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) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@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) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:03 AM riemers@juno.com <riemers@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) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus