[Lnc-business] (no subject)

[Starchild]

Hi Roland,

	Thanks for your thoughts. In one sense it is very true that both bottom-up and top-down can "work", just as libertarians and statists running for office can both "win". But this begs the questions, "What do we mean by 'win'?" and "What do we mean by 'work'?" 

	A win in libertarian terms means something different than a win in statist terms. For those whose aim is power and money, simply getting elected can count as a win, because once in office they have access to power and money. But for those whose aim is freedom, simply getting elected is not enough. A real "win" has been achieved only when the cause of freedom itself is advanced – winning election with an "L" next to your name does not, in and of itself, advance the cause of freedom. It only has that effect if one actually votes and acts in a libertarian manner once elected.

	Similarly, something may "work" in narrow terms – e.g. the fascists getting the trains to run on time, crime rates dropping under an authoritarian regime, etc. – without actually working in libertarian terms. 

	You write that, "What matters more is whoever is leading is motivated plus has some idea of how to make use of our political system." This, imho, is far too broad and vague. Donald Trump, after all, seems to be motivated and appears to have made effective use of the political system. But I trust none of us would confuse his accomplishments with the kind that we are looking for.

	Then however, you write something with which I'm in strong agreement:  " It is hard to get voters motivated, be they Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. That is why it is so easy for a small motivated minority representing some religious or economic cause to take over our system." 

	Put in a slightly different way, that can be restated as follows:  "It is hard to get people at the grassroots level motivated enough to do what needs to happen if they are to be sufficiently collectively empowered to keep the small minority who are motivated (typically by power and money) in check."

	Which in turn can be slightly restated thus:  "Implementing and maintaining a bottom-up system is difficult, but unless you want a small group of more authoritarian-minded folks exercising power over others from the top down, it must be done."

	As you point out, top-down systems are "too damn easy", because they do not require ordinary individuals to be sufficiently empowered and engaged to maintain their rights. To use your civil commitment example – and of course you are right that such "crime prevention" practices amount to a scary expansion of government power – if enough people spoke out against incarcerating people without calling it that or adhering to due process, and demanded justice, the practice would end. But most people find it easier to just leave such matters to the government courts.

	Finally, you write, "If we are truly motivated and doing our job, our party will grow..." In one sense that is very true. But it begs the questions, "Who are 'we', what is our job, and what kind of growth are we talking about?" The leaders of the Demopublican parties over the years have been quite motivated, and their parties have grown, but obviously in those cases we do not consider those things to be positive developments.

	I would say if we the individuals in the libertarian movement are motivated enough to build and sustain a bottom-up political party despite the aforementioned difficulty of organizing and empowering people at the grassroots level, then our party will not just grow, which even a statist party can do, but rather will grow in a sustainably libertarian manner.  Hope that all made some sense!

Love & Liberty,
                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                                 (415) 625-FREE
                                    @StarchildSF


On Dec 31, 2016, at 8:01 AM, riemers at juno.com wrote:

> Bottom up, or Top down,  they both can work.  What matters more is whoever is leading is motivated plus has some idea of how to make use of our political system.   It is hard to get voters motivated, be they Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. That is why it is so easy for a small motivated minority representing some religious or economic cause to take over our system.    It is just too dam easy to let someone else do the work while we set at home watching TV news and wring our hands what a terrible world we live in and why don't our leaders (or neighbors) do something about it.
> 
> A recent example is yesterday I was reading the recent ND Supreme Court decision against a man trying to get out of "civil commitment."   The Supreme Court has set up specific and tough guidelines for these civil commitments,  but reading over the decision it is obvious that our state courts are completely ignoring these rules and just doing the politically correct thing.  Of our 5 justices,  only one dissented and pointed out this miscarriage of justice. The public and our legislators could care less.  The man of course could appeal to the US Supreme Court, and could probably win, except the US Supremes only accept about 1 out of 10,000 cases,  and the odds of even getting a hearing is close to none.
> 
> Basically,  it is near impossible to forecast if someone will repeat  a criminal act.  Yet we allow doctors using voodoo like theories to declare  a person who did a sexual offense 20 years ago is going to do the same thing today.   If psychology is really that accurate,  then why not test us all and lock up those who will likely commit a crime sometime in the future?    In regards to sex crimes, it has been my observation that 99.9% of us males could, or will, commit some type of sex crime sometime in our lives,  but only about 1% will get caught.  So lets make sure all women and children are safe and lock up all males,  and  the 0,1% who are truly sexual saints present positive proof of that fact so that we can eventually let them free?   Not to let women off, as they commit crimes as well, but probably of a different nature then men.  So lock everyone up so we can all be safe?
> 
> Anyway, point is,  only one justice in ND had the guts to point out this injustice.  All the other good justices and lawyers and legislators and the general public are totally non-motivated to correct this error.  
> 
> So, what are we as Libertarians doing to actually promote freedom and liberty?  How are we defending the weak from the abuses of the American majority?   If we are truly motivated and doing our job,  our party will grow regardless if it is top down or bottom up.
> 
> Roland Riemers of ND
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161231/90f40904/attachment-0002.html>