|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: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Libertarian-Program-Government-Officials-Association-on-Libertarianism/221275797927517 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.
HUMAN RIGHTS, LIBERAL, LIBERTARIAN CENTRIST PARTY FOCUS
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.
CODE OF CONDUCT
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:
- Liberalism/Libertarian-oriented: Reduce governance abuses/better rights
- Libertarian-direction:Introduction of voluntary options, challenge agencies
- LIO Program: Libertarian implementation in non-partisan office per LIO standards
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 www.governing.com and www.reason.org 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.
LIO STANDARDS: PUBLIC OFFICIAL PROGRAM
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.
PUBLIC OFFICES BY IMPORTANCE LEVEL
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):
- Informed citizen/public board watchdog; Juror-Elector/Election Monitor
- Neighborhood Association or Local Board; Charter, constitution etc. task force
- Services Board: Libraries, Roads, Parks, Postal, Housing, Scool etc.
- Mediation: Sister City, License, Zoning, Magistrate, Advisory...
- Service Officer: Constable, Elections, District Attorney...
- Non-partisan Elected or local elected e.g. Soil & Water, School, City...
- 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.