The Valley Forge State Meeting

[GlennRobinson]

Isn't "principled libertarian" redundant??   

[Eviker]

Isn't "principled libertarian" redundant??

Not to those who think they can decide, in Goldilocks fashion, when the LPPA tent is not too big and not too small. but just right, and apparently plan to guard the tent flap with a magical perfect party platform to ensure nobody thinks differently than they do.   

[djahn]

Isn't "principled libertarian" redundant??

Not to those who think they can decide, in Goldilocks fashion, when the LPPA tent is not too big and not too small. but just right, and apparently plan to guard the tent flap with a magical perfect party platform to ensure nobody thinks differently than they do.   

Erik

Just because you don't see the importance of a party platform, doesn't mean it isn't important, perhpas even of paramount importance.

[Eviker]

Just because you don't see the importance of a party platform, doesn't mean it isn't important, perhpas even of paramount importance.

You perpetrate a straw man fallacy, David.  Nowhere have I said I do not see the importance of a party platform.  You made that up, probably because it's easier for you to respond to what you pretend I said about the platform, rather than respond to what I actually said.  See here to learn more: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[GlennRobinson]

Isn't "principled libertarian" redundant??

Not to those who think they can decide, in Goldilocks fashion, when the LPPA tent is not too big and not too small. but just right, and apparently plan to guard the tent flap with a magical perfect party platform to ensure nobody thinks differently than they do.   

Erik

Just because you don't see the importance of a party platform, doesn't mean it isn't important, perhpas even of paramount importance.

I think most people here, and at the convention, over estimate the positive value and under negative potential of a platform.  A good platform can help a bit but a bad platform can do real harm.

[djahn]

You perpetrate a straw man fallacy, David.  Nowhere have I said I do not see the importance of a party platform.  You made that up, probably because it's easier for you to respond to what you pretend I said about the platform, rather than respond to what I actually said.  See here to learn more: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

There is no straw man argument Erik.  You support the current platform which doesn't say anything and mock anyone who believes we need something of substance.

Earlier you posted the following.

Nobody can define for anybody else what a "principled libertarian" is.  And anybody can say they know what a "real platform" is.  That sort of "line-in-the-sand" fussiness will do nothing to promote Libertarian ideals in public policy by getting Libertarians elected.  

You could just as easily claim that the MOST principled Libertarians cared enough about liberty to drive to Franklin, PA and decide what the current LPPA platform should say, and that all those who failed to attend the most recent convention are the unprincipled libertarians.  

Absurd.

Ironically, in that comment you make my point.  All kinds of people believe they are libertarians.  Some of them don't begin to understand what a libertarian is.  They believe in wealth redistribution schemes, the war on drugs, outlawing gambling, limiting gun rights, marriage amandments, the list goes on.  The believe we will nominate them as candidates after they were rejected by the R's & D's.

Even within the Libertarian movement, we have divides on issues with people coming from the far left or right for example.  As I pointed out before, in my opinion, the current platform would work for just about any party.  I believe we covered that in a previous  post http://www.lppa.org/smf/index.php?topic=35963.msg48938#msg48938

The members of the LPPA need a meaningful platform that sets forward what we expect from libertarians in PA.  What that platform says is for the members to decide.  It could lay out our position on a number of issues.  It could say we don't want far left or far right ideas.  Whatever it says, it should say something about the direction of the LPPA.  

The current platform is a disservice to the party.  Some believe it creates a big tent, but what it really creates is a party without direction and the potential for a slate of candidates running on opposing views across PA on some pretty key issues.  I predict in the end, this approach will be damaging and do more harm than good. Allready we have long time supporters witholding funds.  It wouldn't suprise me if counties consider dissafilliation.

I'm not sure what kind of people or candidates you are trying to attract with this platform.  If all we cared about was getting people  elected, the best way to accomplish that is to run them as R's or D's.  If we care about getting libertarians elected as Libertarian Party candidates, then we need to agree about what a libertarian position is on many issues.  I and others are not going to put our resources into supporting libertarian candidates only to find they aren't libertarians and they fail to support our views on some very key issues.

And, no we can't guarantee that once elected they would continue to support our platform, but we can expose them as liers and withhold future support.

And for the record, I was not a fan of the old platform.  But going from one extreme to the other is not the answer.

As it is now. I know I and others are reluctant to promote the party or making any financial contributions until this is resolved, and we are convinced this party is a good investment.  Maybe the R's and D's that are attracted to the big tent will fill the void.

[Dr. Tom Stevens]

I think most people here, and at the convention, over estimate the positive value and under estimate the negative potential of a platform. A good platform can help a bit but a bad platform can do real harm.

I fully agree but I wish to comment further on the issue. The current platform is too vague. The old platform was too specific. We need a platform that sets forth positions on issues that 95% of all LPPA members would agree on. Once that is accomplished, we should move on to more constructive activities.

[Roy.Minet]

I, too, agree.  That's why it was pretty urgent to get rid of the old platform and not nearly as urgent to fix the new platform.

[vern]

I think most people here, and at the convention, over estimate the positive value and under estimate the negative potential of a platform. A good platform can help a bit but a bad platform can do real harm.

I fully agree but I wish to comment further on the issue. The current platform is too vague. The old platform was too specific. We need a platform that sets forth positions on issues that 95% of all LPPA members would agree on. Once that is accomplished, we should move on to more constructive activities.

New thread please.

[Eviker]

I and others are not going to put our resources into supporting libertarian candidates only to find they aren't libertarians and they fail to support our views on some very key issues.

Then you're barking up the wrong tree, David.  No platform will prevent that that problem.  Very carefully selecting LP candidates will prevent that problem. 

David, when you respond to what you pretended someone said, rather than to what they actually said, you perpetrate a straw man argument.  You did it.

The current platform does say something, despite your repeated claim that it doesn’t say anything.  Your hyperbole on this issue is counterproductive and damages your credibility. 

I do not “mock anyone who believes we need something of substance.”  Nor do I support the current platform except as a starting place for a platform that is better than the most recent platform.  You have not been paying adequate attention to my position.  You hear what you want to hear in your righteous indignation. 

I do not advocate for a specific platform of one sort of another.  I advocate for an understanding that whatever the platform may or may not say, it cannot ensure that LP members and candidates behave or think in specific Libertarian ways.

You have repeatedly failed to explain exactly how the perfect platform of your choosing would somehow guarantee the perfect candidates and LPPA members.

LPPA members who would withhold contributions or activism because of the text of some bureaucratic paperwork just aren’t very committed to getting Libertarian principles promoted in public policy. 

[Mik]

Ironically, in that comment you make my point.  All kinds of people believe they are libertarians.  Some of them don't begin to understand what a libertarian is.  They believe in wealth redistribution schemes, the war on drugs, outlawing gambling, limiting gun rights, marriage amandments, the list goes on.  The believe we will nominate them as candidates after they were rejected by the R's & D's.

Even within the Libertarian movement, we have divides on issues with people coming from the far left or right for example.  As I pointed out before, in my opinion, the current platform would work for just about any party.

There are also people who believe they have the one true definition of what a libertarian is and all those not fitting that definition are not libertarians and not fit to be in the LPPA. I think one of the appeals of libertarianism is that it is universal, you don't have to be of a particular political or ideological stripe to think people can make decisions for themselves and that unfair advantage is unjust.

Libertarians can work with any political party, even D's and R's. We don't need to be insular or exclusive. To the extent that we can influence the policy positions of other parties, that is a good thing. To the extent we make fodder for others to point out how ridiculous libertarian ideas are, that is a bad thing. To the extent that we want to be a political party and affect the political process, we should identify the policy positions that are most likely to have a positive effect.

The current platform is a disservice to the party.  Some believe it creates a big tent, but what it really creates is a party without direction and the potential for a slate of candidates running on opposing views across PA on some pretty key issues.  I predict in the end, this approach will be damaging and do more harm than good. Allready we have long time supporters witholding funds.  It wouldn't suprise me if counties consider dissafilliation.

I disagree in that the same thing could have been said about the previous platform for being too constraining. How much did the previous platform cost us in supporters or inability to create and maintain local organizations? We may never know. If the party lacks direction it is not because of what the platform does or does not say, it is because the membership is unclear on what it wants the organization to be. If the membership wants it to be so radical that only a few will subscribe, that's fine, but that is not what I'm hearing from most of the membership.

The main complaints I have heard about the platform is the perceived conflict with the bylaws, although I don't think there is such a conflict, and the proposed remedy involves a change of one word, and that it not specific on issues. In fact most people have said they agree with what the platform does say, with the complaints largely being that it should say more. I don't think anyone expects that this will be the platform written in stone to be guarded against change for the foreseeable future, as the last platform was. I think it is reasonable to expect there will be changes to the platform in the future, and those changes should be based upon a consensus of the membership.

I think if we work within the bounds of the stringent, verbose previous platform and the wide-open, sparse current platform, we can find what will be most agreeable for the membership. Whether people want to free minds, run for elected office, or something else, they should all be able to function within the LPPA. These should not be mutually exclusive activities for the party. The key is getting documents that do not make one activity better at the unreasonable expense of others. If county affiliates want to disaffiliate over that, it is questionable whether they wanted to be a part of a larger organization in the first place.

[bdively]

<<<< The current platform is too vague. The old platform was too specific. We need a platform that sets forth positions on issues that 95% of all LPPA members would agree on. >>>>

The Nolan Chart Perhaps?   

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/