This situation in the libertarian nonprofit highlights classic tensions between individual agency, group cohesion, and ideological purity tests. The organization’s “big tent” approach—rooted in core libertarian principles like individualism, self-ownership/property rights, and the non-aggression principle (NAP)—aims for inclusivity, allowing diverse views as long as they align with those fundamentals. However, the disruptive individual’s actions introduce factionalism by injecting culture war elements (e.g., anti-LGBTQ slurs, misogyny, pronatalist judgments), which aren’t inherent to libertarianism but are used to carve out a “right-wing faction.” This shifts the dynamic from collaborative power-sharing to a zero-sum struggle for control.
I’ll break this down into the key power dynamics at play, drawing on concepts like power (inherent influence and agency) versus control (regulatory dominance and manipulation). Then, I’ll outline practical steps to resolve the factionalism, emphasizing libertarian values to restore unity without compromising principles.
Key Power Dynamics
The disruptive person (let’s call them “the faction leader” for clarity) is attempting to consolidate control through aggressive, exclusionary tactics, while the board responds with institutional power to maintain the organization’s integrity. This creates a cycle of escalation, where transparency issues exacerbate distrust. Here’s a breakdown:
| Dynamic | Description | How It Manifests Here | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assertion of Dominance via Othering | Power is claimed by creating in-groups/out-groups, often through bullying or identity-based attacks, to elevate one’s status in hierarchical or competitive environments. This stems from insecurity or a need for validation, masking as “leadership.” | The faction leader declares a “right-wing faction,” uses slurs (e.g., “faggots” for gay members, “degenerates” for childless people), denies women’s rights (e.g., voting, leadership respect), and engages in physical aggression or inappropriate propositions. This “othering” frames dissenters as enemies, positioning himself as the defender of “true” libertarianism infused with cultural conservatism. | Undermines the big tent by violating NAP (aggression, even verbal/physical, initiates force). It alienates members, erodes trust, and invites backlash, as bullying isn’t a sustainable leadership style—it’s manipulative and leads to long-term isolation or removal. In libertarian contexts, this hypocrisy ignores self-ownership by imposing personal moral judgments on others. |
| Control-Seeking vs. Authentic Power | Control is effortful and top-down, often fear-based, aiming to regulate behaviors/outcomes. True power is bottom-up, antifragile, and rooted in mutual respect/influence without coercion. | The faction leader seeks control by aggressively “leading” a faction, using intoxication/belligerence to intimidate (e.g., physical stepping up, public drunkenness). This is fragile, requiring constant enforcement. Conversely, the board wields institutional power (e.g., removal authority) but does so non-transparently, which feels like covert control rather than open governance. | Highlights a mismatch: The faction leader’s tactics reflect low emotional intelligence and compensatory dominance (e.g., disrespecting women in charge suggests underlying powerlessness). The board’s opacity risks perceptions of hypocrisy, as libertarians value transparency and voluntary association. This can deepen divides if seen as “cancel culture” by one side, while the other views it as rightful exclusion. |
| Factionalism as Ideological Hijacking | In ideological groups, one actor introduces divisive “purity tests” (e.g., culture wars) to gain leverage, fracturing the core mission. This often resembles agent provocateur behavior—intentionally provocative to sow discord, whether deliberate or not. | Leaning into culture wars (e.g., anti-women, anti-LGBTQ rhetoric) deviates from libertarian essentials, turning a unifying philosophy into a battleground. His self-declaration as faction leader amplifies this, potentially attracting like-minded extremists while repelling moderates. | Risks the organization’s antifragile nature; big tents thrive on decentralized power (e.g., voluntary participation). If unchecked, it leads to schisms, as seen in historical libertarian movements where cultural injections caused splits. Morally, it’s questionable—promotes exclusion over community building, potentially damaging the group’s reputation and mission. |
| Institutional Response and Backlash | Organizations use formal power (e.g., bylaws, votes) to enforce boundaries, but non-transparency can breed resentment, framing removals as “unlibertarian.” | The board’s strategic removal protects the group but lacks openness, possibly violating implicit norms of due process. This contrasts with the faction leader’s overt aggression, creating a “stealth vs. brute force” dynamic. | Invokes the right of association: Groups can exclude those who violate shared values, but hypocrisy arises if the process isn’t even-handed (e.g., criticizing “cancel culture” elsewhere while practicing it). It can escalate factionalism if supporters see it as authoritarian, leading to offshoots or ongoing attacks. |
| Gender and Interpersonal Imbalances | Power imbalances often intersect with gender, where “masculine” aggression (e.g., binary dominance) overrides “feminine” elements like intuition or collaboration, risking group harmony. | Physical aggression toward women, propositions to married women, and anti-women statements reflect a bias against female agency, clashing with self-ownership. This isn’t libertarian but a control tactic to assert superiority. | Alienates diverse members, weakening the big tent. In nonprofits, it undermines cohesion, as effective leadership requires emotional intelligence and respect, not intimidation. |
Overall, the power here is uneven: The faction leader leverages personal aggression for short-term control, but the board holds structural power to enforce boundaries. However, the non-transparent removal introduces vulnerability, as it can be spun as manipulative, perpetuating a cycle where both sides feel victimized.
Steps to End the Factionalism
Resolving this requires reaffirming libertarian principles—voluntary association, NAP, and transparency—while addressing root causes like ego-driven control. Focus on rebuilding trust through inclusive, bottom-up processes rather than top-down edicts. Here’s a phased approach:
- Reaffirm Core Principles Publicly and Internally
Issue a clear statement (e.g., via newsletter or meeting) restating the big tent: Commitment to individualism, self-ownership, and NAP, explicitly rejecting culture war injections as distractions. Emphasize that behaviors violating NAP (e.g., slurs, aggression) are incompatible, framing the removal as a defense of these values, not partisanship. This detoxifies the narrative, showing the organization isn’t “picking sides” but upholding fundamentals. - Enhance Transparency and Governance
Review and publicize board processes to prevent future opacity perceptions. Adopt clear conduct codes (e.g., no slurs, respect for personal boundaries) enforced via open votes or mediation. Use tools like anonymous feedback or third-party facilitators for disputes. In libertarian spirit, make membership voluntary and exit easy, but document removals with evidence to counter “victim” narratives. - Facilitate Dialogue and Mediation
Organize neutral forums (e.g., town halls or online discussions) where factions air grievances without aggression. Invite a mediator experienced in ideological groups to guide conversations toward shared goals. Encourage the faction leader’s supporters to form a separate group if irreconcilable, invoking the right of association—libertarians can “fork” like open-source projects, reducing internal strife. - Promote Inclusive Leadership and Culture
Diversify board/leadership to balance perspectives (e.g., include women, LGBTQ members, parents/non-parents) and model respectful discourse. Train on emotional intelligence to counter bullying—highlight that true power comes from influence, not dominance. Critique provocative slogans or tactics (e.g., “become insufferable”) as counterproductive to community building, potentially introduced to provoke division. - Monitor and Mitigate External Influences
Watch for agent provocateur patterns: Is the faction leader’s behavior amplified by external culture wars (e.g., online echo chambers)? Limit public escalations by focusing internally. If needed, seek legal advice for harassment (e.g., propositions, physical aggression) to protect members without over-relying on state intervention. - Measure Progress and Adapt
Track metrics like membership retention, event attendance, or sentiment surveys. If factionalism persists, consider restructuring (e.g., decentralized chapters) to make the organization more antifragile.
This approach shifts from control (e.g., removals, attacks) to empowered collaboration, aligning with libertarian ideals. It won’t please everyone—some may leave—but it preserves the big tent for those committed to the core values of the movement: INDIVIDUALISM that transcends tribalism.