[Lnc-business] The risks of centralized power and what to do about them
David Demarest
dpdemarest at centurylink.net
Sat Dec 31 16:29:28 EST 2016
Resend with [Lnc-business] attachment.
From: David Demarest [mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 2:33 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org; 'Caryn Ann Harlos' <carynannharlos at gmail.com>;
'Starchild' <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>; riemers at juno.com
Cc: 'George Phillies' <phillies at 4liberty.net>; 'Andy Burns'
<Andy.Burns at lp.org>; 'Laura Ebke' <laura at lauraebke.com>; 'Whitney Bilyeu'
<whitneycb76 at gmail.com>; riemers at juno.com; david.demarest at firstdata.com;
'David Demarest' <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>; david.demarest at firstdata.com
Subject: RE: [Lnc-business] The risks of centralized power and what to do
about them
Starchild, like you, I agree with Roland that both bottom-up and top-down
approaches can work but with the following clarifications:
* The top-down approach will help achieve freedom only to the extent
that it encourages and empowers the bottom-up approach
* Freedom and decentralization go hand-in-hand
* Caryn Ann has a valid point about the stifling effects of top-down
messaging
* Top-down distribution of fund-raising proceeds also suffers from
the stifling effects of the top-down approach
* Setting an example is much more powerful means of encouraging and
empowering the bottom-up approach in contrast to top-down messaging and
relying on top-down fund-raising redistribution as a cash cow
* The LNC can set an example in a number of ways:
- Consistently applied transparency policies
- Improved messaging technique strategy that focuses on "winning hearts
and minds, not arguments" and employs the "Johnny Appleseed - plant a seed"
strategy of using leading questions to find common ground and plant ideas
that lead to healthy discussions like this one
- Think tank focused on example-setting, bottom-up empowerment
including fund-raising and best practices suggestions, development of
realistic but inspirational short and long-term LP achievement goals and not
interferring with the Platform Committee responsibilty for LP principles
subject to convention delegate approval
- LNC internal fund-raising to self-fund LNC projects with only a small
symbolic seed percentage passed on affiliates and affinity groups of merit
* One consequence of the LNC setting an example will be the
encouragement of affiliates to use the example-setting approach
* I promote an LP-wide policy that all projects at all levels
(national, state and local) should be primarily self-funded using their own
fund-raising resources. As Starchild has previously pointed out, in this day
and social media age, crowd funding is an extremely effective low-cost
method of fund-raising at all levels supplemented by other more traditional
fund-raising options where appropriate and feasible. Voluntary sharing of a
small symbolic seed percentage of fund-raising proceeds to the next higher
LP level would set a powerful and contagious example.
* Ultimately, individual Libertarians are the best resource for
setting an example for all levels of the LP. The inspiration of
self-motivated Libertarians is contagious. A little empowerment
encouragement by example-setting at higher LP levels is a powerful tool to
inspire more self-motivated Libertarians. Example-setting and empowerment of
self-motivated Libertarians is the future of the LP.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt Demarest
From: Lnc-business [ <mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>
mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Starchild
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 12:29 PM
To: Caryn Ann Harlos < <mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com>
carynannharlos at gmail.com>
Cc: George Phillies < <mailto:phillies at 4liberty.net> phillies at 4liberty.net>;
Libertarian National Committee list < <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
lnc-business at hq.lp.org>; Andy Burns < <mailto:Andy.Burns at lp.org>
Andy.Burns at lp.org>; Laura Ebke < <mailto:laura at lauraebke.com>
laura at lauraebke.com>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] The risks of centralized power and what to do
about them
Caryn Ann,
I think your instincts in feeling discomfort for the reasons you
describe are sound, but I can understand why it would take some "chewing
over" to put your finger on it, because on the face of things, well, of
course we want outreach materials. And to be clear, I think David is
probably right that on the whole, the benefits of LNC outreach exceed the
risks, even in the current system. I certainly think our money is better
spent on outreach materials than on some of the things we spend it on (like
catered lunches and flying staff around to meetings!) But I applaud you for
thinking about the institutional risks, because that is a methodologically
radical approach, and there are probably ways to reduce that risk without
"muzzling outreach" or having it end up coming out like milquetoast.
What would a more bottom-up, affiliate-driven approach to
outreach look like? One way it might be accomplished would be to have a
greater share of the overall funds taken in by the Libertarian Party going
to the affiliates.
Such a shift could start with an acknowledgement that it is
inherently easier in some ways to get people to give money to the national
LP than to the state parties, just as it is easier for a presidential
candidate to attract donations than a local candidate, and compensate for
this by adopting a kind of "reverse-tithing" system, so that instead of
every dollar collected at the national level being budgeted at the national
level (including disbursements for "affiliate support" and such), a
significant percentage of those collections would automatically go to the
state affiliates.
Under such an approach, instead of most of the funds available
for hiring staff accruing to the national level, most of the funds available
for that purpose might accrue to the affiliate level. Affiliate parties
could use the system of regions to pool money for purposes of hiring staff,
so that a region of several states might share one or two full-time
staffers*, just as the region system is currently used to pool affiliate
resources for purposes of gaining representation on the LNC.
With such a system in place, we would likely see state- or
regional-level staffers producing more outreach material, and that material
trickling upward, rather than national producing such materials and having
them trickle downward. A state affiliate or a region producing a brochure
could send a copy to the LNC, which could then decide whether to reproduce
it and offer it for sale on the national website.
In other words, it would be a system less like the Constitution,
and more like the Articles of Confederation, with a relatively weak center
dependent for assistance on its decentralized components, rather than
vice-versa.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
(415) 625-FREE
@StarchildSF
*I refer here to "staff" along the lines of the current hiring system for
the sake of familiarity, but I think a better approach would be to identify
a list of tasks and then pay people on a task-by-task basis to complete
them, i.e. more of a gig economy like Uber where a lot of people can each
work a little on a flexible basis, instead of a traditional employment model
where a few people have long-term sinecures.
P.S. - This observation, I think, gets right to the heart of a whole bunch
of related problems:
"In my joyful task of reading through some historical archives and older
publications, we were at times a much different Party, with a fire in the
belly that I don't always see now and I fear that what may be pushed out
will err on the side of milquetoast."
A methodologically radical approach to this circumstance would go beyond
looking merely at ideological signposts to measure where we are versus where
we were (how our Platform differs from then to now, the positions and
beliefs held by people in the party's leadership now versus then, etc.), and
take a hard look also at deeper and more subtle causes like the nature of
institutions, how they are affected by time, power, and other factors, how
the party's structure, culture, etc., may have worked to undermine our
r3VOLutionary spirit, and what structural and cultural changes could halt
and reverse this trend, so that we will have institutional safeguards to
keep us on a sustainably libertarian course beyond simply trying to ensure
that we adopt good Platform amendments and elect good people.
On Dec 31, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
In chewing this over, I have put my finger on where my discomfort is. The
national party already puts out timely releases under its own name stamp.
Any affiliate can use that to craft its own statement. If there are sheer
statistics we need to get out to the states- wonderful. But national
talking points are not state talking points, and if we make it uber
convenient to have the national voice put out generically and just have the
LP of X be able to be stamped on it, we have through convenience, co-opted
the state voices.
IOW these resources are on hot events are available now - and national needs
to put our more of its own statements, and the states can then use them.
But they are branded national, not some template that is in fact national,
that is just waiting to stamp a state on them.
I suppose I would not have this angst if I didn't think we lost our
ideological way a bit, and some of what may be pushed is more
conservative-lite than strictly libertarian. In my joyful task of reading
through some historical archives and older publications, we were at times a
much different Party, with a fire in the belly that I don't always see now
and I fear that what may be pushed out will err on the side of milquetoast.
I don't disguise my view that I think caution in a minor party is overrated
and that we need to boldly and fearlessly declare what we really want - the
implications of a "world set free in our lifetime" - not some more general
points about a "libertarian direction" - and right now one of those methods
is being used nearly exclusively. That is a philosophical debate and
distinction and whatever direction we choose influences the states - and for
those who's perspective isn't being followed - it will be seen an unduly
influencing.
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
<mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Libertarian Party of
Colorado
Colorado State Coordinator, <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> Libertarian
Party Radical Caucus
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
<mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com> > wrote:
We are not by Bylaws structure a top down organization. And they "work" in
entirely different ways.
Starchild is entirely right and I'm not even that much of a methodological
radical as he will gladly tell you - but I have seen the unintended
consequences of so much in my short time with the Party.
I go back to the year before I decided to run for this position and one
thing really motivated me - what I saw to be national overreach into the
autonomy of an affiliate. And prevention of that through even good
intentioned acts will be on my mind.
Equipping and training the states to do these things themselves - for their
constituents - is the way to preserve our system. National talking points
are not always in the affiliates' best interest. What about during national
campaigns if and when candidates go off-message? Like it or not it is
national's job to support them (unless the Bylaws nuclear option is
exercised) but that is NOT the state's best interests each time. Two
different spheres and roles here.
The parallels I see here between allowing the Federal Government to do
things because "it's easier, they have more resources, and it will be
uniform" and these United States is putting the fear of God in me. We
preach decentralization in government. We must model it.
Activists and think tank types can do this outside the LNC. I believe we
need to encourage more grass roots efforts and empower them than being so
eager for yet another official committee that can unduly influence the
messaging. C Michael Pickens teaches that in his classes and it is very eye
opening.
None of this absolutely opposed. It is very very very cautious.
.
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
<mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Libertarian Party of
Colorado
Colorado State Coordinator, <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> Libertarian
Party Radical Caucus
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:03 AM riemers at juno.com <mailto:riemers at juno.com>
<riemers at juno.com <mailto: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
____________________________________________________________
Drink This Before Bed To Burn Belly Fat Overnight
Celebrity Lifestyle News
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5867d69b919d569a728dst04vuc
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
<mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Libertarian Party of
Colorado
Colorado State Coordinator, <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> Libertarian
Party Radical Caucus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161231/2f679df8/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 00067.txt
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161231/2f679df8/attachment-0002.txt>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list