[Lnc-business] Decentralization and Deinstitutionalization (was Re: Jul Membership Report)

Sat Aug 12 06:50:31 EDT 2017

David,

	Yes. I believe our energy is better spent focusing on trying to do what is right in bringing about libertarian change, than on the bean-counting approach of trying to monitor metrics to measure success. If we are inspiring people by challenging the status quo and communicating the libertarian message in a bold, inspirational way, I believe the supporters, money, and votes will follow. Our natural constituency wants to see that we are fighting for freedom, not for our organization to become bigger and wealthier.

	I also think Joshua is right about the trope of younger people not being "joiners" as much. And I think that is actually a healthy reaction on their part to the excessive power of institutions in society – governments being the biggest and worst offenders, but other institutions also contributing to the manipulation and disempowerment of individuals, in part by allying themselves with governments and contributing to a tightening overall web of control. 

	A short New York Times piece from 2012 summarizes the trend of decline in trust in institutions in this country:

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/losing-faith-in-american-institutions/

	So why is this good? What's wrong with big institutions from a libertarian perspective? A page on the website mutualist.org offers some rough notes on a "working outline" of organizational behavior (http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/organizationaltheoryoutline.pdf), and describes some effects on this behavior under the heading "Systemic effects of (State) intervention":

> ...subsidies to centralized technology make decentralized, non-professionalized, individually controlled technology less useable (e.g., transportation subsidies, by expanding distance, make feet, bikes, etc., less useable; subsidies to costly, high tech medicine, cartel "standards of practice" centering on such costly methods, make even basic medical care unaffordable for many; "safety" code restrictions against self-built or unconventional housing, aesthetic restrictions on trailers, etc., increase dependence on expensive housing). Lower-cost, human-scale alternatives are crowded out. It becomes less and less possible to translate one's own labor and skills, one's own common-sense understanding, into use-value. Paul Goodman on the increasing impossibility of decent poverty; the cost of basic subsistence is driven upward. 

> "Paul Goodman [on the] "crowding out" of decentralist alternatives, described in People or Personnel. The organizational culture of the large corporation and large government agency becomes the hegemonic norm; it contaminates even non-profit and cooperative enterprises: inflated management staff, excessive professionalization and credentialing, prestige salaries, management theory jargon (mission statements, ad nauseam...), etc. Duggar on "hollowing out" of civil society." 

	In the face of such ancillary effects of statism, a couple important questions for libertarian groups like the LP are:

(1) What can we do to decentralize power in society, to carve out space for decentralized forms of organization that empower people to live more cooperatively outside the reach of the State and other large institutions infected by its authoritarian culture; and

(2) What can we do to minimize the impact of this State-spawned organizational culture of the large corporation and large government agency within our own organization? (In other words how, in a climate of rightfully declining trust in institutions, can we become less of a conventional and untrustworthy institution ourselves?)

	Another essay on the mutualist.org site, "A 'Political' Program for Anarchists" penned in 2002 by Kevin Carson (http://www.mutualist.org/id5.html) quotes the LP's own Karl Hess among others and discusses why anarchists should participate in the political process, though as a secondary strategy to building non-statist social infrastructure at the grassroots level (in line with party co-founder David Nolan's vision for the LP, which he saw as mostly about exposing people to libertarian ideas and only incidentally about winning elections). Carson recommends the approach of "broad-based, ad hoc coalitions, formed on an issue-by-issue basis":

> "The Internet has opened up exhilirating possibilities for forms of opposition based on large, decentralized associations of affinity groups. The potential for such organization is alarming to those in power. A 1998 Rand study by David Ronfeldt (The Zapatists "Social Netwar" in Mexico, MR-994-A) warned that internet-based coalitions like the pro-Zapatista support network could overwhelm the government with popular demands and render society 'ungovernable.'... Such forms of organization make it possible to throw together ad hoc coalitions of thousands of affinity groups in a very short time; they can organize mass demonstrations, issue press releases in thousands of venues, and "swarm" the government and press with mass mailings, phone calls and emails. This resembles the 'excess of democracy' and 'crisis of governability' that Samuel Huntington warned of in the 1970s – but an order of magnitude beyond anything he could have imagined then."

	Instead of primarily seeking to bring about change using our own (the LP's) activists and resources, the party might take on more of a role as a kind of coordinating agency within the freedom movement, seeking to mobilize large coalitions of many organizations around specific issues. A kind of rapid-response network capable of reacting to and mobilizing against the most significant moves in the direction of tyranny and supporting/amplifying mass movements that arise to challenge State policies, so that, as Carson puts it, "Every time the State puts in its toe to test the water, it needs to be badly scalded by public opinion."

Love & Liberty,

                                  ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                        RealReform at earthlink.net
                                (415) 625-FREE
                                  @StarchildSF

On Aug 11, 2017, at 8:54 AM, David Demarest wrote:

> I tend to agree Joshua's point that national membership is important but is far from being the best measure of LP/LNC success. I can think of at least 10 metrics listed below, many of which admittedly would be difficult to measure, but nevertheless are more important than electoral, voter registration and membership success.
> 
> In the mad rush toward party empire building, let's not forget that the real LP mission is to reduce the size of government in order to achieve the fundamental Libertarian goal of freedom, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 1. Empowered LP/LNC member non-institutional projects
> 2. Social services moved back into private sector
> 3. Regulatory reform successes
> 4. Entitlement expenditure reductions
> 5. Tax/GDP ratio reductions
> 6. Cash-basis healthcare clinic increases
> 7. Entitlement expenditure reductions
> 8. Non-violent offense incarceration reductions
> 9. Free-market education institution increases
> 10. Non-defensive foreign and domestic military base and expenditure reductions
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> On Aug 11, 2017 10:55 AM, "Daniel Hayes" <danielehayes at icloud.com> wrote:
> Patrick,
> 
> I am amused that I JUST got this from the NAP(National Association of Parliamentarians).
> 
> <image2.JPG>
> 
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 11, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com> wrote:
> 
>> Caryn Ann,
>> 
>> Either Patrick or George Phillies brought this up on the ASC call last night.  I said many of the same things you did Caryn Ann. I brought up two people's name from this board as being particularly focused on this. Guess which two? It was suggested I not be so defensive.  Like you, maybe I see and know more of what's going on.  Just yesterday while I was trying to prep for two conference calls, to my ADHD chagrin, Robert, gave me the first TEST access to Raiser's Edge. You and I both have our own personalized donation links.  
>> David pointed out that more Libertarians outside of the board need to look in the mirror and take responsibility. I agree, but I think this board needs to set the example.   I think I declared a $5000 give or get to the LNC which I have blown through.
>> 
>> On a note, when I brought up the great work that Lauren is doing l, the ASC agreed on that.
>> 
>> It was brought up that there has been growth in membership following some elections. I didn't ask the question of how much was being spent to gain each of those members.  I know at some point in our history we were spending $400/ member.
>> 
>> I am not saying and don't think this is where Patrick is coming from, but I KNOW a lot of this rhetoric is coming from people positioning themselves for LNC runs. There is this inevitable thing that happens where everyone screams about what an awful job the LNC is doing.  Guess what that probably does?  Cuts into membership. 
>> Instead of this tactic of saying how awful of a job we are doing, I wish everyone instead would simply point out how they could do better. But J can only control me.
>> 
>> Another thing though. IF a state affiliate has grown but National has slipped, who is that on? Do we want National competing with Affiliates for the almighty $25?
>> 
>> In any event I have about 3 reports I have to work on.  We can discuss this at the meeting.
>> 
>> 
>> Daniel Hayes
>> LNC At Large Member
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think fundraising a much more important metric, and you raise excellent points Joshua.  Would everyone be amenable to a roundtable on this topic?
>>> 
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would like to add a suggestion here in a different direction.  Do we care?  This term, we have not adopted goals, but we did last term - and increasing or maintaining memberships wasn't on the list.  I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm being serious - maybe memberships is not a metric we find all that illuminating.  Sure, we need funds, and paid memberships are one way of obtaining funds, but only one way.  They're a way that non-profits, seemingly across the board, have found to be declining in importance and value.  Maybe that's part (I think most things that happen are over-determined and we should look for patterns, not 1-1 relationships) of what this declining number is telling us.
>>> 
>>> I agree we should not simply expect a drop in support following the Presidential year.  A drop in paid memberships?  Maybe.  People have many reasons to become members, and if those are temporary reasons (attending convention, considering running for LNC) they might not renew when those reasons no longer apply.  
>>> 
>>> It's become a trope that "millennials don't join things."  If that's true, then we should start now to plan what our organization can look like in 10 years with a different model.  Personally, I think that regardless of what millennials do, we should be making those plans, because a membership model is a temporary solution, not one that will always be best once we've attained a certain size and level of success.  
>>> 
>>> I don't know that membership is a useful thing to watch while driving, so to speak.  I'm much more interested in races won, registered voters in places where that can happen, contested nominations, and similar markers.  Those too are long-range indicators, though, and I suspect that the sorts of solutions we are likely to come up with regarding membership, will drive those as well.
>>> 
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Caryn Ann,
>>> 
>>> Being defensive and mischaracterizing my statements is also not helpful.
>>> 
>>> I only need a few minutes to present my proposal.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Patrick McKnight
>>> 
>>> On Aug 11, 2017 9:02 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And here is another reason- to say no plans is simply not accurate.  Perhaps I just see more of what is happening since I interact with staff more than usual and am on the APRC (which means I see every single piece of output).  The staff effort is amazing.  Lauren, Jess, and Andy are bringing us to a new level of professionalism and thus attractiveness.  There has been several years of branding and infrastructure building.  The press secretary position will add another dimension. Nurturing relationships with larger donors (we have to have funds to do anything) is from what I can see better than ever.
>>> 
>>> You get much more support by realistically assessing what we are doing well, and what can be a lot better otherwise it is basically just scolding people and ignoring what we have done.
>>> 
>>> I think Larry would tell us that's not how to motivate to greatness.  
>>> 
>>> Some of the things done have been stunning.  Others not so much so.
>>> 
>>> But a circular firing squad never does.
>>> 
>>> Let's come to the table with more ideas.
>>> 
>>> How long should we put on the Agenda Patrick?
>>> 
>>> -Caryn Ann 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:50 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It's not defensive- it's tired of talk and this same speech. 
>>> 
>>> Doing is better than talking.  I support your email idea.
>>> 
>>> I was wondering what everyone did since last meeting.
>>> 
>>> Yelling at the rest of the LNC isn't helpful.  
>>> 
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:46 AM Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jason,
>>> 
>>> That's fantastic! Congratulations! Do you have some best practices you can share? NJ registered voters are also exploding, but we haven't been able to convert that into national memberships which is what's at issue. Have you also experienced that in Nevada?
>>> 
>>> Caryn Ann, thank you as always for your hard work. But I'm not sure why you are getting so defensive, with all due respect this isn't about "you". This is about the fact we are a national organizations without a national strategy to stop losing members. Is our national strategy for LNC members to call people in their free time? That's a nice gesture but I don't see that as a solution. I suspect there is something wrong with our brand and the way we are messaging our principles. But at this point I don't think anyone really knows because we haven't asked our members for their feedback.
>>> 
>>> I have made a suggestion that we do a survey of our members to gather this information. Then we can use this data to construct a strategy.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Patrick McKnight
>>> LNC Region 8
>>> Chair, NJLP
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> How many LNC members took me up on my challenge to call lapsed members?
>>> 
>>> It's easy to say what others or "we" should do.
>>> 
>>> The last time you said this Patrick I took it to heart and *I* did something.
>>> 
>>> I call lapsed members nearly every day.
>>> 
>>> It's hard to get people on the phone, but when I do (do we want the truth?) this is what I hear in order of frequency:
>>> 
>>> 1. Economy is bad and they lost their job
>>> 2. They've been a member and they felt we're no longer representing what we claim to (i.e. the last election was a missed opportunity, the candidates did not represent a different enough liberty message)
>>> 3. Waxing and waning interest in politics concurrent with the election seasons 
>>> 
>>> That is what I hear.  The stories of number 1 are heartbreaking.  I've gotten my rear chewed out with stories of 2 and managed to retain some of them by being nice and letting them yell.
>>> 
>>> My effort alone is obviously a drop in a sea. But I decided to be part of the solution.
>>> 
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:21 AM Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I don't understand why our declining membership isn't our number one priority as an organization. These reports come out showing we have a real problem and no one seems to notice. Too often the LNC is too busy having pointless philosophical debates amongst ourselves while people are voting with their feet and leaving the party.
>>> 
>>> I would like us to do an email survey of our membership to determine what people like and don't like about the party. I don't accept this culture of failure that since our numbers went up last year they have to go down this year. 
>>> 
>>> I don't pretend to have all the answers to this problem. But I think a good place to start is simply asking our membership. It would be free and we might learn something. 
>>> 
>>> Interest in liberty is exploding, if our numbers don't reflect that we are doing something wrong. 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Patrick McKnight
>>> LNC Region 8 Rep
>>> Chair, New Jersey Libertarian Party
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Robert Kraus <robert.kraus at lp.org> wrote:
>>> Attached thank you for pointing that out!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Live Free!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Robert
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Robert S. Kraus - Dir of Operations
>>> Operations at LP.org
>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>> Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231
>>>  
>>> Join today: https://www.lp.org/membership
>>> LP FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/libertarians
>>> size=3 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
>>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Starr
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 4:32 PM
>>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org; lnc-business at lp.org; 'LP-State Chairs'; staff at lp.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Jul Membership Report
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Robert,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> For some reason the report compares July 2017 with June 2016, so the prior year data point did not get updated from last month’s report.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Can you revise this report to compare July 2017 with July 2016?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Aaron Starr
>>> 
>>> (805) 583-3308 Home
>>> 
>>> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>>> 
>>> starrcpa at gmail.com
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Robert Kraus
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 9:32 AM
>>> To: lnc-business at lp.org; 'LP-State Chairs'; staff at lp.org
>>> Subject: [Lnc-business] Jul Membership Report
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Jul Membership Report is attached. Open to find out who is no longer tied for 10th!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Live Free!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Robert
>>> 
>>> Robert S. Kraus - Dir of Operations
>>> Operations at LP.org
>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>> 1444 Duke Street
>>> Alexandria, VA 22314
>>> Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231
>>>  
>>> Join today: https://www.lp.org/membership
>>> LP FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/libertarians
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170812/7d1d94d1/attachment-0002.html>