Editing Talk:Compensation (section)

=Jim McIntosh's Thoughts=

Jeff, I appreciate your concerns about how can we make more progress faster.  Having been in the Party for over 30 years I've seen progress and back-sliding.  I've been copying ''Bulletins''from 1980 and 1981 and I am impressed by the size (typically 16 or 20 pages 7"x8.5") and content, at a time when publishing involved typewriters, manual artwork and a printing press.  These were published monthly!  As I recall, volunteers would assemble at HQ on an evening to collate, staple and address the newsletter.  

When I started campaigning for the Party, I thought all we had to do was let voters know we existed and what we stood for.  I have since determined that it will be a long, slow process, and that it depends entirely on how many dedicated people we have who will organize CAs or work on the Executive (I mean more than attending meetings and exchanging emails). I think of Kaye Sargent (first female leader of a Party in Ontario) who had reporters calling her to find out if she was running again, and who organized the Oxford CA and regular meetings for 6-12 people.  She had the time because her husband was retired and (I believe) on a decent pension.  When she died, so did the CA and any mention of Libertarians in Woodstock and area.  Martha Olijnyk worked 8-10 hours per day, 6-7 days per week, in our HQ and bookstore on Yonge south of Eglinton, answering the phone and questions, recommending libertarian books, publishing ''Bulletin'' and taking minutes as Recording Secretary of the Executive Committee.  Martha had the time because her husband and Chairman of the Party was able to support her.  In the 1990s it was George Dance who took on much of this responsibility after we moved the office.  His job only required him 3-4 days/week.  

While this is an interesting idea, I don't think it will work.  

A 240 month (20 year) bond is more of a bet on the Party than a financial incentive.  Some supporters may consider it a good bet, but that's probably because they are already committed to the success of the Party and don't really care if there is a financial reward 20 years from now.  In addition, one has to believe that the program  will be kept in place and honoured some time in the distant future.  We also need to decide if work done in 2014 adds to my 2033 bond, or goes towards a 2034 bond.  

The liability is significant.  100 hours at $40/hour and 8% is worth $10,400 in 20 years.  At $45/hour it would be $11,700.  Even at a more reasonable 5%, 100 hours at $40/hour would amount to $8,000.  

Who is most likely to be motivated by this program?  
* Most likely to be motivated is someone who is currently unemployed.  However, such a person should be working full time looking for a job and/or getting training to become more employable. They are likely to be younger, with less experience, and be less reliable if only because they could get a full time job at any time. What such a person probably needs is cash today to live on. 
* Least likely is someone who is retired and living comfortably on their pension and/or investments, like Allen and me.  The prospect of a financial reward that MAY payoff after we die has little motivational value. 
* Supporters with a full time job and a family will have limited available time and are unlikely to find a 20 year bond much of an incentive to increase the priority of the Party in their lives. 
* Supporters with a full time job and no family (or maybe a working wife) may have more time available.  

Each of our supporters has a limit to the time available for the Party.  Even retirees have demands on their time from spouses, elderly parents and other interests and commitments.  I don't see the proposed program helping to increase the amount of time that anyone (retired, unemployed or employed person) works for the Party.  

What is more likely to motivate people is a project that will promote the Party, like running as a candidate.  I think we are seeing a positive response to our full slate campaign.  In the past, supporters have shown up for such projects as handing out pamphlets at post offices and Revenue Canada buildings to last-minute tax filers.  What has also helps is personal contact; it's harder to say no when someone on the phone is asking for your help and explaining how you an help the cause. It's easy to ignore a plea in an email or on social media when your time is limited. --[[User:LibertarianCFO|Jim McIntosh]] 11:35, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

== Personal Incentives ==

I am not in support of bribing volunteers to volunteer. In fact, I am no longer in favor of compensating any individual to coerced them to behave or perform according to my plan and desires. I do understand that the concept of financial incentives to coerce individuals to perform activities is very effective. I had to meet my payroll many times. I paid people to clean toilets. Would they have volunteered to clean toilets without the bribes? I don't think so. Who volunteers to clean toilets? Some toilet owners do cause they take responsibility of their own actions.

Financial coercion works more effective than threatening force, but both are means of coercion. We libertarians promote voluntary free market exchanges over coerced controlled market participants. Why would our party engage in financial coercion when our party principles stand against coercion. If an individual wishes to participate in any private activity of their choice, including supporting and serving our party needs; Let it be their own free choice. Let them decide their own commitment and personal responsibility that they want for themselves. Let them decide their own personal incentive. 

Let's not convert our libertarian party into a dirigist party who controls peoples actions by financial coercion. If our party engaged in financial coercion, we would be no better than the other political parties who offer financial kickback bribes or tax credit incentives. We seek the voluntary good will and consent of the people. We ask for willing contributions and effort from those who create their own personal incentives for themselves to engage themselves on behalf of our libertarian party.

Myself, I am investing my own time, energy, opportunities and very limited resources for my own benefit. I honestly believe that it is MY personal responsibility to serve my kids and their future. I want my kids to live under liberty and to engage in free market enterprises as they choose for themselves. Yes, I offer my kids candy or dollars or others gifts of encouragement and recognition for acting or behaving in their own best interest in my opinion. I don't offer my kids a financial incentive or coercive bribe to behave according to my personal desires. I don't own their lives and I try not to bribe them. They direct their own actions as the see worth while for themselves.

If you want our party to promote free market principles please engage in free market principles. Create and establish voluntary contribution opportunities. If I wish to donate funds to the party, or to an executive officer or even to another simple member like myself in our party, make it easy for us members to facilitate our actions. I have freely chosen to send cheques by mail and have perform paypal transaction to the benefit of the party. If I want to reward Allen or Jeff or Rob or any other volunteer of my choosing, I will donate gifts directly according to my own decisions. But if gifts of encouragement were facilitated by some means of party exchange process, I would encourage such a free market enterprise.

We do what we want to do and we offer what we want to offer and we must learn to accept what others are willing to offer under their own free will. We individually may choose to offer a financial gift or tip but we shouldn't be engaging in financial bribery or coercion and neither should our Libertarian Party. --[[User:Neal|Neal]] 14:51, 23 March 2013 (EDT)

===Rebuttal (Jim McIntosh) ===
I object to Neal's description of pay for service as '''"coercive bribes."'''  It is a free exchange.  No one would be '''forced''' (coerced) to perform any activity.  If the Party had sufficient funds there would be no reason why it shouldn't offer to pay someone to act as Treasurer, or to hire a full time office manager, or public relations person, regardless of their actual interest in the objectives of the Party.  What Jeff has proposed is that we offer financial incentives to our members (and supporters) in exchange for their efforts on behalf of the Party, as a way to move the Party ahead faster.  

As an example, I expect someone will need to travel to several ridings in northern Ontario to collect signatures for "parachute candidates" and submit them to the local Returning Officers.  I doubt anyone WANTS to do this, however one or two of our members may be WILLING to do such a job because they believe it will help the Party.  The Party would obviously be willing to pay travel and living expenses.  If the Party also provided some financial benefit, this might increase the willingness of someone to do the job.  The alternative could be that we need to pay real money to one or more people who live in these ridings to do the work.

== Kill this thread ==

EO essentially kills any lending to the party.  With the current coffers so low, financial reward is practically negligible.
Thanks for entertaining the discussion.  I hope, one day the party can afford high quality labour.  Until then, we must muddle along with guys like me.
--[[User:JNMcLarty|Jeffrey McLarty]] 18:37, 23 April 2013 (EDT)