Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:02:56 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-govcom] Re: J. Auvenshine Affair To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
Ernie,
I don't claim to represent either what is best for "the party" OR what is best for any individual other than myself. What I DO claim is that I have a fiduciary duty to do what I believe to be in the best interests of the registered Libertarians when acting as a member of the Governing Committee. I think I've also made it clear that this duty is not to "the party" as embodied in any particular organization (ALP or ALP, Inc.) but rather to the individuals who are registered LBT.
In other words Ernie, I can't (and don't) claim that I actually represent your best interests. Only you can decide whether I do or do not, and vote accordingly. All I can claim is that when I make decisions in my capacity as a GovCom member I have a duty to act, within the bounds of principle and ethics, in accordance with my understanding of those interests. What other standard for action do you propose?
Also, please clarify your statement "the vote itself is force". Which vote? The vote to hold the trial? The vote at the trial? How is either one of those votes force? BTW You and I have in common that neither of us has/will participate in either of the two votes just mentioned. :-)
--Jason Auvenshine
--- In lpaz-govcom@y..., "Ernest Hancock" <ernesthancock@i...> wrote: > > Since you are no longer a GovCom member, you don't owe a fiduciary
> > duty to anyone. But if you were a member, whose interests DO you
> > think you'd owe a fiduciary duty to, if not the registered
LBT's? No > > one? Remember, we're talking about action within the bounds of
> > principle here, not outside of it.
> >
> > --Jason Auvenshine
>
> I was talking with Manfred Alber about the situation we are in and he sumed
> it up instantly. The vote itself IS force. What you propose to represent is
> what is in the best interest of us all (in your opinion). I say that the
> convention made it clear what they thought was in their best interest. But
> that doesn't represent the Pima type libertarians registered with the state.
> Another LONG argument. That aside, are you proposing that you represent what
> is best for each individual or what is best for "the party". If you
> represent anything other than the right of each individual to determine what
> is in their best individual interest then you are losing what it means to be
> libertarian. They have already (through the private organizations own rules)
> determined what that is. Now we allow a vote ("force") to be used as a
> weapon against that clear desire,... I understand that sooner or later this
> always happens to an organization of any type. Nothing to cry over,... just
> to learn from and make personal decisions.
>
> Oh, And Jason,
> You do NOT represent what is in my best interest,... so how can you
> represent what is best for "the Party" that is suppose to stand for allowing
> me to determine what is in my best interest.
>
> (Did everyone follow that? :)
>
> Ernie
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/JwNVlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/