Yet another source has emerged from the Mises Caucus. He supplies us with some of their plans, writing:
Find here a document made by the Mises Caucus for state organizers, to understand how their delegation would vote. Within it shows that the Caucus board as well as McArdle supported the removal of regional reps and was against the addition of cumulative voting in order to centralize control and power to the LNC and to not allow any opposition to have a say within the LNC. The full google form showing such can be found here (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfBJAGdNVtfdKFp4CSbNpiRA-qWDb_WFxG8_Km-BFW8jV0n8Q/viewform) with the sixth page showing what the Caucus board supported in regards to bylaw amendments, reasoning that was not as apparent in their Convention Strategy Plan (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18iyWxO2lRjxodyaNz86rLM4kvF93RGvJ/view?usp=sharing) with reference to Proposal 5 of bylaw amendments.
It shouldn’t be, but it is strangely disconcerting to see the actual plan written down to destroy the party. We all knew or strongly suspected they had one, but to see it in this detail is somewhat surprising. I hope whoever leaked this is not caught.
Getting rid of representatives for the states would completely disconnect all but the largest states from the national party. They eliminate all of the incentive to increase membership, which, for the most part has been on the states as they try to gain a stronger foothold of representation in their region as each convention approaches.
I also looked at the proposal Ken made to change it to one representative from each state. That actually violates election law in some states, including South Carolina. They would have to make it two from each state, one required to be a man and one required to be a woman to comply with election laws that currently only affect the Democratic and Republican parties.
That makes the national committee extremely large and unwieldy, but it does level the playing field and gives more control to the smaller states. The national committee meetings then become the equivalent of a mini convention several times a year. Zoom meetings become impossible, although off-line discussion and electronic voting could be helpful. States would still gravitate into clusters to influence as a block vote.
And of course it eliminates any incentive at all to have dues paying national members.
Where are the messages from the anti-Mises on their plans to disrupt and drag out the convention? Art DiBianca was one of those spreading texts telling their caucus to make frivolous points of personal privilege.
This article only tells one side of the story.
Where are…not in my possession.
It was posted on the FB site in June of this year.
Exactly. There’s a reason why George Phillies refuses to post it. It hurts his side.
Post what? I am rather behind on posting.
Post what the “prags” or “anti-Mises” or whatever he opposition is calling themselves these days planned during the convention. JM Jacobs says it has been up since June- six months ago.
They deliberately dragged things out to get others to leave and thus get the votes their way. That is why you had such an awful candidate in Chase Oliver. That, and misleading delegates about ballot access if NOTA won.
Send documents or URLs, or expect to be shut down on these claims.
Which caucus is Art DiBianca in?
Does everyone in your party have to be in a caucus? Do they have to choose only one to be in? I don’t recall either of those being the case in 1987-9 or 2008. If I remember right, caucuses were mostly pretty informal, many/most without formal membership, and many/most people didn’t belong to any or somewhat belonged to several.
I personally refuse to caucus. Even with ones I agree with signifigantly.
That would put you in the not a caucus caucus.
To paraphase a great thinker Mr. Flood, I would not be a part of any caucus that would have me as a member.
But to respond with a more serious comment…
Caucuses can be highly dangerous. They tend to initially focus on minor issues or a group of issues, but then can easily expand into more dangerous things such as what has happened to the libertarian party over the last half dozen years or so.
A takeover was organized and executed. The end result has been a significant change in how the party operates. It no longer supports properly elected candidates at convention. It removes members of the board who disagree with the chair. It works with candidates of other parties – and yes, Kennedy was in another party — to subvert the system, causing damage to the party at a level it may never recover from.
We have been reading a number of documents over the past few weeks that Dr. Phillies has published here. They confirm frightening evidence of the extent of the organization of this takeover.
Fortunately, their plans for the 2024 convention did not succeed completely. I am sure they will keep their plans for 2026 much closer to the vest, and verify who has access to information much more carefully.
I would hope that the other side (or sides) do the same. And I would hope that if they manage to overthrow the cabal currently running the party, that they do something to eliminate caucuses. That sounds like a tall order, and it would certainly seem to be “un libertarian“ on the surface. But these caucuses can serve very “un libertarian“ purposes.
The caucus in charge of the party at the moment, certainly committed fraud in its quest to take over. You could argue that it used force as well.
So I commend those who do not want to be in a caucus.
That was the Moulton proposal that passed the Bylaws Committee unanimously. It was to let the delegates select the LNC.
I think the structure of party is not fair to members either. Something has to be after the bylaws remains unchanged after more than a decade. I like the proposal to restructure the LNC that was presented by former Vice Chair Ken Moellman which is presented here: https://fixthelp.com/ or watch the debate on the bylaws between Ken Moellman and Dr. Chuck Moulton (Fite Club #17 Battle of the Bylaws) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkCT1uy2B-I