Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 18:56:21 -0700 From: cartero@nguworld.com (Mike Dugger) Subject: [lpaz-xcom] Re: N vs South To: lpaz-xcom@egroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-xcom@egroups.com
Below is my latest response to tao1@uswest.com who has apparently been fed a bellyfull of schmorg disinformation.
At 08:39 AM 3/6/2000 -0700, Sr wrote: >Mike,
>
>I can see by your response that neither side is willing to give
>( of course the North will say it is the South that won't give and
>vice versa) and if the whole State Party goes down to prove one
>or the other is right than so be it. I know both will say in the long
>run it will be better for the Party. The North and South have an
>answer for everything meanwhile they are not only alienating
>future members, but many present members also. I know it will be said
>that we didn't need those present and future members in the first
>place since they were not real Libertarian minded anyway.
Given that the excuse the "south" has been giving for years for their (unsuccessfully) suing the "north" in court has been that the "north" was violating state election laws, I would contend that yes we have given a great deal recently when we overhauled our bylaws to comply with the state law as outlined in the decision of the most recent court battle. see http://www.ArizonaLibertarian.org/news/PurcellVHancock.htm and http://www.ArizonaLibertarian.org/docs/bylaws.htm This compliance is what they have claimed to want for five years, and should have ended the battle as we are now in compliance with state law. But you can be sure that our friends to the south will continue to harass us in court and elsewhere in their efforts to make the LP another party of welfare queens.
Let me spell it out for you. They could care less about whether or not we are in compliance with the law except for the fact that they fear that, by not complying, we might be disqualified from collecting taxpayer-financed matching funds. Hence, they will conveniently find another excuse to continue their antics now that we are in compliance.
>The point is that one can have an answer for everything and fail to
>forward while letting other things get worked out. Flexibility is
>life and inflexibility is death and temporary inflexibility is
>paralysis which is where the Party stands now..
I think you are making your argument to the wrong side. We have done nothing to further this feud except to defend ourselves in court and elswhere. As officers of the party, that is our duty. We are in no way obliged to roll over and hand the party to some faction who dislikes our policies. Our challenge of the election laws was an extension of the Libertarian Party platform position on such laws. see http://www.ArizonaLibertarian.org/schmorg/el.htm It is certainly telling that the "south" has spent five years battling us in court because we, the leadership of the Libertarian Party, have the audacity to uphold the Libertarian platform.
>I thought that an official vote by locals, taken by the the
>National Party which affiliated one faction would at least
>allow the Party to go forward but, that proved short lived.
The LPUS is a separate organization and they are welcome to affiliate whomever they like. That they've chosen to affiliate a group which opposes Libertarian policy and which has no qualms about stealing the assets of another organization, assures me that we are fortunate not to be affiliated with them.
>Is this a representative collective or not?
>Do official votes from the National organization count or not ?
>Do not the officials have a duty to ask all members their views
>then represent them ?
We have a duty to our membership - which is entirely different from the membership of LPUS - and more importantly, we have a duty to be a Libertarian organization pursuing Libertarian ends.
> If not we have chaos and nothing is accomplished. Chaos in part
>is acceptable but not as a whole and this is what we have now.
The chaos will end as soon as the "south" dissolves the separate group it formed to try and displace our group and learns to play by the rules of our group, which have been written by Libertarians over the last 20+ years. As opposed to their rules (bylaws) which have been written by a Tucson attorney who sees the LP as his own personal meal ticket if he can only get his hands on that campaign tax money.
>It seems very ironic that a certain faction that is lets say fairly
>anti-government, will not recognize a vote by a private non-
>governmental group (the National Libertarian Party) of course unless
>they had won the vote) but, they will go to the government (courts) to
>try and get this problem solved. This is the philosophy of convenience.
We most certainly do recognize the vote of the (mostly Republican) members of LPUS who voted to affiliate the Tucson group. Allow me to quote from http://ArizonaLibertarian.org/affiliation/affiliation.htm
"On November 30, 1999 the Libertarian Party National Committee voted to reverse its action of August 15, 1999 and recognize the Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. as its affiliate in Arizona. The vote of 13-0 with four abstentions was based entirely upon the outcome of an informal poll of LPUS members residing in Arizona. Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding how that poll was conducted require that its result be questioned, ignored, or even used as the basis for expressly refusing to recognize the ALP, Inc. For the time being, we are content to honor the decision of the LPUS and, under the circumstances, are proud to announce that the Arizona Libertarian Party is in no way affiliated with the Libertarian Party of the United States."
That is all there is to it. They voted to affiliate someone else and we have no problem with that. Indeed, given their penchant for pursuing objectives which are entirely contrary to the LP Platform, and having no qualms about meddling in the affairs of their state affiliates to do so, we are quite happy to NOT be affiliated with them.
Now, as it appears to be news to you, I must point out that our group has never - AS IN NOT ONCE - "go(ne) to the (government) courts to try and get this problem solved." It has been the "south" who has sought to use the courts to take over the party. They have filed suit against us on at least FIVE occasions since 1995. That they have failed at every turn is in no way a bad reflection upon the "north". The chairman of their group has, for the last year, been working to uphold state laws that our 1999 convention directed him to challenge. You seem to think we should reward this idiot by handing the party over to him. Rest assured that you are wasting your time if you mean to convince me of that - no matter how many Republicans vote for us to do so.
- Mike Dugger