Steve G.

LNC member Scott Lieberman urges factions to compromise for the greater good

In Libertarian on December 1, 2008 at 12:43 am

Scott Lieberman, LNC Alternate Representative, posted the following to the LNC discussion list today.

As I mentioned a while ago, 98% of all of the elected offices in the United States are at the local level. The majority of those are non-partisan.

That means that your constituents can run for those local, non-partisan offices, or apply for a Board or Commission, regardless of how effective the National LP is.

And yet, the LNC is at war with itself over – basically – who was (or will be) our Presidential Nominee, and, to a lesser extent, the National LP Platform.

Why are we fighting so hard over what are basically outreach tools? Although I disagree with these statements, even IF Bob Barr ran a “conservative-libertarian” campaign, or IF the National LP Platform just barely makes it to the 70-70 point on the Diamond Chart – do either of those conditions make it impossible for you or your constituents to serve as elected or appointed officials in local offices? Are all of our anarchist/Radical members going to all of a sudden govern or advise their City Councils in a socialistic or fascist way just because the National LP Platform is not an Anarchist Manifesto?

My point is – after you watch the live web-telecast of next weekend’s LNC Meeting (which I assume will be done by an audience member due to the nature of this Meeting), I suggest that your constituents surf the Internet, look up their town’s or county’s list of Boards and Commissions, and download an application form. And then – fill it in, and send it to your Town Clerk. You don’t need any permission or any help from the National LP to do that.

In the meantime, I am going to see if the Town and Country Resort will let me sell peanuts and popcorn in the LNC meeting room, because it looks like we are going to have a sell-out crowd.

Scott Lieberman LNC Alternate, R2

  1. The worst score you can give the Platform on The Advocates’ quiz is 90/100 — and that’s only if you think the Platform is ambiguous about a national ID card when it says that “detect[ing] and counter[ing] threats to domestic security […] must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war.”

    It’s not hard at all to dial yourself a 100/100 on the 10 scattershot questions of The Advocates’ quiz. A much tougher quiz is the 20 comprehensive questions at http://libertarianmajority.net/. The Platform nevertheless gets a 100/100 on it — or a 100/95 if you don’t think that taxes on production, sales, and gifts are ruled out by the Statement of Principles language on “voluntary and contractual relations among individuals”.

  2. That means that your constituents can run for those local, non-partisan offices, or apply for a Board or Commission, regardless of how effective the National LP is.

    I think when you invest time, resources, your reputation, etc in a political party, product, organization, etc – when you go out and sell this to others – you have to feel good that what you’re selling is actually right, or right for the customers.

    For example, if you’re offered a job selling a product, and you find out that it is faulty, and the company refuses to acknowledge the fact and stand behind their product, I don’t see how an ethical person could take or remain in that job.

    In order to pursue greater political liberty through the electoral system, I need to sell people – voters, donors, journalists, bloggers, etc – on the idea that my political party – its people, what it stands for, its practice of its principles, etc – is right, ethical, worthy.

    How can I do that under the current circumstances? I suspect it would require a lie, which I refuse to do.

    My local LP could be spotless in this regard, but if it comes out that the national LP is not, all that is shot to hell. It’s overshadowed.

    It’s like the US dollar. I may manage my dollars responsibly. I may earn as much as I can ethically and spend as little as possible, only spending it for quality products and not wasting any on items that bring me insufficient value. I may invest my surplus cleverly and produce even more wealth.

    But if the national government takes 50% of that and hyperinflates the rest of it to a value of nothing, what is the point?

    And yet, the LNC is at war with itself over – basically – who was (or will be) our Presidential Nominee, and, to a lesser extent, the National LP Platform.

    I get the impression it’s more than just that.

    look up their town’s or county’s list of Boards and Commissions, and download an application form

    That’s a good idea. I plan to do that once I arrive in NH in the spring as part of the Free State Project.

  3. A Bible passage comes to mind,
    Revelations 3:16
    ” So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

  4. This is the same Scott Lieberman (along with Aaron Starr and M Carling) who thinks that the LP shouldn’t do outreach to minorities and thinks that the LP should be for “angry middle aged white males” like himself. Another reason why I left the LP in disgust.

  5. Chris, there’s a difference between 1) doing outreach to minorities and 2) stooping to identity politics as practiced by the nanny state parties.

    George, when you’re selling a political party to voters as a product, roughly how much of the product contents consists in the policy principles of the party, and how much of it consists in other things (like how quickly the party publishes its minutes)? My answer for a party never in power would be that it’s (roughly) 50% the party’s stated ideology (i.e. platform), 30% the party’s current candidates, 20% the party’s past candidates, and 0.1% the party’s internal processes.

    The Democrat party just had a huge internal train wreck over the primary franchise rights of one of their biggest affiliates (Florida), but it didn’t seem to stop them from being able to sell Obama and his politics of identity and rent-seeking. The Boston Tea Party has close to no platform and just had a huge internal train wreck involving disaffiliation of that very same state, but this doesn’t seem to dampen the enthusiasm and passion of BTP partisans. So it just seems odd that you, a who happens to line up with the radical opponents of the LP’s current moderate tendency, find the LP “unworthy” and “shot to hell” because of — what? publishing minutes later than you and I wish it would?

  6. “on December 1, 2008 at 10:09 am John Famularo

    A Bible passage comes to mind,
    Revelations 3:16 ” So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
    .
    .
    Politics is not black and white. Unless Mr. Famularo has a plan to go from zero to majorities on elected legislaures
    in one election, then Libertarians need to convince
    non-Libertarians to vote their way, if they want to influence legislation. If John thinks that “spue thee out of my mouth” is a good prescription for elected officials to influence their non-Libertarian colleagues to pass libertarian legislation, then Mr. Famularo is suggesting a strategy that is a non-starter.

    ***************************************

    “on December 1, 2008 at 10:28 am Chris Bennett

    This is the same Scott Lieberman (along with Aaron Starr and M Carling) who thinks that the LP shouldn’t do outreach to minorities and thinks that the LP should be for “angry middle aged white males” like himself. Another reason why I left the LP in disgust.”
    .
    .
    I am proud that it only took 3 comments for me to receive an ad hominem attack.

    I challenge Mr. Bennett, or anyone else, to post anything that they can find on the Internet that suggests that I don’t think the LP should do outreach to minorities.

    As to the charge that the LP should be for “angry white males like” myself, that kind of comment, especially without citing any proof of it, is the kind of remark that some Reform Caucus people use to prove that Radical Caucus members are not willing to debate issues, but instead rely on name-calling as their major verbal tactic.

    I hope other Radical Caucus members can hold themselves to a higher standard than that.

    [ this assumes Mr. Bennett is an LP Radical. Even if he isn’t, my arguments above still imply that being on topic in these blog threads is a lot better than resorting
    to name-calling. ]

  7. Not a radical even though many of my fellow “libertarian” friends are. I speak for myself and myself only Mr. Lieberman and what I have witnessed and have been told by your fellow cohorts on the LNC (and not just Angela either).

    Brian, obvious you are still not getting it. In order to bring in more minorities into at least the movement, which I’ll still be active in, you have to be issue oriented just to get them into the door. I have seen many libertarians scare away many minorities because they do not know how to use our message to lure them in. When I try to convince minorities into the movement I ask them what are the most important issues in their lives/community. Based on what they tell me, I give them a libertarian solution. Obviously I’m not going to convert all but at least when the conversation is over, they don’t have a bad taste in their mouths about libertarians.

    Many libertarians out there they don’t know how to represent themselves to others outside their “box”. Until that attitude is changed, the LP in general will continue to be homogeneous and will die off slowly.

  8. Scott Lieberman says;
    “Libertarians need to convince
    non-Libertarians to vote their way”

    But if Libertarians can’t agree on what “their way” is, then it is better to fractionate into different parties with coherent messages than trying to keep one entity that tries to be all things to all self identified libertarians. The LP only manages to perpetuate itself without advancing liberty or being a positive exemplar of a “libertarian society”. The “Dallas accord” of 1974 was and continues to be a bad policy.

  9. If the machinations of the LNC and the presidential candidacy are both basically irrelevant to the real business of campaigning for winnable office, as Mr. Lieberman seems to suggest, then let me posit a further question:

    Why do we need an LNC or presidential candidacy?

    Further, I don’t think the “factionalism” rending the present LNC is the responsibility of anybody other than those who are doing their best to use parliamentary intrigue to overturn the will of a plurality of delegates who clearly named Ms. Keaton as their at-large representative. The present debate wouldn’t even exist if the mental giants on that august body were to focus on the business of the LNC (including fixing its financial problems), rather than taking a big steaming crap on their constituents through structured disenfranchisement.

    And Chris Bennett brings up a good point about outreach. What the conservatives in the LP don’t understand is that those of us who are not conservative cannot cover for you guys forever. These efforts to transform the LP into the GOP lite through Barr/Root, platform changes (which ultimately got reversed in convention), and “selective campaigning” have gotten the LP nowhere but in its present fractious state.

    Eventually, credibility gets lost and voters go elsewhere — or don’t even bother to pay attention.

  10. Chris, I don’t see how anything you wrote has backed up your incendiary charge that “Scott Lieberman (along with Aaron Starr and M Carling) thinks that the LP shouldn’t do outreach to minorities”.

    Brian, what reformer platform changes “ultimately got reversed in convention”? Reformers of course did not see the 2006 Platform as a final product. The Portland rejection of the old platform’s extremism and bloat was resoundingly reaffirmed in Denver.

    Your tedious “GOP lite” slur remains rebutted at http://libertarianmajority.net/is-non-anarchism-just-republican-lite

  11. Scott Lieberman (along with Aaron Starr and M Carling) thinks that the LP shouldn’t do outreach to minorities

    Scott Lieberman has continually referred to African Americans as “negroes” in public fora. ‘Nuff said.

    Your tedious “GOP lite” slur

    Far be it for me to encourage you to stop your voluntary slide into the depths of self-delusion, but only the trippiest mooncalf would refer to a candidacy by former Republican culture warrior Bob Barr, who “moderated” on a couple of pesky social issues to join the McCain moderate crowd… with a VP candidacy by a guy who praised Sarah Palin and wrote a book entitled “Millionaire Republican” as anything other than GOP lite… Holtzgrams to the contrary, as usual, notwithstanding.

  12. Ah, so “GOP lite” just means “GOP provenance”, and has nothing to do with the principles of the platform these GOP-bashing ex-Republicans ran on. OK, we’ll take under advisement your plan to grow the LP by checking everyone at the door for elephant-shaped stigmata.

    I don’t see a single use by Lieberman of the word “negroes” using web search, blog search, Usenet search, or a search of my archives of LPCA-related fora going back nearly 8 years. This phantom allegation about Scott’s vocabulary is supposed to be your evidence that he, Starr, and Carling oppose LP outreach to minorities?

  13. Brian Miller said:

    Scott Lieberman has continually referred to African Americans as “negroes” in public fora. ‘Nuff said.

    I don’t recall ever hearing Scott Lieberman speak in that manner.

  14. “Brian Miller on December 1, 2008 at 1:55 pm Brian Miller

    Scott Lieberman has continually referred to African Americans as “negroes” in public fora. ‘Nuff said.”

    ***********************************

    I love it.

    Public fora – no. It was an e-mail thread that was started by Mr. Miller (or maybe by Chris Bennett), and sent to maybe 10 people.

    The originail e-mail, probably by Mr. Bennett, described insensitivity to minority concerns by the Barr campaign and/or the National LP.

    I replied that if the Barr campaign used the term “homosexual”, that it might have been out of ignorance, not out of disrespect to Gays and Lesbians.

    I also asked, somehwat rhetorically, why it was okay to have an organization that, to this day, calls itself “The United Negro College Fund”, but that if **I** used that term I was a racist. Mr. Miller seems to think that my replies to that thread constitutes “continually” referring to African Americans as “Negroes” in public fora.

    As I stated in the original blog post in this thread, I urge every LP member, Radical, Reform, or NOTA, to get appointed or elected to a local government position, or to at least support LP members who are trying to do that. If you do that, you might find out that you can accomplish a lot for liberty at the local level IN SPITE OF any possible incompetence or stupidity on the part of the National LP or the LNC.

    And – I think I forgot to mention – I served on the San Jose Rent Commission during 2000-2004, so I am not asking people to do something I have not already done. And no, I did not get rent control repealed in San Jose, but I think I helped keep it from becoming even more severe than it already was.

  15. I hope other Radical Caucus members can hold themselves to a higher standard than that.

    Chris is not a member of the LP’s radical caucus. I’m not even sure he’s a member of the LP at present.

    I hope that the entire membership of the group “Scott Lieberman, LNC alternate” can, in the future, hold itself to a higher standard of fact-checking and restraint collectivist thinking than displayed above.

  16. “after you watch the live web-telecast of next weekend’s LNC Meeting”

    If someone does broadcast this, please use decent audio and remember to ‘archive’ it. The whole live drama aspect seems strained (I know I’ll be coaching basketball and cutting firewood) . . . we get the minutes in less than ninety days after all.

  17. “I hope other Radical Caucus members can hold themselves to a higher standard than that.

    Scott Lieberman”

    ****************************************

    “on December 1, 2008 at 6:17 pm Susan Hogarth

    Chris is not a member of the LP’s radical caucus. I’m not even sure he’s a member of the LP at present.

    I hope that the entire membership of the group “Scott Lieberman, LNC alternate” can, in the future, hold itself to a higher standard of fact-checking and restraint collectivist thinking than displayed above.”

    ***********************************

    on December 1, 2008 at 11:51 am Scott Lieberman

    “I hope other Radical Caucus members can hold themselves to a higher standard than that.

    [ this assumes Mr. Bennett is an LP Radical. Even if he isn’t, my arguments above still imply that being on topic in these blog threads is a lot better than resorting
    to name-calling. ] ”

    ******************************************

    Ms. Hogarth:

    How come you did not quote my disclaimer, which I quoted above, that was the very next paragraph after the sentence that you quoted?

    Scott Lieberman LNC Alternate, R2

  18. Bennett never posted to LPradicals during the time I was allowed to read the group. Back in Oct 2007 when Bennett announced for LP VP, somebody claimed to recognize him as having originally been a Milsted-style reformer.

    However, Bennett quite the LP in July, saying “I did not become a libertarian to be part of a party that is increasing becoming Republican-lite. […] We have Bill Redpath, who has been incompetent as the Chair. M Carling is a bigot, sexist and racist. Aaron Starr, Scott Lieberman and Bruce Cohen are all warmongers […] there is a purge going on. Those in control of the LP want the party to be more conservative and less libertarian […] The difference between a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist is 6-7 years.”

    Bennett then ran for the BTP VP spot and lost 22-6. In October he wrote: “I hereby withdrawal my name from being a candidate for Chair and resign my position on the NAT-COM. I hereby remove any affiliation from the BTP, it’s endorsed candidates and any other capacity hereon to this. At 36 I have better things to do than to just bounce from party to party to party searching for the right mix”.

  19. I have been associated with the California LP since 1990, attended many of it’s conventions and know many people within the state party. never have I heard any words come from Scott Lieberman’s mouth that would be construed as racist. Neither have I heard anyone make racist allegations against Mr. Lieberman.

  20. How come you did not quote my disclaimer, which I quoted above, that was the very next paragraph after the sentence that you quoted?

    The ‘disclaimer’ (half disclaimer, half vapid truism) worsens your case, in my opinion. You malign all the radical caucus by consciously (and erroneously, it turns out) associating what you believe to be bad behavior with its members. So even after you’ve been corrected, the bad impression of the ‘radical caucus’ you’ve imparted sticks around.

    Fortunately most intelligent folks can see right through this sort of silliness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: