, the existing plank only discusses the banking subset of financial markets, and the second sentence is hardly a problem on the mind of the average voter. This proposal would addresses contemporary concerns in the broader financial markets and would emphasize to the reader the benefits of our policies.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
2.5 Money and Financial Markets
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.
Libertarians would halt government’s manipulative monetary policies, which favor large financial institutions and special interests while reducing the purchasing power of hard-working Americans. Government has a legitimate role combating fraud in financial markets. We favor free financial markets, where private investors assume financial risks, and are entitled to the rewards of honestly acquired gains, without expecting taxpayers to subsidize them or bail out their losses.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
One more attempt to water down our platform! Just because something is not a “problem on the mind of the average voter” does not mean we should expunge it from the document that states what we believe!
This proposal would eliminate our call for people to have choice in money and an end to legal tender laws. By stating that there is a “legitimate role” for government it also explicitly violates the party’s informal Dallas Accord agreement to remain neutral on the question of anarchy versus limited government.
Finally, it adds language that begins with an emphasis on what we oppose and deletes language that begins with an emphasis on what we favor, notwithstanding the fact that the committee justifies one of its revisions to the Rights and Discrimination plank (proposal #13) on the grounds that “The proposed re-write begins with an emphasis on what we favor, rather than what we oppose.”
#9
Plank 2.7 - Labor Markets
Purpose:
The original plank is poorly constructed and is likely to be misunderstood. For example, the first sentence of the original would seem to argue against laws forbidding convicted sex offenders from working in daycare centers. The second sentence spends platform “real estate” on an awfully rare problem. The proposed rewrite speaks more of what we favor than what we oppose. The last sentence of the re-write addresses a problem that is now widely recognized at all levels of government, with many city, county, and state governments finding themselves insolvent with unfunded pension obligations.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
2.7 Labor Markets
We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
Libertarians believe employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the province of government, and these private contracts should not be impeded by government-mandated benefits and social engineering requirements. We support the right of private sector employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union, provided that it is conducted without governmental interference such as compulsory arbitration. Since government employers are protected monopolies funded by taxpayers and not subject to market forces, we oppose government employee unions and advocate replacing government employee defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution plans which are typically found in the private sector.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
Contrary to the rationale set forth arguing for this proposal, dictating who private employers such as day care centers can or cannot hire is NOT a proper role of government.
The final sentence of the proposed replacement language is not a bad addition, but since it (like virtually everything else the committee is proposing) tends to tilt our platform in a more conservative direction, it should be accompanied by adding additional details affirming our support for personal liberties so that the overall document does not tilt more to the right in terms of its appeal.
Indeed, the first sentence of the proposed replacement language appears to say as much (“ibertarians believe employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the province of government, and these private contracts should not be impeded by government-mandated benefits and social engineering requirements”) – the existing language simply makes the point more concisely.
#10
Plank 2.8 - Education
Purpose:
This proposed rewrite uses more efficient wording and emphasizes the responsibility of parents in the education of their children, rather than the moral values aspect.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.
Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
This proposal does not fix anything that particularly needs fixing, but it does create more ambiguity in our platform, by referring to educating children as a “responsibility”, while Plank 3.5 states that it is a right:
“Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.”
The language of this proposal also fails to acknowledge that children may have guardians or other persons responsible for their education.
Part of the Education plank that does badly need fixing, but which the proposal fails to address, is the language, “Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education”.
Clearly they should have no such thing!
If I want to spend my money to erect an educational billboard about the Bill of Rights near an educational facility, for the purposes of educating children going to school there who are likely to see it, the parents of those children should NOT have control of or responsibility for the funds I expend on this project.
#11
Plank 2.9 - Health Care
Purpose:
Previous surveys about platform content resulted in numerous requests that we clarify that the “level of health insurance they want” includes the option to have none at all.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
2.9 Health Care
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(support)Comments:
An unequivocally positive addition to the platform! I’m shocked!
#12
Plank 3.4 - Free Trade and Migration
Purpose:
This proposed rewrite better emphasizes the practical benefits of free trade and the positive contributions made by immigrants. It also attempts to address concerns from prior-year platform surveys, when quite a number of respondents indicated they would support the existing plank only after we fix the welfare state which attracts some immigrants who don’t share our personal responsibility values which are critical for long-term success of a free society.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
We welcome those not requiring public assistance to come to our country to embrace the American dream, as their pursuit of happiness enriches their lives and our own. However, to ensure the general welfare of those already here, we would bar from entry those foreign nationals posing a credible threat to security, health or property. Because Libertarians understand that free trade improves standards of living and reduces the likelihood of war, we support the free movement of goods and capital across national borders.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
Terrible proposal that would delete our support of freedom of movement. Our platform should not surrender to the short-term xenophobic prejudices that typically arise during economic downturns.
Immigration also improves standards of living and reduces the likelihood of war, just as free trade does, because it increases cultural connections and understandings between people in different countries.
Besides the misguided nature of the overall change, this proposal contains numerous more specific issues.
Contrary to the implication of the proposed language, nobody “requires” government assistance.
And the insertion of the “American dream” language (also proposed to be inserted into Plank 2.4) introduces a needlessly nationalistic tone.
#13
Plank 3.5 - Rights and Discrimination
Purpose:
This is the first of two proposals for plank 3.5 Rights and Discrimination.
The first sentence of the existing plank is not a public policy statement, but is rather condemning specific personal opinions, even though the Personal Liberty plank states individuals have rights to make choices we don’t agree with. The proposed re-write begins with an emphasis on what we favor, rather than what we oppose. It also addresses a mistaken notion about the nature of rights.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
3.5 Rights and Discrimination
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
Instead of deleting the first sentence, just substitute “aggression” for “bigotry”, and then it will be condemning un-libertarian actions instead of personal opinions.
There is no need to delete the second sentence, which is perfectly correct and appropriate to include in a plank about rights and discrimination – government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation!
Adding the term “human” before “rights” would appear to exclude other types of rights such as civil rights, legal or contractual rights, etc., so this is a mistake.
Moving “wealth” further down the list would be a good idea though – putting it right at the beginning after “sex” and before the more familiar listings of race, color, and creed, could easily give the impression that we are unduly concerned with protecting the wealthy.
#14
Plank 3.5 - Rights and Discrimination
Purpose:
This is the second of two proposed changes to the 3.5 Rights and Discrimination plank.
This proposal clarifies an exception to parental rights in order to protect children from abuse. Breaking the parent/child bond is a serious decision that belongs in the realm of a jury, rather than a bureaucracy.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
3.5 Rights and Discrimination
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs — unless a jury finds abuse, neglect, or reckless endangerment.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
This added language would be a positive change, if it included the additional clause, “or a child becomes legally independent.” Without that clause, children are denied the possibility of legal emancipation.
#15
Plank 3.6 - Representative Government
Purpose:
This is the first of two proposed changes to plank 3.6 Representative Government.
On previous platform surveys regarding other portions of this plank, quite a number of responses indicated that the readers mistakenly thought that the first sentence of the existing plank was specifically advocating a change to the electoral college. This proposal is an effort to remove that confusion.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
3.6 Representative Government
We support electoral voting systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(oppose)Comments:
Electoral systems are electoral systems, and the Electoral College is the Electoral College. Electoral systems include more things than just methods of voting – for instance, topics such as ballot access and gerrymandering which do not directly involve how voting is conducted.
Instead of effectively dumbing down our platform for people who mistake electoral systems for the Electoral College by limiting the scope of our call for electoral reform to “voting systems”, we should clarify what we mean by “electoral systems”. We can do this by adding language following that sentence which specifically mentions proportional representation, a level playing field for all political parties via equal and reasonable rules for ballot access, and other reforms we seek.
#16
Plank 3.6 - Representative Government
Purpose:
This is the second of two proposals for plank 3.6 Representative Government.
Not all states allow their citizens to directly be involved with adopting or repealing legislation. This proposal advocates that such tools should be more universally available, provided that they are used to reduce the size and scope of government power.
------------------------------START OF PROPOSAL------------------------------
3.6 Representative Government
We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government.
-------------------------------END OF PROPOSAL-------------------------------
Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Support
Oppose
(support)Comments:
This proposal should be reworded – we don’t advocate the initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when they are used to harm the cause of individual liberty rather than help it, whether such measures are “popular” or not. However, the basic thrust of the proposal is sound enough for me to support it. The problem I note could largely be fixed by adding the word “abuse” after “government” at the end of the proposed new sentence.
Will you be attending the national Libertarian Party convention scheduled May 2 through May 6, 2012 in Las Vegas and are you planning to be a delegate?
a) Yes
b) NoPlease feel free to use this space to provide us with general comments on this survey.
As I pointed out two years ago, it is a conflict of interest for members of the Platform Committee, who already have a privileged position from which to push whatever agendas they favor, to have exclusive or preferential access to the information gathered by this survey.
The survey results should be made available to all LP members on an equal basis at the same time. If they are not, then surveys should be strictly anonymous, with each member given a special code or something allowing one-time access to the survey form in order to avoid vote-packing.
In fact, the whole practice of doing these surveys is rather questionable, as it appears designed to enable Committee insiders to tinker with their proposals in order to get more of them passed.
A fairer practice would be to make it easier for a larger and less repetitive group of members to serve on the Platform Committee. Another real reform would be to limit the convention time devoted to considering Platform Committee proposals, to allow more proposals to be made by delegates from the floor, or to alternate one committee proposal with one from the floor, instead of considering ALL the committee proposals first and then considering proposals from the floor only if there’s any time remaining (which there often isn’t).
I request that these comments, and my entire survey, including my contact information, be posted online and made available to anyone wishing to see survey results, and I further request to be emailed the results of this survey as soon as they are compiled and no later than they are made available to committee members.
Here is a copy of my open letter to the LNC on this and other related matters, along with previous correspondence, minus the formatting:
Members of the Libertarian National Committee,
A few months ago I brought up a number of concerns about the Bylaws Committee survey, and now I see the same stuff happening again. People are being surveyed about proposed changes to our platform (at http://www.lp.org/phpQ/fillsurvey.php ) and asked to give their names and contact information.
Last year this same approach was cited (designed?) as an excuse to keep many survey results hidden from the membership. (In fact, where are the responses from the Bylaws survey from those respondents like myself who opted-in to make our results public?) I don’t want to see this self-serving secrecy repeated. LNC members, please see that an advisory note is immediately added to the Platform Committee survey letting all further respondents know that all responses will be made public unless they choose to opt-out and keep their responses anonymous, and then that the info is made public. And more importantly, please take action to ensure that in the future, no surveys of this sort are sent out unless (a) they do not ask for personal information, or (b) it is made clear that personal information disclosed will be made public. It is patently unfair for some members of our party to have access to detailed information collected under the auspices of the party about how specific individuals are likely to vote on matters before the membership, and for other members of the party to be denied access to this same information. The full party membership deserves to have access to survey information gathered from LP members that may impact the future of our party – not just a handful of insiders!
I wish the above were the only problem with the Platform Committee survey (besides the contents of the proposals it is pushing, which I won’t get into here), but it is not. The survey once again fails to disclose how many committee members voted for each proposal, let alone how each committee member voted, and fails to present “pro” and “con” positions on the proposals voted out of the committee, something that LNC member Rebecca Sink-Burris joined me in objecting to last September (see below).
Why are these things happening again? I suspect it is because this is at least the third time in a row that Alicia Mattson has chaired the national Platform Committee. Did someone appoint her chair for life!? If I’m not mistaken, she has played a role in preparing both Bylaws and Platform surveys, and currently sits on both committees, as well as being national Secretary. All that is too much power/responsibility for one individual! Other Platform Committee members have also served on multiple past iterations of this committee, and considering what a huge role the Platform Committee plays in shaping our platform, the official statement of what we stand for as a party, it is vital that this body be opened up to greater participation and transparency.
I wish that the Platform Committee were the only leadership body in the LP to have such problems, but it’s not. LNC rep Kevin Knedler just told me that LNC subcommittees such as the Convention Oversight Committee are limited to two non-LNC members per committee. He said that since the Convention Oversight committee already has two such members, he could not nominate me to this committee on which I have for years been interested in serving, even though there is no fixed limit to the number of people on the committee. He wrote that “opening up the LNC committees further may work in the future,” but that “It took a LOT of work to get some folks to agree to opening the door up ever-so-slightly.”
If we can’t do better than opening the door “ever-so-slightly”, it is outrageous and pathetic! How do those of you who deliberately fight to maintain this kind of cozy insider-ism justify your role in a political party that is supposed to be a grassroots organization of freedom-loving individuals seeking decentralization of power?
I’m a firm believer that sunshine can work wonders in such matters. Therefore, I request to see a list of all present and as many past members of the Platform and Bylaws committees and other LNC committees as can be identified, along with their contact info, and ask that this list also be published on LP.org and distributed to any interested LP member. Maintaining such a list logically seems like part of the Secretary’s job – if she feels overworked, perhaps she ought to consider stepping back from some of her responsibilities.
Kevin told me he has asked for a list of committee members as well – apparently unsuccessfully, since he did not offer to produce one. Chuck Moulton, who has often been exemplary in promoting LNC transparency, both when serving on the body and as a regular party member, was able to dig up some info, but even he was unsure who all the current Platform and Bylaws committee members may be.
In order for you folks on the LNC to get more volunteers and support for LNC operations from the membership, people must first care enough about what you are doing to want to give that support. And in order to care about what you are doing, they must first be aware of what you are doing. Right now, you are artificially limiting that awareness by keeping information produced by party committees from reaching the membership, and by populating the Platform, Bylaws, and other committees with many of the “usual suspects” over and over again!
Will those on the LNC who favor the current practices described in this email defend them publicly? Will you defend them when you are running for reelection and speaking in front of convention delegates? If you don’t defend them, then will you work hard to change them, and let the rest of us know how we can help? We can’t afford a bunch of go-along-to-get-along fence-sitters! Do the right thing, and stand up for the rights of Libertarian Party members to be fully informed about what the party’s leadership is doing, and for ordinary members to be able to more fully participate in our party!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I too think it would be helpful to have the pro and con on each proposal. As the information was not available on this survey I often felt I was not able to give a considered answer. Also would like to see results available to membership with or without comments as the individual decides.
Rebecca
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email:
lpsf-activists-digest@yahoogroups.com
lpsf-activists-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (3)
Recent Activity:
Switch to: [Text-Only](mailto:lpsf-activists-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Traditional), [Daily Digest](mailto:lpsf-activists-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest) • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.