Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:49:05 -0700
From: pls@thekeep.com (Paul Schauble)
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Bylaws, bylaws...
To: lpaz-xcom@egroups.com (AZLP Execiutive Committee), lpaz-discuss@onelist.com (lpaz-discuss)


From: Paul Schauble <pls@thekeep.com>

Pardon me for the length of this essay. It represents a lot of the
thinking I've been doing about the Libertarian Party and its future. I
hope this starts a discussion on the points I raise. Sometimes it's
useful to think about "obvious" questions.

Question 1: Who should hold the power in the Party. This is exactly the
question we're wrestling with now and is exactly the question that Tim
will propose Bylaws changes to accommodate. Judge Myers decision changes
a lot, and we have to react to it. 

To date the answer to this question has been "Whoever pays the  business
meeting fee five days before the convention." We've been burned badly
three times by this policy and I'd like to see it changed. But before we
can reasonable discuss this question we must first answer

Question 2: As far as I can tell from my political readings there are
two and only two ways to organize a political party: 
     1. You can have lots of precinct committee people or other local
troops who personally contact the public to promote the party. This is
the way every significant party in the U.S. was organized 50 years ago. 
     2. You can eliminate the troops, collect LOTS of money, and buy the
functions the troops served. This is the way every significant political
party in the U.S. is organized today. This is why money rules politics.

I think we need to pick an approach. National seems to want 1, do we?

But before we can answer that question, we must first answer

Question 3: What is the Arizona Libertarian Party, really? Is it
     1. A political party? 
     2. An educational organization?
     3. An activist organization?
     4. A social group?
     5. A religion?  (Read on, please.)

Consider;

     1. Ernie Hancock was recently arguing very adamantly that the
organization shouldn't do anything like raising campaign funds or
building campaign machinery or people; that's for the candidates to do.
Other libertarians argue that voting or participating in the political
process is by its very nature coercive and a violation of libertarian
principles. Some modify this to say that participating in politics is
principled only if you participate to disrupt the process.
     2. It's probably a majority opinion in the Arizona party that the
only reason for running is to educate people. 
     3. An activist organization on the theory that being a political
party offers cover and protection for serious activism. And this is to a
degree true. Should this be the primary purpose?
     4. I guess a social group is kind of the default if we don't choose
on of the others as our primary goal. But does that help make us free or
is it just consolation as we sink into genteel slavery?
     5. A religion? Well, we have dogma, sacred books, missionary work,
schisms, saints and heretics, jihads, sects The analogy fits better
than I'm happy with. 


Here are my answers to these questions.

Question 3: We're a political party. The other functions must exist but
they're secondary. We pursue freedom by electing appropriate people to
office. There are many other paths to the goal of freedom and many other
organizations pursuing it. I guess those who are not comfortable with
the political role should be in another group that fits their views
better.

Question 2: I can tell you everything about my views on this question by
comparing the money approach to a standing mercenary army and the
precinct troops approach to a citizen army. Besides, the main thing
wrong with the Libertarian Party is that those in it spend far too much
time talking to each other and not enough time talking to real people in
the general public. 

That decided, the answer to Question 1 is obvious:

The people who are working locally with the public to further the party
should hold the power in the party. 

Myers decision establishes two things. 

One is apparent from reading the law: The statutes require only  very
minimal duties form the precinct committee people, but the Party bylaws
can require additional duties and the Party can remove elected precinct
committee people from their office for failure to perform those duties.

Two wasn't apparent to me: The statutes define a state committee, county
committees, and legislative committees. OK, we already have those. 
Myers says that while the elected precinct committee people are members
of those committees, the party bylaws can define any additional members.

So I propose changing the bylaws to establish these things:
     1. Precinct committee people must work a set number of hours to
maintain their position. My working proposal is four hours every quarter
at some activity endorsed by the party that brings the people into
contact with the general public. Activities that don't bring the person
in contact with the public count 1 hour for every 2 worked. Attending
meetings doesn't count. PCs elected in November must meet this
requirement by the January organizing meetings in order to vote for
party officers.
     2. ANYONE who meets the labor requirement will be made a member of
their county and state committees. 
     3. If anyone volunteers to work, the Party must find something for
them to do so that they may meet the requirements.

Tim is drawing up proposed bylaws that establish essentially a powerless
shadow government for the elected PCs. I think this is not only
unnecessarily complicated but also provocative and will land us back in
court. And I don't want to see that happen.

This approach seems to satisfy the principles of pretty much everyone
I've talked to. There are a few who want to maintain the "anyone who
walks in" approach.

The only serious objection is in the bookkeeping required. First, I
think that will appropriate use of computer and Internet this can
largely be automated. And the state reporting requirements require us to
report volunteer names and hours, (Nothing like living in a free
country, right?) so we're doing the bookkeeping anyway.

Well, what to y'all think?

    ++PLS

• Crazy Atheist Libertarian
• Government Snitch?????
• David Dorn
• Fat Blond Guy
• Crazy Atheist