Update for 9/16/2009

[Brad Williams]

Hello,

1) I have updated the OIR Description and Rules page: I've merged the
Primary Objective into the Mission statement, and added two rules to
identify OIR's policies of association with other organizations and of
potential involvement in politics. The changes are in purple.

2) An update on the Sept. 9 tea party rally in Portland (which was
technically pre-OIR): Of the 5000 double-sided ARC pamphlets we had
printed up, I would guess that about 700 were handed out with the
other tea party materials: perhaps 100 of these to passers-by on the
sidewalks, and the rest to rally participants. I am keeping tabs on
the remaining copies, to see if the Oregon Tea Party will use them
somehow or if it will be best to try to retrieve them for a future OIR
use.

Brad


On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Burgess Laughlin
<burgess...@macforcego.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a topic for consideration: What is OIR's relationship to other
> but more specialized groups? Examples below. They are not Objectivist
> organizations or movements and they are therefore not consistent in
> supporting individual rights.
>
> Are they still suitable for (1) individual Objectivists to support,
> and for (2) OIR to support organizationally on an ad hoc basis (e.g.,
> a particular ballot measure)?
>
> - A movement to stop an established tax by placing it on the ballot.
>
> - A movement to roll back laws against "street drugs." (Oregon NORML,
> perhaps.)
>
> - An organization (such as Oregon NARAL) whose main purpose is
> protecting a woman's right to choose an abortion -- but also, wrongly,
> advocating some statist measures?
>
> - A movement to "reform" or "streamline" (but not abolish on
> principle) certain regulations (e.g., "land-use planning").
>
> - A movement that supports a "fair" tax -- lowering the rate for many
> but raising the rate for others who might now pay little or no tax.
>
> - A broad, diffuse movement such as the Tea Party movement, one which
> includes religious people and others who are opposed to "Big
> Government," but not on the basis of the principle of individual
> rights.
> >
>