July 23, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKJYaI9wfFg&feature=youtu.be
Caryn Ann Harlos is Social Media Chair of the Libertarian Party of Colorado. She also is a writer and frequent commenter here at IPR.
In this video, Caryn is speaking for herself, not as a representative of the LP of CO.
Jill Pyeatt is a small-business owner and jewelry designer from Southern California. She currently serves on the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of CA. She can be found on Facebook and Twitter.
Comments are closed.
Happy to hear it.
As far as my youtube stats questions, it’s really more of a general query at this point and not specifically aimed at either you or your video, just a “somewhat curious in case anyone reading actually knows the answers to those questions and doesn’t mind sharing them but not curious enough to do the research myself” sort of thing.
Paulie, I have no idea… and I suspect the majority is just a few minutes or autoplay. Out of that number a small percentage watched all the way through. I have gotten public and private feedback with questions on items towards the end, meaning it was watched… but what percentage? 10-20% that might be high too. I don’t do this sort of this so I really don’t know.
It has been more successful than I had hoped however.
Thanks for clarifying about the FB/youtube discrepancy. I’m still somewhat curious about the general questions I asked about how youtube viewership is counted (ie in those stats Chuck referred to), if anyone knows.
re: Pledge… I haven’t re-watched the video but I am 99% sure I never brought up the Pledge. But you also know that has never been a touchstone of my argument.
I think though people might be locking at the accompanying text to the video which does close with the Pledge and think I make that argument in the video. The text is a copy from an old NAP Pledge post as I didn’t want to type out all that text again, and the purpose of the Pledge there was more of a call to invite people to join the LP and to show that the language is consistent. But I don’t use the Pledge argument in this video. I think it is valid.. but I don’t wish to use an argument that will go off into the weeds.
From Facebook
Paulie,the youtube upload was just for here. It was put on Facebook first, and it literally has nearly 5K views now. How many sat through it all? That we can’t know. But I can tell you I have been contacted by more people that have, than I hoped. I thought it would be me and a friend.
the vast majority I am sure only started it… but if I were to guess the numbers that actually watched it all the way through…over a hundred..
I am pleased.
I do things primarily for my own satisfaction so if no one watched it, I would have still done it.
That would be awesome, but my screen now says 55, so it must have been 48 then, not 4800. As far as I know that doesn’t tell us how many of them watched it all the way through. Also, I don’t know if it tells us how many people loaded the youtube page or how many watched. If someone loads the youtube page but doesn’t watch does it count? How about someone who plays the video embedded somewhere else, like this site, but does not go to the youtube page for the video, do they count?
But, Caryn, the SoP is over 140 characters long, so it’s by definition already TL;DR. Besides, any time some people see “SoP” or “Statement of Principles” they immediately translate it to mean Membership Pledge.
or I got one better!
#SoP4LP2016
or of course
#NAP4LP2016
I dealt mostly with the SoP (but the NAP within the SoP) and following.
I just love Libertarian acronyms. TANSTAAFL FTW
;tldw
I heart the Statement of Principles.
Works for me.
Speaking as the world’s busiest and least patient yet most well informed man (TM)…
I don’t always read executive summaries, but when I do, I prefer they be prepared by someone who hasn’t actually read/watched/listened to what they are summarizing at all.
That’s a bit too long for a meme. Maybe someone can make me an executive summary of it?
Let me critique your executive summary:
==Austin bad… pledge… statement of principles… Caryn angry.==
Good God man! I only had 28 minutes. I never mentioned the pledge. Not once. That would take another 28 minutes.
On a serious note, I didn’t mention the pledge. Yes the SoP, yes the Platform, yes some history, and yes the 2010 resolution and some misc items including the tactic of campaign by rank insult.
Angry? No. It turns my hair pink.
Chuck,,
==28 minutes?!!!!!!1 In that length of time I expect FIFTY-SIX reasons why Austin Petersen rejects the Libertarian Party.===
ahh that’s the surprise… I give bonus reasons:0 Actually I say in the video that the title is tongue in cheek play from his video. I probably give more than six reason depending on how finely one parses it, but also one can just say it is one with sub-parts. More than six sub-parts though.
==Is there a transcript somewhere for those of us who can’t spare a half hour but read very, very fast?==
There was… but I threw it out. Didn’t think it would be needed and not a transcript per se but my notes. Shorthand.
==Or is this a test of the theory “only really hot girls get away with inane live streams”? ===
Thank you! It is more of a test of the alternate theory put forth that any girl could. Or any girl that looks good for her age could. It seems that you are right. “Really hotness” is not required.
Of course I would dispute the inanity part… in a political context I think giving “hot pick-up lines” is by definition inane. In a dating site context, it wouldn’t, it might be the best advice given. Likewise, in a political context, going through the governing and ideological statements is not inane, but would be the WORST VIDEO EVER for a dating service.
==Apparently 44 people so far have dedicated 28 minutes each… about 20.5 hours total. Maybe I’ll find a half hour for this sometime next week.==
It is about 4800 now I suppose with more people than I could have hoped for reaching out to me.
If and when you do watch, please do cut me some slack on relative hotness. I am nearly fifty.
I watched about 5m. CAH’s argument seems to be that the NAP is embedded in the foundational documents, and “thousands” of LP members are NAPsters, so by AP rejecting the NAP, he rejects the LP.
My counters:
* Many — probably most — Ls are not NAPsters.
* Many — probably most — who have joined the LP did not get the nuance of the NAP when they joined. They were tricked, arguably defrauded.
* NAPsterism was protected by a handful of Randian founders with a 7/8ths bar, again which many didn’t understand when they joined, as the 7/8ths bar is in the fine print.
* In 06, an attempt was made to prune some of the more insane language from the foundational documents, and that move received strong, 3/4s support, but not enough to delete said insanity.
Sanctimony built on constructive fraud is not a strong case. Tautologies are comforting for some, easily seen through by others.
Matt Cholko wrote:
I haven’t watched the video yet, but I’ll take a stab:
Austin bad… pledge… statement of principles… Caryn angry.
I’d prefer an executive summary to a transcript.
Chuck Moulton> “Or is this a test of the theory ‘only really hot girls get away with inane live streams’”?
Better inane than insane!
So, you think you can do better?
Show us!
28 minutes?!!!!!!1 In that length of time I expect FIFTY-SIX reasons why Austin Petersen rejects the Libertarian Party.
Is there a transcript somewhere for those of us who can’t spare a half hour but read very, very fast?
Or is this a test of the theory “only really hot girls get away with inane live streams”? Apparently 44 people so far have dedicated 28 minutes each… about 20.5 hours total. Maybe I’ll find a half hour for this sometime next week.
Good Job Caryn.
Apparentlly Mr. Peterson is just ONE of MANY confused individuals who cannot seem to grasp the totality AND the limits/excesses of force! Clearly Mr. Peterson is the ultimate and inevitable product of ‘anarchism’!!!!
Commenting to subscribe