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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

That's fantastic David.

-Caryn Ann


On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> Starchild,
>
>
>
> Take a peek at the attached mission statement for the nonprofit foundation
> currently in the formation stage. The forthcoming foundation will address
> many the points you have raised as well as collaborate with existing
> Libertarian institutions and caucuses on projects and mutual goals
> including inspiration and empowerment of individuals.
>
>
>
> What role you would like to play in the foundation?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt
>
>
>
> *2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> *Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> LSLA Vice-Chair
>
> LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
>
> LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator
>
> David.Demarest at LP.org
>
> Secretary at LPNE.org
>
> DPDemarest at centurylink.net
>
> DPrattDemarest at gmail.com
>
> Cell:      402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Starchild
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2017 5:51 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Cc:* Grassroots Libertarians Caucus <
> GrassrootsLibertarians at yahoogroups.com>; lpusmisc at yahoogroups.com; LP
> Sunshine Caucus <lpsunshine at yahoogroups.com>; Kevin Carson <
> kevin_carson at hotmail.com>; LP Radical Caucus <lpradicals at yahoogroups.com>
> *Subject:* [Lnc-business] Decentralization and Deinstitutionalization
> (was Re: Jul Membership Report)
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <http://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 <(202)%20333-0008>
>
>
>
> 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 <(202)%20333-0008>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170812/4d320ea2/attachment-0002.html>