Hi Michael,
> I recommend anyone wishing to run for LPSF office in January
> post their Statement Of Intent on the activists list by 31 Dec.
This is a nice idea, thanks for the impetus.
The first LPSF meeting I attended was this year's January election
meeting, and then as now I was struck by the lack of interest in
holding office in the Party. Is it so unrewarding? Is it so much
work? Or is it just the libertarian predisposition against seeking
(perceived) authority?
It makes me wonder whether there might be some wholly different
structure more appropriate for the group -- perhaps more
collaborative than deliberative. But I don't have a clear model in
mind. Maybe we only need two officers, or some other way of
sharing the work around the group.
> Consider addressing some of these points in your SOI:
>
> 1. Office(s) I'm running for.
Chair, though I would be happy to serve in any of the four
offices.
> 2. Why vote for me.
I actually want to job; perhaps next year I'll join everyone else
in their ambivalence. :) But I would hope you all know me well
enough by now that I don't need to say much more; if you don't
know me well enough, that's evidence that I shouldn't be Chair.
This would definitely be a learning experience for me. I have
experience leading and coaching technical teams, though smaller
and more limited in scope than this organization. I also have some
training in group facilitation techniques that I look forward to
practicing:
[http://www.tobe.net/papers/facilitn.html](http://www.tobe.net/papers/facilitn.html)
[http://www.cnvc.org/nvc.htm](http://www.cnvc.org/nvc.htm)
> 3. My vision for the LPSF.
I see the Party as a coordinating committee for numerous
individual projects. I think we make the most progress and impact
when one or a few members take on a project they are passionate
about and then seek support by and through the Party, rather than
when we spend our time debating what to do before doing it. We
need to be very careful and formal when putting the Party's
endorsement on a project, or when allocating the Party's general
funds, but we need to avoid putting a damper on anyone's
enthusiasm and also draw more enthusiastic people in by
demonstrating effectiveness.
> 4. How I would implement my vision.
I see the Chair as a coordinator first and a spokesperson second.
Unfortunately I won't have as much time as I'd like during the
weekdays to be directly involved in many activities, so my
energies would be focused on effective meetings to enable the
group to accomplish what we want outside of the meetings.
> 5. What I would do differently.
I would differ from Marcy in style more than substance; I happen
to be more technical in procedure, but still particularly valuing
group dialogue and energy.
> 6. What I would continue.
I can only hope to follow Marcy's example in love of the Party and
dedication to the job, as well as attention to the mailing lists
and prompt handling of the agenda and other Party business.
> 7. Brief views on hot-botton issues,
Most of the following should of course be unsurprising, and the
extent to which it is surprising -- more than the extent to which
it is controversial -- is the extent to which I would consider
myself ineligible.
> e.g., hawk or dove,
Dove. I hold a somewhat romanticized notion of libertarian
militias such as those of the Spanish Civil War of 1936.
Foreigners traveled to Spain as individuals to join the voluntary
militias fighting against Franco's fascist coup. When the Spanish
government organized a formal army they promptly lost the war. I'd
like to see our standing armies abolished and everyone trained
(voluntarily) for disaster response and self-defense.
> moral or consequential or Constitutional libertarian,
All of the above, I suppose. I'm not satisfied with the notion of
"consequentialism" as I understand it because it suggests that my
means do not themselves have consequences. As far as I'm
concerned, the consequences of all my actions are the only
possible moral justification (or condemnation) for them. The ends
do justify the means as long as we look at *all* the ends, not
only the intended ones.
To take this a little further (maybe too far), I see the essence
of socialism as orthogonal to libertarianism, not contradictory:
Socialism is idealistic, whereas libertarianism is principled.
Ideals are focused on *ends*, and principles are focused on
*means*. Socialists go disastrously astray when their zeal for
their intended ends obscures the horror of their chosen means.
Libertarians likewise go astray when their righteousness over
their principled means distracts them from compassionate ends.
> anarchist or minarchist,
Anarchist, with a simple definition: The just powers of government
cannot exceed the rights of those who consent to those specific
powers. That is, forming a government does not lend any moral
legitimacy to one's actions. But I value social cohesion, and I
believe in the due process of law, and I see an important role for
institutions supporting those purposes, as long as they do nothing
in my name that I have no right to do individually or that I do
not consent to.
> gradualist or abolitionist,
I would like to see rights violations abolished, but I don't
expect that to happen any way other than gradually. Small steps
are not necessarily compromises, but we do need to beware of the
temptation to focus on small changes in policy that miss an
opportunity for a larger shift of opinion.
> win or educate as major initiative/candidate purpose in
> elections,
We all have different motivations in coming together in the Party;
the three major strands seem to be election, education, and
activism. The nature of a political party is election, but I see a
large part of the the Party's value in coordinating the more
general libertarian educational and activist projects of our
members. I want to see us enter any election planning to win, but
not comprising our message for that end.
That said, my major personal motivation for joining the Party is
really my *own* continuous learning rather than any particular
intention to change others' beliefs or policies.
> etc.
I'm sure this is too long already. Thanks again for the questions!
Cheers,
Justin
SPONSORED LINKS
[U s government grant](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=U+s+government+grant&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=46y6ULHvC1K7UWYyT6_nJA) [California](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=t0WI39Ad6uCvaGD2aU9b4Q) [Activist](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Activist&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=4ByCWi03twUc71POcy8zfQ)
[U s government student loan](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=U+s+government+student+loan&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=lunB1IXkW25giNNSjXwduA) [California politics](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=ehCbO4a23lr_0u_Q0TOlFQ)