As many readers of the EM list know, I'm promoting FA/DP (Free Association/Delegable Proxy) structure for non-governmental organizations.
Free Associations are purely libertarian. They not only have no power to coerce members, they do not accumulate property or collect unappropriated funds from members, thus they do not spend member-provided funds for purposes that members do not approve. The practicality of libertarian concepts in government is generally unproven and certainly controversial; however, surely we are free to associate with each other using libertarian principles, in a structure whose purpose is collective intelligence. FAs generally exist to connect individuals with the community which they form, for purposes of mutual information, communication, cooperation, and coordination. The model FA is Alcoholics Anonymous, and the principal founder of AA, Bill Wilson, deliberately developed the "Twelve Traditions" -- the essential FA principles as applied to the organization of alcoholics -- to foment group unity and avoid divisive controversy. FAs do not take positions on controversial issues, and they do not endorse outside organizations or causes. *However*, this does not stop members from forming caucuses or other organizations which *do* take positions, or from having opinions and expressing them. If proposed activities needing property or funds, these resources are specifically provided by those who support the activity, and are either spent directly or are collected by an independent "service board or committee." Thus there is no "taxation" without consent. (Generally nonprofit advocacy organizations collect dues and raise funds, relying on the general support of members; then these funds are spent according to board decisions. If the organization is the only one in its field, this becomes "our way or the highway," members don't have line-item vetoes, so we end up with a situation similar to that in politics with plurality voting systems: there is no gun at the head of the voter to vote for X, but if the only realistic option to X is Y, who is worse, the voter has a Hobson's choice.) AA was fantastically successful in its field, very quickly. FA principles work, even though they fly in the face of our coercive habits. FA/DP is a generalization of the AA principles, with delegable proxy added to make direct democracy in the organization practical, should the scale become large. However, because it is FA, organizational decisions are advisory only, so there is a double layer of protection against organizational misconduct. FA/DP is an opportunity to test libertarian principles in a sandbox where harm would be highly unlikely. If libertarianism does not work in an FA, then it would not work at the point of a gun, i.e., in a government which has the power of coercion. But if it *does* work when people freely associate, then it *might* be possible to reduce governmental coercion without harm, and we would have the opportunity to learn and test how to do it. The kicker: if FA/DP works to organize large numbers of people to communicate and coordinate with respect to politics, there would be no need to change the structures of democracy, because present democracies are vulnerable to control by mass organization of the people. Heretofore, however, efforts to take advantage of this fact have utilized oligarchical structures in the "people's party," thus leading to totalitarianism instead of "government by the people." So the BeyondPolitics plan is to suggest FA/DP for all kinds of peer organizations. If you want to found an organization and personally control it, FA/DP is not for you. But if you believe that democratic organization, properly structured, is *more* efficient and more intelligent than other alternatives, FA/DP may be what you've been looking for. Those active in oligarchically structured organizations, however, are generally not eager to consider this.... I was banned from the Approval Voting list, an activity of Citizens for Approval Voting, for allegedly engaging in irrelevant discussion. The decision was made unilaterally by the moderator, and complaint from list members was apparently ignored. How is CAV structured? It is a classic PAC, with paying memberships. If you join and pay the dues, you can vote for the directors at the annual meeting. One catch: you have to personally attend the annual meeting in Texas, proxy voting is prohibited. Such provisions are common in membership nonprofits, and the reason is obvious: in spite of rationalizations, proxy voting allows members to exercise control through chosen representatives, and this is considered dangerous by those in power, the oligarchy that runs the organization. My suggestions? If you live near the CAV corporate office, and you support the purposes of CAV, and you could spare the time to attend CAV meetings, join CAV, your membership will mean something and you can personally participate in the management and direction of CAV. Otherwise, if you trust the founders of CAV, you can personally donate to their cause, knowing that they will decide how to spend it. But if you are interested in Approval Voting (positively or negatively) and you would prefer to participate directly, as you choose, or transfer your voting rights to another you trust, creating an advisor for you, whom you choose, then join the Approval Voting Free Association though registering on the wiki at http://av.beyondpolitics.org Are these suggestions in contradiction? No. If you are at all interested in Approval Voting, you should join the AVFA by registering at the wiki. This would allow the AVFA to contact you should an occasion arise; your response at that time would be completely up to you. The AVFA, as a Free Association, will not be soliciting your contributions. If you have funds to contribute, either donate them to CAV, assuming you support them and what they are doing, or reserve them for use as you see appropriate in the future. The AVFA wiki has long been listed on Wikipedia as an AV resource. There is a list of AV resources on the AVFA wiki. Is CAV listed? No. Wny not? No member of CAV has been sufficiently exercised to place the link there. The Approval Voting list is not dead, but it is nearly so. Moderator suppression is not, generally, a good way to encourage open discussion. Had the moderator been correct in his position that I was damaging the list by "irrelevant discussion," he'd have been justified in taking steps, and the obvious step would be to consult the readership. He could have taken a poll, easily. And there would be other democratic options. However, when he first objected to my posts, on the list, members responded and said that they thought them relevant. So, next time, he did not consult the membership. I was banned without notice. I've been involved with many, many nonprofits over the last forty years. What happened there is not particularly unusual, and I bring it up here as an object lesson, not as a personal complaint. Had I thought the issue to be of sufficient importance, there is much that I could have done. When I did act in the past, elsewhere, the ultimate result was an institutional revolt, with the members ejecting the founders. I was not involved in this, I merely provided the files on which it was based. But I am not engaged in trying to control any organization, nor in trying to punish those who might have offended me. I only offer suggestions, which people accept or deny, both at their own benefit or peril. We have an historic opportunity to make democracy work. We will take it or not. I'm merely pointing out that, if we do not take it, it will not be because there was no opportunity. It will not be because *they* stopped us. It will be because we were not sufficiently interested to lift a finger. http://beyondpolitics.org/wiki (At the instigation of Jan Kok, and inspired by discussions with Ralph Suter, there is a new wiki in the family of BeyondPolitics wikis: metaparty.beyondpolitics.org, still a blank slate. I'm sure Jan will be, when he has time, writing about this in the months to come. Metaparty is just what the name implies: a party to organize people beyond partisan divisions. But I'll let Jan explain that in more detail.) ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
