From: "Alan Fanning" <apfanning@psn.net>
Everyone,
I had a chance to speak with Ernie on Tuesday - actually I got an e-mail announcement from Kat Gallant's group and like a dummy thought there was a meeting at the Pizza Belly - and I think that by rendering a decision that neither side likes, the judge may have given us an opportunity, using the courts reasoning to create an organization with two branches. The "statutory" branch could be organized in accordance with the laws, but would have no real authority, not to spend money, nominate candidates or determine representatives to the national convention, but would be the explicit agents of the government. It remains to be seen if such an organization is practical or possible.
The question of leadership is dependent upon people of good will stepping forward and convincing a majority "of those registered and attending" that they will act in good faith, in a principled, reliable fashion.
One of the ways to do that would be to join in this discussion. Someone will have to make a real effort to bridge the chasm between Tucson and Phoenix. I look back on the discussions of the past several months and I am seriously depressed. When we cannot agree that accepting money plundered from taxpayers for personal advantage, is an unacceptable violation of Libertarian principle, then I am pessimistic that we can find any rational solution.
In the end this question will be answered by the legal and political process. The ALP will never give up the legal battle against the state interfering in the internal organization of the party. The affiliation and internal conflicts will be resolved when one candidate or one leader emerges that can inspire the majority of the membership to follow.
So far I have been less than inspired by both sides.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Auvenshine [mailto:auvenj@mailcity.com]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 12:57 PM
To: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] ALP Convention and the lpaz-discuss list
From: "Jason Auvenshine" <auvenj@mailcity.com>
On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 09:11:45 Thomas Oliver Martin wrote:
>What intentions do you have for the convention? Would you
>like to see some by laws changed or the election of different
>officers?
>
>I think it might be helpful if the language about changing the
>bylaws could be made clear enough to prevent the kind of instabilty
>the party has been experiencing without rendering it inflexible.
I would like to think that some clever bylaws could have avoided all the mess we've been through. I would also like to think that the US Constitution keeps the federal government from enforcing drug prohibition, seizing property without due process, etc. I would like to think that the ALP, Inc. constitution dictated they should have opposed the election laws in court. I've come to the conclusion that by-laws and constitutions are only useful in proportion to the willingness of those in power (or trying to get power) to interpret them as intended and abide by them. The major people involved in the "instability" can't even agree on the meaning of the non-initiation of force pledge; I doubt any by-law would prevent the fighting if that's what people decide to do. I would support any by-law changes designed to "stabilize" which seem good and reasonable, but I have no ideas to contribute in that direction right now and think the by-laws are less important than how (who) they are interpreted.
Regarding general party business, I have some ideas. I'd like to see the party ratify the judge's decision and not appeal. Not because I like the judge's decision regarding the election laws (I don't) but because I am convinced that further litigation will only harm the party. I would like to see ALP, Inc. merge into ALP under ALP's bylaws. This would give us one party, following the law, recognized by the state, and affiliated with national and all state county parties, with no pending litigation among its members. Obviously a big part of that equation is whether or not the ALP, Inc. leadership is willing. Whatever weight I have with them is pulling in that direction.
I'll have to evaluate the officers based on who runs. I will say quite honestly I have a bias against any current officer of ALP or ALP, Inc. Nothing personal - I just think we've got a better chance of getting past this with new leadership.
Also, I'd like to meet everyone in person and hopefully pick up more ideas like homeschooling: ways I can increase freedom no matter what the party(s) do.
--Jason Auvenshine