Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:25:08 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-govcom] Psychic Ernie (was: Re: Jay Walsh) To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-govcom@y..., "Ernest Hancock" <ernesthancock@i...> wrote: > Prior to the Schmorg invation the only one of us that gave a shit about the
> bylaws and statutes were Kathy Harrer (because she had to file all of the
> paperwork with the state - then Bob Anderson until he got sued) and Tim
> McDermott when we had conventions and some disagreement needed the bible
> brought out to help make a determination.
>
> Now we have to disect everything or risk a series of lawsuits. Wanting Jay
> or not is not even the point anymore.
Indubitably...why do you think I've been making such an effort down here to take away Peter's power to use ALP, Inc. as a platform to launch such lawsuits?
> Jason, you are of the opinion that should Peter prevail and supporters of
> ALP just jumped back into personal activism that all would be well (aside
> from the fact that the Libertarian Party in Arizona would have lost its soul
> reasons for exsistance the second public monies started funding campaigns).
Really? Is it at all possible that I'm of the opinion that Peter WON'T prevail, and undermining his support for yet another round of litigation is a top priority?
> You are wrong! Once the party becomes a vehicle for access to large amounts
> of public money then Peter's worst nightmare will begin,... he'll have
> another Peter to contend with. Likely it will be one or two from his own
> inner circle.
Certainly possible. That's why I've regularly made the argument at many a PCLP meeting that taking the tax money is unwise. The analogy with welfare is a particularly convincing one.
> The end is already known,... freedom wins everytime after a costly
> engagement, no matter what Peter, you or a judge says. Knowing this I act
> accordingly. I place my house in order in a manner that will benefit from
> the final outcome. I choose freedom and those that have made the same
> choice.
I also choose freedom. What do I advocate that is not freedom? I guess I'm just a little more tolerant than you about associating with those who aren't quite there yet.
> Jason,
> These simple truths apply to you on many levels. You have yet to reach
> (IMHO) the frame of mind that, Freedom is the answer to any question.
What question do I answer with initiation of force instead of freedom? To my knowledge, none.
> Your
> goal has clearly been more about vote totals, popularity, immediate respect
> (which more often is fear) and influence. These are not the goals of a
> mature healthy mind that has enough self-esteem to do the things he knows
> are right,... if for no other reason, because he knows that freedom is
> always the right path with far less pain.
Are the things you mention my goals, or are they at most mere mileposts along the way? I don't believe I've ever sacrificed "doing what's right" for any of them. Ernie, you appear to suffer from a bit of the same malady that those well-meaning politicians who are always trying to "help" us suffer from. You think you know my goals. You think you know which of my goals are worthy and which ones aren't, and can thus prescribe for me the right path. Forgive me if I have my doubts. The right path for each person can only be determined by them, so long as they do not initiate force against others. If I have initiated force, please point out when and how.
I prefer to deal in the realm of real world actions and consequences for individuals. Peter (the individual) has initiated lawsuits. He has given no indication that he intends to stop doing so in the future. People have suggested that he does this becuase: * He has mental problems * He wants to get rich off the party * He is a covert government agent * He is just misled and doesn't understand libertarian principle * He has masters in LPUS telling him what to do * He wants power over others
I'm sure there are a few I left out. So which one(s) are the real reason(s)? I don't presume to know and frankly I don't give one single hair on a rat's ass which of 'em it is. I don't care any more than I would care about the motivations of a man I observed attempting to rape a woman on the street. I would feel compelled to attempt to stop that individual, in the best way I knew how, period. Peter uses ALP, Inc. as a launching pad for initiating lawsuits. If I think I have a better chance of stopping the litigation by NOT storming out of ALP, Inc. in a huff of righteous indignation, who are you to presume to tell me that's not what someone who believes in freedom would do? The best you guys have been able to do so far is keep the litigation at bay while it eats up activists and resources.
Don't misunderstand: It is possible (even likely) that what I'm trying to do will be unsuccessful. Just as I might be unsuccessful if I tried to take on that rapist with fists, when he's 250 pounds and I'm 150 pounds. That's not the same as failing to "do the things he knows are right" due to lack of self-esteem or some other psychically-determined malady I presumably suffer from. It's certainly not the same as initiating force.
> I do wish you luck in your efforts to turn ALP, Inc. toward the light and
> guide others out of the dark and will help you as much as I can. But what
> you are doing is not the same as one of us registering Democrat or
> Republican and infecting them with freedom from within without our
> advocating government control. You are allowing your message to be infected
> with direct participation and endorsement of the use of Public money for
> campaigns.
How, exactly, am I doing that? I don't take the money. I don't advocate that others take the money. I speak out against the government collecting the money in the first place. Seems pretty straightforward. Or am I still tainted because I don't deliberately piss off and shun the people that do take the money? Where does that end? Can I associate with people who send their kids to public school and still call myself a libertarian?
> The public awareness of Libertarians taking tax money to run their campaigns
> will be the starting gun for many to leave to pursue their own pure
> libertarian activities without the burden of having to make excuses for what
> may one day be recognized as the Libertarian Party. As it is now the Arizona
> Libertarian Party has been a true light to the rest of the country and the
> world for our purity AND comparitive effectiveness. Arizona didn't become
> the most influencial libertarian movement in the country through compromise
> and seeking government handouts.
>
> So go and do your best to remove their Borg implants that make them part of
> a collective. But your implants will be very obvious to everyone if you
> allow public monies into campaigns without active resistance and eventual
> resignation.
If I allow public money into one of _my_ campaigns, or a campaign I'm a committee member of, sure. I don't presume to control what others in the party may do without my assistance.
--Jason Auvenshine
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/_/_/981408315/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com