[Lnc-business] Candidate contracts - legal advice?

Sun Oct 23 09:03:45 EDT 2016

Now we are getting somewhere. Starchild’s astute analysis of creeping authoritarianism points the discussion in a helpful direction.

So, what to do? How do we maintain a healthy Libertarian party dedicated to the principles necessary to foster freedom? Further, how do we apply those principles to encourage Libertarian candidates and elected representatives to support legislation that incrementally moves the needle toward freedom instead of away from freedom as Assemblyman Moore has done?

Let’s be realistic. John Moore is just playing the cards dealt to him by our non-competitive governance system. True, Moore could have done a much better job of applying Libertarian principles. However, it is incumbent upon us as Libertarians, individually and collectively, to come to grips with the incentives that tug at the principles of elected officials.

We could continue to attempt to boilerplate our principles on top of the perverted incentives provided by our non-competitive governance system. How well is that working? The behavior of John Moore and the general population of elected officials would suggest that in spite of our boilerplate approach, we are steadily progressing or accelerating in the wrong direction and are doomed to either certain failure or an uncertain, protracted uphill battle faced with limited time constraints.

Man’s operative method of dealing with reality is self-interest. Man’s primary means of survival, rational self-interest, can be successfully leveraged, as demonstrated by the proven success of free markets, or it can be perverted by compulsory authoritarian governance. Brute-force censure and candidate contracts would be required to have any chance of success using the boilerplate approach of strapping our Libertarian principles on the back of a corrupt compulsory governance system that rewards the perversions of self-interest exemplified by statism, nationalism and cronyism. However, the predictable failure cycle of compulsory governance systems throughout history irrefutably demonstrates that the brute-force behavior modification method of censure and candidate contracts will likely have little sustainable impact in relieving the continued frustration and failure of Libertarians in their quest for freedom. 

Folks, the bottom line is that we will not get Libertarian candidates pointed consistently away from the evils of authoritarian statism until we strap our principles on top of a governance system that rewards the application of self-interest in the direction of more freedom, not less. We know that competition does not require behavior modification but instead fosters Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” free-market foundation of “everyone acting in their self-interest in competition for scarce resources”. Let us reject futile attempts at behavior modification and instead work smarter not harder by leveraging self-interest as we reject compulsory authoritarian governance and apply our Libertarian principles in the context of competitive free-market voluntary governance.

Thoughts?

The Invisible Hand of Rational Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government!

~David Pratt Demarest

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 10:58 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: [Lnc-business] Candidate contracts - legal advice?

I love the idea Starchild- i was focusing on the legal question Arvin presented.

Your last paragraph was beautiful.  I fear we are getting too in love with playing the game of thrones and not enough in love with our principles. (The "we" is general and directed at anyone specifically or even us here as a body - it is a general community concern I have)

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sfdreamer at earthlink.net');> > wrote:

Obviously there are practical difficulties to surmount in terms of crafting the kind of contract Arvin is suggesting, and they may or may not prove surmountable, but I like the way he's thinking. Candidates taking more statist positions once in office than they promised on the campaign trail is just the kind of seemingly intractable problem that could use more creative, outside-the-box brainstorming. 

Holding Libertarian candidates and officeholders in particular accountable is key not just to getting better short term legislative outcomes, but in the long term to keeping the Libertarian Party itself sustainably libertarian. 

One reason government officials in a democratic republic like the United States have become as statist as they are is that they are not faithfully representing the views of their own grassroots supporters, who while seldom as libertarian as members of the Libertarian Party, are still generally more libertarian than the leaders of their parties.

Behind this failure of representation is the fact that members of the cartel parties have allowed the collective power of those parties, which could be used as a mechanism to keep the politicians who affiliate with them in check, to be captured by the politicians themselves rather than keeping control at the organizational level and making sure the organization itself is run in a bottom-up manner with ultimate power in the hands of its members. Thus their politicians control the organization rather than vice-versa, and having nothing to fear in terms of being held accountable by an organized base, have the latitude to act as they please, and to succumb to the temptations of power.

To be sustainable, I believe grassroots power cannot exist only on paper in a theoretical sense, the way ultimate power in the U.S. is nominally held by voters who could in theory make their evident dissatisfaction felt by voting every incumbent out of office on Nov. 8 (and yet we know they won't). Rather it must make itself felt in the day-to-day operations of the organization, in keeping with the axiom "Use it or lose it". 

Creating organizational structures and a party culture that will support and maintain an empowered grassroots that regularly flexes its muscles and does not permit the kind of gradual centralization of power that results in organizations growing more authoritarian to occur is difficult however, because 

(1) Institutions naturally trend toward authoritarianism; and 

(2) To have a strong chance of keeping this trend in check, the danger must be guarded against while it is still largely imperceptible

By the time centralization of power has become widely recognizable enough to enflame public opinion in an organization against it, those near the center are likely to already have sufficient top-down power at their disposal to frustrate attempts at reform, with those in the grassroots too weak to assert their collective interests.

When candidates fear their political party's libertarian purity, there is sustainable liberty; when members of a libertarian party instead fear that the statist tendencies of their candidates may go uncorrected, there is not.

Love & Liberty,

                                 ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                              (415) 625-FREE

                                @StarchildSF

“There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another.”

– Emma Goldman (1869-1940)

On Oct 22, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:

Why else would who sign it?  Why else would the voter sign it?  Dunno.  If the $10k is to be paid to them, that seems like a reason.  Why else would the candidate sign it?  Well, I have trouble believing that the candidate is interested in risking money to get one voter's support.

If we add to the facts that the voter is agreeing to support the candidate, then I agree there's consideration, at least on the contract's own terms.  Actually demanding the performance from the voter would almost certainly be illegal, but if treated as a bilateral contract the legal portion might still be enforceable.   

Of the two options, the LNC option probably makes more sense, assuming the LNC promises to do something - it could be as small as promising not to attack the candidate.  I'd need more details before knowing if I'd agree with it or not.  I would oppose the example given - regardless of what I'd do, I am not interested in binding a candidate not to, for instance, increase sales tax by .01% in a deal that also eliminates the NSA, or something like that.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com> > wrote:

Why else would they sign it?  I believe that was implicit in Arvin's scenario.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com <mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com> > wrote:

Where does the hypo say the voter promises support?

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com> > wrote:

I believe the contact may be against public election policy if with the voter, but there is consideration.  The voter promises support IF the candidate follows the pledge.  Clear consideration.  But I think this would violate some election law, it just doesn't pass the gut test.

Now as between the candidate and the LNC, I think that might be a different matter.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com <mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com> > wrote:

I believe the contract is unenforceable for want of consideration.  The voter does not have their future actions constrained in any way, and so suffers no detriment.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com <mailto:votevohra at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi all,

A few years ago, we started doing candidate pledges. We basically based them off the Norquist tax pledge, but made them about cutting government instead not just not growing it. Some include sponsoring legislation to cut spending to 1998 levels to eliminate the income tax, sponsoring legislation to cut military spending by 60 percent, sponsoring legislation to repeal the Patriot act, etc. The pledges are obviously voluntary.

I've been considering advancing this from a pledge to a (voluntary) contract. There are two versions I have considered so far:

1. The contract would be signed by the candidate, with any voter able to act as a cosigner. The voter would download a signed pdf, sign it, and that would put the contract into effect.

2. The contract would be between the candidate and the LNC.

Unlike the pledge, the contract would have clear, defined, monetary penalties. As in: "The candidate will oppose any tax increase for any purpose, unless it is accompanied by a larger simultaneous tax decrease, or will pay $10,000." Or something along those lines.

Looking for legal and other input.

-Arvin

-- 

Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> 
VoteVohra at gmail.com <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> 
(301) 320-3634 <tel:%28301%29%20320-3634> 

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Harlos at LP.org> 

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> 

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Harlos at LP.org> 

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> 

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> 

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161023/741f7703/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 00905.txt
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161023/741f7703/attachment-0002.txt>