SF Examiner Runs My Anti-Fines LTE With Affiliation

Dear All;

On Monday the SF Examiner had an article about merchants wanting a law to fine
property owners who did not rent out store fronts. I had a few words to say
about that and the SF Examiner published an edited version - which still makes
the point.

Ron Getty

http://snipurl.com/zq3dj [www_sfexaminer_com]

How to attract business

Merchants want legislative fines on commercial property owners who don’t lease
empty storefront space in a timely manner.

Will such legislation attract businesses to anti-business San Francisco? Will
the legislation speed up permits and license applications?

When you want to attract businesses to San Francisco, move City Hall’s costly
laws, rules, regulations and bureaucratic red tape out of the way of opening
and running a small business.

Ron Getty, Vice chair, Libertarian Party, San Francisco

This is the original article about the merchants wanting to fine property owners

http://snipurl.com/zq3f2 [www_sfexaminer_com]

Ron,

  Did you get prior approval from the LPSF about what you were going to say to the public on behalf of the LPSF in this letter? Should you have done so?

  I don't think so -- if you'd had to comply with such a requirement, you might not have gotten around to submitting the letter, or it might have happened in a less timely fashion and not gotten printed. Congratulations on getting it published with your LPSF title listed, hope you will support the freedom of others to do the same.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild

I have been doing LTE's for a couple years now with the LPSF affiliation. This
has appeared on literally a hundred plus LTE's in the SF Examiner and SF
Chronicle and Bay Guardian and San Francisco Weekly.

Are you saying that you just noticed I used my LPSF position for identification
purposes for the first time today?

If you believe there is something wrong with officers or committee chairs using
their LPSF affiliation for LTE's have it put on the agenda for the August
meeting.

Ron Getty

Ron,

  No, I've noticed it for a while, but refrained from pointing out the conflict with the policy we foolishly adopted about using our LPSF titles in public letters only with the approval of the body, in the interest of allowing our message to be spread with a minimum of red tape. I decided to mention it now because the recent thread in which you appeared to be in favor of people getting their remarks formally approved before speaking to the public on behalf of the LPSF indicated to me that we may be on the verge of adopting yet more counter-productive restrictions on spreading our message as an organization, and the double standard was also starting to bother me.

  I don't think there is anything wrong with any member of the LPSF using their LPSF affiliation for letters to the editor or other public communications. I think our approach should be to encourage everyone to get our party's name and views out there, and to simply use their best understanding with regard to what to say or not to say, and if someone has a problem with something that someone else says while using the name of the party, to deal with it on an individual basis when it comes up. Too many rules and procedures keep things from getting done.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Ron,

Excellent letter! Congratulations on getting published in the SF Examiner.

All the best,

Don

Dear Starchild

There is a major significant difference between a 100 word LTE with affiliation
which is issues oriented to a specific Libertarian principle and standing before
a group as an official representative of the LPSF because we had posted on the
LPSF site ask for a speaker to come speak about Libertarianism on behalf of the
LPSF. In an hour speech a good speaker can put out some 6,000 - 7,000 words on
the topic of the LPSF and Libertarianism and Libertarian principles. We need to
know that what that person will be saying represents Libertarianism and NOT
Libertarianism as filtered through that persons personal beliefs and life style
and life experiences.

Yes we do need to know what that person will be saying specifically on behalf of
the LPSF and the Libertarian party..

If you go out on your own and personally speak on Liberatriansim as a
Libertarian on a personal basis feel free to do so as you are representing you
NOT officially the LPSF.

Marcy noted this difference in an earlier email and I agree.

It is not an infringement on your right to speak as a Libertarian. It is our
right to know what you are going to say when you speak before a group as an
official representative of the LPSF because a group asked for an official
representative of the LPSF to come and speak before them.

Ron Getty

Ron,

  So what precisely in your opinion should be the dividing line, then? Using one's LPSF title in a written communication is okay, if the communication is under a certain length -- how long? -- but using one's LPSF title when speaking to a group is not? Or is using one's title when speaking not okay only when the speaking invitation came via our website offer to have speakers come talk about libertarianism and the party (an idea I recently suggested, btw), but okay in some other circumstances, in your opinion? How do you propose people speak in order to do so in a way that does not reflect their life experiences? Are you suggesting that personal anecdotes should be prohibited?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild;

Quote the Starchild

Once upon a midnight dreary
As I pondered weak and weary
I posted a post without cheery
I ran on with my queries
May haps one thought I had
one too many beery
My inquisition need
not make you leery
even though I
from wall to wall careerie...

Okay enough poetry

1.If you speak directly on a formal official basis on behalf of the LPSF as a requested speaker to talk about the LPSF and Libertarianism get approval for what you say. Sorry about that...

2. If you write an LTE which will normally be in response to these things: taxes - regulations - cutting government spending - or all of the above in under 150 words or less you will not be starting out expounding on Libertarian theory principles history. The LTE has to be specific and curt and direct - cut taxes cut spending cut regulations or cut all of the above. You aren't going to say anything due to the fact that there isn't enough space which will cause harm to the LPSF. Use your title.

3. You personally and privately go amongst the hoi polloi and the vast unwashed masses as a libertarian and speak personally about your libertarian experiences and libertariansim - just go do it. You just can't say I am officially and formally speaking on behalf of the LPSF and everything I say is carved in stone on behalf of the LPSF and the Libertarian Party of California the Libertarian Party United States and all Libertarians across the galaxy to the outer ends of the universe.

Ron Getty

Ron,

  I'll ignore your bad and insulting poetry, and simply address the issue -- your apparent proposed standard, that it's okay to use one's LPSF title only when writing a letter to the editor "in response to these things: taxes - regulations - cutting government spending - or all of the above in under 150 words or less" which "has to be specific and curt and direct - cut taxes cut spending cut regulations or cut all of the above" is not only completely arbitrary, but by focusing only on economic issues, reflects a fiscally conservative party, not a libertarian party.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild

LTE's are normally in response to issues of import to people as reported as news
items and articles as the newspaper or whatever believes they are of interest to
their readers. In general such as taxes and government spending and government
regulations. The things people are concerned about wallet wise and life style
wise and amazingly enough Libertarians are for seeing reduced as well or getting
government out of their lives and bedrooms.

Like I said LTE's do not have the room to expound on libertarian philosophy and
principles and history. You have enough room to slam the issue include the
affiliation so people may just might make the connection. Then if you are lucky
the affiliation sometimes get left. It always doesn't.

Lastly like I said previously. Ask to have it put on the agenda if you want to
have a formal policy regarding LTE's and who can say what and when and what
requested guest speakers can or can not say when officially and formally
speaking on behalf of the LPSF and the Libertarian party and Libertarian
principles and philosophy and economics.

Ron Getty

Dear Ron, Starchild, and All,

I am going to express my humble opinion that LPSF meeting time be not spent on this subject. We have gone back and forth on this since the beginning of time already. Rather than aim for micromanaging the situation, I would like to suggest that we simply use OUR *&@@#^% COMMON SENSE!!! Please, all, go forth and write letters to editors, pass out LPSF business cards, volunteer for LPSF tabling at events, all in you capacity as Libertarian activists!

But, kindly refrain from writing books, accepting speaking engagements, meeting with heads of state, attending conferences in the name of LPSF without us knowing about it!

Thank you!

Marcy

Marcy,

  That sounds like an excellent approach to me. I suggest we adopt it as our new policy by acclamation at the next meeting, unless anyone wants to take more time to discuss the issue.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dearest Marcy;

As Adam said to Eve - you going to bake that apple pie like you mentioned so we
can bring it to this weeks Libertarian Party meeting?

Ron Getty

P.S. Common Sense? Libertarians? In the same breath? Com'n Marcy you gotta be
kidding already!!! LOL

As I said, Starchild, I prefer not to use up meeting time on this at all. And as I said, let's use our common sense.

Marcy

No, I am not bring this to anywhere at all!! And yes, even Libertarians can exercise common sense when necessary!!

Marcy