To avoid conflicting agendas. . .

[vern]

Deadline for changing registration to Republican is early February, so don't forget if you want to vote in the Republican Primary!  Of course, our convention is in April, and rules require that delegates are registered Libertarian unless prevented by law (so Dr. Tom is OK of course).  To all you Republicans out there:  go Ron Paul!

[Eviker]

Three cheers for clarity.

DJ:  I'm sorry, I thought it was you that wrote "People who want to promote a non-LP candidate should resign their LP responsibilities"  It seems to me that puts restrictions on what people within the LPPa can do and say.  Maybe you can offer clarity.

EV:  Sure, I can "offer clarity."  Again.  My suggestions are not restrictions.  They are suggestions for behavior that honors the LP bylaws to focus LP resource’s on actual LP endeavors.  You are muddying the clarity by inserting the idea of official restrictions into what is clearly a set of observations about personal integrity and effective use of limited resources.  I suspect your uncontrollable urge to argue has clouded your reading of my words

DJ:  I'll consider the source.

EV:  Me too. That’s why I laugh when I read your predictable, impotent comments.

DJ:  You lost me here.  Why would LP candidates and LP officers who blatantly shill for Republican candidates need defending?

EV:  Because people who know they are behaving badly often get defensive when their poor behavior is questioned.  LP candidates and LP officers who shill for candidates from political parties that squash citizen liberty and bloat government are behaving in ways that contradict the purposes of the Libertarian Party.  All that other dancing around you’ve done below about the definitions of the words “shill” and “endorse” and the exact wording and jurisdiction of LP bylaws will only further impede the work of the Libertarian Party.  We’ll always have political parties in government due to human nature- we’re a civilization of joiners.  We need an alternative to those Republican goons and their Democrat flunkies.  We should promote LIBERTARIANS in office who will advance Libertarian principles in public policy. After the past few decades, anyone who thinks any Democrat or Republican can be trusted to accomplish this is a fool.  Are you a fool, David Jahn?

[Eviker]

Three quick observations:

1.  The LPP is a Pennsylvania corporation and bound only by our Bylaws and the laws of Pennsylvania.  Nowhere in those Bylaws or the law does it say we need to heed the national party Bylaws.  They can call us an "affiliate" (whatever that means), but the only thing that matters is the laws and our Bylaws.  Or is there some secret treaty someplace?

2.  Can't we be civil libertarians?  It's because of the negatarians (http://www.lppa.org/smf/index.php?topic=35606.0) that I don't frequent this forum.  Thanks.

3.  GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!

1.  I suspect the LNC would disagree with you.  "http://www.lp.org/files/bylaws-2010-1207.pdf "No person, group or organization may use the name 'Libertarian Party' or any confusingly similar designation except the Party or an organization to which the Party grants affiliate party status or as otherwise provided in these bylaws. . . The National Committee shall charter state-level affiliate parties from any qualifying
organization requesting such status in each state. . . Organizations which wish to become state-level affiliate parties shall apply for such status on a standard petition form as adopted by the National Committee. . . Affiliate party status shall be granted only to those organizations which adopt the Statement of Principles and file a copy of their Constitution and/or Bylaws with the Party Secretary."  If these things were done historically, and I have no reason to believe they were not, then the LPPA has some obligations to national LP expectations.  

2.  If you scroll down you will see that I was a civil libertarian until unjustly provoked by a lying hypocrite negatarian.  Please admonish him.  

3.  I believe the LP should stop being distracted by Republican Ron Paul and wait until he again fails to win the GOP nomination before trying to recruiting his fans, so the LP does not continue to present as if we need Republicans to promote Libertarian principles.  I believe Republican Ron Paul is more interested in selling his books and making sure his sketchy “Campaign for Liberty” operation can send him big consulting checks in his retirement, than he is interested in promoting citizen liberty and limited government. I believe Republican Ron Paul’s anti-liberty positions make him a very poor representative of Libertarian principles.  he signed the so-called Personhood Pledge which approves of the use of government force restrict how women control their own bodies.  His version of state “rights” would allow state governments to decide to intrude on the family lives and medical lives of peaceful citizens at the demand of a tyrannical majority, rather than support the Libertarian Party platform positions that don’t support government at any level to do that sort of intrusion. His immigration positions include more restrictive citizenship rules and support of government meddling in peaceful people’s private housing and employment arrangements, which isn’t very Libertarian.  Ron Paul endorsed for president Chuck Baldwin, a religious extremist who ran with the ironically-named Constitution Party, a theocratic organization that wants to cede our nation's government to a religious figure under Biblical law. I believe Republican Ron Paul is of dubious value to the Libertarian Party.  

[djahn]

Three cheers for clarity.
EV:  Sure, I can "offer clarity."  Again.  My suggestions are not restrictions.  They are suggestions for behavior that honors the LP bylaws to focus LP resource’s on actual LP endeavors.  You are muddying the clarity by inserting the idea of official restrictions into what is clearly a set of observations about personal integrity and effective use of limited resources.

Ok, then you agree that LP candidates and LP officers are free to blatantly shill for candidates from opposing parties. 

I suspect your uncontrollable urge to argue has clouded your reading of my words

Yeah that's it.

DJ:  I'll consider the source.

EV:  Me too. That’s why I laugh when I read your predictable, impotent comments.

Yeah, you're kind of funny too.

DJ:  You lost me here.  Why would LP candidates and LP officers who blatantly shill for Republican candidates need defending?

EV:  Because people who know they are behaving badly often get defensive when their poor behavior is questioned.  LP candidates and LP officers who shill for candidates from political parties that squash citizen liberty and bloat government are behaving in ways that contradict the purposes of the Libertarian Party. 

Maybe in the world according to Viker.  Few people hold such an extreme view.

All that other dancing around you’ve done below about the definitions of the words “shill” and “endorse” and the exact wording and jurisdiction of LP bylaws will only further impede the work of the Libertarian Party.

OK, now I get it.  You see yourself as the supreme interpreter of the bylaws.  Everybody else just impedes the work of the Libertarian Party when they read the clear wording.

  We’ll always have political parties in government due to human nature- we’re a civilization of joiners.  We need an alternative to those Republican goons and their Democrat flunkies.  We should promote LIBERTARIANS in office who will advance Libertarian principles in public policy.

No argument there.

After the past few decades, anyone who thinks any Democrat or Republican can be trusted to accomplish this is a fool.  Are you a fool, David Jahn?

I reject your premise.  Some would consider those who dedicate their time and energy supporting an LP presidential candidate who will earn less than two percent of the vote as fools.  Are you a fool Erik?

[Eviker]

From the "I know you are but what am I?" files. . .

DJ:  Ok, then you agree that LP candidates and LP officers are free to blatantly shill for candidates from opposing parties.

EV:  You have misrepresented and mischaracterized my position, you liar.  Where’s Mik Robertson?  He is the mischaracterization/misrepresentation policeman around here.  Recognized LP candidates and recognized LP officers are free to behave dishonorably and against the interests of the LP by shilling for non-LP candidates, and dedicated Libertarians are free to condemn them for their poor judgment or blatant disregard for the goals of the LP as described in the organization’s bylaws.  I believe LP candidates and LP officers who want to shill for non-LP candidates should resign their LP responsibilities until they are no longer working against LP interests.  I reject the mythology of the "liberty movement," which too often means "voting Republican."  The Republican Party and their Democrat flunkies do not promote citizen liberty and limited government.

DJ:  Yeah that's it.

E:  How nice to see that you have finally admitted that your uncontrollable urge to argue has clouded your reading of my words.  It’s the first step to recovery.  

DJ:  Few people hold such an extreme view.

EV:  You can write it but you cannot prove it.  

DJ:  You see yourself as the supreme interpreter of the bylaws. Everybody else just impedes the work of the Libertarian Party when they read the clear wording.

EV:  False.  You lie again. My actual words are very clear, but because you cannot refute my actual words without looking like a petty and angry buffoon, you make up some twisted version and try to refute that instead.  Your straw men are notorious.  

DJ:  No argument there.

EV:  How nice to know we agree.  Wait- - are you sure?  Because when I wrote “we should promote LIBERTARIANS in office who will advance Libertarian principles in public policy,” I intended for the all–capitalized word LIBERARIANS to emphasize the word “Libertarians” and not that lame vague word “libertarians.”  Anybody can claim to be a libertarian.  I firmly believe that the LP should promote only Libertarian candidates, and not candidates of other political parties who are described by whoever as libertarians.  

DJ:  I reject your premise.

EV:  OK, in the absence of information to the contrary, I’ll assume the affirmative.  

DJ:  Some would consider those who dedicate their time and energy supporting an LP presidential candidate who will earn less than two percent of the vote as fools.

EV:  So give up and join the Republican Party.  By promoting non-LP candidates, you are doing nothing to increase that percentage and only impede the LP’s efforts.  When the Libertarian Party is as old as the Democratic and the Republican parties are, I'll compare relative measures of success.  Since 1971 our share of election returns has climbed from low single digits to substantial double digits in many regions.  Promoting liberty in government is a lifetime commitment.   Either continue helping, or kindly get out of the way.  

DJ:  Are you a fool Erik?

EV:  No.  Thanks for asking.

[Mik]

I have been over that particular section of the national bylaws with Dan Karlan, perennial national bylaws committee member, after the 2008 election, and what we had discussed was that neither the GOP nor the Democratic party really has 'dues paying members' like the LP does. At least nationally, both old parties seem to consider only their delegates and officers to be 'party members', and simple voter registration or gaining a nomination does not necessarily make you a member of the party. Definitions may also vary state to state. What we had concluded was that provision of the bylaws would be very difficult to enforce.

[djahn]

DJ:  Are you a fool Erik?

EV:  No.  Thanks for asking.

Wrong again Erik.  I've never met such a big fool, full of lies, devoid of integrity.

Your initial post was nonsense.  Several exchanges later they still are.

[djahn]

I have been over that particular section of the national bylaws with Dan Karlan, perennial national bylaws committee member, after the 2008 election, and what we had discussed was that neither the GOP nor the Democratic party really has 'dues paying members' like the LP does. At least nationally, both old parties seem to consider only their delegates and officers to be 'party members', and simple voter registration or gaining a nomination does not necessarily make you a member of the party. Definitions may also vary state to state. What we had concluded was that provision of the bylaws would be very difficult to enforce.

The only way to enforce National LP bylaws, Article 6, Section 4 would be to disassociate with the affiliate.  Since we are incorporated as the LPPA, the national LP couldn't set up another LPPa unless they incorporated under another name.  Beyond that, they would face the challenge of finding support in PA to set up a new affiliate willing to bow toward mecca.  A similar effort in Arizona led to a lawsuit.  That would probably happen here as well.  It would be an exercise in futility.

Pennsylvania has a proud history of maintaining our independence from national.  We were one of the few states that never participated in the UMP program for example.

Erik's reason for bringing up that section is unclear.  He never asserts the state party has violated that provision.  Instead he suggests the provision somehow imposes some kind of duty on our officers and candidates.  Then he talks about how "it’s dishonorable to retreat to a strict definition of “endorse” to defend the use of the LP name to shill for a Republican or Democratic candidate"  Clearly, if someone is indeed endorsing candidates in the name of the LPPa from opposing parties who are running against our candidates, that would be actionable under the LPPa bylaws, but Erik apparently can't make such an accusation without an expansive definition of the word "endorse".  Then he goes on to suggest "People who want to promote a non-LP candidate should resign their LP responsibilities". 

So, the whole thread really isn't about this bylaws requirement.  It's about some kind of rule of conduct Erik believes we should all adopt.  If you don't agree with him it quickly degenerates into another stupid Viker thread wherein he launches into name calling, dances around the topic and once again claims we aren't able to interpret his words.

[Eviker]

DJ:   The only way to enforce National LP bylaws, Article 6, Section 4 would be to blah blah blah one of the few states that never participated in the UMP program for example.

EV:  I hope you are comfortable in that rabbit hole you’ve scurried down, David. I’ll stay up here in the daylight.  

DJ:  Erik's reason for bringing up that section is unclear.

EV:  It’s only unclear to deliberately obtuse “negatarians.”

DJ:  He never asserts the state party has violated that provision. Instead he suggests the provision somehow imposes some kind of duty on our officers and candidates.

EV:  Nah, you’re making stuff up again.  My actual words are available to those who care enough to read them instead of reading your wackadoodle version of my words.

DJ:  Then he talks about how "it’s dishonorable to retreat to a strict definition of “endorse” to defend the use of the LP name to shill for a Republican or Democratic candidate"

EV: Such is my belief.  I am glad to see you spending so much time and effort considering my observations.  Well done, you.

DJ:  Clearly, if someone is indeed endorsing candidates in the name of the LPPa from opposing parties who are running against our candidates, that would be actionable under the LPPa bylaws, but Erik apparently can't make such an accusation without an expansive definition of the word "endorse".

EV:  You’re making up all sorts of hypothetical nonsense about action under our bylaws that I have not suggested. I can’t see them from here, but I picture all your straw men as portly, short, grey-haired and cranky with little molester-style mustaches.  

DJ:  Then he goes on to suggest "People who want to promote a non-LP candidate should resign their LP responsibilities"

EV:  I absolutely suggest that.  You may disagree, and I am not surprised if you do.  If I issued a statement in favor of gravity, you’d find a way to float in the air.  

DJ:  So, the whole thread really isn't about this bylaws requirement. It's about some kind of rule of conduct Erik believes we should all adopt.

EV:  I can’t claim to care about what your part of the thread is about.  My part is about the actual words I published.  

DJ:  If you don't agree with him it quickly degenerates into another stupid Viker thread wherein he launches into name calling, dances around the topic and once again claims we aren't able to interpret his words.

EV:  I welcome ideas that do not agree with mine, and I direct your attention to the very polite exchange with Mike, an honorable Libertarian, in this very thread.  Anyone who cares enough to do so may scroll down this thread and see where the name-calling and topic-dancing originates.  I did not claim people aren’t “able to interpret my words.”  That’s just another David Jahn lie.  

DJ:  I've never met such a big fool, full of lies, devoid of integrity. Your initial post was nonsense. Several exchanges later they still are.

EV:  What was that bit about name-calling?   As the quote from you immediately above demonstrates, when I call you a “lying hypocrite,” I’m simply making an accurate observation.  I am laughing out loud at the lengths to which you'll go in your need to defend LP representatives who undermine LP efforts by promoting our rivals in the limited market of electoral support.  

[Eviker]

I don't always agree with Wayne Allyn Root, but his Libertarian National Campaign Committee has a great welcome message on its Facebook page:

"We must never lose sight that the Libertarian Party is a political party. We are not here to educate. We are not here to protest. We are not here to complain. We are not here to debate. We are not here to just talk. We are here to WIN. To elect Libertarians to office. To compete with Republicans and Democrats. To give mainstream voters an independent choice. To provide a credible alternative to the corrupt two-party duopoly. The LNCC's mission is to elect candidates of the Libertarian Party to the House of Representatives and any state or local office in the United States. We intend to do nothing less than recruit successful candidates, train them, provide support, develop a winning attitude, and help elect Libertarian candidates to public office ... and when they do win office, do everything we can to get them re-elected."

[Ken]

1.  The LPP is a Pennsylvania corporation and bound only by our Bylaws and the laws of Pennsylvania.  Nowhere in those Bylaws or the law does it say we need to heed the national party Bylaws.  They can call us an "affiliate" (whatever that means), but the only thing that matters is the laws and our Bylaws.  Or is there some secret treaty someplace?

1.  I suspect the LNC would disagree with you.  "http://www.lp.org/files/bylaws-2010-1207.pdf "No person, group or organization may use the name 'Libertarian Party' or any confusingly similar designation except the Party or an organization to which the Party grants affiliate party status or as otherwise provided in these bylaws. . . The National Committee shall charter state-level affiliate parties from any qualifying
organization requesting such status in each state. . . Organizations which wish to become state-level affiliate parties shall apply for such status on a standard petition form as adopted by the National Committee. . . Affiliate party status shall be granted only to those organizations which adopt the Statement of Principles and file a copy of their Constitution and/or Bylaws with the Party Secretary."  If these things were done historically, and I have no reason to believe they were not, then the LPPA has some obligations to national LP expectations.  

Erik:

   I note you did not present any evidence or secret treaty to refute my position.  Absent any evidence, none of us could say what obligations the LPP and National may have to each other.  If we did look at the treaty, perhaps it may say, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the treaty."  Personally, I think it likely.  I've been in the LPP for 20 years now, and I've always seen (let's be polite) a strong streak of independence in the state party.  I concur with Dave Jahn over the unlikeliness of the LPP surrendering any authority to National.

   So let me return to my original point: GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!

   - Ken

[mark.d.crowley]

While I agree that Wayne Allyn Root has a good welcome message, it seems incomplete in my mind.  It focuses quite properly on getting LP candidates on the ballot, getting them elected and then re-elected.  It, however, makes no mention of something else that’s occasionally on the ballot. 

Referendums can affect us all as much as elected politicians.  Ballot questions are voted on just like balloted candidates.  In fact, for political groups like the LP, a ballot question might be a real opportunity to affect change.  (Maybe not at the statewide level in PA in terms of citizens getting a question there, but aren’t there procedures to get motions and questions in front of county councils?  In MA didn’t Barbara Howell get a statewide tax referendum on the ballot a couple of times?) 

I mention this because referendums, and certainly things like lobbying for the Voter’s Choice Act, require coalitions, but coalitions seem to have no place here as we recognize a binary world of either the LP or not the LP.

I struggle a bit with the absolutist spirit in the bylaws because of this.  On the one hand, I can understand how the LP should be silent on non-LP candidates.   On the other hand, it seems that we’re too silent on anything that isn’t an LP candidate.  That includes referendums, legislation, joint press releases, etc.   

Are we focusing too much effort on candidates or not enough effort on these other things?  Do these other things conflict with some official agenda? 

[Eviker]

Are we focusing too much effort on candidates or not enough effort on these other things?  Do these other things conflict with some official agenda?

Right on, Mark.  Libertarians, just like any other people who affilate with other political parties, are able to join in coalitions for the greater good as you describe. 

This is not mutually exclusive with any expectation that LP candidates and LP officers not promote non-LP candidates.   

I suspect some here are confusing "LP officers/candidates not promoting non-LP candidates" with "LP officers/candidates condemning and vilifying non-LP candidates."

[Eviker]

Ken, I did not pretend there is any secret treaty or pact.  You made that stuff up.  I suspect the National LP would disagree with your position while respecting the independence afforded any state party organization.  Some people may enjoy twiddling their brains in the minutiae of this word or that word, but I'll leave that sort of thing to those who aren't actually promoting Libertarian principles in public policy.  Keeps them out of the way of those of us who are getting it done.  I'm comfortable with how I read the goals and expectations of the national and state LP organizing documents.  It’s obvious to me that shilling for non-LP candidates works in opposition to LP goals.  

Fail Ron Paul!!!!!!!  Go Libertarian Party!!!!!!!

[vern]

Fail Ron Paul!!!!!!!  Go Libertarian Party!!!!!!!

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9KQsi4Cj8

I agree.