FW: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 2:32:24 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Dear Libertarians,

We. Told. You. So. 

(Forwarded for transparency.)

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 22:26:49
To: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

No, Ms. Feintech. In fact, above I explained that "mutual aid" was NOT as valid a term given what was being referenced.

I am saying that Alex and I accurately referred to mutualism—voluntary and consensual effort toward a shared goal—as a value in agreement with Libertarianism while writing about the Indigenous right to steward their land; and a group of individuals decided to feign outrage over pretending that I had clandestinely endorsed the Labor Theory of Value. 

In Liberty,

Amanda

Vice Chair, National Libertarian Party

---

From: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 21:07
To: brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

Madam Vice Chair Griffiths, are you saying that you mistakenly utilized the term mutualism without fully understanding the implications to the party and our platform and instead was affirming the application of mutual aid? 

Sonja Feintech

LNC Region 1 Alt

---

From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 19:47:32
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

No, there is no positive feedback to give, the entire email is very leftist coded and was entirely unnecessary

Government contracts are inherently cohesive so a government contract with tribes in the first place is not libertarian, violating it doesn't make it less libertarian

The consent of the people being a prerequisite for legitimate authority is not the foundation of Libertarianism, if the people consented to be governed by a Marxist regime it would still be illegitimate, and if you wish to be technical, the people consented to be governed by Trump and I very much doubt you would argue that his tenure is legitimate.

Perhaps you need to hit the books again and be more informed

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 6:15 PM Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org> wrote:

Mr. Thon,

You seem to have skipped the part where I said to let me know if you have anything of value to add. You opinion of what is or isn't against the platform isn't one of those things. 

Be well.

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee 

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

---

From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 16:08:09
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

I would be fine with this conversation being slapped on the public list

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 6:06 PM Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Flores,

I could not care less which specific individual was attached to the email, it could've been Mr. Martin and Mr. Bost and I would've taken issue

Mutualism goes against libertarian philosophy and on a party level it goes against the Statement of Principles, anybody, no matter who, claiming the party endorses that world view deserves to be admonished

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 5:56 PM Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org> wrote:

Dear Mr. Thon,

Mr. Flores has informed me that he mistakenly left your email address off of his response and has advised that it be forwarded to you. Please find the Region 9 Representative's reply below.

In Mutual Liberty,

Amanda

Vice Chair, National Libertarian Party

---

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 17:49
To: LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

Dagotee Mr. Thon,

Did you have anything positive to say about the rest of the contents of the letter? Or, did you only screen it to find something to complain about because Ms. Griffiths name was attached to it?

Do you do anything productive for the party? Or is it just constant complaints in the spirit of the factionalism you claim to be against?

Considering how incredibly wrong your take is on immigration and just about every take I've ever heard from you and your interpretation of the platform, I'll give this about as much consideration as I do anything else you've had to say. Let me know if you have anything of value to add.

Until then, be well, Bryce. Hopefully you find something positive to put all of this energy torwards. There are much bigger threats to the party than the voluntary mutualism my ancestors have practiced for over a thousand years.

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee 

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

---

From: in...@lp.org <in...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 15:29:56
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

The following message has been submitted via the Contact the LNC webform.

Bryce Thon (bryce...@gmail.com) writes:

Hello again, just emailing you all to express disappointment in our Vice Chair's clear lack of understanding of libertarian philosophy or even the party's platform.

The Libertarian Party does not support mutualism and sending out an email saying the party does, even as a footnote of the email, is an absolute embarrassment.

Please do better to understand at the bare minimum the party platform, but preferably the philosophy as a whole before you say something as a representative of the party that drastically wrong again.

Thank you and have a pleasant day.​

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Rose Leatherman <rose.le...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 5:44:59 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Everybody,

This entire conversation perfectly demonstrates why it’s important to not only actually read works by various libertarian/anarchist theorists, but to always consider the historical context behind certain quotes (such as the one by Proudhon brought up earlier in this email thread). Also important to keep in mind that terms like “private property,” “socialism,” “capitalism,” etc. have been used very differently throughout different time periods, and thus their meaning can vary depending on where, when, and the conditions under which a certain strain of anarchist theory was developed.

Early strains of left-anarchism, including mutualism, arose out of Europe and were in opposition to “private property,” as in property that came about primarily from enclosure by the monarchy. Most of the land in question was already individually/family occupied or shared amongst members of the community who had worked and developed the land in some cases for multiple generations, which per Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist theory, would make it the legitimately homesteaded property of its occupants. It was the actions of a violent criminal gang (the state) declaring the land theirs by fiat and then doling it out to their fellow gang members (lords, other royalty, etc.) that forced the legitimate occupants off the land, an action that any philosophically consistent ancap would view as theft and an act of aggression, and into an exploitative system where they were left to settle for subpar wages and work conditions due to the enforced lack of alternatives stripping them of their bargaining power. 

This is what lead to situations such as Proudhon making the two seemingly contradictory statements "property is theft" and "property is liberty" in the same book: the first refers to property stemming from enclosure which enabled a coercive and exploitative system propped up by the state, the second refers to legitimately acquired property stemming from an individual's labor (including their home or plot of land they developed and use) which grants them independence from said coercive system.

The early American individualist anarchists (Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner) developed different takes on property rights due to the vastly different conditions under which their political theories were developed. Because North America contained large swaths of undeveloped land, the idea that individual ownership wrongly deprived others of resources was far less prevalent. However, both leftists and rightists alike tend to place the individualist anarchists on the left due to their opposition to absentee ownership, wage labor, and rent. However, rather than calling for forcible expropriation, the individualist anarchists were of the belief that absentee landlordism and large scale ownership of the means of production were only made possible by the state (via its ability to enforce absentee ownership claims and to artificially pick winners and losers), and that in the absence of the state, absentee ownership would not be an economically sustainable practice and sole proprietorships or worker co-op type arrangements would naturally replace wage labor.

While I personally don’t believe wage labor or rent are things that would go away entirely in the absence of the state, my personal views on the matter are largely irrelevant to the discussion. We can disagree all day over whether wage labor is inherently exploitative, or if it’s only exploitative due to conditions created by the current system, and it won’t affect whether it ultimately WILL exist in a free market in the absence of the state. So long as force and coercion against peaceful people and their justly acquired property are not being advocated, neither view is incompatible with the principles of this party.

In other words, opposition to absentee property and wage labor, etc. does not automatically make a person anti-libertarian — it is the means by which they’d seek to eliminate such practices that determines whether their philosophy is consistent with the NAP and the LP statement of principles. If they simply view those things as creations of the state that would disappear if the state were substantially reduced or eliminated, their views are not incompatible with the party principles. 

Funnily enough, Mr. Thon used to understand these concepts back when he and I ran in the same pan anarchist circles, right up until he inexplicably abandoned this understanding in favor of a handful of tired, lacking-in-historical-nuance-or-particularly-deep-analysis Hoppean talking points. Regardless, individualist and other "left" anarchists, and even voluntary mutualists, anarcho-syndicalists, and anarcho-communists are covered under the Dallas Accords and are allowed in the party, no matter how many public tantrums certain people wish to have over this fact.

Rose Leatherman 

Region 8 Alternate 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 22:32:24

To: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 7:52:47 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Rose Leatherman <rose.le...@lp.org>; Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Here's the TLDR:

Mutualism = own-nothing-and-be-happy-ism. 

Land ownership is not negotiable. 

Come and take it, commie bastards. 

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Rose Leatherman <rose.le...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, 31 July 2026 01:44:59

To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 11:25:10 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

I would like to close this discussion out with a few points: we advocate for localism and liberty. That means communities will generally be free to engage in whatever system or community structure suits the local people — including ideas we disagree with, like "voluntary" forms of socialism. That does not make those experimental or traditional forms "libertarian".

We can affirm that indigenous people have a right to manage their communities and lands as they see fit — including voluntary compacts of ownership, etc. This doesn't make every tribal form of government "libertarian". At the end of the day, 80% of real liberty pertains to upholding private property rights and private land ownership. If a tribe owns their land, their governance of it should generally be free to express itself according to the will of its people.

The only actual issue, then is specific questions of justiciable true title and questions of rightful ownership of land. To that extent, there should be no federal lands. The best way to rule the land as you see fit is to BUY and OWN the land.

To me, the offense is the claim that "mutualism" is somehow "integral" to Libertarianism; this is a problematic statement, and it went out in a mass distribution purporting to be the party's official policy stance. I think it would be more respectable and professional to simply acknowledge that a mistake was made, and then we can look at how to do some optical damage control, rather than trying to legitimize the absurd proposition. 

Instead, we have been arguing about natives, which is utterly irrelevant to the actual disagreement: socialism doesn't become "libertarian" because free people decide to form a commune or tribal government; rather it is the only ideology that will protect private rights to the extent necessary for such systems to exist without fear of conquest. 

Respectfully, 

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 6:54:00 PM
To: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Anything can be misconstrued, as many conversations on this list have recently demonstrated. In an instance such as this, where even the people who practice it have difficulty defining it, I don't fault someone for choosing a word they think fits best. I feel I would have gotten an entirely different set of reactions if I had used a term like anarcho-communism or libertarian socialism. 

We might do better to not immediately assume the worst in an instance where a word/term/label/designation might have different meanings for different people. 

The enemy is out there, not in here. 

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee 

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

---

From: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, 31 July 2026 15:39:07
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

I have great respect for the native peoples of this land and am very supportive of our Party’s recent efforts to champion indigenous rights. Indeed, my family has at times spent the fourth Thursday in November at the Indigenous Peoples Sunrise Ceremony on Alcatraz Island. 

Nevertheless, words do matter, as do people’s associations with certain words. This is precisely why I asked for a definition of a key word in this venue some time back. 

I think it is prudent for the LNC to strive to use words that express our meaning in ways that cannot be easily misconstrued as advocating for philosophies that are inconsistent with the core principles of our movement. 

I would strongly recommend that we remain mindful of this reality, now and in the future. 

Barbara Engelhardt 

LNC Reg 4 Alt Rep

---

From: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 3:32 PM
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

I have great respect for the native peoples of this land and am very supportive of our Party’s recent efforts to champion indigenous rights. Indeed, to that end my family has at times spent the fourth Thursday in November at the Indigenous Peoples Sunrise Ceremony on Alcatraz Island. 

Nevertheless, words do matter, as do people’s associations with certain words. This is precisely why I asked for a definition of a key word in this venue some time back. 

I think it is prudent to strive to use words now and in future that express our meaning in ways that cannot be easily misconstrued as advocating for philosophies that are inconsistent with the core principles of our movement. 

I would 

---

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 10:14 AM
To: brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

"Changed the size" undersells what's happened here. Bears Ears was established under Obama in 2016. Trump reduced it 85% in 2017. Biden restored it in 2021. Trump has now cut it again in 2026, this time by about 90%.

What's different this time isn't just the size, it's that this is the first reduction that also terminates the Bears Ears Commission itself, the consultation body the 2016 proclamation created. In June 2025, the Department of the Interior committed in writing to contact the Commission before any changes to the monument. That consultation never happened, a fact the Commission has stated publicly and that DOI has not disputed. So this wasn't a dispute over interpretation, the government skipped a written commitment it had made directly to these nations, then eliminated the body that commitment was made to.

Second, it isn't "one group". The Commission represents five distinct sovereign nations: the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Ute Indian Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, each with its own standing and interests. Collapsing them into "the tribes" as a single entity is part of the same pattern our unanimously passed resolution addresses, treating sovereign peoples as an undifferentiated category rather than as the distinct nations they are.

A generalized statement about federal land management doesn't work, because there is no one size fits all solution when it comes to these disputes. I reiterate that there are over 570 recognized tribes within the US, and nearly 400 more that aren't. Every blanket approach the US has tried has failed miserably, and it's not the bureaucrats who suffer when they fail.

I get you disagree with this. The overwhelming majority of party membership that has responded to this have been overwhelmingly positive, with the exception of those getting hung up on "mutualism" to use as ammo for their factional framing rather than understanding the authors true intent. 

You already said you found nothing positive in the letter and that it was leftist coded. The majority of the membership that has responded disagrees with you. Maybe we can discuss the disconnect there if you're willing to address it. But that requires more reaching for understanding and less insisting any one perspective or take is the correct one, especially given the demonstrated disagreement here in this very thread.

I'm going to continue to be a very outspoken member of this committee when it comes to Indigenous/Native/Aboriginal rights. The history demands it and my ancestors compel me to not be silent on these things anymore. I understand that's probably going to make some people uncomfortable. But I won't water it down. 

I have an article that should be published soon that dives more into where my ancestral beliefs and libertarian philosophy merge. When it's published I'll be sure to share it with you. We have to get out of this left vs right framing. It's us vs. Authoritarians. And there is a lot we can all fight for together to achieve "a world set free in our lifetime".

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee 

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

---

From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 31 July 2026 09:39:00
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

Mr. Flores I would be happy to bring the conversation back to what you're talking about

There actually is no formal contract between the US and the tribes, Obama made a proclamation on the matter and every single president since that proclamation has changed the size of the monument

I think a generalized statement about how federal land should be returned to the private sector rather than any one particular group would be more appropriate if you really felt like it needed to be commented on at all

On Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 9:32 AM Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org> wrote:

Mr. Thon,

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the traditional practices of my ancestors, as nothing you described is anything that is practiced or held as a belief. The irony of suggesting I research something you've displayed here you don't even want to understand is...interesting.

You speak of "reality" but don't seem willing to acknowledge that most dues paying members don't agree with your take on this and are overwhelmingly supportive of this email/post.

To everyone who joined this thread, welcome!

Tribes also struggle to define the "economy" we practice. Some have called it "traditional" economy. I've heard it described as anarcho-communism, Libertarian-Socialist, voluntaryism, and yes, voluntary mutualism. There are over 570 recognized tribes and nearly 400 more that aren't recognized, each with distinct beliefs and practices. I don't fault anyone for reaching for a description they think describes it best. I go back and forth myself the more I embrace my traditional culture. The words we're using to describe it didn't exist when it started. 

This email and post were supposed to be about indigenous rights and executive overreach. Instead, it turned into some "gotcha" where the factions piled on to take their jabs. Even Mr. Martin proclaims "told ya so" like some profound blow or some grand revelation has been made. The people who claim it isn't factional trip over themselves demonstrating otherwise every time something like this happens. What was a post that was overwhelmingly well received publicly, was stripped down to one word nobody in here agrees on the definition of and used to sow division. 

There's a lot of work to be done to advance liberty for indigenous people. I feel the weight of that every day. We have real opportunities where Libertarian principles align.

Purity tests, constant factionalism, reaching immediately for division before understanding, and really, most of the behavior in this email chain...does absolutely none of that. 

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee 

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

---

From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 19:32:20
To: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Cc: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

Madam Vice Chair,

Respectfully, that is not, nor has it ever been, what mutualism means, and considering that reality you can't exactly fault people for questioning it

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2026 3:39:29 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Fw: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Once again attempting to forward this entire thread, including Mr. Flores' responses, for transparency. 

---

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2026 1:27

To: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

The discussion is about Native Americans...because the email was about Native Americans, not mutualism. It was not suggested that mutualism is integral to libertarianism. That was one word mentioned in the context of free exchange. The insistence that it can only mean the definition a small faction disagrees with the most, and therefore cannot be libertarian, in light of multiple people thoroughly explaining otherwise, just reaffirms what I said previously. I won't be dragged into this factional nonsense.

There's no apology necessary because nobody did anything wrong in reference to posting this and emailing it out. It went through the APRC. It went through several drafts. All the proper channels for screening and approval. The response has been overwhelmingly positive from dues paying members as well as people outside of the party.

The only place I've heard this take about "mutualism" being in the email, is in this email thread. 

Ms. Griffiths wasn't wrong, because, for the final time, there is no Eurocentric political label that fits what is trying to be described, as it predates those words. Trying to insist there is and it is the one narrow definition of a word you can stand against is an odd thing to say in the context of also saying you support Native Americans.

Ms Griffiths reached for the closest descriptor she thought of. As I've explained already, other people reach for other descriptions. It is absent of the authoritarian elements you've all reached for to describe it here. So all I can say is that we're talking about different things. 

Since we keep talking past each other, this will be my last response to this. I don't fault anyone for using language they feel describes what they are referring to when there is no designated correct label to use.

I echo the point of being careful of what we push out publicly. Which is why this went through the proper channels and was seen as perfectly fine. There was another post related to the Hawaiian Kingdom celebrating Sovereignty Day today that was scrapped because words have meaning and it wasn't ready in time. 

Insisting this was something it wasn't in light of the thorough explanations given at this point, is a choice. The LP can either be a vehicle for real change for native people, or it can continue to be an arena hosting a circus where we argue for an entire day about a word that wasn't even the focus of a press release. 

See everyone on Sunday.

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee 

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

---

From: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 4:27:01 PM

To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

To clarify, my response was directed toward Mr. Flores in response to his last post. 

Barbara Engelhardt 

---

From: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 4:25 PM

To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

 

I certainly don’t wish to belabor this, yet this response misses the point. 

Many of those on the LNC who post here have encouraged the body to exercise discernment regarding the tone of what is shared publicly. I do not believe it would be inordinately difficult to exercise the same sort of circumspection with regard to terminology of a political nature that we choose to employ in public releases. 

Barbara Engelhardt 

LNC Reg 4 Alt Rep

---

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 3:53 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2026 6:34:08 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

I think the consensus here is that some words that really bother certain people in other contexts matter a lot, while other words that might be problematic for entirely different people in other situations are inconsequential. 

That being said, I am happy to move on.

Barbara Engelhardt 

LNC Reg 4 Alt Rep

---

From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2026 8:39 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Rose Leatherman <rose.le...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2026 12:56:52 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>; Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

The consensus is that the email received overwhelmingly positive responses from the people who are in this movement because they have a genuine desire to help this party advance the cause of human liberty, and that it has helped bring attention to a highly unjust recent action by the state which violates the core principles we stand for. This is in spite of a small handful of bad faith actors (who were inevitably going to find something​ in that email to take issue with) trying to manufacture outrage over the use of a particular word, even though the word's meaning in the context of the email was more than clear to those of us who read it.

Rose Leatherman 

Region 8 Alternate 

---

From: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, 01 August 2026 14:34:08