[Lnc-business] Self interest, what makes people leftists, and the Non-Aggression Principle

Tue Oct 25 00:30:45 EDT 2016

Starchild,

I always appreciate your mind-expanding approach to every issue that you
tackle! And this is a discussion that needs to take place if we are to get
from our current statist context to the context of the Libertarian goal of
freedom.

Self-interest is the crux of this discussion. Let's take a step back. Some
ideas of Ayn Rand (not many) that apply specifically to Libertarianism are
not consistent with my beliefs. But Rand absolutely nailed the issue of
self-interest with her moral justification of both self-interest and
free-market capitalism. I fully accept Rand's definition of self-interest as
the behavior of individuals consistent with the nature of their species that
is required to survive and thrive in their particular context of reality.
Point of fact, self-interest is the precondition of all life down to at
least the level of genes. Reference: "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins
but ignore his unfortunate notion that humans with their rational capacity
should rise above self-interest, a classic statist bromide.

Individuals that do not act in their self-interest consistent with the
reality-determined behavioral requirements of their species simply do not
survive. They die sooner rather than later. If enough individuals in a
species do not act in their self-interest, their species goes extinct. So
what? What this means is that self-interest is genetically inherent in all
life. Again, life is conditional and self-interest is the precondition of
all life without which life would simply go out of existence. Self-interest
is pro-life and represents moral good for humans.

"Narrow self-interest". I interpret that to mean that some self-interest is
good provided it is mixed with the only other alternative, self-sacrifice.
However, I reject sacrifice in any form whether it is the sacrifice of one's
self to others or the NAP violation of sacrificing others to one's self.
Sacrifice in any form is the very anti-thesis of life and the anti-thesis of
the genetically inherent self-interest precondition of all life. Take for
example the very Libertarian concept of the Golden Rule. We are not
practicing self-sacrifice when we follow the Golden Rule. Very much the
opposite, we are acting in our own self-interest when we respect others,
negotiate mutually beneficial win-win agreements and invest in others that
are not out to harm us simply because we value their existence as human
beings (benevolent charity as opposed to statist mandated charity).

Can self-interest be perverted? Of course it can. We see those perversions
all around us and fight those perversions every day as Libertarians.
Self-interest is simply the natural response of individual living entities
to the context they live in. For example, when animals are caged they
respond with self-destructive behavior inappropriate to their species. That
raises the question of what context is appropriate for humans. We are a
rational species. Our primary means of survival is our rational capacity
acting in concert with our genetically inherent predisposition toward acting
in our self-interest. Our welfare is maximized when the context of our
existence unleashes the best within us in the form of unperverted, uncoerced
rational self-interest. Freedom, by definition, frees us to exercise our
rational self-interest in a non-perverted manner.

A small percentage even in a free society will choose to take the short-cut
of force, fraud and theft. We call them criminals. In a free society
criminals are relative easy to deal with because their resources are limited
and their behavior is self-defeating. But guess which group in our society
gravitates toward authoritarianism and statism in the context of government?
In compulsory government, criminals can go about their business where their
crimes are legalized and they are obscenely called public servants
performing social services, an obvious perversion of self-interest.

As Libertarians, we know that authoritarianism, statism and leftist
collectivism bring out the worst perversions of self-interest. Government is
supposed to be dedicated to the self-interest of all of us. Guess what? Our
political elites are busy serving their own self-interest in the perverted
context that rewards authoritarianism, statism and the cronyism required to
get elected or reelected. Do we have a choice?

Sure, we can attempt to use brute force acts like censure and candidate
contracts to modify the behavior of our Libertarian representatives.
Short-term, those brute-force behavior modifications tactics may be
necessary but the benefits are problematic and will likely be ineffective in
the long term. We can use behavior modification to force them to toe the
line and resist the temptation to succumb to the siren song of gaining
authority over others and the associated benefits at the expense of others
by pandering preferences (stadiums, deciding votes on tax increases, etc.)
in exchange for getting reelected as Assemblyman Moore has chosen to do.
However, those behavior-modification tactics will have little chance
contributing significantly to achieving our Libertarian goal of freedom. To
be blunt, our proposed external behavior modification efforts strike me as
about as effective as "spitting into the wind" or other more apt and profane
analogies. What is the alternative? Can we change the context to reward the
healthy use of rational self-interest and discourage statist perversions of
self-interest without the necessity of resorting to brute-force behavior
modification?

First, a word about "competition for scarce resources". With the exception
Paul Krugman and the remaining dregs of statist leftist Keynesian economics
apologists, virtually all reputable economists recognize the validity of
Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" theory. Smith's theory states that the proven
success of free markets is the unintended consequence of everyone acting in
their self-interest in competition for scarce resources. The concept of
"unintended consequence" is critical to this discussion. In this context,
"unintended consequence" means without the necessity of behavior
modification.

Starchild, I sense that you are uncomfortable with some aspects of
"competition". Look at it this way. All life and the very act of staying
alive is competition forced by the reality that life is conditional. Our
genetically inherent rational self-interest capacity tells us that fair
competition following the Golden Rule allows us to maximize getting the most
of what we want in terms of long-duration benefits. Getting the most of what
we want requires negotiating mutually-beneficial win-win agreements where
all voluntary participants are able to maximize their desired benefits. The
incentive of competition frees us from the necessity of external behavior
modification. Competition provides healthy internal behavior modification
incentives without the necessity of external force. This is the critical
concept that leads us into the discussion of how to achieve an appropriate
governance context that frees our rational self-interest in a healthy way.
That context is called FREEDOM.

True, we are faced with a statist government context that perverts
self-interest and requires behavior-modification force to affect some
semblance of functioning but will inevitably fail in a predictable cycle
demonstrated throughout history. How do we get from the current context of
statist behavior-modification force to a context that frees us to maximize
our well-being naturally using our rational self-interest without coercion?
In a nutshell, we must remove our permission for the coercive
aggressive-force monopoly that enables our compulsory authoritarian majority
rule to control our lives with behavior-modification force, pervert our
rational self-interest and eventually destroy our way of life. This obstacle
will be our biggest challenge.

We must know that we have the power to remove our permission for
government's aggressive-force monopoly. To use your favorite Alice Walker
quote: "The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they
don't have any." We Libertarians need to stop thinking that way, set
brushfires in the minds of our leaders and set an example for others to not
think that way. Once we empower ourselves by removing our permission for
government's aggressive force monopoly, our rational self-interest will take
off on its own free from coercion and perversion; and quickly achieve the
right of individuals to opt out (secede) if government does not meet their
expectations. As most Libertarian intuitively know, removing the context of
Statist behavior-modification force is the key to achieving our courageous
goal of freedom. But that is another discussion.

Thank you, Starchild!

Your thoughts?

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

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

~David Pratt Demarest

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

From: Starchild [mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:09 AM
To: David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
Cc: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Self interest, what makes people leftists, and
the Non-Aggression Principle

            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 <mailto: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> 

<Untitled attachment 00905.txt>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161024/b0baf2ac/attachment-0002.html>