Last week I had the privilege of attending the amazing, brilliant, and wonderful annual conference of Students for Liberty, which attracted well over 1,000 libertarian students from not only the U.S., but around the world.
The success of Students for Liberty is an amazing story: in just five years they have grown from nothing to having 800 clubs on campus in the U.S., presence in many European cities, regional conferences both in Europe and the U.S., and of course, their main annual conference with – again – over 1,000 students in attendance! Clearly they are doing something right!
As readers where would know, options for libertarian students in Australia at present remain rather limited: only a couple of universities have anything resembling libertarian clubs (and even these are rather new), so many students do not have the opportunity to develop their libertarian ideas or receive training in effective advocacy as part of a network and support-structure of like-minded individuals.
As such, I am incredibly excited about the fact that Students for Liberty has just launched a new program to train and provide resources to libertarian future leaders. Called their Global Charter Teams Program, this is an amazing opportunity for people to start up their own clubs, or, if they are already members, receive the skills necessary to become more effective. And, of course, make new friends around the world! Here’s more on the program:
The SFL Charter Teams program seeks to build the student movement for liberty around the world by identifying, training, and supporting the strongest student leaders of liberty in areas currently underserved by SFL (i.e. outside the United States, Canada, and Europe). All students selected to the Charter Teams Program will undergo a rigorous 3 month online training program with biweekly readings and online seminars on the philosophy of liberty and management techniques. This training will educate Charter Team members in the best practices SFL has developed over the years to effectively create a student movement for liberty in new areas. Once the online training program is completed, Charter Teams will begin to start student groups at their own schools and schools nearby, run events that educate others on the meaning of liberty, and seek to identify other pro-liberty students in their areas. The goal is for Charter Teams and the individual members achieve success in building the student movement for liberty in their area to create long-lasting, meaningful mechanisms of supporting pro-liberty students.
In addition to this, I know that Students for Liberty is very interested in helping provide support and resources to help build the movement up in Australia, so this is a great opportunity on all rounds!
So, if you are a libertarian student, I would strongly encourage you to check out the Charter Team project and apply(and also, feel free to email me on my gmail address (timintheus) if you have any questions, or want to be involved more!). Otherwise, if you’re not a student… I’m sure you know some who are pro-liberty, so pass the link along!
Australian Libertarian Society (old site) 
I would have applied if they weren’t biased towards 1st Yr students. Only starting my first Semester of University tomorrow and hence have no GPA to provide them with.
I filled out an application form. I am about to start studying Law at Deakin.
No organisations! No leaders!
Still trolling here you shrill idiot, loki?
Lighten up dot. There are bigger threats around the globe than dissent on libertarian blogs. Maybe you need a trip to the Congo.
Dot – you are the “shrill” zealot here, berating anybody who disagrees with the opinions of the authors here and accusing them of trolling for no other reason besides disagreeing.
All I am doing here is stating my own opinions. That’s what is meant by “comment”.
You are actively advocating that the ALS, LDP and LA and all associated entities disband.
Fuck off.
It is obvious you are a troll with your “libertarians don’t support any form of social interaction” crap.
We can have organisations and leaders, Loki3. So long as we are not compelled to join the party, then liberty will be served.
“You are actively advocating that the ALS, LDP and LA and all associated entities disband.”
Yes, advocating, not demanding or dictating. I respect their right to exist but I reserve the right to warn everyone of the dangers inherent in any organisation regardless of its ideology.
“Fuck off.
It is obvious you are a troll with your “libertarians don’t support any form of social interaction” crap.”
You are the one telling me to fuck off, which would preclude any form of social interaction. You are telling me to fuck off for no other reason than that I disagree with you. If you associate only with those who agree with you about everything, you become intellectually inbred. We share enough ideological common ground to be able to at least discuss our differences. I “interact” to some degree with people of all ideologies, simply because it is necessary to understand other ideologies if one is to judge their validity or to fight them. (My favourites are the crypto-Marxist-Leninists who sell propaganda on the street.) I at least have to read books written by people with other ideologies. You don’t even have to read a book written by me, you only have to read blog comments.
I am not against social interaction. I merely believe that social interaction is possible without organisations. I believe that interaction is more effective without organisations. I base that on the libertarian principle of individualism.
It is nothing more than my own opinion and all I am doing is stating it. If you don’t like it, you do what any true individualist does: State your own opinion. Don’t attack me for stating mine. Attack my opinion all you want (intelligently please) but not my right to state it.
“We can have organisations and leaders, Loki3. So long as we are not compelled to join the party, then liberty will be served.”
I realise that it is not anti-libertarian to form organisations. I merely believe that they have inherent problems which make them ineffective. Democratic organisations, regardless of which ideology they are formed to promote, run on collectivist principles, i.e. they are managed by central committees which the rank and file must refer to, even though the decision-making may be fully democratic (i.e. decided by votes of all members).
It is better for an organisation to be run autocratically by those who founded it. This is not dictatorial, because (as you said) people are not compelled to be members or to support the organisation in any way. Autocratic leadership does away with the problem of democracy and keeps the organisation running on its original
But both kinds of organisations are still inherently prone to other problems. They tend to influence a large number of people with the ideas of a few and so tend to diminish individual judgment and research and therefore leave the door open for mass disinformation. Organisations are vulnerable to infiltration and even usurption by their enemies or by other vested interests, or even just by sincere but misguided dissenters. Organisations present a public target for smear campaigns. The whole organisations along with the ideology it promotes can be discredited by the public disgraces of just one of its members. Even the autocratic organisation is open to ideological compromise or complete usurption upon the death of its original founder.
There are also the unavoidable organisational tasks involved in running any organisation. These are more cumbersome with democratic organisations (with endless committee meetings) than with autocratic ones, but both kinds of organisations require time, effort and money just to run. These resources are better used for direct efforts to promote the desired ideology.
Robert Welch’s John Birch Society was the best libertarian organisation for decades, though it was ever the target of smearing. However, upon Welch’s passing the society was taken over by vested interests who have taken it away from its founding ideals, redirected funds to their own pockets and caused untold division within the ranks.
My belief is that libertarians can still work individually and at the same time associate or network with one another as they individually choose. This eliminates the wasteful tasks of organisation and eliminates the public target for smearing and infiltration. The ranks can still be infiltrated, but individual vigilance is always necessary to deal with deception of any kind. There are no organisational assets at stake, i.e. to be lost to usurping interests. Individuals are, as Lenin said, “like fish in the sea”. We are many, everywhere and unseen, swimming among the masses. This is the tactic that modern guerrilla warfare uses – combatants disguise themselves as civilians and move among civilians. The difference with us is that we really are one of the civilians and we are fighting only with ideology.
No organisations! No leaders!
Selim: the charter teams are a brand new initiative and we are more than willing to work with first years if an individual is pro-active and shows potential for consistent hard work. Please shoot me an email to kzannat@studentsforliberty.org so we can discuss.
“Yes, advocating, not demanding or dictating. I respect their right to exist but I reserve the right to warn everyone of the dangers inherent in any organisation regardless of its ideology.”
I am warning everyone you are a dangerous fool or a mischievous socialist whom ought to be ignored.
The LDP, LA and ALS number in thousands, you are one fool.
Your theories are bullshit. You’ve never even had a real job, have you?
“I am warning everyone you are a dangerous fool or a mischievous socialist whom ought to be ignored.”
First I am excessively individualist, then I am a socialist subversive. Put your analyst on danger money.
“The LDP, LA and ALS number in thousands, you are one fool.”
That’s an appeal to majority. Dot, non-libertarians outnumber libertarians by thousands to one. By your own logic, you are a fool.
“Your theories are bullshit.”
So far that has been your only “argument”:against my theories. Obviously you don’t even have any theories.
“You’ve never even had a real job, have you?”
How can you tell that from my political theories? That’s pretty desperate, dot. It means you are all out of theories to counter mine.
“First I am excessively individualist, then I am a socialist subversive. Put your analyst on danger money.”
A slow but sure descent into gibberish.
“That’s an appeal to majority. Dot, non-libertarians outnumber libertarians by thousands to one. By your own logic, you are a fool.”
You are obviously a troll or do not take your own arguments seriously, which as a “libertarian”, bizarrely, quoted Marx.
Your theories are bullshit and if you’re sincere you’re still wet behind the ears. More likely you are the concern troll I called you out to be. Sod off.
” “First I am excessively individualist, then I am a socialist subversive. Put your analyst on danger money.”
A slow but sure descent into gibberish.”
Maybe I just went to fast for you. I’ll slow it down. You have been accusing me of being too radically individualist, for thinking that libertarians should act individually instead of forming organisations. Now you are saying that I am a socialist. Socialists are collectivist and believe in total organisation of society.
“You are obviously a troll or do not take your own arguments seriously, which as a “libertarian”, bizarrely, quoted Marx.”
When did I quote Marx?
“Your theories are bullshit and if you’re sincere you’re still wet behind the ears. More likely you are the concern troll I called you out to be. Sod off.”
Your responses consist entirely of abuse. Your vocabulary is pretty limited too.