Replies

Thanks for the excellent questions that get to the heart of the matter.

Thanks for this thread. I am interested in some of your main ideas, but have a few reservations.

For example, in the market place of ideas, NGOs are one group that we would be: 1.) Joining; 2.) Competing with; and 3.) according to you, trying to Abolish.

Joining: well, on a simplistic level, we would be
a) a think tank / advocacy group (as we have a right to)
b) outside the government,
c) we have a goal of effecting policy changes and
d) we aim to establish a good reputation as policy experts

It may help to think of the name of the group as Small Business Policy Institute, Inc.

We are in quite a different brand image category - we're a "small business" advocacy business. Our members - business owners, free enterprise aficiandos and other interested parties - can collaborate online and in seminars and meetings. They can voice their ideas and challenges about the environment their business operates in. Our group - real people in business - will at least listen to our members and are likely to understand their issues and put in the full effort to effect changes that will help.

Also, our principles are sterling compared to the "bad" NGOs I'm talking about...
a) NGOs "hide in plain sight", that is they obfuscate their true motives when they create public campaigns and efforts. For example, they may say "spread democracy" on the website and to passersby, but such a public campaign might have a corresponding low-profile initiative more aptly titled "starting a revolution" internally. The vision I have for advocacy is no "alterior motive", "internal" initiatives; we either do the initiative publicly or we don't do it at all. And if we say, for example, we're "promoting business education in schools", we do what we say with no "shadow initiative".
b) Transnational NGOs often have more diabolical internal goals because they have zero allegiance to any one nation. The ones that would high on the list to expose are those that are of that nature and that promote schemes which are quite obviously working to the extreme detriment of citizens in one country or another. Of course, since our company would be U.S.-based, we would focus on NGOs that harm American free enterprise and the individual, small business owner sector of the economy.
c) My vision is to operate as a for-profit full C Delaware corporation to make things straightforward from a legal perspective and to remove the conflict of interest of advocating for "smaller government" then asking government for support. I think it is also very much "putting our money where our mouth is", that is, if business is such a good idea, why not organize as one. It would be straightforward to develop a various product and service revenue streams and simply keep spending within them to prevent losses.

In terms of competing with and trying to abolish:
If there are any NGOs whose purpose is attacking our members, we: Identify, Expose and Oppose. That is, IMHO, advocating for our members. Take New Jersey small business. Say we have a critical problem of healthcare costs and availability resulting from continual efforts by a few NGOs who keep pushing legislation quietly through the legislature. It's either small business or this NGO, somebody is going to lose. We identify, expose and oppose, using all the resources we can muster with our membership. Only with a concerted, long term effort at providing our own solutions that are better and exposing all the dirt and using it to rally public opinion will politicians start to listen. Otherwise, individual small business are helpless and no current organizations have efforts that are creative and energized enough (or care for that matter).

That 3 pronged approach of Join, Compete and Abolish would dilute our efforts, if my understanding of your NGO statements is correct.

I'm thinking of my own vision, not thinking about joining or competing. The group would simply have members and do it's work.

Is the topic of NGOs a sidetrack or a main track issue?

A main track for those that oppose our members' interests and operate in the shadows. If, theoretically, they pack up and leave a certain State, then we would simply continue advocating for regulatory rightsizing. If we wound up with some sort of ideal small business-friendly State somewhere, say Texas, for example, the organization could simply shrink back it's operations to a shell that maintains copies of our writings for posterity. I doubt we'll get to that point soon, however.

I would prefer that discussion of apparent conflicting goals be discussed and resolved, before a unifying set of goals be codified.

Did the above clear things up at all ? I will continue. Also, do you have thoughts about a set of goals after reading this thread so far ?

I would prefer to assist a narrow focus, sparse number of clearly stated goals entity in the market place of ideas.

I had the same thoughts as you while developing the idea. Did the above help ?

I’m a Type “B” person, so I’ll think about this and then reply.

____________

Here is a real life situation: 1.) USA Small businesses are being crushed by Obamanation Communism: Communal Control of Medicine and Insurance (=Obama”care,” and Dodd-Frank (=unending regulations).

2.) After much discussion, our Group decides that the most helpful thing that we can do for USA Small Businesses is to support the idea that Obama should be Impeached in 2013.

3.) After much debate, 3 questions are chosen from an award winning entry by a very old graewoulf as follows:

” - - - Three questions for Benghazi-Coward Obama:

1.) Are you HIDING INFORMATION from the US Congress about the Benghazi Massacre?

2.) Have you been LYING to the US Congress, The Media, or the American Public about the Benghazi Massacre?

3.) Were you, as Commander in Chief, GROSSLY NEGLIGENT about your responsibilities to protect and assist those four Americans who subsequently were murdered in the Benghazi Massacre?

BTW, the large cap words were the same as the 3 charges handed down yesterday to BP for punishment of their Gulf of Mexico underwater blowout, a while back.

Since the US Government is going to hold a company accountable for their poor decisions, then it should hold its CIC accountable his poor decisions, AND use the same legal charges. - - - “

________

Here is my question to you :

“How would this Group put (=mechanics, procedures, division of labor/duties, methods, etc.) those 3 questions to use to achieve the Group’s Goal of Impeaching Obama in 2013, and thus help Small Business in 2014 and beyond?”