Update on Libertarian Bylaws Committee Survey

Email from Dan Karlan:

Dear fellow Libertarian,

Last week I asked you to help our Party by providing feedback on the Bylaws Committee’s recently adopted recommendations.

The response has been very encouraging! I especially want to thank the 768 of you so far that have invested considerable time to share your thoughts and provide invaluable feedback.

What I find particularly enlightening are the 1010 comments you have provided to us on individual recommendations.

I want to assure you that every single comment is being read and considered, and I’m already finding many useful suggestions for improvement.

In the coming days and weeks I will be assembling all of your ideas for the entire Bylaws Committee, and I believe your suggestions have the potential to improve our organization.

I very much want you to become a part of this endeavor. If you haven’t participated yet, please complete this questionnaire before you do anything else, before you read another e-mail message.

[…]

We need to close the door to the questionnaire on October 1 so the committee will have sufficient time to consider your comments.

Your suggestions and opinions do matter, so please join this effort and let your voice be heard.

Thank you in advance for all your help! Go to http://www.lp.org/bylawssurvey to participate.

Best regards,

Dan Karlan
Chair, Libertarian Party Bylaws Committee


Previously at IPR:

LP Bylaws and Rules Committee Issues 2012 Report

Libertarian Bylaws Committee Survey

Liberty Lion: Proposed LPUS Bylaw Amendment Takes Away Local Affiliate Authority

See also:

York County, PA LP: Proposed LPUS By-Laws Amendment Seeks to Protect Integrity of Local Party Affiliates

14 thoughts on “Update on Libertarian Bylaws Committee Survey

  1. Hypocritical Nonsense

    The LNC is ignoring its own Bylaws, by ignoring the totally unambiguous directive of the Party Judicial Committee in the Oregon matter.

    The people doing this are the people who are on the Bylaws committee.

    You should trust none of their recommendations.

  2. Questions Man

    Can LP delegates vote in convention to formally dissolve the LP? If so, what percentage of delegates does it take?

  3. Questions Man

    So, could a 2/3 vote dissolve the LP, then create a new one, thereby making the 7/8 requirement for changing the statement of principles moot?

  4. Hypocritical Nonsense

    @3 Dissolution would void the objects requiring a 7/8 vote, so a 7/8 vote would also be required for dissolution.

    In addition, once the organization dissolves, there would be several claimants for the succession.

  5. Robert Capozzi

    3 bh, interesting. It might be way cool to dissolve/reconfigure the whole edifice, deleting all the fetishes and theoretical constructs, and thereby opening up the LP to all Ls. 5 — probably GP — seems to think perpetuity springs from the highest subordinate hurdle. Over my head as to how that’s so…

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 7,

    Sounds sort of like trying to “reconfigure” Christianity by deleting Jesus.

    The Libertarian Party (not any libertarian party, but the specific organization) is built on those “fetishes and theoretical constructs.” They are its foundation.

    If you don’t like the shape (for the sake of illustration, circular) of that foundation, why not go pour a new foundation and put up a new building, instead of trying to make a square building fit on the circular foundation?

  7. Brian Holtz

    Another way to dissolve the LP would be the Oregon way. The LNC could cite some legal status it holds (e.g. FEC status, or trademark holder of the title “Libertarian Party”), cancel the next Party convention, write brand-new bylaws that redefine membership and dissolve the Judicial Committee, and appoint new leadership. If the technique can work in Oregon, why not apply it at the national level?

    Q: What kind of Party have you given us, Mr. Nolan?
    A: One governed by Bylaws, if you can keep it.

  8. Robert Capozzi

    8 tk: If you don’t like the shape (for the sake of illustration, circular) of that foundation, why not go pour a new foundation and put up a new building, instead of trying to make a square building fit on the circular foundation?

    me: Lack of resources; lack of desire; non-interest in creating a competing organization that is directionally the same in practical terms; relative failure of previous attempts to do the same; modestly hopeful that some may agree that the current foundation is substantially dysfunctional.

  9. Robert Capozzi

    9 bh, hah! Actually, I can imagine that happening if it were done as part of an effort to get RP to be the 2012 candidate.

  10. LibertarianGirl

    RC_3 bh, interesting. It might be way cool to dissolve/reconfigure the whole edifice, deleting all the fetishes and theoretical constructs

    me_OR , we could purge everyone , reopen and attract the same diverse, different opinioned freedom fighters and reinvent the wheel..

  11. Questions Man

    The LNC could cite some legal status it holds (e.g. FEC status, or trademark holder of the title “Libertarian Party”), cancel the next Party convention, write brand-new bylaws that redefine membership and dissolve the Judicial Committee, and appoint new leadership. If the technique can work in Oregon, why not apply it at the national level?

    Has anyone on the LNC considered this as a serious, practical suggestion, rather than merely a satirical talking point, yet? If so, have they garnered any support from their colleagues?

  12. Robert Capozzi

    more to 8 tk, imagine a religion/cult that was founded by a charismatic figure. Say that his/her words are still used today as the foundational justification for that religion’s belief system and practices. Say further that the founder’s diary was found, and it became known to the living true believers that he/she had foisted a scam on his/her followers.

    Once this became known, the followers might: quit; reform the religion, throwing out the scam-related beliefs but keeping the “good stuff”; or deny the authenticity of the diary.

    It’s not a perfect analogy, since I don’t think the LP’s founders, or the philosophers who influenced the founders, were scam artists, per se. I just think they had blind spots; employed flawed logic; did not fully think through their absolutism and its implications; were applying checkers rules in a game of three dimensional chess.

    It’s important IMO to periodically check one’s premises, the hallmark of an open mind. Mindlessly citing philosophical scripture leads to stagnation and rigidity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *