RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [lpsf] Correspondence with mayoral candidate Eric DuPree

Thanks Starchild,
Pro-freedom is a winner, when candidates get serious about it and campaign like it matters.

Losing an election for the LP, is the work clowns, like the song says, "...clowns on the left, jokers on the right...". Nobody needs it and it does't sell.

Then it's a matters of savvy. It's what is done in office that counts. What is said to get there is irrelevant. And only a fool needs to lie and snivel, to sell the best political product.
Campaign on one thing only that will be delivered.

Oh, I will just put in my two cents for the heck of it.

In this town, for a Libertarian to win any election -- partisan or non partisan -- will require the intervention of the archangels, or an awful lot of money and time in campaigning. That is because we have nothing to hand out but liberty, not a particularly sellable commodity hereabouts. Thusly, the value to the Party of a Libertarian running for office rests on his pro-liberty, specifically Libertarian, message regarding specific social and economic issues during the campaign.

Regarding Eric's campaign, the way I understand the situation, he already made pretty clear that he does not want to be beholden to any political party or group. He has already made clear that he will campaign on specific issues as he sees fit, not as any political party or group dictates. Therefore, if we as individuals support him, I would say it is because Eric is a nice guy, not because he is pledged to follow any prescribed litmus tests. This is not to say that with enough persuasion from Starchild, Eric might not decide otherwise. Totally up to him.

Regarding Amy, well, I think obtaining the "official" support of the LPSF is going to take a lot more than loving one's neighbors, being in favor of giving away any amounts over a comfortable salary, and supporting legalizing prostitution (I am assuming she is OK with bookkeepers, so I would not proselytize about that).


The proof of one freedom conviction lies in the non orthodox methodology in how ones' run their, campaign/lives.

Renters rights, for instance: is synonymous with "squatters' rights"
Property owners, business practices contaminated by municipals' shall be further engaged: as per majority voters rights.
Certainly, libertarians believe in owners rights. Freedom differs from policy to policy.

Campaigning for office and being in office, problems are caused by constituent demands.
Voters wanting to be assured their measures prevail.
It's pathetic politicians are held to litmus test, especially when there has been a decade relationship and a life so lived.
Of course there must be give and take; an elected official can do but so much, especially when implementing a revolutionary approach to freedom.
We all walk a line in positioning the future.

I'm not sure what you said.
I made some typo corrections to my previous post.

Freedom debate Challenge: Amy Farah Weis!
Has no official candidate contact info with the registrar of voters; though has been on file since 12/8/14 Ummmm
Sounds suspicious.
Is Amy really running or is she just another, Newsometron pet, planted to supplement the vote, Ummmm?lol

I hereby challenge said candidate to a debate of Libertarian virtues; at any time or place more than two (of us) shall meet.

As a candidate, I know there are no truly freedom minded individuals vying for office other than myself.

Plainly speaking: "I believe a human can do anything one pleases, as long it doesn't harm another person!"

To any and all Weis supporters in contact with, her; stop hiding vying in hope for freedom supporters, and instead, come forth and face the music, of freedom songs, I sing, loud and clear: "Suicide should not be against the law; as it is the ultimate of humans' freedom to express"

There, Amy Farah Weiss, I gesture to you...

(wink) Marcy Berry: I'm a just keep it, basic!

Hee, Hee. If that is your "basic," Eric, I will hide under a table when you get really fired up.

I'm in for a candidate's debate between you and Amy (and maybe also any of the other candidates if that is acceptable)! One way to handle it might be to reserve an LPSF meeting partially for such a debate. Or, if you, Eric, and we, LPSF, think we can pull more spectators than the 15 that fit in the regular LPSF meeting room, you, Eric, can reserve a bigger library room, for example (I don't think LPSF can do that because we are limited to a certain number of reservations per year; but Aubrey could confirm that).

BTW, I entirely see your point about standing for certain principles, ideas, views, regardless of political party affiliation. For information only: the LPSF has in the past expressed "support" for candidates that belonged to other parties (or to no party at all), when we did not have a Libertarian candidate running in the same race, and if the candidate stood for libertarian principles. One example is our strong support of John Dennis; however, our tradition is not to "endorse" any candidate that is not a registered Libertarian.

See you on Sunday for the "Tax Day Symposium: Housing for All - The Supply, the Planning and the Realities," 1:30 (sharp!) - to 3:30 pm, San Francisco Main Library, Latino/Hispanic Room B.