[Lnc-business] Self interest, what makes people leftists, and the Non-Aggression Principle
Starchild
sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Mon Oct 24 10:08:47 EDT 2016
Thank you David for your kind words, and this interesting discussion. I strongly agree on the importance of not incentivizing people in the wrong direction (i.e. creating incentives for people to be less libertarian, or providing fertile soil for such incentives to grow of their own accord in the culture of our organization). But as for positive incentives, how can we effectively rely on appeals to self-interest when dealing with politicians, given that we can neither offer them as big a carrot, nor wield as big a stick, as the statist system with all the stolen tax dollars and coercive power of the State at its disposal?
I firmly believe that almost everyone would be better off in a free society, especially in the long run, but unless they already grok libertarianism, most people can't see this and thus won't be incentivized by it. How specifically can we "leverage self-interest", and how ought this translate into practical policy and shape the decisions we make as a party or a committee? Perhaps I am not fully grasping the idea you're getting at when you appear to posit a potential alternative to the status quo in which things like censure and candidate contracts seem like some of our only or at least best options for situations like the one we have with John Moore.
Although I want to get the incentives right as much as possible, I also want to see (although Ayn Rand would no doubt have disagreed) a party culture that explicitly values putting the cause of freedom for all ahead of narrow self-interest. While the philosophy we are fighting against is statism, or even more fundamentally authoritarianism, when it comes to the intellectual and emotional underpinnings of that authoritarianism I think it is the ideas coming from the left which pose the greatest intellectual/spiritual threat to freedom and must be countered with something more potent than the ideas of cultural conservatism minus the aggression. Since the birth of the modern liberal/conservative divide several hundred years ago, conservatives have been fighting a losing battle against history. While conservative authoritarian ideologies like Wahabism or the kind of ideas espoused in the U.S. by groups like the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition still have many adherents and remain capable of doing great harm in the world, they are ultimately reactionary in nature and I believe they have little cultural future.
I don't expect to get any argument when I assert that most of the people who have the most influence on culture – artists, musicians, writers, filmmakers, teachers, journalists, academics/intellectuals, etc. – tend to be politically on the left. Why this is so, and what we can do about it, seems worth thinking about. I say it is no accident. But clearly it isn't because leftist/socialist/progressive ideas are actually more compassionate – we can see how much suffering they cause. Nor do I think it is because those who have been called the "creative class" tend to see leftist ideas as benefitting them personally, e.g. offering them "free" government welfare handouts. While it may come to that for some as they get older and more cynical, I don't think that's usually what makes people leftists in the first place. In cases where leftist ideology isn't simply inherited from parents or others, I think it tends to be the philosophy's idealism (as compared with conservatism and some presentations of libertarianism) that attracts the idealistic-oriented members of the creative class: Its championing of the poor and powerless, speaking for those like members of other species who can't speak for themselves, invoking the need for collective action (glossing over the coercion involved, of course), and apparently seeking to make the world a fairer and more equal place.
We have in the Non-Aggression Principle an idea that I believe is powerful, beautiful, and inspiring enough to counter all that, if we embrace its idealism and firmly place it front and center. But the NAP is only indirectly about self-interest. It's not "Don't Tread on Me", it's "Don't Tread on Anyone." First and foremost it is about respect for others. It offers not a cynical vision of a world in which everyone is competing for scarce resources, but an idealistic vision of a world where relationships are based on cooperation and consent rather than force or fraud. Even if they are ultimately the same world, we have a choice in how we choose to see and talk about that world, yes?
Your thoughts?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
(415) 625-FREE
@StarchildSF
On Oct 23, 2016, at 6:03 AM, David Demarest wrote:
> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> 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
> 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
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> 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
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> 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
> 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
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>
>
>
>
>
> <Untitled attachment 00905.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161024/5f745f05/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list