Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:06:02 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-govcom] Re: J. Auvenshine Affair To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-govcom@y..., "Ernest Hancock" <ernesthancock@i...> wrote: > "at the behest of Peter?" Nah, I really don't think you see
yourself as > being directed by Peter. I do see him applauding your efforts
though. And > picking up the wedge that he's going to use on the crack you hope
to create."The crack I hope to create"? C'mon is this newspeak or what? I've been trying to heal the cracks (chasms!) created by Peter for over a year. If you doubt my sincerety in that, it's your right to do so but I assure you that you are incorrect if you believe that I am trying to create or widen any cracks. You are also incorrect if you think Peter supports what I'm trying to do. He campaigned against it in a manner I know to be even more vicious than I am able to publicly disclose, at risk of a libel suit. Some of the folks who observed the ALP, Inc. meeting have at least an inkling of what I'm talking about.
> Only after libertarian principles were made clear to me and that
> the Arizona Libertarian Party was NOT going to be directed by those
that > claimed "loyalty" to the members, the registered Libertarians, the
people, > the poor, THE CHILDREN, but to the principles and the constitution
and > bylaws agreed to at convention. Should the convention allow for
things in > our documents that were in violation of what I considered basic
for me and > family to support,... I will no longer support it (this is the
decision that > the Boudettes and many others have made over the years). I will
still > consider myself libertarian while I will not consider the Arizona
> Libertarian Party as such. And I sure as hell don't consider ALPinck
> libertarian.
> Your "noble" claim to be the champion of the people only makes
my point > more clear. We are to be champions of the principles as defined in
our > documents in convention. Hell, the Clintons justified all kinds of
shit > using the excuse that they were representing the best interest of
the > people. And nowhere do I find in our documents that we are to
defend the > "best interest" of the registered libertarians as if that gave us a
blank > check to do whatever we wished & violate any principle, skirt any
> constitutional provision, ignore any bylaw provision, claim any
action "not > really inconsistent with other actions taken before" as long as we
claim it > was "in the best interest of THE CHILDREN". So This is MY
definition of > Corruption and how it starts inside any organization. I'm just a
pissed off > antibody to this infection. As with all of my efforts, win or lose,
I am > understood.
Ernie, I have neither suggested nor acted in an unprincipled manner, in the name of the registered LBTs or anyone else. Every time I ask, "show me where I have chosen force instead of freedom" I am greeted with resounding silence, and then a few weeks later another insinuation from you that I am unprincipled.
Now, your point about doing anything "in the best interst of THE CHILDREN" is well made but misdirected. To say, as I do, that the power and impetus for action within the party flows from its registered members is NOT the same as saying that I/we should do whatever the registered members want even if it is unprincipled. That's why my actual statement is that I give my loyalty to registered LBTs, libertarian principles, and candidates. Principles define the bounds of acceptable and unacceptable action. Within the bounds of acceptable action, principles do not tell us what action (if any) to take. Any fiduciary duties we have _may_ determine the appropriate course of action within the bounds of principle.
For example, principles don't tell you to buy a new house or a new car with your money; they merely tell you that you can't steal or lie to get the money to do so. If I have a family (to which I owe a fiduciary duty) that would best benefit from a house, fiduciary duty may determine that I should spend my money on a new house instead of a new Corvette. That's NOT the same as saying that my family's need or demand for a new house gives me the right to steal the money to pay for it.
When I say that I owe my loyalty and my fiduciary duty to the registered LBTs, I mean that I owe it to them to act in their best interests _within the bounds of libertarian principles_ as defined in our constitution and founding documents. As a very apropo example, I believe it is in the best interests of the registered LBTs for the litigation to end. There are probably hundreds of ways I could effectively end the litigation by initiating force or fraud -- I'm sure many of you have thought of some of them. :-) I have chosen the best course I could determine _within the bounds of principle_. This is NOT the same as the Clintons, who apparently have no principles (or at least none that they live by) and so any action is OK if it is justified "in the name of the children/people/whatever". To lump me in with that mode of action when I have done nothing unprincipled is, at best, an emotional rather than logical reaction.
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
------------------------ 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/