--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Carol Moore in DC
<news@c...> wrote:
>
> When I talk about conflict of interest I mean that he could use his
> position as Chair of the Platform Committee to push through changes
> on the committee that might win him votes and the Chair position. I
> won't speculate on what those might be, but I think they would be
> related to softening or deleting controversial parts of the
> platform. Someone who is watering down the platform so the party
> appears less anti-state has a conflict of interest, IMHO.  He
> really should resign that position or the final committee members
> should vote someone else in as chair.

Again, my understanding of the Platform Committee is that it has only
the power of SUGGESTION. Anything Mike Dixon (or anyone else on the
Platform Committee) write for the platform counts for nothing unless
the delegates support those changes by a 2/3 margin.


> > and that Sam Goldstein is responsible
> > for the planks on Foreign Aid / Foreign Economic issues.
>
> Now this is FACTS not ad hominens.

If you have facts, that's fine. I just don't want this to turn into a
personality war for 2 months leading up to the convention.


> This is the same Sam Goldstein who stated in reply to
> J.A. Smith's 2002 Questionnaire to LNC candidates:
>
>     "In general I agree with the LP Platform on non-interventionism
>     and on foreign aid. We should not give taxpayers money to any
>     other county, we should not have troops stationed in over 100
>     countries around the world and we should not attack other
>     countries except in self-defense or in retaliation for an
>     attack on our people or property.  We should have a strong
>     defense force capable of projecting itself to any region of the
>     world where Americans and/or their property are threatened."
SNIP
> Is Sam Goldstein going to try to delete the parts of the platform
> that say that the US military should NOT go to other countries and
> defend Americans and their property???  Is he going to ADD new
> wording about protecting Americans and their property on every
> nation on the planet?? What else is he going to SUBSTANTIVELY
> change?

I'm sure there is context that was dropped someplace along the line,
but I can say that the above quote is not consistent with the LP
platform.

Should this concern anyone that the person who allegedly said the
above quote which is inconsistent with our platform is now
responsible for re-writing the planks related to foreign aid? Perhaps.

But we'll see for ourselves soon enough - I will forward along the
work in progress so you can judge the work.

David Euchner

The most recent list of members I have is:

LNC NOMINATED
Robert Murphy (OK)
David Aitken (CO)
Michael Dixon (NC) (But isn't he running for Chair now?? Conflict of
interest??????)
George Squyres (AZ) (Chair of Committee??)
Sam Goldstein (IN) (More on him next message)
Bonnie Scott (NY)
Lorenzo Gaztenaga (MD)
Trevor Southerland (TN)
Lee Wrights (NC)
Steve Trinward (TN)
Rich Tomasso (NH) (ALTERNATE)
Mark Hinkle (CA (ALTERNATE)

STATE NOMINATED
David Euchner (AZ?? Alternate??)
Others??

You now know from my first response that Mike Dixon is responsible
for the women's rights plank

and that Sam Goldstein is responsible
for the planks on Foreign Aid / Foreign Economic issues.

"In general I agree with the LP Platform on non-interventionism and on foreign aid. We should not give taxpayers money to any other county, we should not have troops stationed in over 100 countries around the world and we should not attack other countries except in self-defense or in retaliation for an attack on our people or property.  We should have a strong defense force capable of projecting itself to any region of the world where Americans and/or their property are threatened."  

Howard,

Excellent suggestion. As it has been suggested before, we can work
to put our ideas in a more positive light - and your suggestion
below definitely does that.

David Euchner



--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, hapearce <hapearce@e...>
wrote:
> One more comment, David, and then I'll shut up.  :)
>
> I'd like to see something more positive than (or in addition
> to) "We oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their
> rights of self-defense.".
>
> Something to the effect of:
>
> "The justice system and the courts must fully respect and
> recognize the right of individuals to self-defense of their
> property and lives, and their right to recovery of said property
or resulting losses from those
> who violate or threaten to violate those rights."
>
> Or some other similar statement to tie together the concept of
> "restitution" from the principle section to the concept of
> "self-defense/rights violation" in the solution section.

-----Original Message-----
From: maywood2008 [mailto:gonzolawyer@...]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:37 PM
To: LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LPplatform-discuss] adjudication, mediation, arbitration, etc.

David,

Interesting comment.

First, I agree that mediation is preferable to adjudication in an
adverse proceeding, and I can make an addition.

Second, nothing in the language of the plank (it's the original
language that says what you're referring to) presupposes that
disputes will be adjudicated by mutually acceptable judges. The plank
says:
"We applaud the growth of private adjudication of disputes by
mutually acceptable judges."
This is commonly called arbitration. The difference between
arbitration and mediation is that arbitration is binding on the
parties and has the legal effect of a decision by a court.

Something that must be acknowledged is that, even in the ideal
libertarian society, there will remain disputes that cannot be
settled so easily. Even in the ideal anarcho-capitalist society,
disputes that cannot be settled require some method of adjudication.
Civil suits are just another form of retaliatory use of force.

Thanks for the suggestion; I'll incorporate it.

David Euchner



--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Yett, David"
<david_yett@a...> wrote:
> One observation I have is that the proposed language seems to
> presuppose that disputes will be adjudicated "by mutually
> acceptable judges." But to me, "adjudication" and "judges" are
> authoritarian concepts, and imply that the will of the state is
> primary. I agree that there needs to ultimately be an authoritarian
> fallback position, when no other outcome is possible, as in many
> criminal cases, but as libertarians shouldn't we be seeking
> mutually acceptible *solutions* first?
>
> In other words, the front line of our ideal, non-punitive, legal
> system, both civil and criminal. should be mediation, wherein the
> parties explore and understand each other's *interests*, and
> attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution without coercion. In
> my experience, many disputes can be resolved in this manner, with
> the help of a skilled mediator, completely avoiding the element of
> agression that is almost always introduced by lawyers.

_______________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.

If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.

--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Carol Moore in DC
<news@c...> wrote:
> Michael Dixon (NC) (But isn't he running for Chair now?? Conflict
> of interest??????)

I see no conflict of interest. How are Hancock & Phillies unfairly
prejudiced by the fact that Dixon is working on the platform
committee?


> George Squyres (AZ) (Chair of Committee??)

Mike Dixon is the chair of the committee. George just does all the
talking - that is, he does all the talking when I take a deep
breath :-)


> Sam Goldstein (IN) (More on him next message)

Let's avoid ad hominem attacks wherever possible.


> Mark Hinkle (CA (ALTERNATE)

Mark is no longer on the committee - I was chosen to replace him.


> STATE NOMINATED
> David Euchner (AZ?? Alternate??)

I live in Arizona.

David Euchner

David,

Interesting comment.

First, I agree that mediation is preferable to adjudication in an
adverse proceeding, and I can make an addition.

Second, nothing in the language of the plank (it's the original
language that says what you're referring to) presupposes that
disputes will be adjudicated by mutually acceptable judges. The plank
says:
"We applaud the growth of private adjudication of disputes by
mutually acceptable judges."
This is commonly called arbitration. The difference between
arbitration and mediation is that arbitration is binding on the
parties and has the legal effect of a decision by a court.

Something that must be acknowledged is that, even in the ideal
libertarian society, there will remain disputes that cannot be
settled so easily. Even in the ideal anarcho-capitalist society,
disputes that cannot be settled require some method of adjudication.
Civil suits are just another form of retaliatory use of force.

Thanks for the suggestion; I'll incorporate it.

David Euchner



--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Yett, David"
<david_yett@a...> wrote:
> One observation I have is that the proposed language seems to
> presuppose that disputes will be adjudicated "by mutually
> acceptable judges." But to me, "adjudication" and "judges" are
> authoritarian concepts, and imply that the will of the state is
> primary. I agree that there needs to ultimately be an authoritarian
> fallback position, when no other outcome is possible, as in many
> criminal cases, but as libertarians shouldn't we be seeking
> mutually acceptible *solutions* first?
>
> In other words, the front line of our ideal, non-punitive, legal
> system, both civil and criminal. should be mediation, wherein the
> parties explore and understand each other's *interests*, and
> attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution without coercion. In
> my experience, many disputes can be resolved in this manner, with
> the help of a skilled mediator, completely avoiding the element of
> agression that is almost always introduced by lawyers.

The most recent list of members I have is:

LNC NOMINATED
Robert Murphy (OK)
David Aitken (CO)
Michael Dixon (NC) (But isn't he running for Chair now?? Conflict of
interest??????)
George Squyres (AZ) (Chair of Committee??)
Sam Goldstein (IN) (More on him next message)
Bonnie Scott (NY)
Lorenzo Gaztenaga (MD)
Trevor Southerland (TN)
Lee Wrights (NC)
Steve Trinward (TN)
Rich Tomasso (NH) (ALTERNATE)
Mark Hinkle (CA (ALTERNATE)

STATE NOMINATED
David Euchner (AZ?? Alternate??)
Others??

-----Original Message-----
From: LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 7:42 AM
To: LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LPplatform-discuss] New file uploaded to LPplatform-discuss

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the LPplatform-discuss
group.

  File        : /I.6 justice for the individual.doc
  Uploaded by : maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>
  Description : I.6 Justice for the Individual (Euchner first draft)

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPplatform-discuss/files/I.6%20justice%20for%20the%20individual.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>

_______________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.

If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.

couple comments to couple sections...
maywood2008 wrote:

> Carol, let me make the following suggestion. Keep an open but active
> mind about this. If I find out that the Platform Committee is
> working on gutting the principles, you can trust me to pass that
> information along.

But if you are all alone in that project on the platform committee, the
party may be doomed; unless changes are just rejected whole scale by
convention and no revisions are made this year.  However, there are
several non-gut the platform types on committee currently so I'll think
positive thoughts. (Except for the next message)

> However, I think this is unlikely. Because George knew my intent to
> create this list and pass along all the dirty laundry if he
> nominated me for the platform committee, and he knew that I intended
> to expose the committee's weakest points to public scrutiny, and he
> still had me put on the committee. This doesn't say too much, but it
> does say that George is not interested in being sneaky.
>
> David Euchner
>
And I'll be sure to promote it in my next "LP NEWS as told by me" to 75
odd libertarian lists later this week :-)

CM

Carol,

I see why you're reading George's message the way you are - because
George is saying it that way. I think George is using too many
buzzphrase in his messages and as a result it's causing discomfort
in the wrong places.

I've said before, and George agreed, that the re-format has nothing
to do with content. As an amateur teacher of expository writing, I
read the platform and think that the point can be made better. I'd
give it an A+ for content but a B for style.

HYPO: we're working on a newspaper, and you're the new editor in
chief. You love the work that your reporters are doing, but the
paper itself looks like a piece of crap. What's the solution?
Certainly you won't fire the reporters - instead you fire the layout
editor and come up with a new layout.

If George said it like this, I don't think there would be any
question. But George has been defending the Indiana LP for ditching
the platform, and George doesn't seem to understand that there is no
defense for such a decision by LPIN's central committee. If LPIN
truly only had a problem with the layout, then why did they fire the
reporters too? Their action is obviously based on the content of the
platform - it's difficult to pander to the general public when your
party platform is as extreme as that of the LP. George would be
better off letting the LPIN folks defend themselves and not let
their decisions muddy his hands too.

Carol, let me make the following suggestion. Keep an open but active
mind about this. If I find out that the Platform Committee is
working on gutting the principles, you can trust me to pass that
information along.

However, I think this is unlikely. Because George knew my intent to
create this list and pass along all the dirty laundry if he
nominated me for the platform committee, and he knew that I intended
to expose the committee's weakest points to public scrutiny, and he
still had me put on the committee. This doesn't say too much, but it
does say that George is not interested in being sneaky.

David Euchner


--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Carol Moore in DC
<news@c...> wrote:
> > If the format is approved, you will no longer have to ask that
> > question.  No one will be able to impose their position onto the
> > platform as has been done in the past.  Part of what the format
> > will accomplish is to make the platform principle driven, rather
> > than personality driven.  The pro-life crowd will not have
> > control of it, but neither will the pro-choice people; neither
> > the hawks nor the doves will be able to remake it in the liberal
or conservative image.
> > This obviously cuts both ways, as it should.
>
> In other words it will say NOTHING??
>
> Have I read enough?? Is this gutting of the platform per the
> Indiana's party request? Maybe any hard core libertarians who have
> been reading this list can tell me if I'm wrong.
>
> It looks like the only effort I should put into this is to
> encourage people to VOTE NO ON PLATFORM REFORMATTING.  But feel
> free to tell me if I'm wrong (without the usual smears, insults
> and assaults on female dignity I've become used to in the LP,
> masochist that I am).

--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Carol Moore in DC
<news@c...> wrote:
> I haven't even started reading all the emails from this list yet
> so I can get the info to the Pro-Choice Libertarians and
> Libertarians for Peace lists - not sure if other members of those
> groups on this list. I have advertised it to them and use this
> email to do so again. LPplatform-discuss-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Both groups should be submitting planks by mid to late March.
> I hope that earlier submissions will not become set in stone as
> the alternatives and the various individuals responsible for
> various planks will remain flexible until your deadline.  Which is
what date??
> Also, do we get to find out WHO is responsible for what planks?
>  I.e., are there abortion prohibitionists in charge of the women
> rights plank or pro-military intervention hawks in charge of the
> foreign policy planks?

You now know from my first response that Mike Dixon is responsible
for the women's rights plank and that Sam Goldstein is responsible
for the planks on Foreign Aid / Foreign Economic issues.

As to whether "statists are writing these planks" - I guess it's all
a question of your definitions... Maybe you'll read someone's work
and say "This is the work of a statist!" and yet someone else will
read the same thing and say "Very libertarian work."

The best way to deal with it is to expose all the work to the light
of day so that activists who care can point to the work itself when
making their comments.

And as George said, keep in mind that the substantive changes
offered by the Platform Committee needs a 2/3 vote of voting
delegates for adoption into the Platform. The best answer to your
concern over war hawks taking over the military issues is to make
sure as many Libs4Peace as possible are on the floor ready to vote
during platform changes.

David Euchner

Carol,

You ask a lot of questions in your initial message, all of which
deserve to be answered individually. In order to keep discussion on
your questions clear, I am breaking up my response into multiple
messages.


--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Carol Moore in DC
<news@c...> wrote:
> Also, do we get to find out WHO is responsible for what planks?

George has asked for people to volunteer to accept certain planks.
Apparently only a few people have responded so far, because the list
is far from exhaustive yet. But here is where it stands so far,
based on George's update this morning to the LP-Platform list:

DAVID EUCHNER
I.5  Safeguards for the criminally accused
I.6  Justice for the individual
I.7  Juries

SAM GOLDSTEIN
IV.C.1 Foreign Aid
IV.C.2 International Money
IV.C.3 Unowned Resources

MIKE DIXON
I.4  The War on Drugs
I.20 Women's Rights and Abortion
I.21 Families and Children

JAMIE LEWIS
II.1 The Economy
II.2 Taxation
II.3 Inflation and Depression

STEVE TRINWARD
II.6   Monopolies
III.6  Transportation
III.14 Civil Service

David Aitken
III.12 Social Security
III.13 Postal Service
III.15 Election Law

Steve Trinward mentioned that he chose those planks because he
wanted to take a dispassionate approach. I chose my planks because I
want to take an over-the-top passionate approach on issues that I
deal with professionally as well as philosophically.

So ultimately, even though George wants to avoid having personality
coming through in the platform, it will be completely impossible
regarding my writing :-)

David Euchner

Carol:

 

More than anything, what is needed is a mentality shift here.  One of the critical underlying motivations in the proposed format is to end the platform being a battleground within the party.  We have fought with one another over abortion, foreign policy and others, rather than find a way where we focus on what we agree on and working together.  While we fight with one another, the Ds and Rs are laughing all the way to the White House.  What is more important, beating another Libertarian or beating a statist?

..... 

If the format is approved, you will no longer have to ask that question.  No one will be able to impose their position onto the platform as has been done in the past.  Part of what the format will accomplish is to make the platform principle driven, rather than personality driven.  The pro-life crowd will not have control of it, but neither will the pro-choice people; neither the hawks nor the doves will be able to remake it in the liberal or conservative image.  This obviously cuts both ways, as it should.

 

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPplatform-discuss/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  LPplatform-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Okay, time for some clarification here, as the two lists are threatening a confusion, and a number of good points have emerged.

 

David Aitken's concern about seeing the feedback on the planks he is working on has already been accomplished via the reformat project website.  Any response to a specific plank that is submitted will automatically end up going to the individual who is working on that plank.  That is what Steve Trinward has already been doing for a number of months now.  Once we have a few more committee members check in on which plank they are working on, that will be easier.  David will not get posted with comments on the abortion plank.  people don't need to know who is doing which plank in order for there feedback to end up in the right place.  We've already done that.

 

Which means that comments on the public discussion list which mature into viable suggestions for changes, must ultimately be posted onto the reformat website.  The latter was set up so that a large volume of comments could proceed in an automated manner (since we don't have paid staff doing this) to the right place and the right person.  What we must avoid is the discussion that should be happening on the committee list happening instead on the public list, and the suggestions that need to be on the website having to be dealt with manually from the public list.

 

Further, everyone needs to understand that David Euchner's reference to the azlp site with the Wiki, is for the Arizona Libertarian Party's state party platform, not the national platform, and that site should not be involved in any of the discussions on either the committee or the public list.  Doing so would generate a disaster of confusion. (Unless you a real masochist and want to get involved in Arizona politics.)

 

Howard's comments are right on target.  One of the guidelines on the reformatting is that we are looking to make our statements positive in nature, rather than the historic bias towards saying what is bad or wrong.  Dave Euchner's early comment was that the format is empty of content, and it is up to us as to what we do with it.  What we do with it is where the guidelines become relevant, and where we recognize that making a positive statement is one of the things we want to accomplish.  Another is brevity, as most people won't read long winded speeches.

 

Dave's comment on principle is exactly right, that our job is to show how specifically how principle applies to a specific issue.  It is in part because we have been too general in the face of specific needs that we have had difficulties with the platform.  The proposed format has now made this demand explicit.

 

The specific comment that Howard makes on needing a clear statement of the respect for individual rights by the courts, is exactly the kind of comment that needs to be posted to the reformat website.  But here Mike Dixon's comment is the telling one.  Where exactly should this comment go?  Is there a plank already where it is appropriate, that simply hasn't had the effect of the format bring it out, or do we need a new plank?  This is where the real work begins, because now in order for that to happen we have to go through a number of planks where it could be appropriate and determine where it belongs. 

 

But what is critical is that the result of that inquiry and effort end up posting to one category of one plank on the reformat website.

 

If it is felt that it needs to be a more general statement in the preamble as Steve Trinward has suggested, then a general comment to that effect can be posted to the "Comments" tab on the home page of the reformat website.

 

George Squyres

One more comment, David, and then I'll shut up.  :)

I'd like to see something more positive than (or in addition to) "We
oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of
self-defense.".

Something to the effect of:

"The justice system and the courts must fully respect and recognize the
right of individuals to self-defense of their property and lives, and
their right to recovery of said property or resulting losses from those
who violate or threaten to violate those rights."

Or some other similar statement to tie together the concept of
"restitution" from the principle section to the concept of
"self-defense/rights violation" in the solution section.




Howard Pearce
LP of MA






On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:41:19 -0000, maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>
wrote:

> OK, I've been on the platform committee for one week and not a lot
> has trickled down to me but a little bit has, so I figure it's time
> to share what I've got.
>
> George is splitting up the 61 individual planks among 20 committee
> members, asking everyone to volunteer to take three. I assume George
> will oversee the splitting up of these so that the same 3 planks are
> not done by 20 people 20 times :-)
>
> The re-working of each plank is a two-step process. First, take the
> existing language of the plank and fit ONLY the existing language
> into the new four-point format. That is, if a plank only has one
> sentence (like Sexual Rights) then put that sentence where it would
> belong in the new format.
>
> Step 1 will show where the biggest gaping holes are. Then Step 2 is
> to fill in the holes and complete the plank using the four-point
> format.
>
> I have completed my first draft on one plank: "I.6 - Justice for the
> Individual". I am now uploading that file (MSWord97 format) for
> review and comments. As you can see, the steps are split into three
> columns: the first column is just the existing language of the plank
> as it reads, the second column is the existing language placed into
> the new format, and the third column is the re-working of the
> existing language and adding of additional language.
>
> ---
>
> At this point I don't know how the Platform Committee's proposals are
> going to be presented to the delegates. It is possible that the
> delegates will only be given the option of an "up or down" vote and
> will have no power of amending the Platform Committee's work on the
> fly.
>
> This has one benefit - keeping things moving along at a reasonable
> pace. No one wants to sit in the convention hall while a couple of
> people argue endlessly over "placement of the comma" issues.
>
> But "up or down" has a serious drawback - not everyone is allowed to
> be part of the committee, so most delegates will have no say at all
> in how the platform turns out.
>
> When I know how platform debate on the convention floor will be
> handled, so will all of you. But recognize the possibility that it
> will be "up or down" and therefore take your opportunity NOW to
> participate in the platform work.
>
> David Euchner

--
Howard A. Pearce

Howard,

First, thanks for the grammatical fix - the kind of thing that gets
seen only by a second set of eyes. This is what happens
when "purposes" gets changed to "purpose" but the verb is not
appropriately modified :-)

Your second grammatical fix refers to the original language in the
platform. I saw that as well, and I changed "their rights" to "the
right". My changes are in red, and you'll see a red strikethrough in
the pluralizing "s".

Now, for your substantive comment about principles being stated in
the solution...

First, remember that the individual planks are not substitutions for
the statement of principles. The broader "individual rights are
absolute" ideas are included in the statement of principles. In these
individual planks, "principle" refers to the principle governing this
particular issue. In this case, I'm discussing only principles
related to "justice for the individual".

The right to self-defense needs to be covered elsewhere. This
particular plank is about how the justice system (i.e., the courts)
should be used to further individual rights. So a lot of stuff in
this plank will be what lawyers call "substantive due process".

Then again, there is not a specific plank in individual rights that
focuses on the right of self-defense. I consider this a flaw in the
existing platform. I'll write one. This is the most important right
that an individual living in society possesses, and it should be
right up front before crime and victimless crimes.

David Euchner



--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, hapearce <hapearce@e...>
wrote:
> OK David,
>
>
> Perhaps here is an example of my concern mentioned in my prior post.
>
> "(Libertarian Solutions): We oppose the prosecution of individuals
> for exercising their rights of self-defense. We support the right
> of individuals bringing suit in courts of law, with or without a
> state-sanctioned attorney. We also support the right of the victim
> to pardon the criminal or wrongdoer, barring threats to the victim
> for this purpose."
>
>
> It isn't until we reach the solution section that we have a
> statement of a general right  - in this case the right to self-
> defense (at least in part) - "We oppose the prosecution of
> individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. ".
>
> The principle section seems to deal more with procedure or
> procedual rights (for lack of a better phrase).
>
> Can you explain this to me.  It constitutes (in my (confused ?)
> view) a mixing up and cross-linking of thoughts/sections. On the
> other hand, I'm sure self-defense is covered elsewhere.
>
>
> On a side note - mostly grammar:
>
> 1) The purpose of a justice system IS - not ARE
>
> 2) "We oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their
rights
> of self-defense. "
>     Are your sure you want to make "rights" plural ?
>
>
>
> Howard Pearce
> LP of MA
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:41:19 -0000, maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@c...>
> wrote:
>
> > OK, I've been on the platform committee for one week and not a lot
> > has trickled down to me but a little bit has, so I figure it's
time
> > to share what I've got.
> >
> > George is splitting up the 61 individual planks among 20 committee
> > members, asking everyone to volunteer to take three. I assume
George
> > will oversee the splitting up of these so that the same 3 planks
are
> > not done by 20 people 20 times :-)
> >
> > The re-working of each plank is a two-step process. First, take
the
> > existing language of the plank and fit ONLY the existing language
> > into the new four-point format. That is, if a plank only has one
> > sentence (like Sexual Rights) then put that sentence where it
would
> > belong in the new format.
> >
> > Step 1 will show where the biggest gaping holes are. Then Step 2
is
> > to fill in the holes and complete the plank using the four-point
> > format.
> >
> > I have completed my first draft on one plank: "I.6 - Justice for
the
> > Individual". I am now uploading that file (MSWord97 format) for
> > review and comments. As you can see, the steps are split into
three
> > columns: the first column is just the existing language of the
plank
> > as it reads, the second column is the existing language placed
into
> > the new format, and the third column is the re-working of the
> > existing language and adding of additional language.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > At this point I don't know how the Platform Committee's proposals
are
> > going to be presented to the delegates. It is possible that the
> > delegates will only be given the option of an "up or down" vote
and
> > will have no power of amending the Platform Committee's work on
the
> > fly.
> >
> > This has one benefit - keeping things moving along at a reasonable
> > pace. No one wants to sit in the convention hall while a couple of
> > people argue endlessly over "placement of the comma" issues.
> >
> > But "up or down" has a serious drawback - not everyone is allowed
to
> > be part of the committee, so most delegates will have no say at
all
> > in how the platform turns out.
> >
> > When I know how platform debate on the convention floor will be
> > handled, so will all of you. But recognize the possibility that it
> > will be "up or down" and therefore take your opportunity NOW to
> > participate in the platform work.
> >
> > David Euchner
> >
>
> --
> Howard A. Pearce

OK David,


Perhaps here is an example of my concern mentioned in my prior post.

"(Libertarian Solutions): We oppose the prosecution of individuals for
exercising their rights of self-defense. We support the right of
individuals bringing suit in courts of law, with or without a
state-sanctioned attorney. We also support the right of the victim to
pardon the criminal or wrongdoer, barring threats to the victim for this
purpose."


It isn't until we reach the solution section that we have a statement of a
general right  - in this case the right to self-defense (at least in part)
- "We oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of
self-defense. ".

The principle section seems to deal more with procedure or procedual
rights (for lack of a better phrase).

Can you explain this to me.  It constitutes (in my (confused ?) view) a
mixing up and cross-linking of thoughts/sections. On the other hand, I'm
sure self-defense is covered elsewhere.


On a side note - mostly grammar:

1) The purpose of a justice system IS - not ARE

2) "We oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights
of self-defense. "
     Are your sure you want to make "rights" plural ?



Howard Pearce
LP of MA





On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:41:19 -0000, maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>
wrote:

> OK, I've been on the platform committee for one week and not a lot
> has trickled down to me but a little bit has, so I figure it's time
> to share what I've got.
>
> George is splitting up the 61 individual planks among 20 committee
> members, asking everyone to volunteer to take three. I assume George
> will oversee the splitting up of these so that the same 3 planks are
> not done by 20 people 20 times :-)
>
> The re-working of each plank is a two-step process. First, take the
> existing language of the plank and fit ONLY the existing language
> into the new four-point format. That is, if a plank only has one
> sentence (like Sexual Rights) then put that sentence where it would
> belong in the new format.
>
> Step 1 will show where the biggest gaping holes are. Then Step 2 is
> to fill in the holes and complete the plank using the four-point
> format.
>
> I have completed my first draft on one plank: "I.6 - Justice for the
> Individual". I am now uploading that file (MSWord97 format) for
> review and comments. As you can see, the steps are split into three
> columns: the first column is just the existing language of the plank
> as it reads, the second column is the existing language placed into
> the new format, and the third column is the re-working of the
> existing language and adding of additional language.
>
> ---
>
> At this point I don't know how the Platform Committee's proposals are
> going to be presented to the delegates. It is possible that the
> delegates will only be given the option of an "up or down" vote and
> will have no power of amending the Platform Committee's work on the
> fly.
>
> This has one benefit - keeping things moving along at a reasonable
> pace. No one wants to sit in the convention hall while a couple of
> people argue endlessly over "placement of the comma" issues.
>
> But "up or down" has a serious drawback - not everyone is allowed to
> be part of the committee, so most delegates will have no say at all
> in how the platform turns out.
>
> When I know how platform debate on the convention floor will be
> handled, so will all of you. But recognize the possibility that it
> will be "up or down" and therefore take your opportunity NOW to
> participate in the platform work.
>
> David Euchner
>

--
Howard A. Pearce

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the LPplatform-discuss
group.

   File        : /I.6 justice for the individual.doc
   Uploaded by : maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>
   Description : I.6 Justice for the Individual (Euchner first draft)

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPplatform-discuss/files/I.6%20justice%20for%20the\
%20individual.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>

OK, I've been on the platform committee for one week and not a lot
has trickled down to me but a little bit has, so I figure it's time
to share what I've got.

George is splitting up the 61 individual planks among 20 committee
members, asking everyone to volunteer to take three. I assume George
will oversee the splitting up of these so that the same 3 planks are
not done by 20 people 20 times :-)

The re-working of each plank is a two-step process. First, take the
existing language of the plank and fit ONLY the existing language
into the new four-point format. That is, if a plank only has one
sentence (like Sexual Rights) then put that sentence where it would
belong in the new format.

Step 1 will show where the biggest gaping holes are. Then Step 2 is
to fill in the holes and complete the plank using the four-point
format.

I have completed my first draft on one plank: "I.6 - Justice for the
Individual". I am now uploading that file (MSWord97 format) for
review and comments. As you can see, the steps are split into three
columns: the first column is just the existing language of the plank
as it reads, the second column is the existing language placed into
the new format, and the third column is the re-working of the
existing language and adding of additional language.

---

At this point I don't know how the Platform Committee's proposals are
going to be presented to the delegates. It is possible that the
delegates will only be given the option of an "up or down" vote and
will have no power of amending the Platform Committee's work on the
fly.

This has one benefit - keeping things moving along at a reasonable
pace. No one wants to sit in the convention hall while a couple of
people argue endlessly over "placement of the comma" issues.

But "up or down" has a serious drawback - not everyone is allowed to
be part of the committee, so most delegates will have no say at all
in how the platform turns out.

When I know how platform debate on the convention floor will be
handled, so will all of you. But recognize the possibility that it
will be "up or down" and therefore take your opportunity NOW to
participate in the platform work.

David Euchner

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I no longer get LPNEWS so I missed
that article altogether. And apparently there is little disagreement
as George referred to certain pieces of work as "garbage" as well.

Even though your focus was on national's work, your points helped me
to detect a weakness in the structure of our Border Issues plank -
something that we can correct in the future, and a mistake that I'll
be that much less likely to repeat in the future.

David Euchner


--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, hapearce <hapearce@e...>
wrote:
>
> I am referring to one of the initial articles in LP news about the
> platform rewrite in which (several ?) "drafts" on planks were
> presented to provide examples.
>
> I no longer have that issue but am somewhat confident it was about
> the family and chidrens' rigthts.
>
> The article presented the old/current version and showed how it was
> being broken into the parts to provide an example to the readership
> of the proposed structure.
>
> I found the biggest problem not necessarily in the way the platform
> stance had been broken up but perhaps in the expansion of each
> section where I was left with the impression of a new stance
> being merely multipled by 4 (for the I-P-S-T).
>
> I'm sorry I have no specifics; but my concern over the consequences
> of the new structure remain.
>
> Let me review the AZ you uploaded. If I have no "complaints" :), I
> will drop the issue (at least until I have something more solid in
> my hands on the national).    Sorry.
>
>
> Howard Pearce
> LP of MA

I am referring to one of the initial articles in LP news about the
platform rewrite in which (several ?) "drafts" on planks were presented to
provide examples.

I nolonger have that issue but am somewhat confident it was about the
family and chidrens' rigthts.

The article presented the old/current version and showed how it was being
broken into the parts to provide an example to the readership of the
proposed structure.

I found the biggest problem not necessarily in the way the platform stance
had been broken up but perhaps in the expansion of each section where I
was left with the impression of a new stance being merely multipled by 4
(for the I-P-S-T).

I'm sorry I have no specifics; but my concern over the consequences of the
new structure remain.

Let me review the AZ you uploaded. If I have no "complaints" :), I will
drop the issue (at least until I have something more solid in my hands on
the national).    Sorry.


Howard Pearce
LP of MA




On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:00:35 -0000, maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>
wrote:

> Howard,
>
> Thanks for joining the list and for your comments below. I have a
> vague ballpark idea of what you're getting at, but I'm not exactly
> sure. Questions within:
>
>
> --- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, hapearce <hapearce@e...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I personally dislike the format - at least based upon some of the
>> results I have already seen written for the platform.
>
> Which results have you seen and dislike? Are you referring to the
> AZLP stuff I uploaded last night, or to some other writings?
>
> The only completed work of any kind with this format that I have seen
> to date is my own work. 2/3 of the AZLP platform planks were written
> by me, 1/3 by George, and virtually no others edited our work, so if
> there are any problems with how I'm working with this format so far I
> certainly invite the constructive criticism.
>
> Howard, I would suggest picking a particular plank from the AZLP
> stuff, and explaining what you think is right and/or wrong with how
> the format is applied.
>
> And my final question on this point: do you dislike the format, or is
> it more that you are unimpressed with the way some people (including
> myself) have used the format? I can handle the latter as well as the
> former :-)
>
>
>> I see what I consider principles put into solutions, etc.
>>
>> The reason for that, I believe, is that principles and related
>> solutions do not exist in a vacuum apart from other principles and
>> solutions. To overcome this, other principles, perhaps not yet
>> covered, must be dragged into the solution .
>
> Funny, I see the problem with my own work is that often I don't put a
> clear enough line between solutions and transitions.
>
> Some of the planks I wrote were substantially longer than others. The
> longer planks suffer from excessive wordiness, for sure, but I think
> that I did a better job of clearly demarcating ultimate solutions
> from first-step transitions in those longer planks.
>
> I re-read my work again now to see if your criticism accurately
> applies to my work. I'm looking at two examples, Border Issues which
> is relatively brief and Education which is pretty wordy. (Keep in
> mind that we have a LOT more "border issues" in Arizona than there
> are in Massachusetts - the biggest is that Mexicans are trampling
> private property in pursuit of a life in America.)
>
> PRINCIPLE: Private property protection is the fundamental job of
> government ... But at the most fundamental level, citizens always
> have the right to protect their private property.
>
> SOLUTIONS: While national defense against invasion is a federal
> issue, when Washington fails the State of Arizona is obligated to
> defend the rights of its citizens. At the same time, any private
> citizen who knowingly buys land adjoining a national border knows
> that issues may arise with that choice. Such landowners must accept
> reasonable consequences, but at the same time they also must be
> allowed to use any protection means deemed necessary when those
> consequences become unreasonable.
>
> So, after reading this, I'd agree with Howard's criticism about
> principle blending in with solution. Again, I don't fault the format;
> the blame lies with the writers.
>
> I won't quote from the Education plank because of its wordiness, but
> I'll say that I don't see the same problem here as I do in the Border
> Issues plank.
>
>
>> This leads to a "confusing mess" where the I-P-S-T breaks down
>> into cross-links leading to double/triple coverage of principles.
>>
>> Finally there exists the problem of confusion down the road when
>> the principles are adjusted/modified. Instead of one section to
>> write, it will/could be possible all the related sections will
>> need adjusting also - **and not** just those "related" to that
>> particular principle in question.
>>
>> The "real" breakdown goes like this:
>>
>> **ALL** principles
>> Issue > Solution > Transition
>> Issue > Solution > Transition
>> etc.
>>
>> If each solution needs to Back-reference a particular principle(s)
>> for highlighting, then so be it.
>
> There should not be much need for modification of the principles over
> the course of time. In fact, by splitting it up like this, those who
> are concerned that "the party is watering down principles" can defend
> the "principles" section of the platform planks to the proverbial
> death, while conventions tinker with Issue, Solution and Transition.
>
> Naturally, if the principles are modified substantially, our entire
> platform collapses for lack of a foundation.
>
> As for your point about **ALL** principles - this format is not
> designed to replace the statement of principles. This format is
> designed to replace ONLY the existing individual planks.
>
> I hope this helps answer your questions Howard. Note that I asked a
> couple questions above for clarification - then I can better answer
> the remaining questions.
>
> David Euchner
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPplatform-discuss/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> LPplatform-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



--
Howard A. Pearce

----- Original Message -----

From: maywood2008

To: LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 9:00 AM

Subject: [LPplatform-discuss] Re: Platform reformat - what it is and what it isn't

Howard,

Thanks for joining the list and for your comments below. I have a
vague ballpark idea of what you're getting at, but I'm not exactly
sure. Questions within:


--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, hapearce <hapearce@e...>
wrote:
>
> I personally dislike the format - at least based upon some of the
> results I have already seen written for the platform.

Which results have you seen and dislike? Are you referring to the
AZLP stuff I uploaded last night, or to some other writings?

The only completed work of any kind with this format that I have seen
to date is my own work. 2/3 of the AZLP platform planks were written
by me, 1/3 by George, and virtually no others edited our work, so if
there are any problems with how I'm working with this format so far I
certainly invite the constructive criticism.

Howard, I would suggest picking a particular plank from the AZLP
stuff, and explaining what you think is right and/or wrong with how
the format is applied.

And my final question on this point: do you dislike the format, or is
it more that you are unimpressed with the way some people (including
myself) have used the format? I can handle the latter as well as the
former :-)


> I see what I consider principles put into solutions, etc.
>
> The reason for that, I believe, is that principles and related
> solutions do not exist in a vacuum apart from other principles and
> solutions. To overcome this, other principles, perhaps not yet
> covered, must be dragged into the solution .

Funny, I see the problem with my own work is that often I don't put a
clear enough line between solutions and transitions.

Some of the planks I wrote were substantially longer than others. The
longer planks suffer from excessive wordiness, for sure, but I think
that I did a better job of clearly demarcating ultimate solutions
from first-step transitions in those longer planks.

I re-read my work again now to see if your criticism accurately
applies to my work. I'm looking at two examples, Border Issues which
is relatively brief and Education which is pretty wordy. (Keep in
mind that we have a LOT more "border issues" in Arizona than there
are in Massachusetts - the biggest is that Mexicans are trampling
private property in pursuit of a life in America.)

PRINCIPLE: Private property protection is the fundamental job of
government ... But at the most fundamental level, citizens always
have the right to protect their private property.

SOLUTIONS: While national defense against invasion is a federal
issue, when Washington fails the State of Arizona is obligated to
defend the rights of its citizens. At the same time, any private
citizen who knowingly buys land adjoining a national border knows
that issues may arise with that choice. Such landowners must accept
reasonable consequences, but at the same time they also must be
allowed to use any protection means deemed necessary when those
consequences become unreasonable.

So, after reading this, I'd agree with Howard's criticism about
principle blending in with solution. Again, I don't fault the format;
the blame lies with the writers.

I won't quote from the Education plank because of its wordiness, but
I'll say that I don't see the same problem here as I do in the Border
Issues plank.


> This leads to a "confusing mess" where the I-P-S-T breaks down
> into cross-links leading to double/triple coverage of principles.
>
> Finally there exists the problem of confusion down the road when
> the principles are adjusted/modified. Instead of one section to
> write, it will/could be possible all the related sections will  
> need adjusting also - **and not** just those "related" to that
> particular principle in question.
>
> The "real" breakdown goes like this:
>
> **ALL** principles
>          Issue > Solution > Transition
>          Issue > Solution > Transition
>          etc.
>
> If each solution needs to Back-reference a particular principle(s)
> for highlighting, then so be it.

There should not be much need for modification of the principles over
the course of time. In fact, by splitting it up like this, those who
are concerned that "the party is watering down principles" can defend
the "principles" section of the platform planks to the proverbial
death, while conventions tinker with Issue, Solution and Transition.

Naturally, if the principles are modified substantially, our entire
platform collapses for lack of a foundation.

As for your point about **ALL** principles - this format is not
designed to replace the statement of principles. This format is
designed to replace ONLY the existing individual planks.

I hope this helps answer your questions Howard. Note that I asked a
couple questions above for clarification - then I can better answer
the remaining questions.

David Euchner

Howard,

Thanks for joining the list and for your comments below. I have a
vague ballpark idea of what you're getting at, but I'm not exactly
sure. Questions within:


--- In LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com, hapearce <hapearce@e...>
wrote:
>
> I personally dislike the format - at least based upon some of the
> results I have already seen written for the platform.

Which results have you seen and dislike? Are you referring to the
AZLP stuff I uploaded last night, or to some other writings?

The only completed work of any kind with this format that I have seen
to date is my own work. 2/3 of the AZLP platform planks were written
by me, 1/3 by George, and virtually no others edited our work, so if
there are any problems with how I'm working with this format so far I
certainly invite the constructive criticism.

Howard, I would suggest picking a particular plank from the AZLP
stuff, and explaining what you think is right and/or wrong with how
the format is applied.

And my final question on this point: do you dislike the format, or is
it more that you are unimpressed with the way some people (including
myself) have used the format? I can handle the latter as well as the
former :-)


> I see what I consider principles put into solutions, etc.
>
> The reason for that, I believe, is that principles and related
> solutions do not exist in a vacuum apart from other principles and
> solutions. To overcome this, other principles, perhaps not yet
> covered, must be dragged into the solution .

Funny, I see the problem with my own work is that often I don't put a
clear enough line between solutions and transitions.

Some of the planks I wrote were substantially longer than others. The
longer planks suffer from excessive wordiness, for sure, but I think
that I did a better job of clearly demarcating ultimate solutions
from first-step transitions in those longer planks.

I re-read my work again now to see if your criticism accurately
applies to my work. I'm looking at two examples, Border Issues which
is relatively brief and Education which is pretty wordy. (Keep in
mind that we have a LOT more "border issues" in Arizona than there
are in Massachusetts - the biggest is that Mexicans are trampling
private property in pursuit of a life in America.)

PRINCIPLE: Private property protection is the fundamental job of
government ... But at the most fundamental level, citizens always
have the right to protect their private property.

SOLUTIONS: While national defense against invasion is a federal
issue, when Washington fails the State of Arizona is obligated to
defend the rights of its citizens. At the same time, any private
citizen who knowingly buys land adjoining a national border knows
that issues may arise with that choice. Such landowners must accept
reasonable consequences, but at the same time they also must be
allowed to use any protection means deemed necessary when those
consequences become unreasonable.

So, after reading this, I'd agree with Howard's criticism about
principle blending in with solution. Again, I don't fault the format;
the blame lies with the writers.

I won't quote from the Education plank because of its wordiness, but
I'll say that I don't see the same problem here as I do in the Border
Issues plank.


> This leads to a "confusing mess" where the I-P-S-T breaks down
> into cross-links leading to double/triple coverage of principles.
>
> Finally there exists the problem of confusion down the road when
> the principles are adjusted/modified. Instead of one section to
> write, it will/could be possible all the related sections will
> need adjusting also - **and not** just those "related" to that
> particular principle in question.
>
> The "real" breakdown goes like this:
>
> **ALL** principles
>          Issue > Solution > Transition
>          Issue > Solution > Transition
>          etc.
>
> If each solution needs to Back-reference a particular principle(s)
> for highlighting, then so be it.

There should not be much need for modification of the principles over
the course of time. In fact, by splitting it up like this, those who
are concerned that "the party is watering down principles" can defend
the "principles" section of the platform planks to the proverbial
death, while conventions tinker with Issue, Solution and Transition.

Naturally, if the principles are modified substantially, our entire
platform collapses for lack of a foundation.

As for your point about **ALL** principles - this format is not
designed to replace the statement of principles. This format is
designed to replace ONLY the existing individual planks.

I hope this helps answer your questions Howard. Note that I asked a
couple questions above for clarification - then I can better answer
the remaining questions.

David Euchner

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:14:47 -0000, maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>
wrote:

> George Squyres has a number of articles about the platform reformat
> project on the web:
>
> http://www.aznorthernalliance.org/LNCplatform/Articles.shtml
>
> In these articles George explains in great detail what is meant by
> the four-point format "Issue-Principle-Solution-Transition." This
> format made a lot of sense to me, as I liken it to what lawyers
> call "IRAC" (Issue - Rule of Law - Analysis - Conclusion). It's a
> nice and tidy format for saying exactly what it is you want to say.
>


I personally dislike the format - at least based upon some of the results
I have already seen written for the platform.

I see what I consider principles put into solutions, etc.

The reason for that, I believe, is that principles and related solutions
do not exist in a vacuum apart from other principles and solutions. To
overcome this, other principles, perhaps not yet covered, must be dragged
into the solution .

This leads to a "confusing mess" where the I-P-S-T breaks down into
cross-links leading to double/triple coverage of principles.

Finally there exists the problem of confusion down the road when the
principles are adjusted/modified. Instead of one section to write, it
will/could be possible all the related sections will need adjusting also -
**and not** just those "related" to that particular principle in question.


The "real" breakdown goes like this:

**ALL** principles
          Issue > Solution > Transition
          Issue > Solution > Transition
          etc.

If each solution needs to Back-reference a particular principle(s) for
highlighting, then so be it.


Howard Pearce
LP of MA

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the LPplatform-discuss
group.

   File        : /azlp platform planks in new format.rtf
   Uploaded by : maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>
   Description : AZLP platform planks in new format

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPplatform-discuss/files/azlp%20platform%20planks%\
20in%20new%20format.rtf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

maywood2008 <gonzolawyer@...>

George Squyres has a number of articles about the platform reformat
project on the web:

http://www.aznorthernalliance.org/LNCplatform/Articles.shtml

In these articles George explains in great detail what is meant by
the four-point format "Issue-Principle-Solution-Transition." This
format made a lot of sense to me, as I liken it to what lawyers
call "IRAC" (Issue - Rule of Law - Analysis - Conclusion). It's a
nice and tidy format for saying exactly what it is you want to say.

The format is NOT a sneaky way to water down the platform. Just
like "guns don't kill people, people do", a format for clear
expository writing can't water down a platform all on its own.

The Arizona Libertarian Party recently adopted an enormous rewrite as
to its platform at the January 31 state convention. We decided to
start from scratch with our state-specific planks and follow the four-
point format. Michael Kielsky set up a Wiki workspace on his website
for the drafting portion of this work; see our work and learn about
Wiki at his site:

http://azlp.kielsky.com/w/AZLP_Platform

The following planks were re-written by George and me:
BORDER ISSUES
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
EDUCATION
EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE
ENVIRONMENT
GUN RIGHTS
NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES
POLICE MISCONDUCT
POLYGAMY
PRISONS
TRANSPORTATION
WATER RIGHTS

I will upload a document to the files area of this site so that
everyone can see how AZLP went about implementing the format.

The goal of the format is NOT to make our views more tasty to the
average reader who does not understand our philosophy. The goal is to
make our views more comprehensible to the average reader.

David Euchner

Welcome to this list.

The purpose of creating this list is simple: to get an open
discussion of what substantive changes can/should be made to the
Libertarian Party national platform.

There has been a lot of concern voiced lately (partially by me) over
whether or not the Platform Committee of the LNC has been operating
in secret or whether it is truly transparent. My goal is to make it
the latter.

One concern in particular (again, voiced by me as well as others) has
been that suggestions for platform changes have disappeared into the
void. My goal is to eliminate that problem - in part by creating this
list where an archive of good suggestions can be preserved.

When I heard that I was being nominated to fill a vacancy on the
platform committee, I said up-front that I intended to bust open the
bottleneck between the members and activists and the "leaders" who
operate outside of the plain view of the public. I was told by
leaders that this is what they want me to do. So we're going to find
out...

If anyone has a suggestion that they want considered for platform
changes, it should be e-mailed to LPplatform-discuss@yahoogroups.com.
That way, not only will I see it, but so will everyone else who
subscribes to this list. In the process, you can get constructive
criticism from your peers while working on your drafts. And if you
have a suggestion that you want the platform committee to consider,
you can be assured that I will in fact submit it.

In the early stages of the list, I have chosen to moderate posts by
all new members. I have one reason for this: to keep spam from the
list. As I see that new members are not spambots, they will be
allowed to post freely without any interference from me.

In this way, the LNC's platform committee is having its hand forced a
bit into the "give-a-damn" membership requirement of Arizona
Libertarian Party committees. Anyone who cares about the national
platform may participate. The one thing I learned with the AZLP is
that eliminating this restriction will not automatically generate
interest. The only thing that eliminating the restriction
accomplishes is guaranteeing that no one can use the excuse "But I
wasn't PERMITTED the opportunity to participate."

David Euchner
keeper of a new shiny badge which I still have not identified yet...