Libertarian International Organization | Voluntary Governance, Rights, Progress

Libertarian * Libertario * Libertaire|Non-Partisan Advisory Network for Dialogue of Rights, Science & Reform|Libertarianism & Liberal Portal


The Libertarian International Organization  (LIO) helps you build a better world with aware, voluntary, non-punitive tools!  LIO is a set of advisory -encouragement networks  along SMILE lines. Mission: Help you promote peaceful voluntary choices and associations, notably in public administration, as engines of betterment. It is free, non-partisan, all-volunteer, neither takes nor donates funds; mothering Liberal and progressive change.Go to Page 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |

view:  full / summary

Libertarians Look at S.T.E.M. --or B.A.S.E.? An Opinion

Posted on November 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Past LIO co-ordinator/curator Libertarian Etienne Gilson--hailed as both the greatest Humanist and Catholic Philosopher since Aquinas--developed the citizen Liberal, Great Books, lifelong learning/self-education, religious documentation and interdisciplinary movements. His protege and successor, LIO co-ordinator M. Gilson, says this:  

How do we educate to a just, humane world? What tools do parents and self-educators need immune from the fancy of the day?

In recent years technocratic themes have grown again. They've rallied in the call for the importance of 'S.T.E.M.' education from toddlers to Presidents--i.e. conversancy and available education on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Educators and worried parents point to people with 'useless' social science degrees. Cases occur where these deservedly get little interest from employers impatient with lack of basic mathematical or current technical expertise or even negativity.

This has unfortunately combined with reactionary elements of the extreme. These groups are trying to disvalue a humanist, secular education. Such education puts the facts in perspective for correct application. Where they propound a variety of anti-reality of climate change, anti-evolution, and anti-markets or rights themes such proponents correctly view tolerant and fact-focused science informed by social reality as the enemy. In the US, members of the Congress Science Committees and other technical groups have recently told children that all evolutionary Science is the work of Satan. An example of the good of this trend is the  a low-cost college that trains on science and market-ready technical degrees--but has a requirement to study practical ethics all but unique in the USA. An example of what is wrong is a call led by some extreme religious-conservative US Republicans and misguided academics to charge humanities students more as 'less useful' to the State ( ) as not based on S.T.E.M. …So helpful tools morph into 'unintended' imposed consequences. The prospect of a democratic society or large companies conned by extremists with either naive social scientists OR ethics-free engineers in tow gives pause. Is Liberal education itself--the experience-tested toolkit of a Liberal or kindly, free person-- the real target?

To this end I have recently held a workshop for educators on what I have dubbed B.A.S.E. as equally key in education. Both S.T.E.M. and B.A.S.E.--along with tutoring in exercise, health, and emergency-military organization--are components of a humane, Liberal education.

o Basic concepts of method: Philosophy, logic, systems theory, goal analysis, axiomatics, brainstorming, scientific methods and paradigms, rights development; interdisciplinary and comparative studies in religion, affairs, and sciences supported by life-long interest in Great Books and new skills. So-called Austrian Economics is helping revolutionizing social science by a) An axiomatic approach, and b) A medical organic systems approach i.e. where it treats coercive systems as a social pathology. Lawyers see things business people do not, geographers led many discoveries of geology, people win prizes for ideas in one field that were in fact long known in another.

o Art-humanities, languages, & aesthetic craft: Art is how people model their visions, make things enjoyable, and appreciate the cultural philosophies of others. A picture is worth a thousand words, a great speech many dry treatises to getting action. This includes appreciation, history, and basic techniques in writing, plastic and other self-expression.

o Social sciences and Psychology. Einstein revolutionized physics looking at a social science equation. A mass of social science discoveries have entered common lingo from life-phases to denial complexes. Doctors have discovered hospitals that take account of social science interactions and simple techniques discovered by social scientists thrive. Thus, tools such as color-coding and encouragement of an informal communication atmosphere have fewer iatrogenic mistakes with happier patients who get better quickly. A technologist or scientist unaware of the history of the subject re-invents flat tires.

o Entrepreneurship including Law, Business, Economics, Community Organizing, and Management. LIO Fellow the late George McGovern avowed that his military-techno and social science education led to many proposals that were a disaster. He would have realized that they were a mistake if he had spent a year running a business. This line of learning should be supported by basic certification in a working person's technical skill and, dare I say experience in a union and working person environment as well, not just business field trips.

For decades LIO participants and fans have been promoting things like teaching logic and comparative culture and religion-atheism in elementary school; entrepreneurial education in middle school; great books reading and philosophy in high school. They have worked to end the common practice of training S.T.E.M. graduates in everything except formal logic and actual scientific method so they remind one of artists who can't name colors. They have emphasized that home schooling always occurs and has to be made primary and conscious; welcomed student-run Sudbury schools; fought to legalize free and low-cost by-test Liberal colleges; and fought for free and low-cost life-long and web learning. Now it has a name: along with S.T.E.M. we need, I suggest, a B.A.S.E. focus. Gandhi was a lawyer, Socrates a stone-mason, Hildegard of Bingen revolutionized arts and science while she and ran a community; and I'm a multi-disciplinarian with a union card. LIO has always encouraged prospects like Rand's New Intellectual in modern times: The leader comfortable and respectful of all fields and basic humanity. Culturally, citizen groups like ‘Socrates Café meet a need. Teachers are discovering that using the Peloponnesian Wars is immediately understood by ghetto kids who see those conflicts daily.

The current trend is to integrate S.T.E.M. and what I have named B.A.S.E. in an ongoing learning environment. In what scenario do we need S.T.E.M. students going to colleges where B.A.S.E. is not prized? Specialization tied with appreciation and comfort for the general is what does the trick for most. One usually doesn’t need S.T.E.M. bridge-builders who build marvels that don't work because they ignore the (B) interdisciplinary impacts, are (A) ugly and thus avoided, create (S) traffic jams and accidents by ignoring how drivers actually drive, and (E) cost 3 times more than they should have –except, perhaps, in a armrest-gripping Disaster Movie with Nicholas Cage or Charlton Heston to the rescue.



New LIO Group Head Appointed

Posted on August 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Attorney Laura Mascaro Rotger succeeds Attorney Hon. Geraldine Ferraro as counsel of LIO Group, which networks senior  retired and promising  diplomatists and officials  mediating pro-active democratic, voluntarist and public safety dialogue, and addressing by voluntary means threats to humanity.

Attorney, Balearic local rights stateswoman and democratic advocate, and unscooling/home-schooling author and child-rearing public issues educator (article: When Thinking is Punishment )  Laura Mascaro Rotger was appointed July 17 to succeed Geraldine Ferraro as counsel and facilitator of LIO Group an LIO advisory network.

Ferraro met LIO curator 'MG' in the mid-80's during her campagn for US Vice-President and succeeded LIO Fellow William P. Rogers, both a long-time LIO Fellow and boon schoolboy companion of past co-ordinator Paul Gilson. Ferraro for several years developed LIO concerns on gender equality, international discussion of the problem of domestic abuses, popularizing moving parties to a rights posture, and international peace and scientific co-operation in the unstable post-Communist/fascist era.

Past LIO Fellows Chair Dr. Ralph Swanson had been faciliitating ad interim after Ferraro's unwelcome death, and after a search he nominated her as the obvious choice. The Group for the first time in history exceeded its desired goal of 2 participants per country under him. Group members were helping mediate recent vast changes towards democracy for all nations, but many have passed away in the last 2 years.

Mascaro Rotger, who recently attended the national Homeschool Conference in Spain--which ironically moved from a pro-home-school to anti-home-school 'memory hole' era and is now swinging back again, influencing both Europe and Latin America-- is expected to help integrate legalizing un-/home-schooling as key to the non-abusive and modern household, integrate the embryo association of world public office libertarians and libertarian users, and continue to help encourage promising or retired cultural mediators in every country with special interest in alumni of Sister Cities.  

One effort will be an LIO Group website, which will direct citizens to self-empowering and best-practice information.

Group derives from a project to get lawyers working to unite lawyers to bring actual international common law independent of any state apparatus and mediate proactively towards increased local autonomy originally begun by the Lemos freeholder council in the 1500's. It was by tradition outlined Esteban Boethius who was a factor for their interests in France at that time. Revived under Henriette Lemos, who appointed William Humboldt as new Counsel assisted by his globe-trotting brother the famed scientist. For many years-- to assure  more secure communication--elementary knowledge in the rarely known Basque language was encouraged. Counsels and interested participants in Group are encouraged to become conversant with Boethius' Discourse on Servitude and Humboldt's Limits of State Action--along with re-reading Don Quixote as a libertarian text, recommended to all LIO fans.  Attorneys who are also educators are often appointed as Counsel to assure confidentiality in the autonomous advisory network.

In a summary "...Group functions as a set of informal separate networks to share expertise, contacts and data on unusual or cultural public safety issues; and defuse problem situations by bringing people together. We're sensitive to the twin tensions of global or other over-centralization vs local provincialism. Contacts may not be used for unprofessional or self-dealing agendas. Focus is on better democracy, public service choice, and statutes that block citizen solutions. The Group participants at various times helped drive adoption of the Kellog Pact, the UN Declaration, defused the Cold War, and much more..."

Below in Spanish is a recent interview with LIO Group Counsel L. Mascaro Rotger.

Boethius and Humboldt wrote privately circulated works expressing commonalities that arose in Salon discussions of what is today LIO.


martes, 23 de agosto de 2011Entrevista a Laura Mascaró Rotger, madre homeschooler.

Para padres (que están pensando en educar en casa, tengan dudas acerca del tema o simplemente quieran ampliar su panorama) y público en general, les dejo la siguiente entrevista a Laura Mascaró Rotger tomada de El Blog Alternativo está muy completa y me pareció importante transmitirla.

¿Es la escuela tan imprescindible, sagrada, perenne e intocable como creemos –o nos han hecho creer-?

¿Por qué más de un millón de familias en EEUU, 25.000 en el Reino Unido, 3.000 en Francia y 2.000 en España educan a sus hijos en casa –homeschooling-?

¿Cómo son esos niños? ¿Serán personas de provecho? ¿Qué lleva a los padres a desertar del sistema educativo y del modelo social imperante? ¿Cómo educan?

Para contestar a estas preguntas y nuestras dudas sobre esta opción tan radical hemos entrevistado a Laura Mascaró Rotger, abogada, articulista, bloguera veterana en Tarkus Kids, madre de un hijo de 5 años a quien educa en casa y autora del libro “Educación y libertad”.

A lo largo de 30 preguntas, Laura nos desvela todo lo que hay que saber sobre el homeschooling – la escuela en el hogar para que tengamos información seria al respecto, y ofrece útiles consejos para las familias interesadas en este tipo de educación.

La entrevista se divide en 6 capítulos:


Prejuicios sociales


Situación Mundial

Consejos, bibliografía y webs

Libro “Educación y libertad”

Y las respuestas se pueden leer a continuación:


1. Muchas personas desconocen que existe la opción de educar en casa. Empecemos entonces por el principio: ¿qué es y en qué consiste el homeschooling?

El homeschooling consiste, fundamentalmente, en hacerse cargo de forma integral de la educación de los hijos, en no delegar esta importantísima función en terceros.

Lo que varía son tanto los motivos por los que se elige esta opción educativa como las formas de llevarla a cabo. Hay tantas maneras de hacerlo como familias que lo hacen. Y también hay casi tantos motivos como familias.

Ahora bien, defender el derecho de educar en casa no significa necesariamente estar radicalmente en contra de la escolarización, creo que es un matiz importante.

2. ¿Cuáles son las VENTAJAS de educar en casa?

La principal ventaja es que cada familia puede organizarse como mejor le convenga. No hay horarios pre-establecidos más allá de los que la propia familia se auto-imponga.

No hay objetivos curriculares marcados por una escuela o un ministerio. Los niños (y los padres) no tienen la presión de saber que necesariamente deben aprender determinada materia en determinado plazo. No hay deberes y no hay exámenes.

No hay un timbre que marque el ritmo de estudio. Uno no tiene por qué dejar una actividad con la que está disfrutando, en la que está concentrado, sólo porque se haya terminado la hora dedicada a esa materia.

De hecho, ni siquiera hay materias en el sentido de asignaturas escolares. ¡El mundo no está dividido en asignaturas! Por eso, muchas familias deciden trabajar a través de proyectos de modo que lo que serían las asignaturas escolares se estudian de forma transversal. Y otras familias deciden hacer “unschooling”, es decir, aprenden de la vida misma, aprenden las cosas haciéndolas y las hacen porque quieren hacerlas.

3. ¿Y cuáles son las desventajas o DIFICULTADES de esta opción?

Yo hablaría de dificultades más que de desventajas.

3. 1. La primera se presenta antes incluso de desescolarizar o, en su caso, de tomar la firme decisión de educar en casa: es la duda sobre si la decisión que estamos tomando es correcta o no.

Creo que el miedo a la equivocación es inherente a la maternidad/paternidad, pero también estoy convencida de que aún conservamos un instinto, un saber ancestral, que nos va guiando; sólo que algunos lo han olvidado y no lo escuchan.

3. 2. La segunda es la soledad. El homeschooling es muy desconocido (en España, al menos) y, aún cuando es conocido, es muchas veces incomprendido. Que tu familia y tus amigos te apoyen es fundamental. Es suficiente con que respeten tus decisiones. Si, además, te comprenden y comparten tus ideas sobre educación, entonces la situación ya es prácticamente perfecta.

Y, además, es importante contar con una red de apoyo, aunque sólo sea a nivel virtual; una red de otras familias homeschoolers, con niños de las edades de los tuyos, que apliquen métodos parecidos a los tuyos, que críen de un modo similar, que tengan tus mismos intereses, o tus mismas dudas…

Si la red de apoyo la tienes físicamente cerca y te permite hacer encuentros informales, organizar actividades conjuntas, salidas recreativas, visitas culturales, etc, entonces vas a tener, prácticamente, un camino de rosas.

3. 3. La tercera desventaja es que hay que dar explicaciones. Gente no siempre bien intencionada va a hacerte preguntas y a cuestionar tus decisiones. La paradoja es que cuando más te lo preguntan, es cuando menos preparado estás para responder.

A medida que pasan los meses y los años, la experiencia de la educación en casa te va dando seguridad y confianza, cada vez tienes más datos, tanto teóricos como empíricos, pero también cada vez la gente va aceptando con normalidad que tus hijos no están escolarizados… y dejan de preguntar. ¡Justo cuando tú tienes toda una artillería de respuestas para ellos!

3. 4. La cuarta desventaja, en España, es la falta de reconocimiento legal explícito del homeschooling. Aunque, en mi opinión, es una desventaja relativa.

4. ¿Qué criticáis o qué tratáis de evitar de la educación convencional en una escuela?

Es difícil generalizar porque cada familia tiene sus propios motivos para no escolarizar y no todas ellas están necesariamente en contra de la escuela.

La vida no es más que una continua sucesión de elecciones. Y, con cada elección, estás dejando pasar miles de otras opciones. Es decir, que en un momento determinado decidas que la escuela no es la mejor opción para tus hijos, no significa necesariamente que consideres que la escuela puede ser perjudicial para ellos. Quizás la elegirás en otro momento. O quizás no.

Ahora bien, es innegable que el sistema educativo no está cumpliendo su función de educar. Sólo hace falta ver los datos sobre el fracaso escolar en nuestro país y ver la falta de valores (y de modales) de nuestros jóvenes. Que la escuela no educa es un hecho.

Por supuesto, la educación que pretende ofrecer el sistema educativo es sólo intelectual, académica, y obvia por completo la educación a nivel emocional, espiritual, social e incluso físico. Éste es uno de los motivos por los que algunas familias no contemplan a la escuela como una opción válida para sus hijos.

Los niños escolarizados se despiertan a golpe de despertador. Son obligados a pasar cinco, seis o más horas al día en compañía de otros 25 niños de su misma edad, segregados en función de un criterio tan arbitrario como es el año de su nacimiento.

Son obligados a estudiar materias que quizás no son de su interés y que, desde luego, no les son de utilidad. Y son obligados a cambiar de materia a golpe de timbre. Lo que el timbre enseña es que no hay nada en la escuela que merezca la atención de ser terminado.

Luego están los EXÁMENES. Los exámenes sirven para poner en evidencia lo que el niño no sabe. No importa que, a los cinco minutos, ya haya olvidado toda la materia teóricamente aprendida. Sólo importa dar con la respuesta correcta para conseguir una puntuación suficiente para no tener que volver a dedicar ni un minuto a ese tema. Y lo hacen bien, ésa es la verdad. Los estudiantes se convierten en estrategas, como diría John C. Holt: aprenden las estrategias necesarias para que el profesor les deje en paz. Lo demás, no importa.

Y hay asuntos aún más graves, como el hecho de que algunas guarderías y escuelas infantiles se nieguen a cambiar los pañales a sus alumnos. Un niño de, por ejemplo, dos años, que tiene el pañal sucio, tendrá que esperar a que su maestra se dé cuenta, a que avise a su madre y a que su madre pueda dejar lo que sea que está haciendo y pueda llegar hasta el centro. Ese niño puede estar, por tanto, más de media hora con sus necesidades encima. Eso es, cuando menos, anti higiénico, por no decir que es una absoluta falta de respeto hacia el niño.

También hay escuelas que se niegan a suministrar medicamentos a sus alumnos, incluso medicamentos prescritos para tratar enfermedades crónicas. Conozco el caso de una niña asmática que, cada vez que tenía una crisis estando en la escuela, debía esperar a que llegara su madre con el inhalador. Ese tiempo de espera podría haberle costado la vida.

Por cosas como éstas, cada vez más familias buscan alternativas. Algunos optan por escuelas libres. Otras, por el homeschooling.

5. ¿Cómo son los padres que educan en casa? ¿Qué tenéis en común?

No hay una “familia tipo” que eduque en casa. Los padres y madres tienen formación académica y trabajos de lo más variado. Hay actores, empresarios, abogados, médicos, músicos, pintores, escritores, jardineros, comerciantes, peluqueros, terapeutas, trabajadores sociales… Y también hay profesores.

Lo único que todos tenemos en común es que educamos en casa. A partir de ahí, la variedad es tan grande como el mundo mismo. Algunos comparten motivos para no escolarizar. Otros comparten métodos de crianza y de educación. Otros comparten religión. Otros comparten aficiones. Otros, simplemente, comparten vecindad. Y otros no comparten absolutamente nada más allá del hecho de educar en casa.

Creo que hay que ir desmontando el tópico de que las familias que educan en casa son hippies, de izquierdas, anti católicos, vegetarianos, que no vacunan, que paren en casa, que portean al bebé, que lo amamantan por largo tiempo, que no castigan, etc. O, en el otro extremo, que son ultra-religiosos y no quieren que sus hijos se mezclen con gente diferente.

En realidad, somos gente corriente.

6. ¿Un homeschooler nace (se decide desde el principio) o se hace (se desescolariza a los hijos)? ¿Por qué motivos abandonan la escuela algunas familias?

Algunos lo deciden desde incluso antes de tener hijos, lo cual es admirable. Algunos saben de antemano que la escuela no va a darles lo que quieren para sus hijos, de modo que disponen de mucho tiempo para informarse y para prepararse.

Otros desescolarizan tras un largo proceso durante el cual tienen problemas con el colegio pero quizás no dan el paso de desescolarizar por falta de información o por miedo.

Hay muchos casos de niños que no supieron/pudieron adaptarse al sistema (niños con altas capacidades y niños con necesidades educativas especiales, por ejemplo) y el sistema, obviamente, no supo tampoco adaptarse a ellos y cubrir sus necesidades. Muchos niños se aburren en el cole porque no tienen el nivel medio, están por encima o por debajo y, por tanto, se sienten fuera de lugar.

También hay niños que son criados con apego por sus familias y que no consiguen acostumbrarse al tipo de disciplina de la escuela; estos niños no comprenden por qué existen determinadas normas (como que sólo puedan beber agua a la hora del recreo, por ejemplo) o no comprenden con qué autoridad el profesor puede imponerles un castigo si sus propios padres no los han castigado jamás (no porque les dejen hacer lo que quieran, sino porque utilizan otros métodos de disciplina positiva). En general son niños libres a los que el sistema no consigue doblegar.

7. ¿Existe el arrepentimiento o malas experiencias en educar en casa? ¿Se puede volver al colegio después sin problemas de adaptación?

Sí, se puede volver. Y los motivos, una vez más, son de lo más variado.

Hay quien matricula a sus hijos en algún curso de la ESO para que puedan obtener el título a la misma edad que los otros niños. Hay quien escolariza por una cuestión de organización familiar, a veces a causa de un divorcio y, otras veces, porque los dos progenitores tienen que trabajar fuera de casa a jornada completa. También se dio el caso de una familia que educaba en casa a sus dos hijos adoptados, tras una pésima experiencia del mayor en la escuela infantil.

Cuando iniciaron los trámites para adoptar al tercero, el hecho de estar educando en casa fue motivo de peso suficiente para no conseguir el certificado de idoneidad (lo cual, a mi parecer, es una decisión de dudosa legalidad).

Para ese matrimonio, en ese momento, resultó más importante el hecho de adoptar un tercer hijo que la posibilidad de educarlos en casa. Tuvieron que elegir.

En España, durante toda la etapa de educación obligatoria (Primaria y Secundaria) puedes reintegrar a los niños en el sistema educativo en el curso que les corresponde por edad. Algunas familias solicitan que los asignen a un curso inferior para facilitar su adaptación pero, en muchas ocasiones, el nivel académico de los homeschoolers es superior al de los niños escolarizados.

8. ¿Cuáles son los resultados a largo plazo de esta opción educativa? ¿Pueden ir estos niños a la universidad con normalidad?

Por supuesto, pueden ir a la universidad. Yo destacaría el hecho de que los niños educados en casa, en general, aprenden a tomar decisiones razonadas con mucha más madurez que los escolarizados. Son niños, por tanto, que suelen tener bastante claro a qué quieren dedicar su tiempo y a qué no, y ello incluye los estudios formales. Algunos deciden que quieren ir a la universidad y se preparan para ello.

Sandra Lara, por ejemplo, estudió a distancia, se licenció en la Open University de Londres y, con tan sólo 17 años, fue admitida en la Universidad de Barcelona para realizar un máster de física.

Otros deciden que la universidad no es para ellos, como tampoco lo fue el colegio.


9. Existen varios prejuicios sobre educar en casa ¿qué hay de cierto o no en ellos?

9.1 Estos niños pasan demasiado tiempo encerrados en casa y NO SE SOCIALIZAN

Para empezar, conviene aclarar que educar en casa no significa literalmente educar “dentro de casa”. En segundo lugar, habría que determinar qué entendemos por “Socializar”. Lo que suele preocupar a la gente es la supuesta incapacidad de los niños homeschoolers de hacer amigos.

Bien, aquí van algunas de las formas en que lo hacen: a parte de sus familiares (hermanos o primos, por ejemplo) conocen a los hijos de los amigos de sus padres, conocen a otros niños educados en casa, conocen a los niños de su barrio (sobre todo si viven en sitios pequeños), conocen a los niños de su parroquia, a los de su agrupación scout y a sus compañeros de actividades “extraescolares”.

Además, los niños homeschoolers suelen acompañar a sus padres prácticamente a todos lados, por lo que aprenden a relacionarse con gente de todo tipo y de todas las edades. Aprenden que uno no tiene el mismo trato con una vecina de confianza, que con el vecino nuevo, que con el banquero, que con el frutero, que con el panadero, que con el hijo adolescente del vecino. En mi opinión, esto es precisamente “socializar”.

9.2 Se educa en una BURBUJA, fuera de la realidad social

Lejos de educarse en una burbuja, se educan en el mundo. La escuela sólo es una pequeñísima parte de la realidad social. Los niños que van a la escuela, supuestamente, se están preparando para el futuro. Los niños que se educan en casa, en cambio, están viviendo la vida. Aquí y ahora.

9.3 Demasiado ANARQUÍA, los niños deben aprender a obedecer y cumplir normas

Educar en casa no significa no tener normas. Las normas dependen exclusivamente de cada familia, escolarice o no: tener muchas o pocas, muy estrictas o más flexibles, son cosas que decide cada familia.

Lo que los niños deben aprender, en mi opinión, es a diferenciar las normas auténticamente necesarias, las que se fundamentan en un principio o valor, de aquellas meramente arbitrarias que no suponen sino una forma de control sobre los demás. Las normas típicamente escolares, como levantar la mano para pedir permiso, y pedir permiso para hablar, beber o ir al baño, no son normas que los niños necesiten verdaderamente aprender.

Lo natural es beber e ir al baño cuando uno lo necesita. ¡Son funciones vitales! En cuanto a pedir permiso para hablar, tiene sentido en situaciones en las que se han de organizar los turnos de palabra debido a la cantidad de gente que va a participar en la conversación. Pero ésas situaciones, en la vida real, no son las más habituales. Imaginemos a un grupo de diez o doce adultos sentados a la mesa de un bar, tomando un café después de comer. Imaginemos que charlan animadamente sobre cualquier cosa: su trabajo, sus vacaciones, la actualidad política o el tiempo. Imaginemos que, antes de hablar, levantan la mano esperando que se les de permiso para intervenir. ¡Resulta una escena chocante!

Pero los niños, a base de observar a los adultos en situaciones reales, aprenden cómo han de comportarse en cada momento. Hace falta que confiemos más en ellos. Y en nosotros. Porque nosotros somos el ejemplo del que ellos van a aprender.

9.4 Educar en casa es UN LUJO sólo al alcance de unos pocos

En algunos casos, educar en casa es una necesidad que te obliga a replantearte tus decisiones anteriores y tus necesidades creadas. Elegir una forma u otra de educar no es una cuestión de tiempo ni de dinero. Es una mera cuestión de prioridades.

¿Realmente necesitas vivir en la ciudad? ¿Realmente necesitas tener una casa en propiedad y pagar una hipoteca mensual de mil euros? ¿Realmente necesitas comer fuera de casa dos veces por semana? ¿Realmente necesitas tener dos coches? ¿Realmente necesitas trabajar ocho horas diarias y añadirle dos horas de transporte? ¿Realmente necesitas televisión por cable? ¿Realmente necesitas viajar cada verano? ¿Realmente necesitas renovar tu vestuario cada seis meses? Algunas necesidades te las has creado tú mismo, no son auténticas necesidades vitales. Y el precio que estás pagando, es la educación y crianza de tus hijos.

Por otro lado, para educar en casa no hace falta reproducir la escuela. No hace falta comprar muchos libros, material deportivo, material de laboratorio, etc. Cada familia es libre de decidir cuánto dinero quiere gastar en la educación de sus hijos. Y hay muchos recursos gratuitos (o casi gratuitos): bibliotecas, museos, internet, intercambios con otras personas, etc. Pero es esencial estar abierto a nuevas formas de aprendizaje y ser imaginativo.

9.5 Educar en casa en ILEGAL Y PELIGROSO. Te pueden quitar la custodia de tus hijos.

A nadie en España, que yo sepa, le han quitado la custodia de sus hijos por educarlos en casa. Otra cosa es que, además de no tenerlos escolarizados, tampoco los estés educando y, por tanto, el Estado considere que están en situación de abandono o desamparo, pero eso ya no tiene nada que ver con el homeschooling.

Es ilegal aquello que está prohibido por la ley. Ninguna ley en España dice que educar en casa esté prohibido. Lo que sucede es que tampoco hay ninguna ley que reconozca expresamente esa posibilidad. Por tanto, los homeschoolers nos amparamos en normas de rango superior, como la Constitución Española o la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, que establecen la libertad de educación y el derecho de los padres de elegir la educación que consideren más adecuada para sus hijos.

Ahora bien, es cierto que, en ocasiones, la administración pública activa los protocolos de absentismo cuando tiene conocimiento de que un niño no está escolarizado. En esos casos, se limitan a comprobar que no exista abandono del menor y emiten un informe que pueden remitir a la fiscalía de menores.

Cuando esto sucede, se abren diligencias previas para tratar de esclarecer cuál es la situación real del menor, si hay o no abandono o desamparo y si se le está proporcionando o no una educación. Estos casos siempre terminan resolviéndose a favor de las familias. Por tanto, el riesgo que corremos es relativo: es cierto que puede abrirse un expediente en servicios sociales y que éste puede terminar en un juzgado, pero también es cierto que no pueden multarnos ni imponernos condena alguna, porque no hay pena sin ley. Es decir, no pueden condenarte por un hecho que no está tipificado por la ley.


10. ¿Cómo funciona un día normal educando en casa?

No hay dos familias iguales. Incluso dentro de la misma familia, puede no haber dos días iguales. Hay familias que tienen un horario de estudio académico más o menos regular y otras que son más flexibles.

En mi casa, por ejemplo, no tenemos horarios de acostarnos ni de levantarnos. Una mañana cualquiera puede incluir un paseo, un rato de tele, juegos de mesa o de ordenador, alguna manualidad, leer en voz alta, cocinar, hacer la compra o algún otro recado, etc. Para mí, las actividades y los materiales no se dividen en didácticos y lúdicos. Cualquier cosa puede ser didáctica y cualquier cosa puede ser lúdica.

11. ¿Tenéis casas muy grandes?

No necesariamente. De hecho, hay familias que se mudan a casas más pequeñas para reducir gastos. Hay quien vive en el campo, o en pueblos y hay quien vive en ciudades. Para educar en casa no hace falta un entorno específico. Obviamente, cada familia sabrá cuál es su ideal de vivienda, pero eso es así se eduque en casa o no.

12. ¿Educan los dos padres o sólo uno?

Educan los dos padres y, sobre todo, se educa el propio niño. Si nos referimos a las familias que realizan un estudio más académico, dirigido, entonces sí, muchas veces el padre es el que trabaja fuera de casa y la madre es la que les ayuda en sus tareas. Pero en las familias que no siguen un currículum y, especialmente, en las que hacen unschooling, lo que marca la diferencia es la capacidad de ver el aprendizaje en todas partes. Es decir, hay una diferencia fundamental entre “enseñar” y “aprender”.

13. ¿Y cómo se compagina con las tareas del hogar? ¿No es demasiado tiempo en casa?

Cuando educas en casa no estás todo el día, literalmente, dentro de la casa. Sales para hacer recados de todo tipo; sales para ir a actividades, digamos, “extraescolares”; sales para ir a jugar al parque; sales para visitar a los amigos o familiares, etc.

Con las tareas del hogar sucede lo siguiente: si tus hijos están en casa contigo, en vez de estar en el cole, verán cómo haces las tareas domésticas. Entonces, según cómo sea tu actitud antes esas tareas, así será la percepción que ellos tendrán. Si tú odias limpiar el baño, pero aún odias más tener el baño sucio, y lo limpias con buen humor, con alegría, con ganas, eso es lo que trasmitirás a tus hijos y, quizás sorprendentemente, ¡van a querer ayudarte! Obviamente, van a querer hacer “eso” que su madre hace tan a gusto, ya sea limpiar el baño, cocinar o sacar la basura.

De todos modos, creo que ninguna madre homeschooler antepone las tareas del hogar al tiempo de sus hijos. Que la casa no esté perfectamente ordenada y limpia es secundario. Lo importante es vivir.

14. ¿Cuál es la formación de los padres? ¿Suelen ser ex-profesores o profesores en activo?

En Estados Unidos hay un alto porcentaje de padres que educan en casa que son o han sido profesores. Pero, en general, no lo son. No hace falta serlo puesto que no estamos trasladando el formato cole a la casa. Como dije antes, hay padres y madres con todo tipo de formaciones y de profesiones.

15. Una cosa es educar a un niño antes de los 6 años (edad en que comienza la educación -que no escolarización- obligatoria) y otra primaria y secundaria. ¿Cómo lo hacéis? ¿Tenéis conocimientos de todas las materias?

No hace falta tener conocimientos de todas las materias. Tú eres su madre, no su profesora.

En mi opinión, tampoco hace falta que estudie todas las materias tal como se estudian en el cole o en el instituto. Aún así, si quiere hacerlo o tú quieres que lo haga, lo que necesitas es saber a quién acudir. Puedes matricularlo en una escuela extranjera a distancia y, una vez obtenido el título del otro país, lo convalidas por el español.

En España hay dos: Clonlara y Epysteme.

Y hay muchos otros recursos. Internet, las bibliotecas, los museos, las academias, etc. En otros países, existe una opción educativa llamada “FLEXISCHOOL” que consiste en combinar la educación en casa con la escolarización, de modo que sólo escolarizas para determinadas materias.

16. ¿Qué TIPOS de homeschooling existe? En los colegios existen varias líneas que podríamos resumir en educación convencional, alternativa tipo Waldorf y libre tipo Summerhill. ¿Ocurre lo mismo en casa?

Hay familias que adaptan ese tipo de pedagogías para aplicarlas en casa: Waldorf, Montessori, Charlotte Mason, educación clásica, etc. Hay familias que se juntan y crean espacios llamados “escuelas libres”, aunque no son escuelas en sentido estricto, puesto que no están homologadas.

Algunas familias cogen lo que les interesa de cada estilo pedagógico y hacen su propia versión. Hay familias que compran un currículum y lo siguen en casa como si estuvieran en la escuela.

La “flexischool”, lamentablemente, no es posible en España, pero confío en que eso cambie en un futuro no muy lejano.

Y luego hay unschoolers, que no siguen ningún aprendizaje dirigido sino que aprenden de la vida.


17. ¿Cómo funciona legalmente el homeschooling en el mundo? ¿Qué países tienen más tradición?

A nivel internacional, el homeschooling se fundamenta jurídicamente en base a la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, cuyo artículo 26.3 otorga a los padres el “derecho preferente a escoger el tipo de educación que habrá de darse a sus hijos”. En un segundo nivel, las Constituciones modernas reconocen, también, el derecho a la educación y la libertad de enseñanza. A partir de ahí, cada país tiene su propio desarrollo de este derecho fundamental.

Los Estados Unidos, como es sabido, son pioneros en el reconocimiento legal del homeschooling, aunque cada estado tiene su propia regulación. Sólo en seis estados hay requisitos bastante estrictos, como la obligatoriedad de seguir el currículum, de registrarse, de presentar informes periódicos, etc.

Países como India, Corea del Sur, Botswana, e Indonesia reconocen el homeschooling y otorgan un alto grado de libertad para su ejercicio. En Japón, Colombia y Chile, como en España, la situación es de VACÍO LEGAL, por lo que es una opción posible pero poco habitual dada la inseguridad jurídica que conlleva.

El caso de Finlandia merece mención aparte, al igual que Japón. En Finlandia la educación en casa es legal y no se exige ningún tipo de requisito ni de control. Sin embargo, su sistema educativo está tan fuertemente arraigado que el homeschooling no es una opción para nada habitual.

Con más o menos requisitos, lo cierto es que todos los países permiten el homeschooling, excepto Alemania, donde está expresamente prohibido y los padres se exponen a penas de multa, de cárcel y de retirada de la patria potestad.

Quiero recalcar el hecho de que una excesiva regulación en cuanto a los requisitos exigidos puede desvirtuar la esencia misma del homeschooling. Por eso, muchas veces digo que el vacío legal español no es tan malo como a priori pudiera parecer.

Por otro lado, considero que los gobernantes deberían reflexionar acerca de la escuela como institución y evitar sacralizarla puesto que, ni es tan antigua, ni tan necesaria, ni tan efectiva como se nos ha hecho creer. Con ello no quiero decir que deba dejar de existir, pero que se obligue a todos a usarla me parece, cuanto menos, contraproducente.

18. ¿Qué diferencia existe entre homeschooling y UNSCHOOLING?

Hay muchas formas de educar en casa, y el unschooling no es más que una de ellas, quizás la más radical, la más desconocida y la más difícil de comprender. No es un modo de educar, sino una concepción del aprendizaje. Diría más, incluso: es una filosofía de vida y, por tanto, de crianza.

Se ha dicho que el unschooling se define por lo que no es: no es un método educativo, no se sigue un currículum, no se divide el conocimiento en asignaturas, no se utiliza material típicamente escolar como los libros de texto, no se enseña en formato clase, y las horas no se dividen en lectivas y no lectivas. Se trata de ver que el aprendizaje está en todas partes. Incluso cuando parece que no estás haciendo nada, estás aprendiendo porque ¡es imposible no aprender nada!

Cuando el unschooling hace “clic” en tu interior, ya no eres capaz de concebir el aprendizaje de otro modo. Pero tratar de hacer unschooling sin haberlo comprendido verdaderamente es muy peligroso. Se corre el riesgo de pretender dejar que los niños aprendan solos y no es eso.

Hay que acompañarles, hay que darles tiempo y atención, hay que estar disponible y hay que saber respetar los procesos internos de cada niño. Suelo decir que un “por cierto” es suficiente. Cuando tu hijo pregunta algo o, de algún otro modo, muestra interés por algo, puedes hablarle de ese tema, podéis investigarlo juntos, podéis tener conversaciones, etc. Pero hay que tratarlos igual que trataríamos a un amigo y no ponernos en la posición de superioridad del profesor ante el alumno.

Quiero matizar el asunto de los libros de texto y de las clases: si un niño unschooler quiere usar un libro de texto es muy libre de hacerlo y eso no significa que deje de ser unschooler. Un libro de texto es un recurso tan válido como una serie televisiva o como una excursión al campo o como una visita a un museo o como un curso en una academia de baile, de judo, de informática o de cualquier otra cosa.

19. ¿Es cierto que las universidades de Harvard y Yale tiene reservadas plazas para alumnos que hayan sido educados en casa? ¿Por qué motivos?

Sí, es cierto. Estas universidades aceptan a los homeschoolers a veces incluso con preferencia a alumnos de los institutos. Los jóvenes que son educados en casa tienen un elevado grado de motivación por hacer lo que hacen, ya sea dedicarse a la música, a las artes plásticas o estudiar en la universidad. Esta motivación, sumado a la libertad con la que han podido probar y elegir diversas técnicas y métodos de estudio, es lo que hace que sus resultados académicos, en no pocas ocasiones, superen al de los que han sido escolarizados

20. ¿Cuántas niños son educados en casa en España?

Al no haber registro obligatorio, es difícil dar una cifra, pero se habla de más de dos mil niños.

21. ¿Qué personajes famosos, históricos y actuales, estudiaron en casa?

Históricos hay muchos, precisamente por lo que antes comentaba, que la institución de la escuela no es tan antigua; en otras épocas no muy lejanas, lo habitual era educarse en casa, ¡es lo que se ha hecho desde la prehistoria! Pensemos, por ejemplo, en Mozart, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein o Thomas Edison. Algunos presidentes de los Estados Unidos, como Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (los dos), Washington o Wilson.

También Chaplin, Tolstoy, Mark Twain y Agatha Christie, entre otros. Y, cuanto más te remontas en el tiempo, más fácil es encontrar gente que fue educada en casa y que ha pasado a la historia. ¡Jesucristo fue homeschooler!

Personajes actuales podemos citar unos cuantos: hay muchos actores, como Elijah Wood (Frodo Bolsón), Jennifer Love Hewitt (“Entre fantasmas”;), Miley Cirus (Hannah Montana), etc. Y otros personajes, como Christopher Paolini, el autor de “Eragon”, el arquitecto Frank Lloyd Wright. Por otro lado, educan a sus hijos en casa Will Smith, John Travolta, Garth Brooks, Chuck Norris y Jimbo Wales, entre otros.

Pero hay que tener cuidado al buscar este tipo de información en internet, porque no siempre es fiable.


22. ¿Qué 10 consejos darías a las familias que contemplen esta opción?

Informarse, leer mucho y tratar de contactar con otras familias. Esto es básico.

Además, hay que estar preparado para un cambio de mentalidad y hay que estar dispuesto establecer prioridades y a tomar decisiones en base a esas nuevas prioridades. Hay que ser flexible, hay que prepararse para dar explicaciones y, en cuanto a los niños, hay que ser imaginativo y buscar recursos.

23. ¿Qué asociaciones existen sobre este tema?

En España hay únicamente una asociación a nivel nacional, llamada Asociación por la Libre Educación cuyo principal objetivo es conseguir el reconocimiento legal del homeschooling en nuestro país.

A nivel autonómico, ha habido dos intentos de crear asociaciones en Aragón y en Valencia que no han llegado a buen término. La única que subsiste es la Coordinadora Catalana Educar en Familia que cuenta, creo, con unos cincuenta miembros.

24. ¿Cuáles son los autores de referencia sobre homeschooling?

Sin duda, John Holt, John Taylor Gatto y Sandra Dodd. También Ivan Illich es un clásico.

Conceptualmente, me quedo con Gatto. Pero Sandra Dodd tiene la experiencia de haber educado a sus tres hijos en casa, haciendo “radical unschooling”, así que tiene un enfoque más constructivo que Holt y Gatto, que son más anti-escuela.

25. ¿Qué libros recomendarías en castellano e inglés para profundizar en esta educación?

En español apenas hay literatura homeschooler. Existen dos libros editados por ALE. El primero de ellos, titulado “Razones para educar en familia” es un compendio de relatos de experiencias perosnales. El segundo, “Educar en casa día a día” es una obra más elaborada e incluye varios informes realizados en otros países.

Ana Mª Redondo, profesora de Derecho, publicó un libro titulado “Defensa de la Constitución y enseñanza básica obligatoria” en el que defiende la legalidad del homeschooling en base a la norma constitucional.

Por último, está mi libro “Educación y libertad. Una defensa del homeschooling como máxima expresión de la libertad educativa”, publicado en abril de este mismo año y al que seguirá mi segundo libro “Enseñar a Pescar. Educando en casa” que es un recopilatorio de artículos conjugado con parte de mi blog personal, donde relato mi propia experiencia educando en casa.

En inglés sí hay muchos libros sobre el tema, algunos, imprescindibles. John Holt y John Taylor Gatto son dos básicos (el “Dumbing Us Down” de Gatto es un libro que, literalmente, me cambió la vida). También el “Education. Free and compulsory” de Murray Rothbard me parece esencial para comprender de qué hablamos cuando hablamos de educación y de escolarización.

Para una primera aproximación, recomendaría el libro de Jan hunt “The Natural Child”, acerca de la llamada crianza a natural, que dedica un capítulo a la educación en casa.

Tammy Takahashi tiene un libro titulado “Deschooling Gently” que es una especie de guía para padres que desescolarizan y ahora acaba de publicar otro titulado “Zenschooling” en el que desarrolla este concepto, acuñado por ella misma y que es, en la línea del unschooling, una filosofía de vida aplicada a la educación.

Y sobre unschooling hay que leer a Sandra Dodd y “The unschooling unmanual” de Jan Hunt.

Después uno puede leer (o debería leer) sobre pedagogías y filosofías varias, pero eso ya es harina de otro costal.

26. ¿Qué webs recomendarías de familias que estudian en casa o sobre información general?

En español, sin duda, hay que recomendar el blog de Madalen Goiría que tiene recopilada muchísima información sobre el tema, aunque le falta la experiencia de haberlo vivido.

El blog de ALE es quizás más ecléctico pero por ello más vivo, al igual que el de Clonlara School.

Epysteme, aparte de su blog más oficial, tiene otro donde comparten los proyectos realizados por sus alumnos, así que es una buena fuente de recursos e ideas.

Para hacerse una idea de cómo es el día a día de una familia homeschooler, cualquiera de los blogs personales sirve (hay muchísimos) y, sobretodo, recomendaría darle una leída al Carnaval de Blogs que tiene una periodicidad mensual.

En inglés, es imprescindible el blog de los Cate, “Why homeschool”. “The Thinking Mother” es otro que vale la pena leer. Hay tanta variedad, con tantos estilos distintos, que lo mejor es ir de uno a otro a través de los enlaces o de los blogroll y que cada uno se quede con los que más le inspiren.


(Pinchar la imagen para ampliarla y poder leer la contraportada)

27. ¿Por qué el título “Educación y libertad”?

“Educación y libertad: una defensa del homeschooling como expresión de la libertad individual” es el título de la ponencia que presenté en el I Congreso de Economía Austríaca celebrado en 2008 en la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, organizado por el Instituto Juan de Mariana.

De ahí nació la idea del libro, que no salió hasta dos años después. El enfoque no era exactamente el mismo, por eso cambié ligeramente el título. Y no se trata tanto de defender el homeschooling en si mismo como de defender la libertad educativa.

28. ¿Qué te ha llevado a escribir un libro de una modalidad tan minoritaria en España?

He escrito el libro que me habría gustado leer cuando empecé a plantearme educar en casa. Obviamente, no lo he escrito para ganar dinero, para eso tendría que escribir una novela al estilo de “La catedral del mar”…

Pero creo que es importantísimo que se le de difusión a esta opción educativa, que se conozca es el primer paso para que se normalice, primero a nivel social, cultural y, después, a nivel legal.

29. ¿Qué puede el lector encontrar en tu libro?

Es una aproximación general a la educación en casa. Trato de responder a las cuestiones más frecuentes: el por qué se hace, el cómo se hace, etc. Y también respondo a las clásicas objeciones que hace la gente desinformada: cómo socializan, cómo aprenden, cómo vas a enseñarle algo que tú no sabes, etc.

Por supuesto, aclaro cuál es la situación legal en España y en otros países. Y, finalmente, incluyo tres anexos: uno, escrito por mí, se compone de breves biografías de personajes que fueron educados en casa; el segundo, escrito por María Antonia Gomila, madre de tres niñas educadas en casa, es una reflexión sobre el tipo de educación que queremos dar a nuestros hijos; y el tercero, es un compendio de entradas de blogs que participaron en el Carnaval de Homeschooling.

Con ello creo que el lector de puede llevar una idea bastante precisa de la gran variedad de familias y de modos de educar en casa que existen.

30. ¿Dónde se puede encontrar?

Ahora mismo sólo se puede comprar en internet y en tres librerías de Menorca.

Muchas gracias por esta completa y útil información y seguiremos atentamente tus pasos y todas las novedades de la educación en casa en España.

Sitio oficial de Laura Mascaró: Sin escuela y Tarkus Kids

Más entrevistas a Laura Mascaró: Diari Menorca y Revista Namaste

Más información sobre homeschooling en los medios: La Vanguardia, El País, El Mundo, El Diario Vasco

En El Blog Alternativo: Artículos sobre educación

Libertarian International Head: 0% Taxes--& Beyond-- Now

Posted on August 15, 2012 at 3:40 PM

LIO head MG says join him in world & local dialogue to end taxes--to put in a negative tax rate.



If you don't share this article with all your e-circle and more RIGHT NOW, don't complain about coercive or inept government fiscal mis-management to me, ever.

The recent spectacle of Governor Gary Johnson, the US Libertarian Party candidate--a truly wonderful cut of man I feel no shame in praising-- advocating a flat tax and no real lowering of taxes/tax rates vs. US Democratic President' Obama's tax rate cut and additional proposals--including extending the so-called Bush cut 2 years the GOP originally refused to do-- shows two things.

Many people are joining  the Libertarian parade but some libertarians are falling away. Yes, many sincere libertarian supporters are letting it pass them by instead of leading it, perhaps worried some ignoramus will say, why, they're just too far out.

No great things were ever seized without nerve. So join me in getting back in front--not 'far-out' in the rear.

Coercive taxes rob you in 3 ways: Paying over-much for things you don't need, being a constant temptation to incompetent or corrupt officials to spend, spend, spend; and not having the correct libertarian end-state of public programs where the programs pay you.

Pay attention: I'm saying that not only should tax rates be ZERO, but public programs should pay you--a NEGATIVE tax rate. Impossible?

An example of what I mean is the libertarian-championed Alaska Permanant Fund--which instead of an income tax uses investments to pay the people a living dividend not as some government handout and politician's spree, but an autonomous trust jealously guarded by the people themselves--and IRA's where you can have a tax-advantaged mini-public program to pay for retirement and much else besides. I helped conceive the first and championed both. Several countries have used to concept to not only create automatic benefits so that concepts such as the need for a minimum wage and poverty vanish, but fund lavish social services such as as much education as you want and a free home to boot. Sure, there is corruption, but the answer is to get the funds into autonomous trustees supervised by the beneficiaries, not legislators armed with legal immunity for misdeeds. Here're 3 key steps:

  1. Decriminalize non-payment and lower all tax rates.No one should pay a dime if they have reasons of culture, commerce, conscience. Forget the social-duty argument: these pious thinkers have created vast mismanagement and should have been making not irresponsible public trusts but actual public trusts that took care of anyone through wide investment, open management, and legal responsibility. Altruism is an excuse for lack of results in many cases. Switzerland already makes tax non-payment non-criminal.
  2. Simplify and voluntarize: Immediately exempt --adjusted for inflation-- the bottom 50% from any income tax while encouraging the wealthy to pay a larger share into medical and social. No corporate or technical taxes--taroiffs, etc. Start a national dialogue on voluntary payment and choice of programs. Remember: the bottom 50% of  income-tax payers just pay a sliver of revenues for waste; the rest effectively fund defense in the US. Social Security would have been funding additional personal pensions and lavish healthcare if part had not been used for years from everything from fact-finding trips to Paris not to mention funding goal-free military shenanigans. Make a portion go to fund endowments to in due course pay the costs. My prediction: Revenues will skyrocket as people have a say and programs are obliged to improve.  We've surveyed wealthy people who say they would cheerfully pay double such a voluntary tax given the assurance that it would end up abolishing taxes and they would become public heroes. Libertarian fans in many countries are getting some action. Thus Russia is catching up in development with a lower tax rate than the US. Hear that, USA? Russia.
  3. Segregate local taxes to set lands and move programs to endowment funding with accountable trustees. End all these real estate and sales taxes. We could double the salary of every public servant by putting funds where users could watch it, people were rewarded for improvement suggestions. Homeowners and small business could rest easy in a tax-free environment. legalize private options of every kind. Some libertarian-loving economists confuse government with public and so write all day of how to privatize every road when the reality is we need to legalize private roads and democratize public easements away from politicized control by restoring endowments--and many things besides. Let us legalize such investment-oriented user-designed libertarian communities while were at it.

Sure, social adjustment may take a generation. That only means that by starting today in one generation coercive taxes can vanish and a variety of entities send you a check instead. Sure, every community might have a different spin. That's what libertarians are there for... to share the good work, remind us one-size-need not fit all,  suggest best practices, and keep things on-point as far as rights. So go: E-mail this. Translate it. Tell your friends. Meet with officials. Pester college departments. E-mail journalists and policy wonks. Talk to unions. Address community leaders. This is a starting point for dialogue leading to one discussion: How can we do this so it works for our community ?

As a US Citizen please excuse me for patriotically saying I don't want to hear as I grow older about how now Russians are having a ball with their libertopian social stipend and at last enjoying true communism thanks to capiatlism. I don't want to hear how some zero-tax micro-country is putting go-go private space colonies on Mars funded by their investments in the US while in the USA Americans still kill entire forests to print their ever-more bizarre tax forms motivated by piously funereal slogans. 

One thing I can guarantee as LIO co-ordinator:  2 million people in every country will have had the opportunity to read this already--and many are discussing how to beat the Americans in the Zero-to-Negative Tax Race.

It is time to prepare the funeral for coercive taxation and plan for our yearly and growing check at the wake besides as we bid this barbaric medieval remnant a tearless RIP . That's a funeral worth having.


Arm Grandpas, Teach Youth Non-Coercion, Remove Eco-Problems: Libertarian Gun, Self-Defense, Systems Approach

Posted on July 25, 2012 at 5:30 AM

Once disarmed grandpas who surprise possible killers? LIO inspired Libertarian 'gun/self-defense rights & more' dialogue is now in all countries, and Libertarian-driven right-to-carry statutes trained and armed citizen guardian volunteers as this elderly man. The offenders were wounded and later arrested.

The same week, analysts point out that Grandpas are now preventing potential and tragic  Aurora, Colorado potential massacres--where police were reportedly aware of sanity issues but there was no action (  ;)-- armed with Libertarian tools...but it is not just a matter of gun rights alone but a comprehensive voluntary system of approach that reduces and prevents problems and engages citizen 'bottom-up' action and input.

These tools range from Lib-inspired concealed carry to  other citizen tools such as mediation, being more alert to environmental causes such as violence-inducing medications and allergies,  and growing world and local dialogue on ending the 'coercive cycle of abuse' --from punitive/rights-disrespecting family to corporate and other institutions to central government and back --that help you reduce the culture of coercion. Setting aside false choices and circular arguments by some of arms vs. safety, regulation vs. responsibility, punishment vs. permissiveness, while ignoring the corrupting example of corrupt statutes and officials--how has this global movement of citizen responsibility for the body politic come about?

'Public safety and defense is the primary  job of the volunteer citizen, not the government' or other auxiliary hired officials...and begins in the household... When LIO first raised the subject in 1971 as a line of discussion and data-development world citizen disarmament coupled with out-of-control crime and totalitarianism seemed inevitable to many. Now, 40 years later, the spread of citizen self-defense/mediation techniques and the effect on reducing problems is worldwide helping nations adopt or better participative democracy and public safety:

  • Armed grandpas work. The same week of the notorious Batman shooter massacre, a similar apparent threat was averted in Florida. In that state Libertarians championed and got passed 'concealed carry' of weapons restoring much of that citizen right along with encouraging self-defense, citizen watch, and social mediation classes ( vs. government proposals to ban use of several martial arts). This Youtube shows an armed grandpa benefiting from the Libertarian approach and saving threatened civilians. (Ironically, the city is where the Libertarian movement for concealed carry was organized, Ocala, which had suffered attempts to prosecute women who defended themselves from rape with illegal pistols and touching off a crime wave induced by official policies, say activists).
  • Check the environment before punishing or regulating. People inspired by Libertarian dialogue continue to focus polemics on environmental causes to misbehavior as the first, not last place to lolok and correct: Along with highlighting the coercive atmosphere created by errant institutions and officials, they have led dialogues on family abuse, school bullying, anti-gay and other bigoted violence, genetic or allergy factors, lead or other additive poisoning in e.g. paint or food, and now over-corrective prescription of behavior drugs as officials--who create the drug problem by mandating or encouraging the practice--then demand restrictions on civil self-defense based on untoward incidents they themselves cause. ( )
  • Worldwide relaxation of weapon restrictions, with legalization of citizen watches, and expanded self-defense and courteous behavior classes (as in Japan, which still has arms restrictions but low incidents as most of the population is able to easily disarm a gun-wielder, and teachers teach as the first principle of defense being mutual respect or  rei, the prinsiple also used in developing the modern Libertarian pledge) is spreading ( ) as Libertarians predict they will gear up to lead restoration of the right to bear infantry arms and disarm police (on old British Bobby system ) in every country, and make any worldwide citizen arms including self-defense classes restrictions DOA.
  • Non-coercive behavior mentoring to build virtue, not react to avoidable vice and misbehavior--and end built in coercive cycles that go from abuisive parenting to social misbehavior to totalitarian or abusive systems in a self-perpetuating cycle. Along with the Libertarian pledge of rights-respect focusing good behavor and courage to correct self-created institutional problems--often reflecting poor or hidden data, suppression, or lack of  rights/voluntarism disrespect and citizen involvement-- programs such as positive parenting ( )  , hands are not for hitting ( )    , and conflict reduction classes for youth and officials ( ) we will rarely need the armed grandpas.
  • Get back on mission: Increasingly, public safety officials say much of the problem is diversion of resources into punishment of lifestyle or psychological issues ( prostitution, drugs, family abuse; see ) and confusion of lifestyle/social work-type matters with citizen protection often accompanied by draconian measures ( see ). Police presence often creates a rash of false accusations and inappropriate responses by bureucracies that threat the users as a problem. Many police report to LIO departments still spend 90% or more of their time in non-harm matters when they would--as fire safety professionals have learned with libertarian/LIO workshops--rather focus on proaction, education, and awareness (Now many fire and similar officials spend 90% of their time in citizen self-protection and problem avoidance awareness, better interaction on insurance/safety standards, etc.)...In contrast, citizen watch and mediation often does the job for much less or free. ( e, .g. ) using 'granpa and granny' mediators and citizen input and community orgamization participation.
  • Make gun/self-defense  registration accountable and private: Current gun rules typically over-regulate while missing the real issues of liability and good conduct/sanity and are so often politicized. Having e.g. neutral insurance follow a threatening serious weapon with/or certification of conduct/sanity by an accountable actor such as an insurance company may be a good solution for some voluntary communities and be a better transition tool for current quasi-voluntary ones. At present rules make it difficult for e.g. alarmed teachers, gun clubs, or even close families to seek examination on dysfuntional and threatening family members or neighbors, with reports to authorities often met with a shrug, say critics--while imaginary threats to authorities by irate citizens are met with hysterical arrests. At the same time, many Libertarians encourage study and expanded legalization of non-lethal /non-damaging 'stopper' defense weapons or martial arts to end use of force for temporary restraint or disablement until help arrives...while warning that expanding centralized coerced rules will only leave to citizens again prey to gangster regimes or at best smugly abusive officials as public safety declines.

The LIO will-- especially through the good work of LIO Friends and those in public office-- continue to encourage open dialogue among key activists  focused on combined  rights, choices, and data-driven best practice-holistic approaches and info-sharing at the user level, along with encouragement of informed scientific and user-friendly assessments and self-correction.


LIO hopes this will help you by peaceful dialogue better democracy or replace dysfuntional command or coercive policies with aware use of  legalized  communities of voluntary governance led by Libertarian-conversant citizen watchdogs of, in the words of F. Douglass, the  3 boxes of rights: The ballot box, the jury box, the cartridge box.


What Do Libertarians Do? LIO Friends, @ 3K+, To Have Blog

Posted on July 25, 2012 at 2:45 AM


What do Libertarians and those using SMILE/voluntary tools actually do? Volunteers are changing the world: e.g. the gallant Hope & Service to Mankind Foundation in Africa ( ) empowers rural dwellers and is one of many groups with LIO Friends who examine SMILE-interest or share voluntary tools and inspire other projects worldwide in a non-partisan, common-ground atmosphere.

It shares: " ...We promote and encourage the development of the spirit of voluntarism among the youth and people of all communities by organising workcamps..."

Libertarians and users of Libertarian-based tools celebrated World Libertarian Day (July 17th) for the first time worldwide as LIO Friends --noting their group topped 3000 as the activist advisory and share network to the LIO and general public.

Participants from all parties ( ) share SMILE-oriented personal/ public entrepreneurship non-partisan projects @: piloting or spreading voluntary tools and rights-oriented or other projects. A frequent comment recieved is along the lines that "I thought we were the only ones" and "We love the environment of inspiration and useful sharing." While the co-editors highlight projects and useful data, most work is user-driven; and much sharing is peer-to-peer.

LIO Friends, not all of whom are at the network, are 51% women, reflective of their nations with a bias towards native people and minorities, and describe themselves as working-middle class, student, and retiree. Many are or were public officials, and come from or continue work in independent, progressive or conservative action areas. Top users are in Latin America, CIS, China-East Asia, India region, and emerging democracies.

LIO co-editors and activists have been overwhelmed by the massive data and a blog is underway to highlight each nation on what LIO Friends and libertarians are doing to better:

  • Native American rights and aboriginal issues
  • Homeschool understanding and use, life long free learning
  • Homeless protection and projects legalizing donations that do the job
  • Empowerment of poor and women seminars and micro-loans
  • Protection of pre-borns e.g. cloning, snowflake babies, in vitro
  • Tools for urban homesteading and gardens including legalization
  • Defense of under-publicized minorities e,g, albinos in Africa
  • Organizing youth on democracy and market particpoation workshop
  • Ending world borders that block free residency and may create war
  • Public safety betterment: Police, lifeguards, fire safety
  • Bringing federal democracy to Somalia, Somaliland and other lands
  • Spread good use of co-operatives, e-barter and freeshare projects
  • Open and transparent governance in all democracies and emerging nations
  • Consumer-driven pricing sytems that set aside part for higher worker wages
  • Info projects exposing corporate, religious, and other institutional abuses
  • Persuading landowners and governments on eco-areas and shore protection
  • 'Take back' movements of public parks and land donations being restricted
  • Certification and user-info to replace corrupt regulation
  • E-Literacy programs for rural  world villagers
  • Workshops in every country on SMILE themes and Libertarian projects
  • Projects to abolish taxers, better services and choice, and end poverty
  • Art projects for underserved youth and community betterment
  • Union and collective bargaining legalization and choice work
  • Women empowerment and anti-abuse workshops in Islamic countries
  • Promotion of community watch and private policing/mediation prototypes
  • Pilots of currency options now in over 300 communities
  • Postive parenting, co-housing, and similar group projects
  • Drive to bring barter/farmer markets and freeshare books to all libraries
  • Spread of direct democracy focused on rights to choices in all nations
  • Ballot access and fair elections
  • Secularism information projects e.g. atheists helping homeless
  • Daily petition projects for prisoners, against corruption and more
  • Formation of civic rights and libertarian-civic groups

Work by activists dedicated to Libertarian legal and policy reform is no longer networked by LIO but the emerging www.Libertarian-Institute.Info (LI) which works on management/law lines to build a climate for Libertarian-based organizations, management styles and community. LI hosts teams centered on autonomous solo/small team activists promoting general Libertarian rights reform themes and specific foicus on the original Gilson reform lines personally promoted by the LIO co-ordinator. The blog reports daily wins on rights and Libertarian policy worldwide.

LIO expects to be reformatting the old contact groups through blog-based country portals highlighting world project communication and work in each country as the blog proceeds for LIO Friends, and connecting to seperate Libertarian/SMILE-interested society projects at the local level. This current site will then be re-dedicated primarily to trends developed by LIO Fellows and overall reviews with an eventual LIO Fellows blog highlighting their often pathbreaking and paradigm-shifting work, articles, proposals and papers in many SMILE-interest fields from Martian colonization to life extension research.



High Schoolers: Libertarian President Inevitable, Desirable

Posted on July 25, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Libertarian-supportive youth such as this election fairness team in Latin America influence attitudes, say peers.

A survey conducted by volunteers of LIO has determined that over 60% of high schoolers in the US, Mexico and Costa Rica believe that a Libertarian President and members of the Supreme Court is inevitable and desirable 'within two generations'...and a large group (over 30%) that some form of no-less government or voluntary government system' should be generally tried, especially (over 55%) at the local level, and was likely 'inevitable at least locally.'

Most said they were not aware of the problems with ballot laws and third parties and thought that removing such laws while putting more libertarian-based people in local office was therefore paramount. A near-majority said the same for Green candidates--in many countries the Greens are widely supported by those identifying as Libertarians.


Over 20% said they would vote for a 'qualified and experienced libertarian candidate with a record of results', 5% for 'a libertarian candidate not experienced as a libertarian,' and over 50% for 'an experienced libertarian candidate that I knew or was working on my favorite issues who was qualified and experienced with a record of results.' There was little difference among respondent subgroups.

Over 70% said they 'would like to see some Libertarians in local' public office, especially appointive boards 'working on specific issues.' They identified Libertarians as focused on rights, choices, data and correct process, and being fair. Over 50% of these thought the main value of Libertarians in public office was 'helping me in protecting consensus and social gains in rights and choice' and over 30% 'starting new specific voluntary programs or ideas and protecting the defenseless.' Over 20% thought Libertarians were the go-to people for seeing 'the law and fairness were followed.'

Of the 60% over half thought they would see a Libertarian President as 'most of the Libertarian ideas were already put into place' and 30% when 'there were more local libertarians making change' to which voters could refer. Over half of these thought a Libertarian 'would be great in a severe national crisis' such as an invasion or ending an extremist takeover. This comports with pro-Libertarian Presidents abroad arising after leading anti-Communist popular revolutions.


Over 60% agreed that legislators were 'living in the past' and 'should not block libertarian initiatives among people who want to use them.' many cited legislation on drugs, sexuality, small business, and the web as irritants. Many noted that the web was becoming an engine of change and agreed 'people are increasingly doing as they please whatever institutions say.'

Among those saying libertarians were inevitable a majority felt the world was improving, among those who self-identified as anti-libertarian most thought the world was getting worse. The libertarian inclined were less optimistic about Libertarian inevitability and the progressive most optimistic.

Respondents tested about 30% each libertarian, progressive and conservative inclined, and  under 10% authoritarian. Over 3% in the US and Mexico and 10% in Costa Rica self-identified as 'consciously libertarian or pro-libertarian' and of those chose 'modernist and voluntary choice/rights oriented' as a libertarian description  in over 50% of the cases, with 'tolerant/less or no government' as the next most favored by some 30%. This means most people who vote Libertarians do not see themselves as necessarily Libertarian but like what libertarians are doing. In addition, 21% in the US and Costa Rica self-identified with Libertarian, though half had generalized sense of the approach.

Over 70% agreed that 'voluntary communities of libertarian character or law-waiver options that would allow me to choose libertarian alternatives' e.g. that allowed complete personal and market freedom should be legal or tried more. A similar number of those who said they were aware of media and academic portayals of libertarianism or libertarians thought they were for over 30% often too grossly incorrect and did not 'even know basic facts' and over 40% thought fair but 'too general and infrequent.'

In addition, over 80% agreed that 'having Libertarian candidates improve the race' more than any other candidates with Greens next;  and 'help me even if they lose by showing where people support more choices and defining the issues.' This comports with staements by opponents that libertarian candidates forced them to be better candidates, document specifics and consider or implement libertarian-direction policy. Of these, over 90% said laws limiting small parties were 'wrong and should be abolished,' and 'harm the right to a fair choice of the voter' comporting with large majorities supporting the view when put to a vote.


In Mexico, a Libertarian-oriented party candidate recieved some 2% of the vote, and in Costa Rica a growing Libertarian-Liberal themed centrist party regularly clocks in over 5% vote totals and has some 10% of the legislature. In the US Libertarians are strong at the local level, and in 2002 the USLP identified as a major problem that not enough people could be trained as libertarians to meet demand. The LIO has registered a project to promote use of Libertarian tools by all officials and mentor Libertarians interested in non-partisan adlective (e.g. appointive advisory boards ) office, with an emphasis on local work. 

Both self-identified libertarians and libertarian-leaning reported less use of drugs than conservatives and guns than progressives, suggesting the trend continues where libertarians are simply more self-disciplined and rights-focused than others. Those saying they were from minority, working class/union, or low-income backgrounds tested both with higher self-reported  IQ's and more libertarian, suggesting a growing social shift.

Of those who self-identified as libertarians, over 50% said they were aware of libertarian publicity or for libertarian ideas but came based on a communication from a friend, teacher, or handout. The rest were about divided between those who learned from a campaign or were 'in a libertarian-aware' family or circle, with the first somewhat higher in Costa Rica.


Finally, 10% of the Libertarian-inclined respondents said they would consider getting involved in local public office, and 20% in social entrepreneurship or community volunteering at some point. This suggested opportunities in asking people to start in office or volunteering as opposed to merely asking for their support in long term growth.

Over 2300 respondents were surveyed in each country in 2 independently run studies of over 1100 respondents each. Questions were formulated based on pre-survey of focus groups. The data is suggestive that as Libertarian concepts spread they acquire increased acceptance, and the massive and rapid growing cultural change wrought by LIO supporters and libertarians in general...and what Libertarian-oriented or direction contact groups can expect in their own countries as they organize interest.

 In 1970 LIO volunteers tested US respondents and found most people rated as fascists/authoritarian (over 40% for more intrusive government and less economic and civil rights' and of which most agreed that  'some form of dictatorship would be best for the US' ). A similar study by the University of Michigan isolated similar data. That number is now under 10% suggesting a strong change towards participation and away from authoritarian cultures in all areas.

A study for India and China is underway. Ranges are rounded down to country minimums and for purposes of ease of presentation. We thank the volunteers  who helped arrange the study.


Posted on June 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Over 1000 core/10,000 co-activists are being inspired by www.Libertarian-Institute.Info to move policy by targeted dialogue with legislators and officials, and direct democracy to uphold rights says Dr. Swanson. The  new 'action think tank' for empowering average citizens working in every country works by inspiring autonomous citizen contact teams or solo action, and highlighting models you can adapt in your area--results shared every weekday..

OPINION: By Dr. Ralph Swanson, LIO Past Advisory Chair

I would like to personally welcome your interest in the free Libertarian Institute. I urge you link to it—and find a rights issue you like, get inspired with our tools of action, and share your success for potential publication to inspire others. The yet to be fully launched at www.Libertarian-Institute.Info  is now the largest Libertarian legal activist organization in history, with over 1000 activists or teams in 100+ countries reporting an average of 10 participants. Attracting the most dedicated legal activists from the LIO’s titanic list of over 1 million LIO- or Libertarian-fans or social entrepreneurs in every country, it serves as a morale and progress center for those interested in change by contacting policymakers, developing petitions, and more to advance both voluntary choice/rights-friendly policies to better democracy, and items of the updated 1969 ‘Gilson Reform’ that launched the civic movement to legalize Libertarian community--and now reports a win each weekday. Note: Mr. Gilson’s work was basis for the libertarian-direction USLP platform that united, grew, defined the movement; his full work is being slowly shared beyond Libertarian and select leaders.

As Mr. Gilson’s or ‘MG’s—the LIO co-ordinator-- long-awaited less-is-more think-tank to help legalize and build strong Libertarian groups via standards and data for: solo and small contact team activists; coalitions; jurists and law students; political/legal action committees in every country, it is the sole group to the purpose planned and blessed by we modern movement founders including Dr. M. Friedman, David Nolan, Dr. M. Rothbard, and myself, as our personal arm. It helps those forming libertarian groups in addressing legal environments while sharing management tips to build best-practice open lib-type groups or LIO networks. Unlike other think-tanks or policy schools, it’s international, neither takes nor donates money but is strictly volunteer, and does not react to transitory issues but helps you work long term. While coalition-focused and welcoming all interested in any reform element, it keeps the comprehensive view intact.

We help the many people not interested or able to participate in the political or other work that exists; or if you want to take successful action from home by calling or writing policymakers and media, or guidance on forming coalitions and citizen watchdogs and so be the leading edge in bettering the legal culture and spreading citizen participation, this is for you. It is an ideal intersection for disabled, senior or youth activists or those of limited time or means yet much enthusiasm; who wish to do something for e.g. an hour or so a month for maximum results; for those in legal-management studies; for all to learn more and spread good news or applications. Please note LI is distinct from LIO whose Fellows, Friends and fans may not share all LI’s views, and is non-partisan with participants of all kinds.


As long-term Rock of Gibraltar of strict Libertarian perspective in rights dialogue and also legalization of community and best practice, we’re already being told by activists who’ve ‘gone beyond’ and get ‘friendly fire’ from less focused libertarian-direction groups that this is proving a motivator, reality check, and relief. In just this month they’ve seen:

1. Anti-Union and pro-flat-tax statements by the USLP, CATO, and many conservative-leaning ‘Lib’ groups—even as libertarians or fans like them are leading in efforts to abolish taxes and reach out to unions.

2. Calls for ‘kiddie electrocution’ by CATO, CEI, and punishing abortion by some—even as international rights norm, abortion options legalization and anti-death penalty work is succeeding around the globe.

3. Cluelessness on what Libertarians are doing in the field by LRC contributors e.g. hysteria over democracy in Egypt, claims ‘no libertarians have been elected’ or have influence, or ignorance of Libertarian Democracy work—even as Libs lead efforts for a world revolution in democracy paving the way for more change...

These great groups say they’re moving policy in a libertarian-direction, espouse no or ‘competing governments’ or less or ‘limited government’ constitutionalism for a good reason: That’s what they do, and all they do. While informed by Libertarianism, and many co-founded by LIO principals and welcome by LI in their autonomous work, and sometimes thinking of themselves as libertarian, they’re libertarian-direction: Some coercive policy may be mixed in as one would expect from transitional groups; as of course also in Liberal/libertarian-oriented groups—yet many get valuable skills.

As many activists move with their skills to implementation, they will find LI a logical tool if they enjoy lobbying, legal-management matters or direct action to implement Libertarian elements--one at a time. In addition, one need not agree with all of the LI view to find something on which to work--with encouragement, on-point analysis or useful links for the attorney, activist, and group facilitator. LI’s symbol is not freedom but the older one of the balance of freeholder justice and fair dealing over an ancient freeholder (libertarian) market: A world symbol for a world effort, one call or e-mail or letter or signature or link-share at a time. People are already doing this no matter what officials plan, so...Join LI!

Libertarian Democracy Op Update: 14 Countries Improve

Posted on June 27, 2012 at 8:15 AM

OPERATION DEMOCRACY starting in the Mid-east have adopted  this meme to spread the good word and stay on mission, using English as the effort lingua franca to engage emerging professionals in the various countries. The meme at right has also become popular in explaining the effort which has used everything from ham radios to contact/phone-trees as well per LIO-inspired pamphlets. The effort is the current phase of LIO's long term dialogue--initiated with the blessing of then US President Eisenhower--to by peaceful methods legalize federal and direct democracy with choices of designed and  libertarian community and scientific voluntary association--and peaceful space colonization and future focus using voluntary and private tools.

Note: In 1940 there were, not counting small countries, 14 democracies (Great Britain, United States of America, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Uruguay ) . LIO principals have been key in the spread of democracy since that time, starting with work on the Libral International.

LIO's OPERATION DEMOCRACY is being segued by activists interfacing through www.Libertarian-Institute.Info  to gently continue pressure as changes are made. The initiative began in 2010 as an effort to end the excuse for war and set core conditions for voluntary systems by moving the last 40 countries towards democratic process, and continuing with efforts to on dialogue to bring direct democracy, dialogue on marlets and tolerance, and initiate Liberal-Libertarian civic groups in all counties.Help was greatly due to co-ordination with local unions and professional societies, say activists--as well as tools circulated to help e-activism and 'street networking'  with many civic and open society groups which provided workshops. China and Russia were not included in the effort as they're treated by LIO facilitators as emerging democracies where think tanks and other efforts are well at work as in manmy countries where LIO Friends help drive initiatives such as:

In the US and other advanced countries, predictably, many extreme conservatives and leftists some purporting to be 'libertarians' have written articles or made statements that direct democracy cannot be used to support rights, that democracy is the enemy of freedom, that unions need to be regulated by the government, and other confusions based on gimmicked defintions--along with ritual declarations of libertarian lack of progress, or Liberal/progressive evil. The peaceful organizing has been marred in some countries by big-power military intervention, but effortts remain focused and long-term.

Activists say they will focus on secular legalization ( e.g. ending official religions) and promoting market and user-designed communty tools along with tolerance initiatives.



Posted on June 26, 2012 at 8:45 AM

LIO  Friends and fans are interested citizens or dedicated comunity leaders and activists who start or share autonomous projects such as here where Libs and others woirk on border issues in Central Asia ...encouraged by groups such as the Tajikistan Free Market Center .

These are part  of wider citizen-driven efforts to bring freer immigration, trade, and peaceful co-operation.  Many such activists work through-- or using free tools-- of the Atlas Network, created at  meetings funded and hosted by then co-ordinator Goodwill Ambassador Hon. Lillian de Lemos of the Dominican Republic and facilitated by then co-ordinator in training Michael Gilson-De Lemos (MG). We invite you to participate free and share your secular good work including personal SMILE projects.

LIO fans in our d-bases number over 1 million as we approach Libertarian Day July 17th, distributed in every country with large concentrations in the US, China, and Europe. Though LIO takes in no money with volunteers applying their autonomous effort and is completely non-partisan and private--it is now the largest rights, voluntary reforms and scientific progress encouragement network in history. According to Facebook, advisory groups such as the LIO Friends alone make shares ‘go viral’ to 20% of users, with a reach potential over 2 million. Some 600 Fellows advance intriguing or seminal ideas on SMILE lines…from plans to privately eco-colonize Mars…to time-travel debates…to calls for universal free youth education in violence mediation, statistics and logic. This expansion of the old Liberal-Libertarian Leagues from a few freethinker leaders, republican champions, and sympathetic officials has new needs.

LIO is re-configuring this and specialty sites as follows (please check above and at sidebars for current links):

1. This site is being gradually moved to main focus on Fellow’s SMILE work and LIO reviews, with an eventual Fellow’s e-journal. New sites are being made for Group and the burgeoning LIO Friends with a ‘wins’ blog showcasing beneficial work in every country by Libertarian users and general LIO fans . Our co-editor SMILE blog at www.TheLibertarian.Info  to supplement the Twitter has been well-received averaging 100 new people and 30 views an hour as we enter tips of the day…plus the information of the first generation of civic libertarians that was, as Dr. Swanson put it, ‘in our heads’ so the once small and intimate but now world users can take advantage and correct misperceptions. Much of this information correct misperceptions promoted by Wikipedia and scholars who have never consulted us—such as mis-definitions of mini-archism, general ignorance of ‘Lib history’ and needed links to goals and other statements or edgy SMILE efforts. The curator has started a Facebook site to share his occasional highlights of ‘where we’ll be’ and Tiger Team (lead activist) shares sent to him, and where you can share your links on futurist and other topics.Also, a section to disseminate via web LIO-specific 'memes' suggested by the curator is under study.

2. The support sites and co-related blogs and e-groups for the support areas of the Libertarian Citizen Community project are being slowly fashioned for official launch. Beginning late 2013 we expect some 100 local communities to advance both SMILE sharing and eventual LIO model eco-communities and in time, model towns or neighborhoods while encouraging more aware Lib-based community from condos up. These support projects, while curated for purposes of continuity by the Gilson household are functionally autonomous from LIO and the communities. Communities will help network community leaders and welcome all LIO-interest projects from  and  discussion groups to common ground initiatives of a co-op and eco-interest nature to local science and autonomy citizen groups. In addition, as we now have functional contact groups in every country, we’re consulting on where they would prefer to have a permanent platform of a portal nature. Our aim is for these to become features of the local landscape uniting many of the most intelligent and community aware, and serve as networks and hosts of designed communities as not only conservators of local needs but incubators of beneficial change through dialogue, and enjoyable shared activities in a non-attack, ‘we’re Switzerland’ atmosphere beyond parties.

3. We are consulting to reconfigure our ‘movement portal’ to better reflect Fellow’s projects by 2015. We will continue to add links to LIO/SMILE general alert e-groups. Depending on who is social networking ‘top dog’ we’re considering a general fan group in one or several social networks beyond our Twitter one. Several fans have started exemplary projects which we may highlight due to their ongoing nature in spreading ideas.

Our volunteers suggest changes to make the sites not necessarily pretty but reflective of stated activist needs and usability. We’re very grateful for the positive feedback and kudos, and honored to be as one stated ‘The de facto world Salon, cheering section and workshop for a better voluntary world’ thanks to their ideas, successes, and shared efforts. Finally, we’ve become aware that with growth the Libertarian Standards sheet has ceased to circulate, and as curator we’ve been consulting on language for an inter-networked world and will re-issue them to end confusion by 2016.

As we help each country reaches saturation college (we estimate 25% ) education with improved and free citizen sharing of information levels, we’re seeing a new world where SMILE concepts are an essential tool to initiate dialogue and research. When in doubt, remember our team motto: With dialogue on voluntary alternatives, things improve.


Gilson Reform Re-Issue, Libertarian Institute Dawns

Posted on May 30, 2012 at 9:20 PM

  Dr. Margeret Tse, Libertarian Institute welcome host encourages you to look into tools such as more open and free groups, public entities and markets.  LI will advise you on setting up your local mini-think tank or legal project, or just use the suggested models at its blog.

Current civic Libertarianism dialogue as facilitated by many using LIO has 2 levels:

  1. General Libertarian-oriented/Liberal ( more participative and market-friendly secular democracy improvement as championed by Dr. Hospers), and in them
  2. Libertarian-directional projects aiming at more open and voluntary-friendly societies (such as indicated in the book 'Voluntary City' by Beito to the many studies by Dr. Rothbard). These basically see Libertarians as highly focused advocates of justice and liberty through voluntary and more open, participative or local means; and
  3. The more 'strict ' efforts to legalize both LIO model eco-community approved by the curator around SMILE themes, and user-defined Lib-based communties inspired by the effort or using condign tools. These see Libertarians as embryo pledged rights-upholding freeholders of forthcoming Libertarian communities and cities based entirely on model voluntary structures within the first.

All in the last generation have been driven by a limited circulation paper that collates UN Rights to voluntary initiatives: 'You Have A Right' developed as a young man by the current curator, Michael Gilson-De Lemos (MG),  and circulated to eminent civic, libertarian-interested and other leaders over the years and of course key LIO Fellows, along with various rights projects to reform key problems in statutes and moral-managerial approach known as the 'Gilson Reform', summarized by the 4 D's at the sidebar of Democracy, Decriminalization/de-coercion, Devolution and Development worldwide in civil/civic socity interfaces.

 Under a 30-year agreement, it was the basis of the model Lib-direction USLP platform and an effort to organize materials as shown here: for international starter use.


Some years ago we ( with MG as leader and curator, Dr. Hospers, Dr. Friedman, David Nolan, and myself so it will operate as our personal arm, in other words the modern civic movement founders) began forming a Libertarian Institute to carry out and maintain both the reform and general Lib activity on the main lines of legal and policy change driven by the citizen via e.g. direct democracy, petitions, and judicial action. It is a project to also set and publicize Libertarian group standards and open management in general. MG will be issuing  appropriate legal information and model community standards on LIO themes and so publicing the re-worked 'You Have A Right' and support documents on e.g. a model Libertarian law code based on voluntary community in future years.

To that end we're Beta-testing the LI blog for launch with other projects this Summer for the long-awaited sister Libertarian Institute. In past years we have quietly developed autonomous groups to petition and interact as citizens on the trhemes in many countries and now they're taking off on their own. The e-platform helps inform and network call- contact teams, reports Lib legislative/law wins (there's one daily now somewhere), and analysis direct from MG or interested LIO Fellows to encourage the jurists of tomorrow and e.g. DDIR efforts among others. As such we're already seeing the teams and interested LI fans and publicized groups becoming the main factor for Libertarian legal change worldwide.

Mr. Nolan noted that NO Lib-interest entity as of 2010 (and of now) upholds the Lib-direction and under-issue lines of the strict Libertarian reform--except the emrging LI. All promote a type 1 or 2 phase that in effect assumes a world without Libertarians or Libertarian legal knowledge to inform action: Rothbard's competing governments, CATO limitted government proposals, the emphasis on small government or anarchism, and so forth.This is by design, and the LI alone will speak with the joint authority of movement founders and activist continuity in promoting voluntary groups and communities through legalization on all levels as an interlocking whole.

LI will help certify both strict Libertarian groups and more to its ends and with a self-rating system for the Lib-based as well on the 3 levels, developed by the movement co-founders and already used by many activists. People are already using the law rating system to assess the rights inpacts of laws from A to F and so better direct dialogue and self-organize effort..


The Libertarian Institute blog is linked above and at:  I emphasize that as part of the project to build model LIO  and SMILE-interested community to each major conurbation,  things stated here reference the curator's concerns and not necessarily those of LIO Fellows or any other LIO encouraged project. LIO encourages dialogue towards voluntary tools and not any party or statute per se.

The blog reports the now daily wins happening worldwide as the Gilson Reform spreads...Start your day with encouraging news, or consider starting an independent call team to push local change at this unique and useful Law, Rights & Lib Policy Reporter with News on Rights Work Worldwide.

--R.Swanson, past LIO Advisory Chair, charter founder USLP

To Help Youth Attend China Libertarian-Liberal Conference

Posted on May 30, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Libertarian-Liberal youth as these working for ballot access in Latin America need your help to attend informative conferences that will prevent the wars of the future.

Our friends at and  invite you to attend another path-breaking and enh joyable conference--this time in Mainland China, with more being discussed for other regions such as Latin America--and/or consider sponsoring a young person or student to attend for a low cost. They report:

You have a unique opportunity this summer to meet members of the growing free-market movement in China as well as other fascinating libertarians from around the world, and also enjoy the opportunity to explore this ancient and exotic country with our post-conference tour options. ISIL is co-sponsoring the Austrian Economics Summit/ISIL Asia Regional Conference, and you are invited to participate in this exciting, historic event!

Along with the fall of the Soviet Union, the world’s most momentous story of the last 30 years has been the rise of China from communist basketcase to a largely free-market economic powerhouse, yet still under the rule of the Communist Party. The situation is highly complex.

Li Zhao Schoolland, a native of mainland China, informs us that there is a considerable free-market intellectual network in China. Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty has been a best-seller. Many other translated works on liberty are widely available.

The past two years, Li has organized highly-successful student Austrian Economics Summer Seminars at Northeastern University in Shenyang, and will do a third one in July, 2012. ISIL has provided financial support to these student seminars.

Li is also organizing this Austrian Economics Summit/ISIL Regional Conference in Shanghai at the Huaquio/Kunshan Hilton/Double Tree Hotel, running from evening July 20th through the 22nd, with checkout on the 23rd , plus post-conference tour options.

ISIL is co-sponsoring the conference as an Asian regional event, and is encouraging international libertarians to attend, and to explore this fascinating country.

The goal of the 2012 Shanghai conference is to expound on free-market ideas to a Chinese audience and to learn what free-market economists are doing in China. There will be three groups in attendance:

1) international attendees who are interested in both free markets and China;

2) Chinese academic and research economists who are interested in free-market ideas; and

3) University students who want to learn about free-market principles that are not taught in China.

This symposium is not affiliated with any government institutions in China. ... Li just returned from a two-week planning trip to Shanghai where she met with many of the libertarian activists and academics. The Chinese label this summer symposium "a private intellectual dialogue, aiming to help China to grow."

Help Students to Benefit from the ISIL Conference

ISIL has sponsored hundreds of students, mainly from the ex-communist countries, to the recent conferences. The students, who could otherwise not hope to afford the conference, have benefited greatly from the speakers and by meeting international libertarians. Many have gone home full of ideas and inspiration and have formed organizations and publishing projects, or become teachers and organizers of the Liberty English Camps for youth education that have also been supported by ISIL.

Our goal for Shanghai is 50 students. More if we can afford more. We expect to bring them this year primarily from other Asian countries. The students are responsible for their own travel, and must pay at least a token registration. No such thing as a free lunch!

Each scholarship will cost $800. We seek to raise $40,000 to bring in all these young people.

This is a great investment in the future growth of the global liberty movement. Please go to the ISIL Donation page to contribute to the ISIL Conference Scholarship Fund. Any amount appreciated! (These contributions to ISIL are tax-deductible in the USA).

LIO Libertarian 3 C's Slowly Ending Evil of Regulation

Posted on May 16, 2012 at 3:15 AM

Growing Brazilian ( ) and Argentine Liberal-Libertarians ) meet at conference to discuss among other topics  how government regulation begins when they coercively regulate new parties and  suppress rights movements, vowing to soon have the 'last election without a liberal-libertarian candidate' in what by 2012 is a spectacular public information and petition campaign in the region.

While academics claim that government coercive policing and regulation is needed to suppress wild free enterprise, even police are turning to private groups to compare and better methods and crush internal abuses.

LIO Libertarians and fans say they’re having concrete successes spreading the Gilson libertarian model of ‘open accountable voluntary certification, not backroom coercive regulation’ also extended by Libertarian thinkers such as Dr. Mary Ruwart, USLP education director and author of the enlightening ‘Healing Our World’ free at Libertarian Book Club at  . LIO curator and past co-ordinator Michael Gilson (“MG”;) was a regulatory and management systems consultant for many years, travelling to many countries to spread his ideas and libertarian tools of voluntary dialogue and action in general with senior officials, union, and business leaders; and promoting the now common concept of ‘best practices’ and continual improvement.

This has been summarized by MG as the Libertarian 3 C’s helping dialogue on voluntary options:

1. Clarity of Label: Many statutes actually prohibit useful info that follow from common law user inspection

2. Co-op Certification: Not one monopoly coercive agency but many transparent on-task groups

3. Comprehensive Re-insurance: Insurers themselves insured performing autonomous third part inspection

Even as this model has been spreading, many Libertarians are focused first on the prime regulator of the political process—coercive rules on independent political parties—as e.g. a grinding long-term battle in the US, and in Argentina a massive campaign for “the last election without liberals and libertarians.”

Since 1971 LIO has sponsored informationals culminating in a massive meetings in the mid-80’s of management consultants to spread private certification such as by the  which brings many groups together to develop open and self-correcting basic and best practice standards that now the agencies themselves have begun to use, or e.g.  (a private group that sets standards for police),  working on independent product safety testing (that also helps people target regulations that mandate unsafe practices to accommodate inattentive or corrupt regulators and criminal corporations out to preference by statute their shoddy products) ; participative approaches open to the consumer; legalization and spread of both mass and specialty consumer organizations or services to rate services such as Angie’s list at  or the growth of consumer comment sections such as at  to rate vendors, increasing popularity of factory, service restaurants, and other facility consumer tours so users can see what is going on.

Essential has been the push for increased citizen regulation and user participation in public programs. When we began most countries hid their laws, punished people for making suggestions, and favored state monopolies. Even in the US statutes are passed that prohibit evaluation by success outcomes, and many academics still deride the Libertarian push to challenge services and get basic consumer information. Included have been the Libertarian push for e.g citizen academies ( e.g.  ;) to better citizen understanding and bring clear definitions of process; initiatives to oblige local governments to clarify operations and involve citizens; legalize private options from roads to cell phones to home schools, use the internet to post standards, statutes, success data, and suggestion links; or meet with regulators on ways to promote accountability; and worldwide efforts to promote transparency, sunshine and sunset laws, whistleblower protection, and simple tax information transparency such as the worldwide taxpayer union efforts (  ;).

Many people do not realize that regulation, originally conceived as a convenience to determine current standards and minimal safe practice for courts, have in many instances blossomed into agencies that promote and imposed fascist model of enterprise management, typically reduce common-law safety to accommodate political donors, and boast of good deeds that are actually the result of industrial progress. Many companies have adopted two systems of regulation—one to satisfy behind-the times regulators, and one to advance actual best practice. In addition, unlike the libertarian certification model, regulations despite growth of public comment opportunities are typically uninsured, unaccountable and often hide regimes of bribery and corruption. In some cases, as in the US until Libertarians led a campaign, consumers could be arrested for comparative pricing in stores: many industries such as medicine keep costs hidden from users with predictable mismanagement and waste by statute or policy while regulators and academics prattle about the ills of lack of market data they help create. LIO Libertarians have helped you champion work to:

1. Re-open home standards and use, and regulatory transparency/user friendliness

2. Remove legal blocks to open, re-insured certifications and open or private voluntary options

3. Re-structure for more informative voluntary labels with interlocking inspection and certification by unions-consumer, industry, insurers, etc. vs. when used clear ‘buyer beware’ situations not concealed by statutes.

Libertarian approaches are seeping into the culture. Many communities have gotten rid of complex licenses and permits-- that enriched officials or merely extended bureaucracies-- for private certification, spot or periodic checks by maintenance companies reported to agencies at no taxpayer cost, or nothing at all where certification was evident.

1. Government agencies themselves are adopting private certification and open review by users

2. Companies are adopting SPC, ‘six sigma’ and beyond processes and meeting on best practice sharing

3. The spreading culture of transparency is routing corruption while legalizing co-ops, consumer groups, etc.

Much remains to be done. LIO urges teams forming to use such tools to help:

  • Identify areas of betterment and potential best practices elsewhere,
  • Meet with officials and coalition groups, and
  • Help inform the public to promote dialogue.


o Check the links above

o Websearch ‘best practice’ and seek open information as to price, quality, etc.

o Research how other groups, governments or industry members solve the problem

Libertarian Re-Privatization Spreads, Now In All Countries

Posted on May 16, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Re-privatization, first popularized by LIO Fellow Philosopher, Legalist, and ManagementConsultant Peter Drucker is in all nations including N.Korea, but some confusion exists on the term.

Some 4 decades after introduction by LIO thinkers, the use of re-privatization of public services is now confirmed by LIO in every country in some form, with new actions announced daily, e.g. a recent push by Uzbeklistan to privatize some 500 agencies.

First popularized in Peter Drucker's Age of Discontinuity in 1969,  LIO curator Michael Gilson outlined a complete program after consultation with him for all areas tied to UN Rights about that time that influenced Libertarian-direction platforms, and soon many groups were working to spread the concept. (As a consultant Gilson was also involved in many pioneering re-privatizations from Zoos to school systems). There is some confusion as the concept spreads, and LIO uses 3 stages to migrate from complete coercive control by government entities, usually in the form of state monopolies or favored oligopolies:

  1. Private provider use. Caution must be exercised lest this devolve into fascism or crony capiatalism. Home and small group self-provider options are key.
  2. Legalization of optional providers with right of refusal.
  3. Public entities that are non-taxa/non-monopoly based called community entities.

In no sense is the necessary sell-off of public assets to private entities part of the approach, though it may be indicated. In general transfer to autonomous and user-friendly trusts of public government entities is preferred; improper government and public assets should not be conflateded. Libertarian privatizatiuons must be conducive to rights: to use a popular example among Libertarians, purported slavery privatizatuiion would be of doubtful value. In addition, Libertarians encourage an array of voluntary entities with preference to volunteer providers and co-ops.

According to the LIO curator, "The model is to move from censorship with one public library towards  free speech with many private bookstores and a true public library maintained e.g. by an endowment, not coerced taxes.Keep that in mind and you won't get confused by programs touted as privatization that are really shifting control to political cronies." For this reason, many Libertarians use 're-privatization' to indicate focus on legalizing private and private-public options with right of refusal, not necessarily selling programs to corporations. The term 'personalization' to indicate more consumer and personal options was introduced by consultants working with LIO in 1985.

Consultants involved say that typically Libertarian-direction privatizations initially lower costs, increase quality/choice, and better other desirables as safety by a factor of 10. In many cases, such as the interenet and PC's, government takeovers were discontinued or prevented after laws that blocked development were removed or modified--such as prohibitions on having computers connect to phone lines.


Regular reports on privatization progress are maintained at and experts say that there is no public program that has not, somewhere, been re-reprivatized on a voluntary or more choice-friendly basis. Unusual or instructive examples are also tracked at the co-editor blog at www.TheLibertarian.Info See:  (We suggest you read from the bottom).


Posted on April 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Death Penalty: Blue and yellow mean abolished or only special circumstances; light brown is not in use, brown is judicial murder still legal. As the death penalty-which kills inmates often abused children, rights workers,  or those with clear mental problems in cold blood-- is abolished, murder goes down  assisted by  a less coercive atmosphere and focus on prevention and environment.

A review shows that since 1969 the LIO effort to promote dialogue towards more focus on rights not wrongs, prevention not punishment, anti-death penalty and increasingly anti-punishment has spread worldwide:

1. Authoritarian countries have moved to democracy and abolition of the death penalty and life in prison…

2. Many countries are at least in theory moving to containment, rehabilitation, and preventative models…

3. The US, despite a commitment to rehabilitation, by promoting the drug war and other morally repugnant lifestyle interferences has developed a shockingly large prison population while yet reducing many factors. In states such as Arizona, cynical crony capitalists and prison labor unions have used pretended privatization or passing a barrage of petty prohibitions including anti-immigrant statutes in hopes of filling up their prisons—and emptying apartments that rented to immigrants, contributing to defaults and hence the economic crisis.

LIO has sponsored workshops and colloquia since 1971; and especially encourages prison abolition and limited rehabilitative sentences discussion with attention to environmental factors: Minimizing unwanted births in at-risk families, lead and other environmental contamination affecting behavior, recognition that so-called criminal behavior is a mental dysfunction from a variety of factors from stress to genetic problems; and spread of versions of the pledge to diminish e.g. bullying and violence towards children that start a cycle of coercion, including the punitive practices and disrespect to children and women in some religious environments. In addition, a general atmosphere of cultural tolerance, educational correction of religious violence, and focus on officialized violence in prisons is making headway. Above all LIO encourages dialogue towards a proactive and citizen-driven voluntary atmosphere of successive Pareto-type 20/80 problem identification and reduction, not out-of-context reactions in a self-fulfilling punitive atmosphere.

Some countries--such as the Netherlands which have embraced elements of the approach--are now finding their correctional facilities are becoming vacant as violent and other offenses diminish—even renting inmate space to less advanced countries. Libertarian legal approaches alert courts to ban child executions in the US and elsewhere.

Many at LIO Friends are involved in sharing support, info and their work in spreading interest in tools such as volunteer community patrols and at-risk youth mentors, prison and prison violence abolition, sentence reduction, harm reduction policies, decriminalization, domestic and spanking violence reduction, LGBT rights, and other activities. Projects range from stopping police violence towards homeless in the USA, prison privatization, to essentially co-op/intern-run rehab in Belize that is slashing recidivism, to anti-domestic violence workshops in Pakistan, to weekly information on improper sentences in Iran.

These are often shared or highlighted at the LIO Friends Facebook ( ). LIO invites you to share your work and get inspired by the positive voluntary atmosphere with concrete how-to models and tips.

10 Powerful Libertarian Citizen Tools Bring Safer Community

Posted on April 27, 2012 at 1:10 PM


LIO Libertarians are encouraging expanded use of once controversial and now increasingly standard “anarcho-capitalist’ or user-driven more non-coercive/user-run tools that have been key in dramatically cutting offenses, targeting corruption and reducing conflict--but are concerned governments are attempting to co-op the methods that provide an option to centralized and unaccountable systems.(Above: Volunteer neighborhood watches, the Hand program, citizen arbitrators, , simplified crowdsourcing crime-stopper alerts, peer standards for police, rehabilitative-restorative ;prison;' system in Belize)

First proposed in LIO workshops starting in the 70's, the tools are spreading worldwide driven by citizens increasingly realizing justice is a consumer good best provided without officious monopolies, or simply seeking responsive, participative, and accountable options that they can choose.(Most libertarian economists reject public-good or similar economic justificaytions for restrictions as logically incoherent and self-serving; the issue is becoming moot as volunteer groups confound so-called classical economics with libertarian comprehensive solutions focused on low-cost and wide coverage for all). They address the 'cycle of conflict' from beginning to end by emphasizing prevention, pro-action, non-punition and citizen choice--coupled with focus on increasingly non-punitive handling actual harms, not lifestyle regulation. They include in input-output order:

1. Proactive Anti-bullying and anti-hitting campaigns to short-circuit coercive habits in youth derived from the Libertarian non-coercion and rights-respect pledge

2. An anti drug and other prohibition police movement to end use of the bad example of prohibition rackets

3. Citizen involvement such as volunteer unarmed neighborhood watches and stopper's programs; in due course a return to unarmed private and community-based policing

4. Citizens targeting actual harms for action with public safety providers ("broken windows") in conjunction with mentoring programs

5. Non-punitive dispute resolution run by neighbor mediator volunteers

6. Legalization of citizen law education and simplified contracts for most activities free or at low cost. Development of rapid attorney mediators and small-claims courts; including via legalization of attorney advertisements and comparison data by citizens

7. Private certification to assure police standards by peers from other departments ( ) –most police departments still cannot meet the basic standards. This contrasts with coerced official certification/regulation that often disguises statutes to drive options out and entrench corrupt monopolies or bureaucracies, say Lib economists

8. Legalization of low-cost or free police specials, private security, citizen patrols, and user-directed community policing

9. A growing citizen worldwide judge and Copwatch movement to both target misbehavior and address opportunities for betterment

10. Restorative justice approaches focused on short sentences, compensation and rehab, and eventual prison abolition--and not clogging the system with the insane, charge-stacking victims, lifestyle or passion offenses, etc. often more amenable to social worker intervention; als: often rates are jimmied by officials to justify expenditure increases not target problem reduction.Cross-comparison by citizen groups across borders and demand for open and measurable data by offici

LIO activists warn against misuse of the tools to e.g. increase sentences, create a witch-hunt atmosphere, or bogus programs meant to divert attention from official misdeeds or push religious, bigoted or commercial agendas. A good f irst step is to determine what offense rights actually are and develop common ground action items with local groups.

TOOL: Meet with local neighbors and officials to discuss how options can be brought in and kept in user control.

Libertarian Anti-Draft Movement Increasingly Victorious

Posted on April 26, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Countries in Red still enforce the practice of enslavement by conscription. Those in blue or orange do not or only in emergencies, or are moving towards abolition.

LIO Libertarians are pleased at the advances in rolling back coerced conscription to militaries or to so-called 'national service,' a project spearheaded by LIO Fellow Nobelist Milton Friedman--and are spreading the word to continue the process that began in the 1970's.

Dr. Friedman headed a commission that greatly reduced the 'draft' in the US, and met with many leaders and local groups to encourage the best practice that has moved the world from near-universal drafts to their abolition or decline in many countries.

LIO encourages dialogue to end all forms of forced service, which many Libertarians feel creates an atmosphere of official bad example in the need to respect rights, in all nations.


RESOURCES: Present status

Conscription by country — Examples Country Land area (km2)[49] GDP nominal (US$M)[50] Per capita

GDP (US$)[51] Population[52] Government[53] Conscription[54]

China, People's Republic of 9,326,410 $5,745,000 $2,459.43 1,336,718,015 Communist State No, Legal under Constitution but has not yet been practiced in history

India 2,973,190 $1,099,000 $972.68 1,147,995,904 federal republic No

United States 9,161,923 $14,620,000 $45,958.70 313,232,044 federal republic No[106] Draft abolished in 1975 by President Gerald Ford; however Males between 18-25 need to register with the U.S. Selective Service System.

Indonesia 1,826,440 $695,100 $1,844.53 245,613,043 republic sources differ

Yes, selective conscription (FWCC[69])


Brazil 8,456,510 $2,024,000 $6,915.40 203,429,773 Federal Republic Yes

Pakistan 778,720 $174,800 $872.88 187,342,721 federal republic No

Bangladesh 133,910 $100,100 $481.36 158,570,535 Parliamentary Democracy No

Russia 16,995,800 $1,290,000 $9,124.49 140,702,096 federation Yes (Alternative service available[citation needed])

Japan 374,744 $5,391,000 $34,402.26 126,475,664 constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government No

Mexico 1,923,040 $1,004,000 $8,218.88 113,724,226 federal republic Yes

Philippines 298,170 $188,700 $1,582.17 101,833,938 republic Yes. Legal.[94] Practiced selectively and only rarely.[95] However, military training (known as Citizenship Advancement Training or CAT, formerly known as Citizen's Army Training) is required as a prerequisite for graduation from high school. CAT is considered a subject in high school that lasts up to 2 hours per week.

Egypt 995,450 $127,900 $1,592.08 81,713,520 republic Yes

Germany 349,223 $3,306,000 $40,315.05 81,471,834 federal parliamentary republic No (suspended for peacetime by federal legislature effective from 1 July 2011[78])

Turkey 770,760 $729,100 $9,322.83 78,785,548 republican parliamentary democracy Yes

Iran 1,636,000 $337,900 $4,497.11 77,891,220 theocratic republic Yes

Thailand 511,770 $312,600 $3,776.0 66,720,153 constitutional monarchy Yes

France 640,053[76] $2,555,000 $35,240.62 65,102,719 republic No (suspended in 2001[77])

United Kingdom 241,590 $2,259,000 $45,626.38 62,698,362 constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm No (except Bermuda Regiment[105])

Burma 657,740 $35,650 $285.60 53,999,804 Military Junta sources differ

Yes but not enforced as of January 2011[update].[64][65][66][67][68]

No (FWCC[69])

South Africa 1,219,912 $354,400 $6,423.04 49,004,031 republic No (ended in 1994, formalized in 2002)[99]

Korea, South 98,190 $986,300 $19,514.81 48,754,657 republic Yes

Spain 499,542 $1,375,000 $35,576.37 46,754,784 parliamentary monarchy No (abolished by law on December 31, 2001[100])

Argentina 2,736,690 $351,000 $8,662.99[56] 41,769,726 Republic No. Voluntary; conscription may be ordered for specified reasons; per Public Law No.24.429 promulgated on 5 January 1995.

Poland 304,459 $470,000 $10,911.71 38,441,588 republic No[96]

Algeria 2,381,740 $159,000 $3,948.01 34,994,937 Republic Yes

Canada 9,093,507 $1,564,000 $42,886.91 34,030,589 constitutional monarchy that is also a parliamentary democracy and a federation No

Nepal 143,181 $15,110 $333.09 29,391,883 democratic republic No

Malaysia 328,550 $219,000 $7,513.71 28,728,607 constitutional monarchy No

Venezuela 882,050 $285,200 $9,084.09 27,635,743 federal republic Yes[107][108]

Saudi Arabia 2,149,690 $434,400 $13,622.68 26,131,703 monarchy No

Korea, North 120,538[84] $28,000[84] $1,800.00[84] 24,457,492[84] Communist state one-man dictatorship[84] Yes[84][85]

Taiwan (Republic of China)[102] 32,260 $427,000 $16,768.11 23,071,779 multiparty democracy Yes (alternative service available[103])

An all-volunteer force is planned by the end of 2014, but conscription will remain in practice thereafter.[104]


Romania 230,340 $158,400 $7,451.95 21,904,551 republic No (ended in 2007[97])

Australia 7,617,930 $1,220,000 $44,474.51 21,766,711 Federal Parliamentary Democracy No (abolished by parliament in 1972[57])

Syria 184,050 $59,630 $1,954.98 19,747,586 republic under an authoritarian military-dominated regime Yes

Chile 748,800 $199,200 $10,058.50 16,888,760 republic Yes

Netherlands 33,883 $770,300 $46,389.35 16,847,007 constitutional monarchy No. Legal, suspended since 1997 (except for Curaçao and Aruba[citation needed]).[93]

See also: Conscription in the Netherlands

Ecuador 276,840 $56,500 $3,211.76 15,007,343 republic Yes

Angola 1,246,700 $85,810 $5,003.43 13,338,541 Republic; Multiparty Presidential Regime Yes

Cuba 110,860 $57,490 $4,000.34 11,087,330ã Communist state Yes

Greece 130,800 $302,000 $29,384.60 10,760,136 parliamentary republic Yes

Belgium 30,278 $461,300 $43,648.01 10,431,477 Federal Parliamentary Democracy under Constitutional Monarchy Conscription was abolished as of 1 January 1994 under the so-called Delacroix Bill of 6 July 1993[59])

Suspended (conscription suspended as of 1 January 1994)[citation needed]

Rwanda 24,948 $5,693 $335.10 10,186,063 republic; presidential No

Bolivia 1,084,390 $19,180 $1,446.41 10,118,683 Republic Yes (when annual number of volunteers falls short of goal[61])

Hungary 92,340 $132,300 $13,901.01 9,976,062 parliamentary democracy No (Peacetime conscription abolished in 2004[79])

Austria 82,444 $366,300 $45,598.77 8,217,280 Federal Republic Yes (Alternative service available)[58]

Switzerland 39,770 $522,400 $56,111.06 7,639,961 a confederation only in name, legally and structurally a federal republic Yes (Alternative service available[101])

Israel 20,330 $201,300 $25,191.86 7,473,052 parliamentary democracy Yes

Bulgaria 110,550 $44,840 $5,409.09 7,093,635 Parliamentary Democracy No (abolished by law on January 1, 2008[63])

Libya 1,759,540 $77,910 $9,451.85 6,597,960 Caretaker government as of October 2011[update][89] Yes

Jordan 91,971 $27,130 $2,644.89 6,508,271 constitutional monarchy Yes. The government decided in 2007 to reintroduce conscription, which had been suspended in 1999.[83]


El Salvador 20,720 $21,800 $2,931.75 6,071,774 republic No. Legal, not practiced.

Denmark 42,394 $311,900 $57,039.71 5,529,888 constitutional monarchy Yes (Alternative service available[72][73][75])

Finland 304,473 $238,000 $46,769.47 5,259,250 republic Yes (Alternative service available)

Singapore 682.7 $233,900 $35,427.12 4,740,737 parliamentary republic Yes

Norway 307,442 $413,500 $84,595 4,691,849 constitutional monarchy Yes

Bosnia and Herzegovina 51,197 $16,320 $3,246.78 4,622,163 Emerging Federal Democratic Republic No (Abolished on January 1, 2006.[62])

Croatia 56,414 $59,920 $11,430.32 4,483,804 presidential/parliamentary democracy No (abolished by law in 2008[70])

Moldova 33,371 $5,357 $978.36 4,314,377 republic Yes

New Zealand 268,021 $138,000 $31,124.18 4,290,347 parliamentary democracy No, Conscription Abolished in December 1972.

Lebanon 10,230 $39,150 $6,276.90 4,143,101 Sources differ[88] No (abolished in 2007)[87])

Lithuania 65,300[90] $35,730 $10,725.96 3,535,547 parliamentary democracy No (Suspended on September 15, 2008[91])

Albania 27,398 $11,800 $2,949.57 2,994,667 Parliamentary Democracy No (abolished in 2010[55])

Jamaica 10,831 $13,740 $4,032.18 2,868,380 constitutional parliamentary democracy No

Kuwait 17,820 $117,300 $44,421.22 2,595,628 constitutional emirate Yes

Macedonia, Republic of 24,856 $9,170 $3,646.55 2,077,328 parliamentary democracy No (abolished in 2006)[92]

Slovenia 20,151 $46,440 $22,933.99 2,000,092 parliamentary republic No[98]

Gambia, The 10,000 $1,040 $386.77 1,797,860 republic No

Swaziland 17,203 $3,165 $2,591.20 1,370,424 monarchy No

Trinidad and Tobago 5,128 $21,200 $19,590.99 1,227,505 parliamentary democracy No

Cyprus 9,240 $22,750 $27,014.79 1,120,489 republic[71] Yes (Alternative service available[72][73][74])

Qatar 11,437 $126,500 $74,688.97 848,016 emirate No

Djibouti 22,980 $1,139 $1,694.29 757,074 republic No

Bhutan 47,000 $1,397 $561.89 708,427 Constitutional Monarchy No[60]

Luxembourg 2,586 $52,430 $104,451.69 503,302 constitutional monarchy No

Malta 316 $7,801 $18,460.73 408,333 republic No

Maldives 300 $1,433 $2,842.58 394,999 republic No

Belize 22,806 $1,431 $4,327.67 321,115 Parliamentary Democracy No. Military service is voluntary.

Bahamas 10,070 $7,538 $21,547.17 313,312 Constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentary system of government No

Vanuatu 12,200 $721 $2,146.52 224,564 parliamentary republic No

Grenada 344 $645 $6,557.67 108,419 parliamentary democracy No (no military service)

Tonga 718 $301 $1,873.06 105,916 constitutional monarchy No

Seychelles 455 $919 $10,621.21 89,188 republic Yes

Aslam Effendi Remembered as Afghan, Pakistani Libs Help Target Crime, Conflict Reduction, & Corruption

Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Activists are standing room only at workshop with LIO Friends in Afghanistan on tools for rights by the AELSO which sponsors legal and market studies.

Afghan libertarians and democracy activists, galvanized by LIO Fellow Aslam Effendi, restored basic democracy by reviving the loya jurga or traditional national assembly of household and clan representatives and elders in defiance of the US planners who called the country 'unready' despite 'democracy creation' propaganda, said critics.

LIO Friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan are focused on basic open democracy; spreading ideas on market choices and tools so citizens can combat terrorism, crime and corruption through education and community self-help; and developing networks of leaders to encourage dialogue--and working wonders despite skepticism.

Key projects are centered around initiatives such as Afghanistan's AELSO group, which is doing yeoman work in helping make laws, historical stuidies and basic tools available, and the Alternate Solutions group in Pakistan, which is also developing interest in more advanced voluntary approaches.

As these groups have held recent well-attended events, world Libertarians are recalling a catalyzing figure: LIO Fellow Aslam Effendi.

Called the Gandhi of that region, the advocate of voluntary and conscious solutions and alternatives wrote best-sellers, poetry quoted through both countries and worked tirelessly on the ground to spread tools for organization. The US invasion unfortunately derailed efforts to oust religious extremists, he felt., but people are continuing the long term work. His work was highly influential in his studies of non-governmental (in the comon sense ) customary legal systems.

When the US proposed that Afghanistans were not ready for democracy despite claims it was sending in troops to 'build freedom,' Effendi began a campaign that resulted in use of a traditional assembly or jurga which set forth a pathway to change everyone could support. Effendi pointed out that change is often 3 steps forwards and 2 backwards, and as education spread people would perfect the system from below and local communities, or federalism. Effendi advocated a non-punitive legal system and pointed to many local tribes that successfully used such methods by focusing on mentoring and prevention.

An effort by LIO Observer Benazir Bhutto was temporarily halted with her assasination, but her party continues democracy efforts (LIO supports no parties per se but maintains connections with many interested leaders)...but the efforts of any party or group are deeply dependent on the work of educational and research groups so citizens can take better direct action.

Those interested in bringing young leaders to Libertarian non-partisan conferences should contact which has a program for the purpose and e.g. profiled the ASI good work:  


OPERATION DIGNITY: As Libertarian Tools Help Crime, Poverty Plummet, Some Experts Claim Bafflement

Posted on April 21, 2012 at 1:15 PM

LIO fellow Mayor Art Olivier used libertarian tools to drive statistics down over 40% and energize a North American movement for citizen crime watches and non-punitive mediation and intervention.

In the 1970's LIO sponsored a series of confidential workshops and roundtables with activists and public leaders to focus on offense and poverty reduction. It sent advisories to many scholars and news outlets outlining what was happening that were typically ignored. Now, as offense statistics nosedive and the UIN poverty reduction goals are being rapidly exceeded, some  'experts' claim bafflement as they drone on about how libertarianism will lead to a crime-ridden gangster society of corporate-market induced poverty.

Think again. The roundtables focused on these key steps:


Encourage citizen teams to get open metrics and crime data, meet with officials, and target the bad example of widespread police abuses and offical corruption, and:

  1. Empower citizens to know the data: actual law, use contracts and community projects, and have access to attorney advertising and small claims or mediative courts; de-emphasize lifestyle offenses while targeting minor 'broken window' real harms that fester into 'crime waves' for prompt location and corrective action such as domestic abuse, schoolyard bullying, and delinquent attacks on property then being ignored by officials. Promotion of anti-bigotry, mediation volunteers, and meetings to defuse tensions that might express as offenses; study of how simple architectual or other design might induce offenses.
  2. Focus on non-punitive and proaction options such as alternate sentencing, rehab, and at-risk mentoring while ending prohibition-based offical 'legal rackets' based on prohibitions of e.g. gambling, drugs, lifestyle behavior, and use of petty laws; promote citizen watchdogs on correct police and  judicial behavior and procedure, and actual policing results with use of technology to monitor intersections and police vehicles and reduce false tickets etc. by police.
  3. Introduce non-coercive and responsive community alternatives--community policing, private police specials, volunteer police and unarmed watches, etc; re-empowered community monitors: juries (e.g. ability to take notes) with clearer judicial instructions to juries,   neighborhood associations, neighborhood mediation and dispute resolution. 

The result has been to shift from unaccountable officials focusing resources on bigotires and punition away from actual work while keeping citizens in the dark  to citizen choice and involvement to prevent the problems in the first place. 


Encourage citizen teams to focus on reducing the conditions, not just effects of poverty typically created by officials themselves by restricting private action--and setting goals and info share to empower, not 'help' the poor while refocusing public programs on efficient income help, not politicized bureaucracy, including:

  1. Job one: moving from dictatorial styles to democratic feedback and more market- and especially small entrepreneur- friendly laws (or better yet, removal of hindering laws). Example: reducing time to get small business authorization from 3 years to near-zero or removing the regulation entirely. At the same time, massive reductions in product costs as politicized and coercive central regulations are removed that in many cases raised prices over 900% with poor quality: Cheaper food, air and public travel; etc.
  2. Empowering unions and consumer associations through transnational information exchange focused not on seeking officialized coercive benefits but actual co-operative results through e.g. open barganing.
  3. Removing legal traps on the poor and peer assistance: Laws prohibiting international private and peer help or loans; easing home ownership and micro-lending; easing mutual help communities and co-op ventures; ending tax rat/inflation traps (as inflation pushes people to higher tax brackets, the poor and iddle class are paying rates meant initially for millionaires) ; numbing application procedures and arbitrary standards and prevent people from getting public or private help; ending regulations in public assistance programs that tax any serious self-improvement at in some cases 150% rates, etc. --while proposing more voluntary programs. We encourage greater use of voluntary endowments that provide basic income and pre-paid health, school, etc..

Emblematic of what is going on may be the current Libertarian-led efforts in the USA to expose how the homeless are being created or harmed by stautes e.g. preventing people from helping the homeless with food or free homeshares, regulations prohibiting homeless-initiated co-ops and tent cities; deliberately making applications for help difficult, etc. while a temporary surge has been created with what critics denounce as legal interference in normal foreclosure procedures coupled with ignoring fraudulent paperwork by large 'Too Big to Fail"  banks in turn getting large sums of government money to 'help the foreclosed.'

 The LIO continues to encourage group and solo activists worldwide to suggest these lines of dialogue in bringing these matters to effective zero, what may be called Crime Abolition and Poverty Abolition--with increasing use of proactive and voluntary user tools.


Form a local team to get pertinent data and begin dialogue for common ground improvement areas.


Past LIO Advisory Chair:Memoirs, Articles for Coming Years

Posted on April 21, 2012 at 2:20 AM

 Dr.Ralph Swanson helped found Sister Cities, worked on the UN Declaration with H.G. Wells, and marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Having joined LIO's predecessor organization--the Libertarian-Liberal League-- in 1939 as a teen to combat racism in Florida, he knew key figures and those who had known LIO figures of the XIXth and early XXth century--such as Miguel Lemos, air pioneer and developer of Gilsonite Samuel Gilson, Robert H. Goddard, Ramon Franco plus  principals in  influential LIO Fellow projects such as the Personal Rights Association , the Liberal International, the British Interplanetary Society, and many others.

Past LIO Advisory Chair Dr. Ralph Swanson shared on his Facebook today that he is done editing or approving extensive notes for his memoirs, some 200 articles, and thinkpieces on the civic movement to be published in future years. These include several articles with David Nolan, Dr. John Hospers, and others; suggested pre-posts by the hundreds for LIO blogs; and expose of improper activity by bad actors in the libertarian rights movement coupled with advice to budding groups worldwide.

He has been retired in recent years which, though handling various age-related health issues, has given him time to work on the materials, he said. He is on a local citizen advisory council but no longer makes public appearances..Over the years he played key roles in founding and administering many groups. Dr. Swanson worked for many years in engineering and in intelligence interrogation matters, and was active in the destruction of the once predominant Ku Klux klan which at the time had a massive influence in the US.

The memoirs are centered around what he sees as 10 key meetings in the last 70 years--including a meeting with Eisenhower and JFK for demilitarization and Sister Cities, planning of Libertarian rights parties, and the recent LIO OPERATIONS DEMOCRACY & DIGNITY.  The LIO and other projects he has designated will see to final format of the materials, including introductions to several LIO-based activist manuals and more, at this website.

Quips the twinkling octagenarian to LIO fans: "Stay Vertical! There is work to do."

LIO: Libertarian Candidate & Public Official Standards

Posted on March 30, 2012 at 8:50 PM

LIO Fellows in appointive non-partisan public office such as Julie Chorgo, Dr. Ralph Swanson, and Dr. R. Holcombe have helped bring and spread homeschooling, in-home 'manage your mail' post e-offices and private 'public parks', and massive tax relief  combined with service improvements respectively--through high-minded approaches, courtesy, and presenting the many Libertarian-interest options to start dialogue. Now all LIO supporters can continue--and lead-- the worlwide process in a more systematic and unified way that also improves public service and engages all public officials as it raises public expectations--and interest in voluntary public programs.

LIO: Libertarian Candidate & Public Official Standards

The LIO re-isues the following  standards for candidates and public officials seeking to apply its Libertarian approaches and as guide for proponents of voluntary alternatives conducive to rights in public administration, and those interested in improved public service.


These have been approved by the founders of the modern movement, and LIO is registering a non-partisan public administration arm with a sister peer association for those generally interested in Libertarian approaches in public  programs.  

It should be remembered that LIO sees change as happening primarily through peer-to-peer and opinion-leader/catalysts public awareness, direct democracy and the fruitful dialogue it brings, and market or jury action; however, public office models and pilots are needed and stabilize change. This personal arm of the movement founders curated by LIO is being developed but people are joining here:  Resources useful to this approach will be uploaded there from time to time, along with appropriate best practice shares..


The LIO encourages citizen involvement, and for those supportive of Libertarian-based programs or community in particular all candidates to first concentrate on adlective direct (volunteer or small group appointment) or appointive office; and if for election to focus on e.g. running by petition to meet and listen to the people and so run low-to-no budget non-attack campaigns; and so avoid unseemly contributions, including from public entities. Dialogue towards public offices that are volunteer and unpaid is encouraged.

We encourage all Libertarian supporters to seek volunteer public service, then appointive public office or board monitoring leading to that at a minimum. Libertarian governance occurs when those conversant with libertarianism, guided by pledged libertarians, are in those positions supportive of those developing change on a private or private of public character basis.


Libertarian supporters come from all walks of life with a tendency towards women and minorities; and the very young or elderly. Studies show Libertarians in elections draw equally from all political leanings but also bring out mostly new voters from independents or the center.

In general, 1 Libertarian in public office influences 300+ of his or her peers in public offices.Libertarians typically soon lead or serve in leadership positions in the boards or bodies they serve given collaborative voluntary approach; iron courtesy and refusal to take slight;d often superior sense of market, legal and parliamentary processes; and ability to mediate as a neutral figure with something in common with all views.


In general, our  and USLP studies have determined that elective:

  • Candidatesmust run 3-4 times before winning, Libs slightly less so
  • Candidates focused on proven concrete voluntary/rights solutions do well
  • Candidates with record of community involvement and appointive boards do best
  • 1%-10% of Libertarian groups are in public office, so Libertarians have participation and electability rates 30 or more times higher than other parties.

In other words, trained Libertarians are actually more electable than opponents or the general public: and even if they lose build formidable support groups that soon drive policy thanks to several runs, especially by petition seeking contact info. They continue to do well maintaining good contact and attacks on them backfire against the support.


LIO encourages dialogue on devolution or legalization of formal service governance to local and voluntary entities respectful of rights; of sound endowment fund management;  of methods for non-use of services, and of open, participative process.

Examples would be based on proprietary or intentional communities, town-hall "Jeffersonian" democracy, and local associations welcoming voluntary and usewr driven optioons. In such communities most public office is adlective direct--volunteers set by the common meeting--or adlective appointive from those. Ideally there should be little competition for offices and they should be volunteer. Elective offices should be few and focused on competent appointment, fair public hearings, and opportunities to better rights through e.g. devolution.

'Informal societies' dialogue and implenetation such as on an anarchist co-op model as is being increasingly done, or unincorporated entities using a variety of market vendors is also encouraged.


LIO encourages dialogue on primary action to open the elective access and democratic transparency and particpation. In most cases, this should be the prime task as an appointive "farm team" is built. Direct Democracy/DDIR is included in this focus, especially as allowing direct constitutional initiative and plebiscite review of legislation.. In this rergard the Swiss and Florida USA models have much to adapt for those seeking models. Partisan Elective candidacies not supporting this initial task or general education while good should not become distractions as has happened in many cases, and are not even particularly germane in some countries and jurisdictions.

For example: We encourage dialogue that all Elective offices should be free of ballot requirements not directly germane to the office such as candidate fees; or also that especially small parties not acting as mass parties of social mediation should seek to be able to register at will with full control over adherents.

In cases such as the US where the Electoral College has been 'captured' by older parties due to legislative tricks in most states, proportional election of Electors as exists in some state is suggested as a key focus, along with MMP.

Public endowment or unrestricted private financing of elections that is voluntary is welcome; yet still should be avoided by LIO supporters and advocates of rights in general for reasons of focus as explained below. Parties have experienced problems with 'moles' or opportunists seeking funds, mis-applying them, and attracting offical scrutiny and disruption.Candidates who make it their business to meet the public, speak at campuses and community bodies, etc. tend to do best in terms of electability and quality of their service.


Over 95% of public offices in the world are adlective appointive: Citizen task forces, appointive advisory boards, neighborhood associations, judges and the like. Many high offices e.g. the US Presidency are technically appointive.. Appointive offices are a logical start, involve modest time and non-frightening to most people; and an excellent way to get involved in the process. As they are in close popular and community leader contact, "What the legislature proposes the appointive disposes."

We encourage general community involvement by all citizens, and for LIO supporters to in general focus first on locating and serving well in public service volunteer, then appointive, then if desired preferably non-partisan elective office.Those in elected should continue their good work in appointive.


We encourage a posture that is non-partisan and consensus in manner and offices sought, or non-confrontational MMP if elective (i.e. these at-large legislators do not take from other parties but attract Libertarian-interested non-voters as was seen in a Florida test in 2002). Attacks are not encouraged: LIO dialogue is to focus on the problem, not the person. No criticism of a program should be made without a Libertarian-interest and preferably voluntary solution at hand as an alternative that a) has public momentum, and/or b) defends a minority rights-group working alongside. 


LIO supporters and public officals in general should use the 3 C's:

  • >Character: Honesty including care of public funds and courtesy.
  • >Community: Low-budget campaigns, running by petition,  community advocacy
  • >Competence: Understanding of office sought, its local policy history and enviroment, presentation of range of Libertarian-interest options for user choice


Candidates may focus on these 3 areas of LIO interest:

These promote accountable and participative  democracy, market and community choice, and legalizing or easing choices of model Lib-based communities respectively. We recommend books such as Seamless City (Baker) Voluntary City (Beito) and Art of Community (MacCallum) respectively as good for orientation; and and and Lib community best or promising practices shared via LIO for respective policy tools, many already underway and adaptable to all communities.

The platform if for elected office should be simply "I will work courteously with all to uphold rights and better programs, seeing that voluntary and Libertarian programs receive a fair hearing where we can cut taxes while bettering choice and quality." (Or equivalent.)

We encourage an additional 1-3 issues as may enjoy public momentum involving voluntary-interest tools specific to that public office.What is most important is after illustrating how voluntary solutions might work, the best platform is dialogue based on the recommendations or statements of need by the public that can be solved by bettering rights, voluntary choices, or particpation.


These will be comprehensively issued later ( a version is under testing with select people in public office) but the format is one of dialogue improvement, organic and usabke by all public officials in a collaborative fashion: The 'Gilson 3 R's' in wide use--namely for all public programs officials will read the measure under study and budget line by line and with colleagues:

  • Review: For legality, need user/home friendliness and comprehensiveness
  • Remove: Legal blocks to voluntary dual action from volunteers to co-ops to firms
  • Revise: Continual improvement by open choice, refusal waiver and citizen review

An example would be what LIO Friends and supportive libertarians have done so far in Florida:

  • Reviews empowering home schools and parent-boards in public schools; capture of efficiencies leading to better teacher pay by sharing tools;
  • Removing many blocks to private and home-based options and life learning/co-programs such as joint High School/College learning and credit by exam;
  • Revisions as funding scholarships with a dedicated lottery and review by home school boards of the parents themselves with an effective schooling waiver by user directed standards; and free form simplified standards for all private schools along with encouragement of e.g. union or  industry-based certification.

Candidates or officials--or citizens-- are urged to use the 3 R's as a brainstorming framework on general betterment and voluntary/rights options and building consensus.


LIO encourages supporters to get involved in public offices here ranked by level of importance and value to dialogue and social stabilization, and legalization or use of voluntary policy (the first 5 are generally adlective and mostly appointive):

  1. Informed citizen/public board watchdog; Juror-Elector/Election Monitor
  2. Neighborhood Association or Local Board; Charter, constitution etc. task force
  3. Services Board: Libraries, Roads, Parks, Postal, Housing, Scool etc.
  4. Mediation: Sister City, License, Zoning, Magistrate, Advisory...
  5. Service Officer: Constable, Elections, District Attorney...
  6. Non-partisan Elected or local elected e.g. Soil & Water, School, City...
  7. Partisan/High Elective or advisory



Under 1-2 participants in public office per year per 1.3 million population, 90+% in non-partisan elective suggests something is being done incorrectly. People in multiple political offices are encouraged.

Certain things assist the process:

  • Lib Peer sharing and co-training/mentoring is highly valuable along with continued updates to relevant publics; Sharing Libertarian-interest sites and materials with non-Lib peers in public office is critical.
  • Political attacks are never recommended and should be phased out as distracting from implementation and consensus-building.
  • Bargaining against oneself by proposing "moderate" solutions or diversion into constitutional or populist issues is not germane to this process: Focus should be on the Dallas protocol ("Dallas Accord") of presenting the range of Libertarian solutions from modest to complete and letting dialogue find the way based on user needs.Removal of an agency is not per se Libertarian (though it may be relevant as to directional debate); voluntarization by removing coercive components such as secrecy, coercive taxes or statutory monopoly or advantage is.


These standards work by starting dialogue and self-assessment. Please print out and review with your team to circle areas of action and improvement, and devise action items.Please share your successes in public office with your world peers at the Facebook or direct to its facilitators.

The LIO encourages dialogue centered on mediation by rights and localism parties or civic groups that are attentive to voluntary models, but endorses no party or candidate but welcomes all interested in the dialogue for betterment.


The LIO through registered projects will expect use of these standards by those advocating LIO eco-community or civic platforms set by the curator; and they're strongly recommended to all advocates of libertarian-conversant or general liberal federal democracy as maintaining a high- minded, participative, best-practice and therefore effective approach. Those not using the standards will in due course be outflanked by those who do, especially as they see that public information tending to demand for accountability, particpation, and choice increases.

Candidates or officials may evidence that they will work with the standards as best they can by linking here or to sites to be set to the purpose.

NOTE: The foregoing was reviewed by Mr. Gilson, Dr. Hospers, Mr. Nolan, and Dr. Swanson; and builds on a working paper for iimited distribution of Mr. Gilson and Dr. Rothbard, and a review by LP Political Director R. Crickenberger.




Ecuador Cmdr. Astronaut Ron Nader, LIO Welcome Host pioneered a civil space agency, now leads projects for free technical education for underserved youth, and says: Share empowering LIO non-partisan fellowship tools of progress and dialogue--and your wins on our sites.

LIO Friends-Share Projects!

Google Translator

More What's Up...

LIO Coordinator Highlights Occasional Highlights of LIO/SMILE-interest news for fans. Share your items here.

THE LIBERTARIAN Millions now use LIO tools. Daily SMILE Tips, Humor, Rights petitions, RSS News Portal. Created by movement founders, edited by youth.

LIBERTARIAN-INSTITUTE.Info Daily Libertarian-driven rights wins and more shepherded by volunteers worldwide.

Libertarian Action Info Weekly News aggregator of Libertarian wins, LIO projects, self-management tools courtesy Libertarian Institute project.

See links at top, sidebars for more. Opinions expressed on not necessarily those of LIO or Fellows.

Share This Page Now Via:

Share on Facebook

Get LIO S.M.I.L.E. Tips

S.M.I.L.E. Fan Tips

Free Outreach Tools@

Webs Poll

Recent Videos

6210 views - 0 comments
6374 views - 0 comments
5391 views - 0 comments

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Subscribe To Our Site

Welcome LIO Friends!

free counters

"A lot of people don't have internet yet so we printed your pages once and now have plenty of projects for years. We have had our first meeting with  200+ people and each adopted or shared a project to try!"--GJ, Belize

Form a Book Club/Read...

Super Share

Share on Facebook

Share @ Google+