The following discussion took place via email, mostly on the business list for the Texas Libertarian Party Executive Committee's email list. Emails are listed in order.
(Words written by me are in black, with other colors to designate the words of others in the discussion. Italics indicate where someone else's words were quoted in an email to maintain context.)
The discussion began with my stating opposition to George Squyres' proposal that UMB be discontinued, among other reforms, which he presented as a means of making the national party more accountable and dependent upon the state affiliates (when the exact opposite would be true). Geoffrey Neale, former Texas chair, former National chair, current national Rules Platform chair and Texas state party treasurer, responded:
Kris, I think you're missing a very major point here.
Under the proposal, monies donated to National stay at National. Monies donated to the affiliates stay at the affiliate.
Currently, there is no way for a person to be an affiliate only member if the affiliate is in UMP. And there is no way for a person to be a National only member if the affiliate is in UMP.
If a member thinks National serves no purpose, then their affiliate membership supports something they don't believe in.
If a member thinks that their affiliate is totally screwed up, run by unethical incompetents, and devoid of any value, then their National membership supports something they don't want to support.
In George's proposal, the two memberships are distinct, and should be (but are not necessarily) devoid of any implied overlap.
Unfortunately, the National Bylaws allow any person who has signed the pledge to be a delegate, regardless of their contributions. As long as our Bylaws allow a person to walk in off the street, sign a piece of paper, no matter what it says, and then decide how the donations of other people will be spent, I am opposed to the proposal.
If we can ever get our supposedly "market-driven" libertarians to understand that the complementary statement to (and I paraphrase in more libertarian terms) "No donations without representation" is "no representation without donations", then I will support this proposal without reservation.
Until that time, I feel increasing the ratio of non-investors to investors within the ranks of our national delegates is only going to screw things up even more than they already are. Our number one problem, IMO, is that we continue to strive after socialist internal structures while decrying the socialism of our government. We are our own worst example. We don't even run our party in a libertarian manner, so how the hell could we ever change the way government works?
Oh well, hypocrisy is no obstacle to the "true believers".
Geoffrey Neale
PS: I'm chair of the 2006 Bylaws Committee, and intend to give a strong effort to making the above delegate changes.
My response:
Unfortunately, the National Bylaws allow any person who has signed the pledge to be a delegate, regardless of their contributions. As long as our Bylaws allow a person to walk in off the street, sign a piece of paper, no matter what it says, and then decide how the donations of other people will be spent, I am opposed to the proposal.
If we can ever get our supposedly "market-driven" libertarians to understand that the complementary statement to (and I paraphrase in more libertarian terms) "No donations without representation" is "no representation without donations", then I will support this proposal without reservation.
Geoff, I wasn't aware you supported re-instituting the property requirement and the poll tax for voting privileges.
People who support a party have a right to a say in that party, even if their support is limited only to a vote.
Kris Overstreet
Neale:
I agree.
If your support is limited to a vote, then the scope of your decision should also be limited to that vote.
Geoff
Me:
But you're saying that people who vote Libertarian, or who even volunteer to help get Libertarians elected, should -have- no vote in the party itself.
That's the exact same reasoning that justified poll taxes: only those who materially contribute to society should have a say in its governance.
It's elitism of the worst stripe.
Kris Overstreet
At this point Jeff Daiell, twice gubernatorial candidate for the Texas LP and current chair of Harris County LP (Houston), jumped in:
Geoff, I wasn't aware you supported re-instituting the property requirement and the poll tax for voting privileges.
And next you'll go after the Rotarians for requiring paid membership for voting privileges? That's why their called "prvileges" and not "Rights".
People who support a party have a right to a say in that party, even if their support is limited only to a vote.
Er, no -- to borrow your overused phrased. Not if the rules require otherwise.
Jeff and I agree on very little, and get on each other's nerves very quickly. My response:
And next you'll go after the Rotarians for requiring paid membership for voting privileges? That's why their called "prvileges" and not "Rights".
We are not a social club. We are a political party.
Or had you forgotten that?
Or had you decided that you would rather reject possible volunteers and supporters because they didn't have enough money to satisfy you?
Kris Overstreet
Back to Geoffrey Neale:
You miss the point entirely.
You vote here in Texas, I assume. Therefore, you should have a voice in what the New Jersey LP does, right?
Wrong. Why not? Because you are not a stakeholder. You are not an investor.
The National LP only exists because of donors, not because of members or voters. Only $7 of every membership ends up at National. That results in less than 10% of the actual costs of running the National LP.
I assume you are a minimum level member with National. If not, please educate me.
Since my lifetime donations to National exceed $10,000.00, and my in kind contributions and expenses on behalf of the National LP exceed $100,000.00, I do not think it is elitist to think that my voice carry more weight than the $7 net per year "members". What I think is that it is moronic that my level of real contributions to the existence of the LP matter not one damn bit compared to marginal memberships.
Without the donors, there would be no National LP. There would be no National conventions. There would be no press releases.
To state that donors who actually foot the bills should be accorded the same consideration as those who just vote once in a while is ridiculous. You may call that elitism; I call it capitalistic politics, and I'm not ashamed to be a capitalist.
Look at history, and show me one single movement founded, funded and run without major donors and an elite. The American Revolution was an elitist revolution. Especially by your definition.
My suggestion to you is that you consider joining the communist party. They are the ones who seem to best mirror your opinions regarding elitism. Hell, even the Greens require dues to play in the game.
Geoffrey Neale
Neale again:
The Bylaws state:
ARTICLE 7: MEMBERSHIP
Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
Delegates:
Delegates shall be required to be members of either the Party or an affiliate party.
In other words, all you have to do is sign the pledge to be a delegate (and be chosen by a state, of course).
Our rules are loose enough that a takeover of this party would be a piece of cake. I'm surprised it hasn't happened like it did with the Reform Party by the Buchananites.
Geoffrey Neale
Neale yet again- and by this point things had definitely taken a downturn:
My responses then arrived on the list, and by this time I was annoyed, put mildly. More importantly, I was angry, because I felt Neale's attitude on this issue was everything this party stands against:Of course. And welfare recipients should be able to decide how much you pay for rent, and how much you earn, right?
If you really think there is a correlation between volunteer activities and delegates to the National Convention, you must be smoking something. There is none.
And since current definition of dues is at $25.00, I think my definition of minimum contributions is sufficiently small.
Of course, I assume you would consider a hooker to be an elitist if she refused to screw you for a quarter, right?
Geoffrey Neale
We are not a social club. We are a political party.
Or had you forgotten that?
Or had you decided that you would rather reject possible volunteers and supporters because they didn't have enough money to satisfy you?
Kris Overstreet
You miss the point entirely.
You vote here in Texas, I assume. Therefore, you should have a voice in what the New Jersey LP does, right?
Wrong. Why not? Because you are not a stakeholder. You are not an investor.
I am a citizen of the United States. That -makes- me a stakeholder.
The National LP only exists because of donors, not because of members or voters.
Bullshit.
I assume you are a minimum level member with National. If not, please educate me.
Bottom-tier monthly pledger, $10/mth.
Since my lifetime donations to National exceed $10,000.00, and my in kind contributions and expenses on behalf of the National LP exceed $100,000.00, I do not think it is elitist to think that my voice carry more weight than the $7 net per year "members".
I think it not only elitist, I think it contemptible.
To state that donors who actually foot the bills should be accorded the same consideration as those who just vote once in a while is ridiculous. You may call that elitism; I call it capitalistic politics, and I'm not ashamed to be a capitalist.
I call it political feudalism.
Look at history, and show me one single movement founded, funded and run without major donors and an elite. The American Revolution was an elitist revolution. Especially by your definition.
The elites were not the majority of those holding the guns at the time. Nor could those elites have survived without the consent and support of a significant number of the people- support you disdain.
My suggestion to you is that you consider joining the communist party.
I had -thought- that the Libertarian Party stood for freedom for all, not merely all the freedom your money can buy, and not one ounce more.
Kris Overstreet
More from me, by which point I was calming a little bit:
Our rules are loose enough that a takeover of this party would be a piece of cake. I'm surprised it hasn't happened like it did with the Reform Party by the Buchananites.
We don't offer anything of note. Our platform is so extreme as to be more use to the enemy than to our own candidates; our activists are more interested in winning souls to the religion of Libertarianism than in persuading voters that our candidates may be trusted with power; and our track record, by any standards higher than the "third-party" qualifier, is abysmal.
A takeover attempt will eventually come, as it came to the Populists and to the Reformers- but not until and unless we change this party into something worth taking over in the first place.
Kris Overstreet
My suggestion to you is that you consider joining the communist party.
I had -thought- that the Libertarian Party stood for freedom for all, not merely all the freedom your money can buy, and not one ounce more.
Kris Overstreet
At this point Neale asked that the discussion be taken off-list. I broke netiquette and refused, to the point of posting a response to a privately-sent email, with no cuts, to the list again. Yes, this is inexcusably rude. I did it because I feel -very- strongly about this. Party political power should not be solely a function of the wallet.
Anyway, here's how it played out:
After a mild reprimand of sorts from my wife Nancy, of which I am most earnestly deserving, I have the following to offer:
To Kris and Jeff, I suggest any continuation of this thread go off list.
To the rest of the list, my apologies for bombarding your inbox with drivel.
Geoffrey Neale
Me:
Me again:No.
As national rules chair, your position on proposed rules changes is a matter of public, not private, discussion.
As such, I will shortly post complete transcripts of this entire discussion to several public forums in the interests of full and complete disclosure of your true beliefs re: the elite ruling over the peasantry.
Kris Overstreet
If you really think there is a correlation between volunteer activities and delegates to the National Convention, you must be smoking something. There is none.
Ah. So the poor don't deserve to vote or be part of a party, is your attitude?
Interesting that you, of all people, should be worried about a party takeover. By your morals, if Bill Gates donated a billion dollars to the LP, he would have every right in the world to have the party mandate free college educations for all Americans and a government grant of monopoly for Microsoft software on all computing devices, because the more money you have, the more worthy a person you are.
So if the poor try to take over the party by numbers, it's evil, but if the rich take over the party by money, it's good?
Kris Overstreet
Neale:
So by your logic, in order to not be elitist, I should stop donating to the LP, thereby guaranteeing that I am one of the masses.
That's such a damn good idea that I think I will not only do that, but actively promote all other major donors to do likewise. Obviously, our money is of no benefit to the libertarian movement. Or maybe it IS of value, but we damn well better not expect any recognition for it.
Likewise, I guess the major donors to the BA in Texas should have kept their wallets closed. After all, they had virtually nothing to do with the success of the BA drive. The volunteers got us almost all the way there by themselves, didn't they?
Not.
The reality is that we lose major donors every year because we do NOT accord them any benefits or recognition for the inordinate weight they carry.
It's like going to a restaurant where the food is based upon a ratio of your income. Everybody gets to eat, but unemployed people eat for free, and millionaires pay way too much. Any wonder why the millionaires stop eating there? Any wonder why the unemployed line up around the block?
Geoff
PS: If you ever have a project that requires money, don't ask me - it would be elitist. Get the money out of thin air.
Me again:
Wrong. Donors should continue to donate, whether that be in money, time, effort, or other means. Donors, however, should not expect to have more say in the party than others who support the party but do not have the money to match their level of financial support.
I have, in the past, opposed funding government solely through private donations- oops! error in original post because I do not like the idea of Boss Hogg rule- where the person who donates the money makes the laws, and those without money suffer injustice at the hands of what amounts to a corrupt private security force paid for by the rich. Your proposal would institute just that condition within the LP- the wealthy set the agenda and spend the money, while the poor have no voice, no power, and no alternative if they want to support freedom.
If people want to join the party, dammit, LET THEM DO SO. We are not exactly overflowing with supporters as it is. Rather than have someone vote with their dollars, have them vote based upon how the success or failure of this party will affect them- equally, regardless of wealth. We are all Americans. We are all tired of watching our freedom slip away.
It's bad enough there are people who want to institute purity tests, but property and wealth tests as well are not merely unacceptable, they're ludicrous. We're already being accused of being the ultra-right wing of the Republican Party, made up of whiny rich men's sons who want more power and less responsibility. Are you determined to prove those people right??
Kris Overstreet
Neale again:
Then post this too, Kris.
Go fuck yourself, you ill mannered ingrate.
I hereby resign my position as Treasurer of the Texas LP.
I will rescind that resignation if you are removed from any and all duties within the Texas LP. My donations to the LP are not limited to money, and my donated time has a price. That price is one you seem unprepared to pay, and one I am no longer willing to pay.
Therefore, my donation is hereby halted.
As to forwarding the opinions of one person to a wider distribution list, with any intentions that do not directly apply to the SLEC usage of this list, I suggest you should be removed from this distribution list.
As to my opinions being of public interest, due to the fact that I am Bylaws Chair for the 2006 Convention, that is unadulterated bullshit, and your ignorance is showing.
As Chair, I run the meetings, and get to vote. The committee speaks as a whole, and my opinions only matter 10%. Are you going to publish all other nine members opinions? I doubt it.
And lastly, none of this CAN have anything to do with proposed rules changes, because we haven't proposed any rules changes yet.
Geoffrey Neale
Former Treasurer,
Texas LP
Me again:
To quote from your email earlier this evening:
If we can ever get our supposedly "market-driven" libertarians to understand that the complementary statement to (and I paraphrase in more libertarian terms) "No donations without representation" is "no representation without donations", then I will support this proposal without reservation.
and shortly thereafter
PS: I'm chair of the 2006 Bylaws Committee, and intend to give a strong effort to making the above delegate changes.
You made the proposal yourself, and stated your intent to see said proposal implemented.
In the meantime, I ask you rescind your resignation. Even if you believe that I am ungrateful for your past service (and I am not, although Raiser's Edge was and remains a fantastically DUMB idea), consider this: if I am run out of the party on a rail, as you demand, I will lose a great deal of headaches in my life, regain a number of my friends who avoid me at present because of my LP activism, and promptly join those ex-LPers who are working to split this party or form a new one entirely. (And the Texas LP will lose one 2006 candidate.) If I am not run out, you are out of office. I have nothing to lose; you have little to gain; presuming, of course, your worst-case view of me.
As it happens, the state party needs a treasurer, and the LP needs all the activists it can get- but I disagree with your beliefs as I have seen them tonight, and I don't intend to stop opposing them whenever you express them in public. I am willing to work with you, but not to agree with you- not on this fundamental issue.
And if you have something to say which can't be said in public, don't say it at all.
Kris Overstreet
Neale again:
The proposal in question is to the LNC, not the Bylaws Committee.
Get your facts straight.
And do the world a favor and TAKE THIS OFFLIST!!!!
To which I had no answer worth posting, so I left it there. My evening was ruined anyway, and I suspect Geoff's as well. Infighting is not fun, but I cannot agree with Neale on this issue.