Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 22:28:08 -0700
From: rsrchsoc@ionet.net ("John Wilde")
Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] Current State of the ALP
To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
I never said the facts don't care. But before you get to the facts you
have to be legally entitled to present the facts. Jason wasn't. Life isn't
fair. Get over it.
It is the process I go through all of the time. More cases than I can
count were dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld by the appellate court,
without ever getting to the point of presenting any facts or evidence to the
court.
That concept doesn't change, just because it is a political party instead
of a court of law. If we start compromising on the principle of law, because
we think it gives the appearance of not being fair, then we are lost. If
there is one thing libertarians are supposed to be known for is no
compromise, even when it may not be fair.
And therein lies the rub. In the name of compromise of principle, the
ALP has been taken into the throws of a battle for its very existence. I
will not compromise on principle because it might make someone feel better.
Either we live by the principles that got us here to where we are ready to
rebuild or we compromise those principles and guarantee our certain death as
a party.
I can just about guarantee that we are going to be sued at least twice in
the near future, by the LNC and possibly Inc. Had we compromised the rule of
law with Jason, as is being suggested, I can guarantee you that it will be
used against us in those suits. Everything that Liz did in addressing the
situation with Jason, was thoroughly discussed with legal counsel and as a
knowledgeable paralegal I concurred. Liz hashed, rehashed and worked it
again many times over before making the decision she did. She did not make
it in a vacuum as many have suggested.
So I say again. Life isn't always fair. Get over it. When applying the
law, we are not looking for fairness, we are reaching for justice. What is
just, isn't always fair. You want a just decision, do the law, don't
practice and don't complain because it doesn't seem fair.
g'day
John Wilde
fractor@swlink.net wrote:
> I want to weigh in belatedly on the matter Jason Auvenshine has been
> pursuing:
>
> "I think the _process_ by which ALP, as an organization, arrived at
> the decision to boot me off the GovCom is fundamentally flawed. It
> was very clear that no one else shared that concern at the
> convention. It is very cear that the only people on this list who
> share the concern live outside the state. I find that disturbing for
> reasons totally unrelated to whether or not Inc. is a party." - Jason
> Auvenshine, Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>
> I live in Arizona, and share his concern for some sort of just
> process in the way the ALP is run. I find it totally disturbing to
> hear people like John Wilde say that facts don't matter. That's like
> the courts telling people that "actual innocence" is not a valid
> argument for appealing prison or even death sentences. ("a claim of
> actual innocence is not itself a constitutional claim." - Chief
> Justice William Rehnquist)
>
> John Wilde is fond of proclaiming that that's the way the law and
> courts work, and fairness is not an issue (Jason should
> stop "complaining about whether the process is unfair"). I say it
> should be, and what better place than to start within the ALP? If
> not here, how can we expect better in the society we are trying to
> change?
>
> I have been following the on-going debates on ALP, Ic. and LPUS for
> six months now, and agree that a lot of bad stuff has been
> perpetrated by both those organizations. That fact, however, does
> not make the ALP's actions right or just.
>
> Aside from the questions of fairness of the lawsuits from ALP, Inc.,
> and the shenanigans of certain people in the national LP and the
> Browne campaigns, where is the proclaimed high ground of the ALP?
>
> As reported by Jason, at the convention Ernie Hancock summed up the
> feelings of the delegtes, "it was short, sweet, and hard to beat".
> And exclusive, apparently. That seems to be the current hallmark of
> the ALP - avoid bringing in anyone besides the in-crowd, especially
> if they might have a different view of how to operate.
>
> That was why I - mistakenly, I now realize - voted for ALP, Inc. two
> years ago - because they were the only group that deigned to
> communicate with the rest of us Libertarians in Arizona. Unless one
> knows about the LPAZ-Discuss group, a Libertarian wouldn't even know
> the option of attending the ALP convention existed. And that
> apparently suits the "leadership" just fine.
>
> And no, it wasn't really national that disaffilated the ALP, in spite
> of the current myth. It was the voice of Libertarians across the
> state, who, faced with a choice of who they thought best represented
> them, picked ALP, Inc. If the ALP had communicated with the rest of
> us, perhaps most others, like me, would have voted differently.
>
> (It occurs to me that the ALP leadership ctually wanted the LPUS to
> disaffilate them, with all the gloating over that fact I have seen.)
>
> But, wait, I hear repeatedly stated in this forum, most of the people
> who voted in that referendum weren't even registered Libertarian
> voters, anyway. It seems to me that if the ALP really wanted to
> represent registered Arizona Libertarians, there would be some effort
> to communicate with them, and, yes, even those who are just members
> of national.
>
> According to Robert Anderson, the ALP is "the ballot accessed party
> that represents the libertarian voters of this State." But doesn't a
> representative actually communicate with and LISTEN to those he
> purportedly represents?
>
> In spite of the questionable tax-funded status of the precinct
> committeeman system, it does at least have the benefit of being more
> than a closed (to the rest of us) system. And to have attended and
> had my voice heard (and actually considered), I would have had
> to "pack" the convention, which Ernie and the rest clearly didn't
> want. I should have, anyway, and added at least my voice to Jason's
> concerns over the current steamroller. Mea culpa, Jason.
>
> The ALP may be better than the ALP, Inc., but not that much better,
> in my opinion, not as long as fairness, justice, and openness are not
> among its values.
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
> Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com
> Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Community email addresses:
Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com
Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/