Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:50:24 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-Pima] Re: Need Is a Four-Letter Word, Especially at PCC To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-Pima@y..., Jim Foley <foleyj@u...> wrote: > I answer Jason that any attack on the tax base of PCC funding, or even
> reticence over its continual increase, would be seen by any imaginable
> supporter of the institution as constituting an attack on the institution
> itself. PCC clearly could not exist in anything like its current expanse,
> performing anything like its current collectivist mission, without tax
> funding. To attack such funding is to attack the institution itself.
<SNIP> > Which of two competing understandings of his role on the PCC board does
> Scott embrace? Does he see himself as a public supervisor over a public
> institution, or as an advocate for that institution and its
> interests? This approximates the age-old question of the natureof
> representation. My guess is that Scott would not last long on the PCC
> board, nor stand much chance of re-election, were he not to favor the
> latter, advocacy interpretation of his office.
It sounds like what you're really saying is that it is in the "job description" for an elected PCC board member to seek the greatest possible tax revenue for PCC. By this logic, the only reason Scott shouldn't have voted for an even LARGER tax increase is the possible perception that PCC couldn't get away with it?
Perhaps so. In which case the question becomes, why would a Libertarian even be willing to accept such a job, much less pursue it with great effort? Maybe Scott can answer that question...I certainly can't.
On the other hand, if the "job description" is simply to run PCC in the public interest, then all sorts of possibilities open up. In that case, it's within a board member's purview to believe that PCC's "current collectivist mission" is not in the public interest and therefore work (and vote) to change that mission.
> IS THERE A LIB ON THE PCC BOARD?
>
> Also in answer to Jason, I insist that neither the Libertarian Party's nor
> Scott Stewart's claims that the latter is an elected Libertarian are
> meaningful. The Party had little or nothing to do with gaining Scott's
> seat, nor did Scott run on Libertarian policies. Claiming Scott's election
> to the PCC board as some sort of Libertarian victory is laughable, evidence
> only of the desperation of the Party in the face of adamantine public
> indifference.
You make a good case Jim. My initial reaction was primarily based upon a knee-jerk revulsion to hypocrisy. Since the party regularly and routinely boasts about Scott and his accomplishments as a PCC board member, I felt it disingenuous for us to suddenly "disown" any relation between Scott and the party when he votes in a way that many/most Libertarians disagree with. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Either Scott is our candidate...warts & all (no offense Scott), or he is not our candidate and we have no right to boast of ANY of his accomplishments on the PCC board.
This might be an easy one to settle. During the campaign, did the party: (1) Publicly endorse Scott in any way? (2) Funnel any party funds to his campaign? (3) Make available any non-financial party resources (such as mailing lists or speaking time at party functions) not available to other candidates for the same office?
If none of the above happened, then I'll concede this point nd will instead in the future object loudly to any references to Scott as "our elected Libertarian". If any of the above DID happen, then the issue remains murky and the party's involvement has to be looked at in context. I don't know what the party's exact involvement was...do you?
--Jason Auvenshine
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpaz-pima-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/