LNC Secretary suggests going after party caucus(es) for trademark infringement

LNC Secretary Alicia Mattson to LNC list:

(LNC Counsel -p) Oliver Hall’s attention is requested for this email:

LP Bylaws, Article 5.1, “No person, group or organization may use the name “Libertarian Party” or any confusingly similar designation except the Party or an organization to which the Party grants affiliate party status or as otherwise provided in these bylaws.”

This provides a very narrow scope for use of our party name. Yet one only has to search on Facebook for the name “Libertarian Party”, and you will find many groups that are not the national party, and are not an affiliate of the national party, but they use our party name to increase their profile in search results, build their own following, and use the group for
their own purposes.

One such example can be found here: (fair warning – this page contains varying degrees of nudity)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/233590827023815/

We also have a trademark on the name “Libertarian Party”. My understanding of intellectual property law is that we need to actively defend our right to the name or else over time we diminish our ability to successfully defend it.

Our bylaws don’t mention the logo, but am I correct to presume that we have also staked out a legal claim to our past and present logos?

I also see other groups (not our affiliates) using our logo in their memes, incorporated into their own logos, etc.

Some of these could potentially be rectified by merely asking the groups to cease using our name and/or logo. Others might need to receive cease-and-desist letters from our attorney.

I’d like to discuss this at our upcoming LNC meeting. Perhaps it makes sense to just make it part of the Special Counsel agenda item, since we’ll likely want to chat with Mr. Hall about it.

-Alicia

The mission of the Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus, which Ms. Mattson links to as her example above:

The Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus advocates for the legalization and destigmitization of public nudity. We seek to amend the Libertarian Party Platform to reflect these beliefs. We ask that members of the Facebook page refrain from reporting instances of human nudity that take place on the page.

Honorary Inaugural Chairman: James Weeks

68 thoughts on “LNC Secretary suggests going after party caucus(es) for trademark infringement

  1. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Thou shalt not use the holy chicken on the sacred stick nor shall you utter an invocation of its mother’s name.

    #blessedbethechicken
    #letuseat
    #nothingsayslibertarianlikethreateningstateforceforusingaforbiddenimageorforbiddenwords
    #clothingisnotoptional

  2. Caryn Ann Harlos

    To LNC Business List from Region 1 Representative Caryn Ann Harlos:

    In light of this announcement, and I want to get this on the record before I speak, I notified the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus that I resign from my Board position in that group effective immediately as this issue could cause an appearance of a conflict of interest as they may need to vote on any issue regarding this. So my voting position in my disclosed conflicts in that group can be removed, I remain an active dues-paying member but have no vote in the governance. I remain the “owner” (as much as Facebook groups can be owned) of the discussion group Libertarian Party USA (Unofficial). There are various inactive groups and pages I may “own” that also contain the name, but they are dormant.

    Now that that is out of the way.

    IMHO this is a complete waste of our time and unenforceable. I will not vote to spend member money on this. Here are some reasons:

    While we are stuck in the statist system we have, claiming ownership over “words” – words that existed in a political context way before we were even formed is an unethical use of state force.

    There are records of groups doing this for decades – scattered all over the internet. Selective enforcement waives that right and can raise the suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that this is a politically motivated move. And if we don’t ferret out every single use and are selectively doing so (such as the nudist group above) it definitely will be seen as political and nannying.

    I will have to do research on this, but I remember a kerfuffle a while ago about the “trade mark” not being registered until after the horse was way out of the barn. This came up in Colorado when we were discussing the implication of the Oregon issue and interference in the autonomy of affiliates of whether the LPCO had an independent right to its name.

    So we go after candidates now too? Which are using the logo before even being an official nominee? Really? That’s a great way to keep our logo from being spread.

    No bueno.

  3. Steve Scheetz

    I have disagreed with Alicia before, but this move brings a level of comedy worthy of Republicans’ and Democrats’ choice of preznidential candidate. To believe that we would waste seconds on this is ludicrous beyond measure.

    I am so tired of Libertarians going after Libertarians instead of working to dismantle the state monopoly on political power and the state monopoly on the various political issues/services.

    WE, who should be working toward free market solutions are now mired in drama through bullshit like this.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  4. Thomas Libertarian Party Knapp

    The LNC never has, does not now, and never will, own the term “Libertarian Party.” Its claim to ownership of that name via (among other things) trademark law would be fraudulent even if “intellectual property” wasn’t an anti-libertarian statist scam.

    The 2018 convention should amend the bylaws to remove that idiotic section.

  5. Jim F

    When the conservatives are loosing control of the Party it is clear the will stick to it, by any means necessary.

  6. Aiden James

    Thomas Knapp… how is it anti-Libertarian? Would it not be protecting against fraud and theft to support IP? If company A produces a product and puts a brand name on it, then another person comes along, makes a product in the same sector and decides to through the same name on it… would company B (the second person) now not be defrauding company A and defrauding the customer into believing their purchasing a product from company A? What if company B makes a shoddy product? This is a form of theft from Company A. Company B is damaging Company A’s brand equity and customer loyalty.

    BTW, trademarks are only valid in a specific industry. If somebody starts “Libertarian Party Planning” it won’t violate a trademark because the Libertarian Party does not have a trademark in the party planning sector.

  7. dL

    The LNC never has, does not now, and never will, own the term “Libertarian Party.” Its claim to ownership of that name via (among other things) trademark law would be fraudulent even if “intellectual property” wasn’t an anti-libertarian statist scam.

    The 2018 convention should amend the bylaws to remove that idiotic section.

    +1

  8. dL

    When the conservatives are loosing control of the Party it is clear the will stick to it, by any means necessary.

    yep..on the surface, smacks of social conservatism reaching for IP to censor a more socially permissive point of view…

  9. dL

    how is it anti-Libertarian? Would it not be protecting against fraud and theft to support IP?

    IP debate aside, there is no case of theft or fraud in this instance. Indeed, it appears to be merely an attempt at discretionary censorship.

  10. langa

    Please tell me this is a joke, and the LP is not seriously considering wasting money on something so absurd.

  11. paulie Post author

    As far as I have seen no other LNC members have joined Ms. Mattson in her quest to press the trademark claims, at least so far. Caryn Ann posted her reply to the list in a comment above. Daniel Hayes posted a blank message, then said it was a freudian slip that represented what he thought the LNC should do about this “situation.” As of the last time I checked that was it.

  12. Steven R Linnabary

    Meanwhile, alt-right trolls (Nazi’s) appear to have overwhelmed the (unofficial) Libertarian page on FaceBook. To the point of openly selling their merchandise on the page. smh.

    PEACE

  13. From Der Sidelines

    Dear Bigfoot Mattson:

    You are an idiot.

    Leave the LP for the sewer rats where you belong. Take the rest of the Starr Chamber with you.

    Signed,

    The Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party.

  14. James Gholston

    Caucuses, the presumed primary target here, can slightly alter their names to sidestep this.

    The collateral damage, OTOH, would be severe. Candidates, PACs, student organizations, activists wanting to hand out materials that they themselves produced, and so on could potentially be shut down and go back to looking at cat videos online while our country crashes and burns around us.

    …Or be forced to drag the LNC into court. Believe it or not suing each other isn’t really at the top of the list of things we should be doing right now. Let’s not make it a prerequisite for continuing to get things done.

    Also, this would reduce party cohesion. I immediately worry about disintegration. Who are we with if we can’t say we’re with the Libertarian Party? “Hello, I’m a candidate for the nomination for some party, but I’m afraid of saying which one lest I get sued. Can I get your vote in the November election?” “Maybe we need to start a different party that doesn’t have these restrictions” — especially if one’s state LP can’t get state and local candidates on the ballot anyway. And/or nobody likes the messaging that the LNC is providing.

    Remember that there is research that shows that after the election it’s the party that’s remembered more than the candidate. If we can’t have a large, visible party there is a strong danger that our movement is going to basically disappear. The disaster could be far-reaching and very long term.

    Then there’s the matter of ‘would it be nice if we had the control this option offered.’ What in the past 40 years should give anyone the impression that the LNC is reliable enough to be trusted with this power? It’s been a magnet for takeovers and entrenchment directed against the will of the party at large since the Crane Machine at least. I want the LNC to have a lot LESS power, and absolutely not life-or-death powers over the entire party.

    The Libertarian Party is not the LNC or even just the sum of its executive committees. It’s all of us.

  15. Jeremy Siple

    On behalf of the Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus, I would like to personally thank Alicia Mattson for bringing attention to our cause, and invite everyone but her to our clothing optional hospitality suite in 2018.

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    Since when did Libertarians ever care about nudity?

    Maybe someone should remind Ms. Mattson about the NAP and the fact that Libertarians don’t wish to tell others how to live.

  17. Robbie

    So the naked truth is now out.

    Alicia Mattson is an anti-libertarian commie infiltrator dedicated to screwing things up with petty interpretations as I’ve been saying for years.

    Expel this idiot.

  18. Jim F

    The last time I went to s clothing optional libertarian party is was a bunch of dudes with there clothes on.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim F,

    Just guessing here, but is your problem with nudity perhaps related to your obvious history of not attending English class, maybe because of a dream you had about being there and suddenly realizing you were naked?

  20. Pete Blome

    Ms. Mattson’s idea is a waste of time. I am no lawyer, but I don’t see the threat of some other group sneaking their way in and taking over LNC trademarks as real. If someone did try to do this, it seems to me they would lose in court pretty quick. In the meantime, how’s it gonna look with the LNC quashing groups for using Libertarian symbolism when the vast majority probably are Libertarian in outlook? Eric Hoffer said it best, “You become the thing that you hate.”

    Ms. Mattson should focus on things a national party is supposed to do; establishing a reliable nation wide organization, securing ever more donors through personally promoting the goals of the Libertarian Party, and lastly finding candidates who are credible, capable and reliable. I’m talking about people who can actually run a government instead of just their mouths. You know, you never hear the LNC talk about this kind of stuff.

  21. dL

    On behalf of the Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus, I would like to personally thank Alicia Mattson for bringing attention to our cause, and invite everyone but her to our clothing optional hospitality suite in 2018.

    good point…Streisand effect

  22. Zoltan Istvan

    You can’t effectively trademark the word “party” without accepting a trademark that is weak in courts in various ways. Just google the issue. Every party has gone through this. Great and interesting reading, in fact.

    Zoltan Istvan / Libertarian candidate for California Governor

  23. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Intellectual property does not convey any absolute rights. IP ownership is limited by such legal concepts as free speech and fair use, among others.

    Just because Coca-Cola is a trademark, doesn’t mean I can’t discuss Coca-Cola, write articles about Coca-Cola, devote a blog to my opinions about Coca-Cola, or even use the term “Coca-Cola” to direct Google searches to my Coca-Cola articles.

    Ms. Mattson is an authoritarian idiot.

  24. Michael

    Q: What’s the difference between the Nudist Caucus and the lnc-business list?
    A: One of them has a lot of stuff that I really don’t want to see but other libertarians insist on showing me. The other one has pictures of naked people.

  25. paulie Post author

    On behalf of the Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus, I would like to personally thank Alicia Mattson for bringing attention to our cause, and invite everyone but her to our clothing optional hospitality suite in 2018.

    Shouldn’t she get an invitation too, for all the great promotional work she has done for the caucus?

  26. Brian

    Is there any wonder why registered Libertarians are abandoning the party? Here’s an idea…let’s get back to the simple, yet very important, Libertarian principles on which we all used to agree. Who’s intellectual property is it anyway? Who had the initial thought and stated that it was his or hers? That’s who owns that “property”… and now the LP wants to confiscate it?
    The LP has lost its way and is soon to be another party of political scum using the Libertarian name to facilitate a hidden agenda.

  27. paulie Post author

    Is there any wonder why registered Libertarians are abandoning the party?

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    http://ballot-access.org/2017/07/27/new-registration-data-for-the-united-states/

    The new national registration totals for the United States, in the 32 jurisdictions in which the voter registration form asks the applicant to choose a party, are:

    Democratic 44,706,349 (40.30%)
    Republican 32,807,417 (29.57%)
    independent & misc. 30,818,334 (27.78%)
    Libertarian 511,277 (.46%)
    Green 258,683 (.23%)
    Constitution 97,893 (.09%)
    Working Families 52,748 (.05%)
    Reform 5,204 (.00+%)
    other parties 1,684,317 (1.52%)

    The number of registered voters in the 32 jurisdictions with partisan registration is 110,942,222. That is lower than the national registration in November 2016, which was 112,518,979. It is normal for the number of registered voters to decline in the months after an election, due to list purges.

    In November 2016, the percentages were: Democratic 40.60%; Republican 29.37%; Libertarian .44%; Green .23%; Constitution .08%; Working Families .05%; Reform .00+%; other parties 1.50%; independent and miscellaneous 27.72%.

    In the few states that have separate numbers for active and inactive voters, this compilation uses only the active voters.

    All of the data is as of mid-2017, except the California data is from February 2017; the Pennsylvania data is from April 2017; the Connecticut data is from late 2016; the Florida minor party totals are from November 2016; and the Massachusetts data for the unqualified parties is from November 2016.

  28. NewFederalist

    Nudity? Really? Okay then… who is the most popular guy at a nudist colony? A guy who can come back with six cups of coffee and a dozen donuts! Who cares if he is a Libertarian! 🙂

  29. Just Some Random Guy

    In fairness, I do remember how there were two different groups simultaneously claiming to be the actual Libertarian Party of Oregon, which led to a number of conflicts, so working to make sure someone else doesn’t co-opt your name for their own separate group does make some sense.

  30. George Phillies

    I’m not sure this would be quite as quaint as the LNC and surrogates (I would have to look up the details, as it has been a decade, though the contact I had was from the LNC’s house attorney) suing to have me removed from the ballot.

    They lost.

  31. Thomas L. Knapp

    JSRG,

    The Oregon situation is a great example of why the bylaws language is silly and the trademark claim is fraudulent.

    Political parties are organized, regulated and named per state election laws, and the Libertarian National Committee has precisely zero legal claim on the name “Libertarian Party” in any state. In fact, many state Libertarian Parties (possibly including Oregon’s) existed before the LNC was created.

    The only issue the LNC had any plausible interest in deciding was whether or not to disaffiliate the LPO in favor of the fraudulent impostor organization pretending to be the LPO, and IIRC tried to use its fraudulent trademark claim against the real LPO and to help out the fraudulent impostor organization, but never went to court with said trademark claim, probably because the LNC’s lawyers are well aware that’s a gun that can only be fired once, and that will miss.

  32. Luke


    Clayton Hunt
    August 6, 2017 at 19:35

    Secretary Mattson can kindly go suck a dick.

    Well, that would certainly be better than if she does it unkindly.

  33. Steven R Linnabary

    Alicia Mattson is an anti-libertarian commie infiltrator dedicated to screwing things up with petty interpretations as I’ve been saying for years.

    Ms. Mattson is an authoritarian idiot.

    Secretary Mattson can kindly go suck a dick.

    I don’t think these comments are constructive. Ms Mattson is highly capable and is quite good at being LNC Secretary. Plus, she was elected by a majority of Libertarians at our Orlando convention. We should be able to debate issues and even disagree in a civil manner.

    (lol, and I certainly do disagree with her on a number of issues.)

    Please let’s try to be civil.

    PEACE

  34. Jeremy Siple

    Secretary Mattson is threatening to use state violence against her fellow Libertarians. That warrants no such respect.

  35. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Ms Mattson is highly capable and is quite good at being LNC Secretary.

    When she’d previously lost re-election to LNC Secretary, didn’t she burst into tears at the convention? That’s what someone reported.

    If true, Mattson is not very professional. Not to mention, if her sense of self-worth is so tied to her being an LNC officer, she is a psychologically troubled woman.

  36. paulie Post author

    She’s passionate about what she does and was overcome with emotion in the moment. That is perfectly understandable, no matter how much we may disagree on matters such as this one and many other intra-party controversies.

  37. paulie Post author

    Sounds like BS to me.

    1) If they had, I would have at the least expected an announcement on the LNC list,

    2) There has been a long time rumor that they were dating, but the only time I asked him about it (granted, a long time ago) Aaron denied it and said he was dating someone else who he did not want to name. The rumor that he was dating Alicia was already in common circulation long before then.

  38. Shawn Levasseur

    So long as a group is not pretending to be an official affiliate of the LP or the LP itself, trademark law doesn’t prevent groups from calling themselves a caucus or interest group of the Libertarian Party.

    It seems Mattson wants to use trademark defense as a means of disassociating the LP from groups that make us look bad or silly to the general public. This is not the purpose of or an appropriate use of trademark law. Especially when the use of the term Libertarian PARTY in a caucus’ name (as opposed to just Libertarian) is important in communicating a desire to either promote that the goals of said group are to act within the LP, or to influence policy within the LP.

    Further, beyond questions of law, is the fact that such use of the law invokes the Streisand Effect. Giving targeted groups more attention than they would have gotten otherwise.

    I suspect that the “Caucus” that Mattson cites as an example, is nothing more than a Facebook page set up by a few people, or maybe even just one. To try and issue Cease & Desist letters to every potentially embarrassing group would be an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole, as it would encourage internet trolls to pop up hundreds of social media accounts of phony and dubious LP Caucuses to drain the resources of the Libertarian Party in combatting them.

    All that said, I think the LNC as currently constituted will not pursue any such actions.

    Separate from this, I do not think that Caryn Ann Harlos needs to resign from the LP Radical Caucus post to oppose any such action. It does not change the fact she is interested in the future of the group, and its right to be called the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus. So long as she hasn’t been trying to hide her association, (which of course, she hasn’t) I don’t believe that such a move is necessary for her to fight against any such move by the LNC.

  39. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Hi Shawn, I already have resigned, and while I know it might not be strictly necessary, I wanted to avoid any side issues. I am still a fully disclosed engaged member of the Caucus, I am just no longer on their governing Board, but will still volunteer to help on projects with the Board. So in essence, the difference is I don’t get a vote. The reason I felt this important was that if this is pursued, the LPRC Board will have to decide if it wants to stand its ground – that may create a conflict of interest for me.

    Further, the Caucus positions are appointed and I have been given more than enough opportunity in the Caucus to grow, and I want to raise up new leaders to carry on the banner. I won’t be around forever, and now that it is good and started, some of us need to fade back a little and pass the torch and be there to help re-light if it becomes necessary.

  40. Chuck Moulton

    Root’s Teeth Are Awesome wrote:

    When she’d previously lost re-election to LNC Secretary, didn’t she burst into tears at the convention? That’s what someone reported.

    Anyone who invests a lot of time and energy into a race can get emotional about the outcome. There’s nothing odd or wrong about that.

  41. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Anyone who invests a lot of time and energy into a race can get emotional about the outcome. There’s nothing odd or wrong about that.

    Yet I’ve heard libertarians say that anyone who so emotionally craves political power or a political office is unfit for it. That a true libertarian should not crave political power or political office, but should assume it reluctantly, as a disagreeable but necessary burden to advance liberty.

    Mattson strikes me as one of those people whose sense of self worth is tied to having an LP title. All too many of those in the LP. And no sooner did Mattson lose that election than her LP cronies appointed her to some other LP office, like the proverbial bad cold that won’t go away. Too many of those people in the LP as well.

  42. Andy

    I have often wondered if there should be term limits for the LNC. It seems that a lot of people get elected over and over based on name recognition, much like regular politicians. Thoughts?

  43. Tony From Long Island

    Wouldn’t term limits be anti-libertarian? I’ve always felt that we have term limits already – elections.

    I would actually LIKE there to be term limits for congress, but that would counter the will of the people – as clueless as they often may be.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    What would be anti-libertarian about term limits, especially within a voluntary organization?

    I personally don’t support term limits for either LNC or Congress because I don’t see them as actually solving the underlying problems that result in incumbency and expect that those problems will just manifest in different ways (as they have — when one of The Special People actually loses an LNC election, he or she promptly gets appointed to something that keeps him or her in the room and in the loop until there’s a vacancy, or until the next election).

  45. Andy

    There is nothing anti-libertarian about term limits. Term limits are an organizational issue, and they place limits on power. Statistics show that incumbents have a big advantage in being elected, and there are studies that show that the longer people are in a position of power, the greater the odds are that they will become arrogant and corrupt.

    Also, with the way the the LP has elections for the LNC, most of the candidates are given little speaking time, and the delegates do not even know who most of the candidates are. I have been to several conventions, and most of the LNC votes that are cast are done so on the basis of name recognition.

  46. Andy

    This may be hard to come up with a way to implement, but what about performance based metrics for the LNC? Grow the party, and you are eligible to run for reelection. Fail to grow the party, and you are not eligible to run for reelection.

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    “Grow the party, and you are eligible to run for reelection. Fail to grow the party, and you are not eligible to run for reelection.”

    Be careful about proposing such a metric when your own matrix of beliefs and what you find acceptable could hardly be considered mainstream.

  48. Andy

    Nothing about the Libertarian Party is really mainstream. How is the party ever going to get anywhere if it does not grow? Most self identified small “l” libertarians are not in the LP, and many have never been in the LP. If the LP can’t attract people who are already self described libertarians, how does it expect to get people who are not yet sold on the libertarian message, or who have never heard the libertarian message, to join?

    Also, there are plenty of people out there who agree with me, or who generally agree with me.

    I bet the Libertarian Party could be several times larger than it is right now If it put a priority on an aggressive membership recruitment campaign.

    The party will never get anywhere if it remains as it is.

  49. Tony From Long Island

    I guess a private organization can do what they choose in terms of term limits. However in terms of congress, I see term limits as government controlling the will of the people. It is sorta a catch-22, though since “the government” is made up of many of those people who would be affected by term limits.

    Just my .02

  50. Andy

    Given that the electoral process is not fair, the current election results do not truly reflect the will of the people.

    There are already term limits on the office of President. Should this be removed? If so, imagine if Bush or Obama had been in for one or more extra terms. Imagine President Trump being President for the rest of his life.

  51. Anthony Dlugos

    “Most self identified small “l” libertarians are not in the LP, and many have never been in the LP. , and many have never been in the LP. If the LP can’t attract people who are already self described libertarians, how does it expect to get people who are not yet sold on the libertarian message, or who have never heard the libertarian message, to join?”

    The best marketing heuristic for the would-be entrepreneur that I have ever heard:

    Sell to the Classes, live with the Masses. Sell to the Masses, live with the Classes.

    If you think all these small-l libertarians are waiting for the (your) perfect representation of libertarianism to come along before they cast their vote for the LP, I would suggest to you that you are just projecting YOUR desires onto those small-l libertarians. If you want to grow the party, moderate the message so that it appeals to the maximum number of voters. In fact, most purists tacitly admit this by arguing success in that way would be pyrrhic.

  52. Tony From Long Island

    Andy, I do not think there should be term limits for any elected position – including president. However, since that is engrained in the Constitution, it isn’t changing any time soon.

    Is the electoral process fair? But neither are term limits, in my opinion.

  53. Andy

    I understand the arguments against term limits, but I lean toward the arguments in favor of term limits being more compelling.

  54. Andy

    Anthony, I thought that Ron Paul was a pretty darn good candidate, and he did relatively well in the Republican primaries (considering what he was up against), and I would say that the rEVOLution that he sparked from 2007-2012 did more to grow the libertarian movement than anything that has happened so far.

    Like I have said before, there is probably no such thing as a perfect candidate, and even if such a person exists, we all probably have a different idea of who that person is.

  55. Michael

    Andy wrote:
    This may be hard to come up with a way to implement, but what about performance based metrics for the LNC? Grow the party, and you are eligible to run for reelection. Fail to grow the party, and you are not eligible to run for reelection.

    I think this idea is good, and what’s more, that the LP doesn’t need any changes in bylaws.

    Any LNC candidate who wants to run on a performance-based-metric platform can just do so, whether it’s for their first election or for re-election.

    Then you still have to decide which metrics matter to you. And then, the really hard part, you have to convince other delegates to cast their votes based (at least partially) on metrics.

  56. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Some delegates do this already (though for some positions – grow the party is a dubious metric – the best Treasurer for instance may not be able to prove they directly grew the party, but that they excelled in what they are supposed to do).

    However, it is one thing to say that LNC members should have this as a priority, when honestly, not many members do except when it is time to get a lick in at somebody. The time to know what is being done and for accountability is not only at Convention, it is during the years. The LNC has a very high level of transparency – take advantage of it. Read the reports, read the list, know what is going on and the realities of the times and arenas they are working in.

    I talk to some people who might be running and I ask basic things like “do you read the LNC business list” “are you up to speed with what is going on” “what would you have done differently in such and such a vote” and I get a digital blank stare.

  57. Michael

    Caryn, my experience with searching vital information from party history has not been “a very high level of transparency”. Perhaps I’m doing it badly or perhaps I haven’t networked with enough people yet or perhaps I have not found the right repository.

  58. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Perhaps not in the past, but certainly now I believe. Its subcommittees are another matter.

  59. Michael

    Let’s just agree to disagree on how to characterize the current level of transparency.

    Operationally, maybe you can help me do better than I am now, if you have time and inclination. Could I ask you for that?

    (I really wish this site had private message functions).

  60. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Yes certainly you can. At the LNC level there is a lot of transparency now – perhaps you don’t know where to look. But at the subcommittee level, some are good and some are not.

  61. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Andy

    There are already term limits on the office of President. Should this be removed? If so, imagine if Bush or Obama had been in for one or more extra terms. Imagine President Trump being President for the rest of his life.

    A removal of term limits would not have let Bush get a third term because he had no chance at that; he was supremely unpopular towards the end of his second term. I’m dubious he would have even been able to win the Republican primary if he wanted to go for another. Obama would have had a shot, as he left with more popularity, but it’s still uncertain he would have won if he had even tried. As for Trump, let’s see if he even makes it to a second term before wondering about the possibility of him getting a third.

    I mean, it took about 150 years for any president to have more than two terms. It’s actually quite plausible that, even without the passage of the 22nd Amendment, we’d have had zero three-term presidents in the interim.

  62. Andrei Mincov

    What irony! While I personally lean libertarian, one of my biggest problems with the libertarian movement is their advocacy against intellectual property laws. Somehow their support for voluntary exchange and individual rights stops short of protecting those whose labor results in intangible works of art and intellect. And now they want to enforce their trademark? P.S. Libertarian Party’s trademark will not allow the party to stop the mentioning of the word “libertarian” on the internet. That’s just not how trademarks work. It’s only trademark infringement if under someone else’s brand you offer products or services that are associated with that brand in the public’s mind. By the way, I wonder if the Libertarian Party is aware of the recently published trademarks LIBERTARIAN for alcoholic beverages (App. No. 87202889) and for beers (App. No. 87202884)?

  63. paulie Post author

    dL previously marked Andrei Mincov’s comment as spam, and indeed it did contain an ad for Mr. Mincov’s business; however, I think the portion of the comment I restored was substantive. I did edit the comment to delete the ad. As for intellectual property, libertarians are divided on the issue and I am not aware that the LPUS has taken a specific stand on this, other than its unenforced and IMO unenforceable trademark claims, which apply to “libertarian party” and not “libertarian” generically.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *