Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 20:57:07 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: Political party or not To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., Mickey <Mickey@A...> wrote: > At 5:20 PM +0000 3/8/01, auvenj@m... wrote:
> > > Just when did you come to this conclusion? As I recall, it was
> >about a week ago, no?
> >
> >No. I have said for many weeks that by my common sense definition
> >(registered voters, candidates and platform) ALP, Inc. is not a
> >political party.
>
> Many weeks, but not more weeks than you have been a member of ALP,
Inc. >
> >
> >So, on a "gut level" I haven't considered ALP, Inc. to be a real
> >political party since Meyers' ruling came down last February.
>
> And you were a member of ALP, Inc. before or after Meyers' decision?
As I have stated, ALP, Inc. claims ALL registered LBTs as members. Including you. From day one. So you're actually correct...I was a member of ALP, Inc. before Meyers and before my decision that they were not a political party. Such a fact is irrelevant because I took NO action to become a member; they just started claiming that I (and everyone else) was. The _action_ I took was getting elected to ALP, Inc.'s board, which happened at the end of January of this year, AFTER I stopped considering them to be a political party.
You keep referring to "joining up" and "falling in" with ALP, Inc. as if such an act existed in the context of ALP, Inc. There is o "sign on the dotted line, now you're a member" concept in ALP, Inc. I am no more (and no less) a member of ALP, Inc. than I OR you were last year. What is different is that I was elected to an officer position in January.
Let's do a time line and YOU tell me when you think I "joined up" or "fell in" with ALP, Inc.: (1) I registered Libertarian. ~1990 (2) Peter starts his takeover attempts (I'm uninvolved). 1992? 1995? not sure (3) Peter & friends form "Arizona Libertarian Party State Committee" ((I'm uninvolved). 1996? (4) Peter launches lawsuits (I'm uninvolved). 1996-present (5) I become a Libertarian Precinct Committeeman. 1998 (6) Peter and friends create ALP, Inc. and claim all LBTs as members. 1998-1999? (7) I attend my first ALP convention. 1999 (8) Meyers' ruling comes out saying ALP-ALP, Inc. merger at '99 convention did NOT happen. Feb. 2000 (9) I am elected to ALP GovCom. Feb. 2000 (10) I seek and am elected to ALP, Inc. Second Vice Chair. Jan. 2001
Please specify exactly what you mean the next time you refer to my "joining up" with ALP, Inc.
> >
> >> So then, when you joined ALP, Inc., you *believed* it to be a
> >political party, yes?
> >
> >No. I wasn't aware at the time that my belief was also supported
by > >the statutes. As such, I DID suspect that I would be kicked off of
> >the ALP GovCom.
>
> If you "suspected" that you might be kicked off GovCom then I
suspect that you "suspected" that ALP Inc. might be considered a political party.Certainly. I knew going in that most people consider ALP, Inc. to be a political party. That doesn't alter reality. It's also why I said that part of the motivation for my action was "the education of the audience" and not the outcome of the process. Did you think that I only meant Inc. folks when I referred to "the audience"?
> >> ALP, Inc. believes itself to be a political party. Didn't they
> >explain that to you when you joined?
> >
> >We've covered this before: what they claim is immaterial.
>
> Hardly. If a group purports to be a bunch of bomb-throwing
anarchists and you join up, what are we to think you're joining?You can speculate all day about my motivations, as others have pointed out my motivations aren't particularly relevant. The pertinent question here is one of FACT. Does an organization's claim to be a political party make it one? Not in my book. Obviously it does in yours. "Bomb throwing anarchists" is a negative connotation that no organization would voluntarily claim for itself -- EVEN IF it were true. Let's try something more realistic, like "charity". If an organization claims to be a charity, does that automatically make it a charity? No...it might just be a good way to rip people off, and be more effective at ripping people off by claiming to be a charity. Does it even matter if most of the people who join the self- proclaimed "charity" really have a charitable intent? No. What matters are the FACTS of what the organization does. This is a much closer analogy to ALP, Inc. :)
> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> >I hope I have now done so. ;-)
>
> Nope. I remain convinced that you thought you were joining a
political party when you fell in with ALP Inc. Even if you didn't think them a party, you surely knew that they represented themselves as a party and that others would find them to, in fact, be a political party.I've never suffered from the delusion that what others think automatically equates to reality. Just because ALP, Inc. represents themselves to be a politica party and many treat them as such does NOT make it so.
--Jason Auvenshine
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/