Austin Cassidy to replace ‘G.E.’ as editor-in-chief of IPR, effective immediately

In an effort to streamline my life and pursue other goals, I have decided to step down as editor-in-chief of IPR and turn the reins over to the best man possible, Austin Cassidy, the original founder of Third Party Watch.

Two factors influenced my decision to step down: (1) A general loss of interest in third-party politics and electoral politics in general, and (2) the time-consuming nature of IPR (and politics in general) in relation to my other priorities in life: my work and my family.

Those interested can follow my writing at Amateur Economists magazine.

To all of IPR’s readers and especially the frequent commenters: Thank you for helping me build IPR into the premier third-party news source online. I trust Austin and the other contributors — Fred, Trent, Peter, Gregg, paulie, Ross, and VTV (listed in order of seniority) — will continue to build the site by putting forth time and effort that I’m just unable to spend at this time.

Sincerely,

J.D. Seagraves (G.E.)

46 thoughts on “Austin Cassidy to replace ‘G.E.’ as editor-in-chief of IPR, effective immediately

  1. Fred Church Ortiz

    Sad to see the seasons change. I’m hopeful GE will become nostalgic for haranguing the statists, in good time.

  2. G.E. Post author

    Yes, although I think Gregg was before Peter.

    Also, I snubbed Tom, who was actually first, since he’s only written 8 articles!

  3. Fred Church Ortiz

    I’m everywhere before you, Trent. Though I thought Peter was here right from the start and Gregg came on a week or two later.

  4. Trent Hill

    We have a contributor named Peter?

    I kid, I kid.

    “I’m everywhere before you, Trent. ”

    Including your mom? OOOO.

  5. Ross Levin

    GE, even though we’ve had our disagreements, I’m sad to see you go. You’ve been the force behind this website, making it is what it is today.

    Will you stay on as a contributor (either way, of course you won’t be contributing very much)?

  6. Austin Cassidy

    Thanks Jason and everyone else! I’m hoping that we can keep things going pretty much as they have been. This site is growing rapidly and there’s no reason for that to stop, even after this year’s elections have passed us by.

    I’m excited to be filling this role for now, but Jason still has a stake in this site and he’s *always* welcome to come back in whatever role he wants to take on.

  7. Paleo Pat

    If you need a writer for this Blog let me know, I’d be happy to contribute.

    -Pat

    P.S. You can contact me via my Blog, which is link by clicking my user name.

    P.P.S. You need to upgrade to the latest version of wordpress too. 😀

  8. Catholic Trotskyist

    You did a great job, G.E. Even though you harshly criticized me as a troll for no good reason, you are invited to join the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America at any time if you change your political ideas.

  9. johncjackson

    G.E. ( and UA, JDS,etc) was awesome. But electoral politics and all this bullshit is definitely a waste of time compared to family and productive work.

  10. MattSwartz

    You had a good run, GE, and you held people’s feet to the fire when they needed it. It was a good on you, all around.

  11. ronaldkanehardy

    Good move, GE and always a hard one to make.

    My family can’t wait until I leave Green Party activism and spend more time with them.

  12. Fred Church Ortiz

    Including your mom? OOOO.

    Damn, I might need some cream for that burn. Or is that what she said???

  13. G.E. Post author

    Jeez, I was expecting a lot of “good riddance, that guy was a bum” comments. I guess my critics decided to follow the advice about not saying anything at all.

    Regardless: I was a huge fan of TPW under Austin and I didn’t want Viguerie/Barr/Gordon to get away with the plot they had unleashed. That’s why I started IPR. But I was never a contributor, only a commenter, on TPW. And although I think I write good newsy articles, I’m better as a commenter and Austin is the best possible editor-in-chief.

    Brian Holtz pointed out the hypocrisy and unfairness of me dragging other people’s names through the mud (deservedly so, in my opinion) under a pseudonym (even though essentially everyone knows my real name and I do not attempt to hide it). But do to the nature of my work, I cannot afford to have my name come up in search results that have much of anything to do with third-party politics, let alone my own extreme views and the infighting, etc.

    So I’m taking a step back. I’m still able to post comments and even articles, but the show will go on without me.

    What really brought this to a head was an increase of activity on the IPR Google Mail list in which many of the contributors were pushing for new features to be implemented — but I just don’t have the time to do that work. So I’m letting Austin do it.

    Thanks to everyone who had nice things to say.

  14. pdsa

    G.E. – you should not mistake criticism for a lack of respect or animosity.

    Don’t you mind people grinning in your face
    Don’t you mind people grinning in your face
    There’s one thing to bear in mind
    A true friend is hard to find
    Don’t you mind people grinning in your face

    Son House – ‘Grinning In Your Face’

  15. wesbenedict

    Now I’m forgetting whether or not Trent Hill was the Louisiana Constitution Party member who supported and understood free trade. I know G.E. was a free trade supporter. I do hope at least a few free trade supporters (and therefore anti-energy independence supporters) stick around on this blog. Otherwise, I’ll be boycotting this one.

  16. paulie cannoli

    I’m for both free trade and energy independence. Not by government mandate, but by things such as ending the regime’s clampdown on hemp, stopping military-industrial corporate welfare that props up petroleum, taxes and regulations that hamper the effective development of locally produced sustainable energy alternatives, etc.

  17. wesbenedict

    I’m against the concept of striving for “energy independence.” I’m all for reducing domestic restrictions on energy production. But if America doesn’t have a comparative advantage to a degree that results in a situation where America doesn’t import energy, so be it. Buy it and import it.

  18. Fred Church Ortiz

    But if America doesn’t have a comparative advantage to a degree that results in a situation where America doesn’t import energy, so be it. Buy it and import it.

    I think a real free market would provide that comparative advantage, relative to the structures in place in most other oil producing countries. Capitalism delivers what protectionism promises.

  19. paulie cannoli

    I think a real free market would provide that comparative advantage, relative to the structures in place in most other oil producing countries.

    I agree. There would be no need to import energy in a true free market. Petrol gets propped up by all sorts of government crap. The trillion dollars in Iraq and the war on cannabis plants are just the tip of the iceberg.

    Capitalism delivers what protectionism promises.

    Corporate capitalism is a form of protectionism – protecting big corporations, shielding them from a true free market by government force.

  20. wesbenedict

    In a free market America would either be a net exporter or a net importer of energy and I wouldn’t care which.

  21. Trent Hill

    “Now I’m forgetting whether or not Trent Hill was the Louisiana Constitution Party member who supported and understood free trade.”

    Yes, I am a free trader. But i am no longer a member of CP Wes.

  22. Ross Levin

    I’m for fair trade and I’m for energy independence, but not at any cost. Clean energy should be the first priority and if we get energy independence as a “side effect” of that, then so be it.

  23. Deran

    G.E., you young libertarian capitalist bolshevik, you! Who will mischaracterize everything as socialist?! And the vituperative rudeness, and libertarian capitalist righteousness! Sorely missed! No, really, I will miss your ultra libertarian capitalism, always good to have a strong representative of the other side. Good luck, cheers!

  24. paulie cannoli

    Who will mischaracterize everything as socialist?! And the vituperative rudeness, and libertarian capitalist righteousness!

    I’ll try, although I’m not so much of a fan of the political use of the term capitalism – see

    http://mises.org/story/2099#6

    Or socialism, for that matter (TLK correctly pointed out recently, it means worker/collective ownership, which can be either voluntary or statist – as with markets, I endorse the voluntary kind and oppose the statist kind).

  25. darolew

    “I’m still able to post comments and even articles, but the show will go on without me.”

    So you won’t be vanishing? That’s good.

    “I endorse the voluntary kind [of socialism] and oppose the statist kind”

    Why endorse bad ideas? Economic calculation has nothing to do with how voluntary socialism is. The various 19th century communes (most of them with voluntary participants) were all miserable failures. Sure, there’s nothing unethical about voluntary socialism, but it still can’t work. I don’t see the logic in endorsing rampant waste, misallocation and destruction of capital, no matter if it’s perfectly moral and voluntary. My opinion, anyway.

  26. Deran

    I feel greatly relieved that comrade cannoli will commit himself to uphold the banner of forthright anti-statism with a capitalist economy!

    I think that as the recent model of capitalism falls apart; some people will be looking for an alternative narrative, regarding what’s going on, and what can be done abt it. This seems like the time that various “third party” efforts will sink or swim, or whatever metaphor is appropriate.

  27. paulie cannoli

    I feel greatly relieved that comrade cannoli will commit himself to uphold the banner of forthright anti-statism with a capitalist economy!
    Tovarish Deran,

    Not exactly. See

    http://mises.org/story/2099#6

    Also, as previously noted, free people can choose any economic system which suits them. Communalists can live communally, merchants can trade; and the state can die with dignity.

  28. Hugh Jass

    Of course, due to the very nature of a free-market economy, capitalism will prosper under freedom.

  29. Spence

    Now now, let’s not change the subject at hand here.

    G.E., as much as you bothered me with various insipid comments at times, you helped strengthened my overall belief in anarcho-capitalism, and learn the true radical perspective on various matters, not the strawman caricatures that others (including other radicals) would frequently perpetuate.

    I hope that you do not submit to apathy in the future. Third parties today are plants, if you catch my drift. And the climate will soon change. I’m sorry to see the LP kill so many people’s hopes and such. Maybe the favor will be returned.

    Farewell!

  30. paulie cannoli

    Of course, due to the very nature of a free-market economy, capitalism will prosper under freedom.

    Unrestrained trade and communalism are two forms of cooperative efforts. Just different kinds of voluntary cooperation. Voluntary cooperation is good.

    State corporatism/”capitalism” and sate socialism are two forms of non-concensual activity (IE rape). Rape is bad.

    Everything else is window dressing.

  31. Scotty Boman

    “Amateur Economists Magazine” has a new reader. This is the first time I can think of where you have included your full legal name with “G.E.” I had a feeling it was you all along.

    Keep the faith.

  32. Prospective Advertiser

    Good to see continuity with this publication. It does have a very interesting demographic. A company that I represent would like to advertise here. Our attempts to get information on advertising having failed, I wonder if someone ought to propose our team’s services for providing business planning. There is clearly an opportunity for the owners of IPR to make money. One wonders, in the absence of subscribers or advertisers, what the plan might be.

    And in wonder, conclude that perhaps there is no plan.

    GE has been a very good reporter for this publication, and also a good editor. His comments have been controversial, which has helped stimulate readership. Best wishes, GE, for success in whatever you choose to do.

    Wes Benedict is exactly correct. Free trade and free markets do not promote “energy independence” nor any of the other, many, self-sufficiency fallacies. Each individual, each company, and each group (country, state, province, principality, etc.) should identify one or more distinctive competences. Doing what you do best should make you more money than doing what you must to, say, grow your own food or power your own home.

    Are you energy independent yourself? Or do you pay for natural gas and electricity? If you can make ends meet while paying a utility bill or two, why is that not a valid model for the country?

    Energy independence for an individual may make sense for those seeking privacy. But, the most extremely private are also vulnerable in another way – they might disappear a very private person, and who would know?

Leave a Reply

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