A group of Libertarian Party members, led by Tom Knapp, has started a new Press Release service, The Center for Libertarian Press Information.
The group’s first two releases cover their own launch and the swine flu/border issue. More information from the ‘about’ page:
The Center for Libertarian Press Information is a collaborative effort of Libertarian Party members to provide the public with timely and accurate information on the Party’s principles, policy positions and activities.
CLiPr.info will produce and distribute timely and informative press releases accurately describing the Libertarian Party’s principles, issues positions and activities as they relate to the issues of the day.
CLiPr.info is not a project of the Libertarian National Committee. It is an unofficial volunteer activity conducted by interested members of the Libertarian Party. Unless otherwise noted and except where noted, CLiPr does not claim the endorsement of the Libertarian National Committee, any affiliate or affinity organization of the Libertarian Party, or for that matter any organization or person apart from its own volunteers. References to such other persons or organizations are for informational purposes only.
Jim @68: “Why do you think that rat bastard FDR chose to nuke occupied Republic of Texas first?”
Can you explain that? I always thought the first nuke detonation was in New Mexico.
I do believe that TX was like the rest of the CSA. White men elected electors to “secession conventions.”
I’d be VERY surprised if modern TXans, now including virtually everyone 18+, would vote to secede. Despite all the dysfunctions, it appears that virtually all citizens want SOME govt and for the US to remain intact.
These sorts of secessionist issues are unpopular FOR A REASON. Most people like life here in the US, as it’s about as materially phat as anyone’s ever had it.
The relevant argument is about direction and incremental change, IMO.
Jim Davidson – The people of Texas voted to secede in 1861 by a larger margin than they voted to be annexed.
Define people in this context. Did it include women, slaves, Native Americans, or Hispanics who were born in the land that became the State of Texas?
Susan, your insertion into my sentence is intellectually dishonest and downright misrepresentative. I wasn’t talking about “emancipation,” but “nonarchy.” You know better!
Slavery was a discrete issue. Nonarchism is a theory that would redefine all issues.
As you know, for the very few who object to the very State itself, I advocate Nonarchy Pods, where nonarchists can opt out of the State entirely. Problem solved.
For others like myself who have some practical concerns about stateless societies, we prefer to roll back the State as far and as fast as we can while maintaining reasonable levels of domestic tranquility.
@64 “In #48 you described how relatively easy building a nuke is, but in #54 you contradict that by saying that the US is responsible for proliferation.”
No, there’s no contradiction. The US gov’t taught all the other countries how to build nukes. France, England, Germany all got nukes thanks to the USA. My father went around the world teaching nuclear physics to people in Scandinavia, the Far East, South America – and he had very high security clearance at Los Alamos, so I suspect he did so with the consent and support of the USA gov’t.
It happens to be very easy to build a limited yield weapon without fancy tech. It is a lot more “effective” if you go for that kind of effectiveness, to use advanced implosion. You end up needing a lot less fissile material, which can be very expensive. And there are other applications of nuclear technology, including power generation, mining, canal digging, etc. So, there is no contradiction. A is A.
Did they know any better? You bet they did. Why do you think that rat bastard FDR chose to nuke occupied Republic of Texas first? The information about the effects of radiation were very well known. Look at Marie Curie’s death for example. Your government nuked its own territory so it could study the effects of radiation on its own people because your government is evil. And they keep Americans ignorant by dumbing down the pubic school curriculum. Heh. Seems to have worked, huh? I mean, yes, they used to have kids fluoroscope their feet in shoe stores like it were a game. Gosh.
“restoring the civil liberties that have been stolen from us in the name of “security”
You were aware of civil liberties? Cool. You must have been doing some independent study. Good on you! I am well pleased to scratch a bit and learn that you are a libertarian. I had not known that. Excellent.
“I have been opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the beginning. Everyone involved in torture, from the top (GWB) to the bottom should be held accountable and tried in open court, with murder charges where they apply, and crimes against humanity for many.”
It is a somber thing, and I deeply appreciate your words. It is very well that you say so. I agree.
The Demented Anarchist Minarchist Never-Ending Debate is indeed, as the acronym indicates DAMNED. Well, DAMN-ED, but you get the idea.
“How do you stop a group who owns little more than weapons, take what they need, and do not recognize your private police and courts?”
By being armed. You stop them by being armed.
Such groups and individuals exist. They don’t recognise the public police and courts, either. So, if you want to stop them before they hurt you, you have to be armed. If you aren’t armed, you’ll get hurt before the police can get there, right? Dial 911 and die, unless you have your own gun.
“How do you stop a foreign government from taking advantage of or invading the US if we are the only state “free” country in the world?”
By being armed. The security of a free country depends on a well trained militia – which is the body of the people as a whole each armed in defense, preferably having trained together from time to time, generally having some idea of what in their area is best to defend and where to lay traps, etc., for invaders. A standing army is a waste of time.
@65 Harsh, Susan, very harsh.
I think you might want to talk to James just a little bit. Because you seem to think that it was some kind of blessing for a million and twenty thousand men to die or be injured during a war to establish a national government of unlimited power with the coincidental “ending” of chattel slavery (except as punishment, etc., except as the gov’t can get away with enslaving any of us).
In fact, chattel slavery, which is very evil, was ended in many countries without a bloody war.
And while you are right in seeking an end to the war in Afghanistan, and while you presumably support bringing the troops home from, e.g., Germany and Japan, I wonder how you feel about militarily occupied Texas?
The people of Texas voted to secede in 1861 by a larger margin than they voted to be annexed. Nobody in the time since has asked them if they want to be part of the union. There are huge military bases at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss.
So, I’m curious, would you end the “Civil War” and bring home those troops too?
Or does sovereign self-determination not include states formerly in “rebellion”?
@28 “Keep in mind, the proof is in the pudding.”
No. No, no, no. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.
The proof is in the whiskey!
Robert Capozzi:
When [emancipation] becomes relevant and possible, it may be worth advocating.
James Gholson, slavery apologist:
http://tinyurl.com/o93xjp
From the same text:
JD…
In #48 you described how relatively easy building a nuke is, but in #54 you contradict that by saying that the US is responsible for proliferation. I think this proliferation would have occurred with or without our assistance.
My response to nuke testing in the ’40’s and ’50’s is to ask…did they know any better? This was the same time Americans were using fluoroscopes in shoe stores to get a good fit.
Nine-Eleven, the terrorists saw a weak point and exploited it. On the one hand a significant event hasn’t happened since…However, I am disgusted with the overkill our government has engaged in. Neither the D’s or R’s appear interested in restoring the civil liberties that have been stolen from us in the name of “security”. The only change BObama has brought about is who the targets are.
I don’t know why the government allowed human testing, but it should be/should have been, classified as a crime with perpetrators tried, including murder charges if applicable.
I have been opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the beginning. Everyone involved in torture, from the top (GWB) to the bottom should be held accountable and tried in open court, with murder charges where they apply, and crimes against humanity for many.
Your sarcastic phrase “in the hands of kind people” sticks with me. The world is not “kind”, there are as a matter of fact some very nasty people out there. Does this not call for police and a federal military?
The debate regarding anarchy (with or without suffixes or prefixes) seems never ending. But I do have a couple of legitimate questions. How do you stop a group who owns little more than weapons, take what they need, and do not recognize your private police and courts? How do you stop a foreign government from taking advantage of or invading the US if we are the only state “free” country in the world?
woof, agree with most of your opinions here. it is wildly heroic to suggest, however, to speculate on what widespread Nonarchy would bring about. Might be peaceful; might be the state of nature; or might be a vacuum, into which an invading State would fill. When it becomes relevant and possible, it may be worth advocating. It ain’t now…it’s theoretical hot air, IMO.
“IMO, the Somalian experiment in an deeply third world place hasn’t worked.” RC
*****
Of course Somalia hasn’t worked. What we are seeing is the chaos that comes after dozens of governments from around the planet, near and far, have intefered in a local region. It is the opposite of what would happen if there were actually no government involved.
The breakdown of civil society in Somalia is the direct result of the overt and covert ops of dozens of governments.
We have seen similar chaos in Lebanon, especially in periods following the most intrusive interventions by various foreign governments.
The more government and/or the more governments you have involved, the closer you will come to chaos as a result.
sh and woof, near as I can tell, I am the originator of Nonarchy Pods, so I certainly am feeling QUITE imaginative, but thanks for your feedback.
And I am as sure as I can be that I’m not “afraid” of anarchy. I simply don’t see the point of positing empirically unprecedented constructs in a post-nuclear world, esp. for a developed country. IMO, the Somalian experiment in an deeply third world place hasn’t worked.
But, then, I’m willing to ask the radical, basic questions, ones you two consistently avoid…but I’m hopeful you’ll come around, as I — a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery — did.
” … you have enough imagination to be afraid but not enough to be optimistic.” Susan Hogarth
*
Brilliant. Thank you.
*
nonarchy pods instead of liberty ?
Somalia, a land destroyed by the intrusion of too many governments, is libertarian-anarchist ?
support for the most evil tax of all – a tax on land – the fascist-socialist geonazi tax – ?
a mentally ill, scientifically unsophisticated, financially destitute individual looney like Manson can assemble or aquire a nuke when major nations cannot ?
****
No way can a Libertarian countenance these confused, crazy, self-contradictory concepts qua constructs from the clouded cerebellum of Mr. C.
Talk about playing fetch from afar …
Woof!
Bob,
Don’t whine to me that anarchy isn’t sufficient to soothe your fears of the free market simply because you have enough imagination to be afraid but not enough to be optimistic.
sh: What people -do- question is whether the US government meets the definition of “a group of people acting together voluntarily.”
me: yes, Susan, I agree. governments aren’t voluntary. The alternative, however, seems to either be something like Somalia or Nonarchy Pods.
I don’t think it is unreasonable that there be an effort made to ensure criminals and/or invading armies seeking to violate the rights of the nation’s citizens, residents, and visitors are denied entry.
Of course it’s not unreasonable. But consider what you mean by the phrase ‘there be an effort made’. By whom? At whose expense? Who gets to decide when there is a real threat of ‘invading armies’?
Very few people will deny that self-defense is a basic right. Very few will deny that a group of people acting together voluntarily have the right to act in defense of the voluntarily-associated group.
What people -do- question is whether the US government meets the definition of “a group of people acting together voluntarily.”
@53 The argument is made that governments are instituted among men for the purpose of securing rights to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness. However, it is very evident that this hasn’t worked out.
Governments are instituted for the purpose of taking from people who have money and produce things of value and giving it to those who want money and don’t produce anything. Hans Hermann Hoppe goes over this problem of the classical liberal philosophy in a paper he wrote back in 1999 – you might like it.
It was a nice idea that government might derive just powers from the consent of the governed and be limited by a constitution and so forth. But, it didn’t work out.
And, it has been very well established for well over a hundred years that it failed. Lysander Spooner wrote in 1874 that the constitution has either authorised all the tyranny under which we suffer, or has been powerless to prevent it.
So if you want to be independent, free, and sovereign, you are going to have to do better than this lame old classical liberal idea of government protecting life, liberty, and property. Government exists to protect the power structure, to advance the interests of those who run the government.
Alvin and Heidi Toffler talked about this in “Powershift” the idea of surplus order. You and I don’t need the government to torture about four dozen guys to death – that we know of presently. You and I don’t get any benefit from the gov’t revoking passports or kicking doors in at four a.m.
What you and I want is sufficient order so we can go about our business, buy and sell from other people, and be left alone to peacefully enjoy our property, right? But the state isn’t satisfied with that amount of order. It always wants a bigger budget and more power and more people working for the gov’t.
The bureaucracies take on a life of their own. They grow without bound.
Surplus order is not just for foreigners anymore. It is not just something Alvin and Heidi wrote about in their book. It is part of our lives. From the seven dozen Texans barbecued to death in their church in 1993 to the four dozen tortured to death by the military between 2001 and now, it isn’t getting better. It is getting worse.
@49 Oh, Capozzi, so great for you to remind me so much of Janet Reno. Now, point your finger and shake real hard.
@52 “I do rely on the “police state” to shut down people who would attempt a scenario that you describe”
So, how’s that going? This particular police state you mention is the USA, right? Which has been responsible for essentially all of the nuclear proliferation to date – nearly every country except Russia and China that have nuclear weapons got at least some of the technology from the USA.
This police state, they did a good job protecting you from nuclear detonations in the past there in the USA, right? They took special care for those downwind of the Nevada test site, right? No problems there?
And this police state did a fine job on 11 September 2001, keeping all the planes from being stolen Didn’t some buildings fall down that day? Oh, wait, they completely screwed up and ordinary airplanes were used as weapons of mass destruction.
Yes, so that’s working great for you. The government has prevented all terror attacks, the nuclear arsenals of the world are all in the hands of kind people, and there seems to be no problem with chemical or biological weapons either. Oh, wait, there was all that anthrax from a government lab that ended up in the Congressional mail room, too.
Oh, and there were those tests by your government of syphilis on people in your country – people who were refused treatment so the gov’t could continue testing. Yep, that worked out just great, got lots of good data there so your police state can protect you better. Actually, no, that didn’t produce any new information. Oh, well. So a few Americans got killed, tough luck on that.
Let’s see, your police state gov’t now routinely tortures prisoners to death as a matter of policy, and refuses to prosecute the perpetrators. So, that’s nice. You can rely on them to torture you to death when they feel like it.
And there was that Jason Lomberg kid, got spirited away for talking about bombs, or something, though his mom says she was with him in church at the time of the alleged threat. And his family can’t communicate with him and he hasn’t been provided with legal counsel. So, that’s all great, just what you want, right? Arbeit macht frei and all that.
When they come for you and your family be sure to mark your luggage carefully so you can find it when you get to the camps.
Mik @51: I would say the government’s first duty is to secure the rights of the individual.
me @44: the government’s first duty of protecting the lives and property of the citizens
I had that wrong. It’s not government’s first duty. It’s government’s ONLY duty.
My bad. 🙂
JD:It is amusing that so many people depend on the kindness of strangers. It is hilarious that so many depend on the self-restraint of others. And it is gut-wrenchingly outrageous that so many who depend so much on the self-restraint of others do so much to annoy and irritate.
ME: I don’t depend on the kindness of strangers, it’s just that I do rely on the “police state” to shut down people who would attempt a scenario that you describe. If our current law enforcement is shut down, as some anarchists would propose, or if our country were made largely “self-reliant” so that there would be no border control, or what I have known as typical police action were not available…then it becomes the duty of each citizen to “protect his own”.
I don’t steal, I don’t commit fraud, but in the “open” almost wild west philosophy you propose, I doubt there is a judge or jury that would convict me for the “crimes” that would be committed. Protection of my, and my neighbors, life and property. In this scenario, prevention is a very important element, so would thousands, if not millions, of people with my mindset be preferable to a reformed version of what we have now???
@44 “One one hand, the government’s first duty of protecting the lives and property of the citizens means being able to gather information on the threats to such in order to do the [duty] properly.”
I would say the government’s first duty is to secure the rights of the individual. The priority being the rights of the individuals, the citizens, residents, and visitors, within the national border.
I don’t think it is unreasonable that there be an effort made to ensure criminals and/or invading armies seeking to violate the rights of the nation’s citizens, residents, and visitors are denied entry.
Our biggest challenge will be our northern border. The last thing we want is all those Canadians bringing their socialized medicine into Alaska. It’s a good thing Sarah Palin is there. She’ll know how to handle international incidents.
Do the property owners, (those whose property abuts what is now considered the US border) have the right to defend their property? Maybe they don’t want dozens/hundreds of people passing over their land, destroying their crops, stealing or maybe they just don’t want them there. Would the “response” given by these hundreds or thousands of property owners, be as contained as the US immigration service?
In a society without the current “police state”, one of the first people I would put in my sights are those who I thought would pose a threat…Goodbye Charlie…
jd: …wonder is not that Capozzi is idiotic enough to suppose that government monopolies can protect him from madmen…
bc: as walled off as your writing indicates you are, you probably can’t imagine that my opinions and assessments are not only about my personal protection. atomism doesn’t work for me, and it appears to not be working for you, either.
jd: …very many hundreds of thousands of people with the knowledge and the motivation have also had the forebearance not to do these things…
bc: Yes, there is a kernel of decency in us all, Jim, even in you! Underneath this hostile, McVeigh-like exterior that you present, deep down I’m sure there’s a kind soul.
“stop Charles Manson from securing a nuke”
The really funny part is that making nuclear weapons is very simple, easy, uncomplicated stuff. A detailed plan for how to do it was published in “Astounding Stories,” the precursor to “Analog” magazine in the early 1940s. The FBI came around asking John W. Campbell about the leak, but there was no leak. Just guys reading physics text books.
A similar story was printed in 1978 or so in Analog, with the title “How to make a nuclear weapon and wake up the neighborhood.” Or something like that.
It doesn’t take refined uranium, you know. Early atomic bombs were made without bothering to centrifuge any uranium. This nonsense about Iran having centrifuges to refine uranium simply illustrates that they want to make energy in nuclear reactors.
The technology for making an atomic bomb is very simple. Uranium is all over the countryside. It is easy to get. It is not especially difficult to work. A two story building with a basement and hole connecting the attic to the basement with a simple pipe to keep the upper hemisphere of sub-critical-mass fissile material moving smoothly to meet the lower hemisphere (in the basement) with gravity to make the connection is not all that hard to produce.
There must be dozens to hundreds of such houses within blocks of interesting targets, all over the world. The wonder is not that Capozzi is idiotic enough to suppose that government monopolies can protect him from madmen, but that so very many hundreds of thousands of people with the knowledge and the motivation have also had the forebearance not to do these things.
It is amusing that so many people depend on the kindness of strangers. It is hilarious that so many depend on the self-restraint of others. And it is gut-wrenchingly outrageous that so many who depend so much on the self-restraint of others do so much to annoy and irritate.
Got rebar? lol
Woof, it appears you don’t understand the concept of a “construct.” May I suggest you read some Hayek or watch The Matrix and call me in the morning.
“I am also for using monopolies — if necessary — to stop Charles Manson from securing a nuke! Seems contra-indicated, don’t you know?” _ Robert Capozzi
” ideas I … find loopy, based on far-fetched constructs.” – Robert Capozzi
*************
Dear Bob,
It would seem that you can find enough loopy, far-fetched constructs just by examining your own arguments.
Being an expert on fetching, I should know!
Woof!
Woof!
Sorry, “do the properly” => “do the duty properly”.
I agree it is a winning theme on the surface, but below the surface is where it gets complicated.
Yes, we favor a strong national defense, with emphasis on both nation and defense (vs. other nations and offense).
Yes, we should disengage and bring the troops home.
But then you get into the most definitely hazy area of national security interests vs. sovereignty of nations and individuals, especially when it comes to intelligence.
One one hand, the government’s first duty of protecting the lives and property of the citizens means being able to gather information on the threats to such in order to do the properly.
On the other hand, the government is also supposed to respect the sovereignty of other nations to run their own affairs within their own borders, and respect the sovereignty of the individual to peaceably do likewise.
But how can you adequately gather proper intelligence to defend your citizens from foreign and domestic threats while maintaining that respect for sovereignty?
IMO, that is the elephant in the room that really needs to be hashed out.
Mind you, I’m not advocating one side or the other. I’m simply asking a crucial question to the issue.
mhw, yes, disengaging militarily from places that can defend themselves is a theme that is in the platform, has broad appeal, and makes sense on a lot of levels. seems a winning theme for the LP.
MM, actually, I don’t know any such thing. I’d say it might be worth a shot. But I’d also say that it the content and positioning are important.
For ex., Hogarth was attempting to convince us that unilateral disarmament is an important L position. Many, perhaps most, Ls don’t buy that one, so I’d not suggest writing a release for National with headline “LP marks anniversary of Hiroshima with calls for immediate dismantling of all US nuclear weapons”
Seems contra-indicated on a lot of levels.
Regardless of what the issue is it is beneficial to the movement to see other voices speak out on this and any issue.
I am somewhat disgusted about the party’s lack of interest in challenging the military/industrial complex. Today the U.S. accounts for about 40% of the world’s military expenditures and we presently have about 30% of our military troops deployed overseas. All of this is paid for by American workers and it benefits their foreign competitors. We can quibble about the points all day, but sometimes we have to stop and just get the job done.
Given the Obama adminstrations commitment to openness it might be wise to demand an accounting of the costs, both annually and historically on this issue. Maybe the crew at Clipr can do just that.
If nothing else this navy brat and veteran would be damned pleased to see this happen before he died.
Marc Montoni –
The libertarian-wing of The Libertarian Party.
I heartily approve of this description.
That’s all fine and dandy if all members of the party are sanguine with calls for increased federal activity in kiddie porn, migration control, and other gems.
Oh, come on. You know very well that the national LP is not going to distribute anything submitted by the libertarian wing. Why would anyone bother spending a couple of hours researching and writing, only to see it arbitrarily rejected? Sorry. That would be a complete waste of time.
You also know very well that the notion of getting messages sponsored by a friendly LNC member is just plain ridiculous. The majority on the LNC has repeatedly tried to duck “saying anything” by claiming that media releases are not part of the LNC’s bailiwick; and that only staff should be issuing them. The few resolutions the LNC has sponsored recently were only approved after much hand-wringing; and one in particular, while passed by the LNC, was given the runaround at LPHQ.
Sometime ago I read an article that suggested that about 2 million Mexican farm workers had lost their jobs because of imported corn for the U.S. Corn that would not have been imported had the U.S. not subsidized it.
If that is the case we have pushed many of these people out of their jobs and then we bitch when they come here looking for work.
If this is somewhat true it might make an interesting news release and a way to condemn agricultural subsidies.
@35 Starchild writes “While sensible people can agree that U.S. borders will never be secure, and that we will never be able to prevent all murders, no matter what laws are passed in either case, there should be no disagreement as to the difference between them in libertarian terms. Unlike committing a murder, crossing a national border violates no one’s rights.
…
Let the Libertarian Party be a clear voice *for* liberty, never against it!”
It is not the role of the federal government to secure the rights of the individual throughout the world. It can only do so within the national borders. That is the only place it has authority to act, except perhaps in the case of national defense.
It is not unreasonable to believe that some who wish to enter the country may be fleeing justice from another area or intend to adversely impact the rights of others through the use of force or fraud.
If there were not some reasonable effort on the part of the federal government to identify such individuals at the border, it would fall to state and local officials to try to identify immigrants fleeing justice or plotting some criminal activity.
Within the United States, would liberty be increased if there were some process to check individuals as they entered at the national border or to try to check immigrants in every state or municipality?
With completely open national borders, it may increase pressure to identify good guys rather than bad guys, possibly by requiring citizens and resident aliens to carry national ID cards. I don’t think it would increase liberty to have to carry and present papers on demand.
It doesn’t seem like completely unregulated national borders would necessarily result in increased liberty. There are also the differences between crossing the border for a visit, crossing the border to live, and obtaining citizenship. I would agree that trying to identify medical issues at the border is very problematic.
Finding a “clear” voice for liberty on this issue may not be as simple as it might appear. There is certainly room for more than one position to be put forward, or released to the press.
The standard of review and comparison, as Tom noted @2, is the platform.
Unless Bob is going to be unnecessarily argumentative on that as well…
While sensible people can agree that U.S. borders will never be secure, and that we will never be able to prevent all murders, no matter what laws are passed in either case, there should be no disagreement as to the difference between them in libertarian terms. Unlike committing a murder, crossing a national border violates no one’s rights. We may not agree on whether or not it is wise to abolish all monopolistic controls, but the Libertarian Party should NEVER stoop to arguing AGAINST liberty. Let others make that case in the few instances where they may be able to eke out any valid arguments. The struggle against statism has a far more morally compelling call on our limited time and resources. Gradualism, pragmatism, moderation, and “realism” will always have plenty of water-carriers among groups and individuals who desire to impede the progress of liberty. Why should we help them shoulder that weighty and dispiriting burden, thereby freeing them to take up fouler work while we are distracted from our true mission? Let the Libertarian Party be a clear voice *for* liberty, never against it!
ts, again we have a measurement problem, as “supercedes” implies some measurement.
Bob,
Nobody will be happier than me if LPHQ steps up to the plate and makes the CLiPr project immediately obsolete and passe. As a matter of fact, that’s one of two desirable outcomes.
The other desirable outcome is that if LPHQ doesn’t get its communications house in order, CLiPr supersedes LPHQ as a media source for information on the LP.
I can live with either outcome; but neither outcome is a given, and there are other possible outcomes.
Regards,
Tom
ms, define “proves.” specify who does the testing of the proof.
it may well be your OPINION, which is certainly a valid one, by definition.
that is, unless you want to argue that politics is physics…do you?
Robert, it proves that the national staff doesn’t know what they’re doing and the members do. It’s not about web hits or some tracking mechanism. It’s about the core beliefs of what we stand for both politically and philosophically.
tk and ms, even if one could quantify a “better” or “more representative” release, I’m not sure we can KNOW what that proves. There are labor-intensive gross impression metrics that are used in corporate PR to ATTEMPT to quantify these sorts of things, but they too have methological challenges.
The ‘net allows us to measure “hits,” but even there, that’s in part a function of post-release promotion.
So, in this case, I personally think the CLIPRS release is “superior” to the LP one, at least ideologically so. But the LP’s site is likely to get more hits, given its standing as an established institution.
Were I an LP “radical,” I’d be drafting CLIPRS-type releases to be sponsored by a friendly LNC member for the LP National site.
Off the top of my head, that strikes me as more productive.
Call it simple competition to see who puts out the better press releases. If LPHQ shapes up and does better for it, then everyone wins. If they don’t then everyone still wins because they’ll become insignificant.
Bob,
You write:
“tk, as a semi-retired flak myself, I’d be concerned about a group of shareholders putting out press releases about Corporation X along side the releases coming from Corporation X.”
And your concern would not be unjustified.
Keep in mind, the proof is in the pudding. If CLiPr’s releases are accurately representative of the LP’s principles, positions and activities, your concerns should be allayed. If not, they should be heightened.
tk, as a semi-retired flak myself, I’d be concerned about a group of shareholders putting out press releases about Corporation X along side the releases coming from Corporation X.
without “portfolio” (meaning in charge of an entity), CLIPRS may lead to some confusion in the media, but that’s highly unlikely, mostly because floating press releases into the ether is generally highly ineffective. I suspect that’s true even of LP National’s releases. They probably get almost no pickup. Whether they produce returns seems unlikely, and are probably more like MNR’s “inreach” fetish in PR form.
Whether CLIPRS generates interst in the LP or L ideas remains to be seen. I’m doubtful, unless you do follow up, arrange interviews, and other media relations blocking and tackling.
Tom, nice idea, and website. The WP template is very clean. I’ve bookmarked it, and will begin to place some incoming links to it, where/when appropriate.
Slightly offthread, but returning to to outrageous LP National release about the Mexican border: aside from being anti-liberty, and woefully ineffective; it stigmatizes and falsely ascribes blame to Mexico without addressing where the real problem lays. Smithfield Farms is an American based corporation that has factory pig farms throughout the world. They have a big plant in the community where The H1N1 Patient Ground Zero has been located. Smithfield Foods abusively uses antibiotics and antivirals to keep the sickness at bay in their factory farms. They are known to have little or no concern for the environmental damage their waste stream causes. They claim that no pig on their Mexican farm has turned up positive for H1N1, but this is a dodge. The wastes tream from this factory, heavily laced with antivirals is being looped back into the local water supply. It should come as no surprise that a new flu variant from recombined swine, human and avian strains has occurred here. The collectivist business entity walks away from liability, as labor gets stigmatized.
Doreen Carvajal and Stephen Castle, “A U.S. Hog Giant Transforms Eastern Europe “, New York Times, May 5, 2009
Jeff Tietz, “Boss Hog“, Rolling Stone, December 14, 2006
BTW, how is that business venture between Butterball and the Long Island based waste management company, Changing World Technologies (CWT), that magically is turning turkey offal into oil, working out down in Carthage, MO? Are they still sucking off of the public’s teat? Are Kit Bond and Roy Blunt still securing government funding for it?
Bob,
“bridging on Cooper’s point, how does CLIPR work/tie in with your 2 prez campaigns (LP and BTP)”
I only have one presidential campaign, and CLiPr doesn’t “work/tie in” with it at all. Just as LPHQ would hopefully not use its press outreach activities to influence the LP’s pre-nomination presidential landscape, CLiPr will stay out of that area.
“and shadow cabinet”
No tie-in at all. The Shadow Cabinet is a project I started (after offering the domain name to LPHQ and receiving no followup to their “we’ll get back to you”), but not one I have any interest in continuing to be involved with. I’ve been trying to spin it off to some responsible, interested group for months.
“Center for a Stateless Society”
I’m not a principal of C4SS. I didn’t found it, I’m not on its board, etc. I do some writing for them as a contractor.
In other words, CLiPr “ties in” with C4SS in the same way that CLiPR would “tie in” with McDonald’s if my day job was asking you if you want fries with that quarter-pounder.
“and other efforts? If CLIPS has no real portfolio”
I’m not sure what you mean by “portfolio.”
We purport to represent the LP. Our review board is composed entirely of LP members, all of whom hold or have held positions of trust in the LP, up to and including service on the LNC. Our list of suggested interview contacts is also composed entirely of LP members/leaders.
Apart from that, the proof’s in the pudding. Either our releases accurately represent the LP’s principles, positions and activities, or they don’t.
“tell us whether CLIPS might lead to confusion about sources.”
What kind of confusion are you afraid of? We don’t claim to be LPHQ. We don’t claim to be sanctioned by the LNC. As a matter of fact, we go out of our way to disclaim such sanction.
Richard,
You write:
“If you don’t represent a group or a candidate, why would the media be interested?”
We do represent a group — we represent the Libertarian Party.
That representation is unofficial insofar as it is neither controlled nor endorsed by the Libertarian National Committee, but we contend that our releases accurately represent the LP’s principles, positions and activities nonetheless. Our releases are sourced to the party’s platform, and the persons we quote in our releases are bona fide party members and leaders.
So, media interest in our releases will be a function of (and hopefully positively affect) media interest in the Libertarian Party.
tk, bridging on Cooper’s point, how does CLIPR work/tie in with your 2 prez campaigns (LP and BTP) and shadow cabinet, Center for a Stateless Society, and other efforts? If CLIPS has no real portfolio, tell us whether CLIPS might lead to confusion about sources.
@18
Totally understand and totally agree. I just wanted a clarification.
By the way, you are doing a bang up job.
mdh, not really. I don’t agree that property is ONLY recognized by govt fiat or self defense. Instead, property has evolved as an institution over time, in part facilitated by the State, in part facilitated by the broad acceptance of the rule of law, in part facilitated by the near-universal desire for peaceful relations. National borders are in that mix, too, since citizens and States have a propensity to want to either plunder from others or impose social or religious practices on others in other nations.
@17 – And that’s all well and good. I don’t disagree that I am not required to defend my property from marauding bands very often.
I don’t see how you’re countering my point, though, it seems like you’re just making a sort of parallel statement. Should I take that to mean that you agree with my statements prior?
If you don’t represent a group or a candidate, why would the media be interested?
Gene,
You write:
“are LP affiliates and individual activists free to submit press releases of their own to CLIPR?”
Right now, it’s a one-way street in certain respects — we’re attempting to produce releases of national scope/interest, and those releases are free for anyone to use (as a matter of fact, they’re in the public domain). I see that the Tennessee LP is carrying a CLiPr release on its site at the moment.
Of course we’re open to suggestions coming the other way, but right now our job is to produce and distribute our own releases, not others’ releases.
Over time, we hope to foster the creation of “state-level” CLiPr-type operations, and perhaps provide some of the infrastructure (subdomains like ca.clipr.info, distribution tools, etc.). Some state LPs already have established media outreach operations that work well, others might want to take advantage of what we offer … once we’re able to offer it.
Also, keep in mind that CLiPr is just a few days old as an idea, and less than 48 hours old as an operating organization. We could very easily crash and burn. In order to prevent that from happening, I’m being fairly insistent that we do “this one thing” for awhile until we feel like we have it down pat, and then start adding new activities.
mdh, really? are marauding bands frequently — or ever — attempting to displace you from your home? do you have to guard your property 24/7/365?
I didn’t think so.
The social convention of property works for most most of the time. Most of the time, it’s respected and broadly understood. The institution of govt intercedes only occasionally, although way too much for my tastes.
And only by government fiat or self-defense of property must we accept that they exist at all…
One can defend their own property. That which they cannot defend is hardly truly theirs at all. Only governments have any real interest in protecting political boundaries/borders. They do the average sovereign individual no good whatsoever and are, hence, not worthwhile for the sovereign individual to protect, unlike his own property.
mdh, yes, borders don’t exist in the state of nature. but, then, neither does property itself. these sorts of things are somewhat malleable social conventions that shift over time and place.
It wouldn’t matter if Tom were the only person who saw it that way. It’s true. If humans didn’t exist at all, there wouldn’t be any such lines, and animals would freely cross those borders without a second thought.
They’re artificially created and often re-written so suit whoever wins a war, signs a treaty, gerrymanders a district, etc.
tk, you introduced the idea of deleting the “check in” language from the platform, so this seems as good a place as any to discuss this.
All due respect, but to say that national boundaries are lines in the sand that only pols honor for their jobs seems wildly overstated. I would be VERY surprised if more than 1 pct of the pop sees it that way, or anything like that. Nations are viewed as something akin to condo assns by the vast majority, who want some reasonable protections/deterrence from invaders, the communicable, and people seeking taxpayer-financed services.
I actually don’t have a firm, fully formed position on this, but I certainly don’t support a no-borders view, nor would I like to see the LP become the nativist party. (Theoretically, I could imagine adopting a no-borders policy at some time in the probably distant future, but for practical reasons, that time is not now.)
I do applaud your press release effort in the sense that, rather than whining about National’s offerings, you are demonstrating a productive alternative. That, and you’ve not suggested I walk into traffic 😉
Tom: are LP affiliates and individual activists free to submit press releases of their own to CLIPR?
Bob,
I’m not sure this is the thread to argue the subject in, but:
– I didn’t say the border would never be “100% secure.” I said it would never be “secure.” More than a million people cross it “illegally” every year. That million people are going to continue to cross it, whether it’s legal or illegal for them to do so. The only measure of “security” that might be introduced is letting them cross legally so that they do so at places and in ways which can be monitored, isolating the bad actors who can’t and won’t cross at such places, bankrupting the “coyote” industry, etc.
2 – There’s a material difference between “murder” and “crossing an imaginary line drawn on the ground by a politician in order to find a job.” Not only is one a more serious crime than the other, but one is obviously really a crime while the other is obviously really not.
Tom, I’m willing to write for it occasionally, as well.
Tom and all this is great news!!! Fine effort and if I can help, not that I’m qualified for much beyond sweepin’ the floor, don’t hestitate to ask.
tk, I agree, the border is never going to be 100% secure. Do you agree that cops are not going to stop 100% of all murders?
I also believe it’s wise to have laws against murder, even if (monopoly) law enforcement doesn’t and cannot reasonably be expected to bring about a murder-less society. Law serves as a deterrent. Those who contemplate murdering someone consider the potential consequences of their actions.
A lone nut or an organized terrorist cell might also want to create mayhem with nukes or hijacking airliners. Having laws against these sorts of things is wise, even if they sometimes succeed with their sick plans.
I agree that HOW anti-social behavior is checked a practical tightrope…enough to deter or screen, not so much as to trod unduly on liberties.
If I understand the anarchist position, ANY monopolistic authority is by definition a violation of liberty. I consider that an unwise position, although an interesting theoretical one, because it’s absolutist in what I observe to be a relativistic world.
Michael,
At the moment, the releases “go out” via the web site, via a free press release distribution service, and by email to a media list of several hundred contacts.
Over time, we’ll be adding to (and cleaning up) that media list, as well as examining other distribution services. We’re also considering setting up a fax operation, and I expect that pretty soon we’ll start contacting state LP affiliates and making sure they know they can use our releases on their sites and distribute them to their local media contacts (or give us the contact information).
Regards,
Tom
Fantastic idea with a good looking site and a nice start. Now who does it go out to? Yea I know I would have to ask that one.
Although I caught some flack regarding this subject in a related post, the symptomatic were really the only “flu” victims I was commenting about.
To be honest, I see this whole “swine flu” thing as a diversion keeping the peoples mind on something other than the economy, torture, and illicit wars in the middle east. 39k die from the “ordinary” flu every year…200k are hospitalized…we have currently had 2 deaths…one a very young Mexican national, and one American who had other health problems.
Also, the “bi-lateral” effort to “confront this pandemic”, I feel, will make it that much easier for the BObama admin to work toward gun control along the “porous” border.
Bob,
To me, in order for something to be “wise,” it has to cover both parts of the equation.
The border is not “secure.” The border is not going to be “secure.” If the US announced tomorrow that it was going to “crack down” on communicable disease at border checkpoints, those knowingly carrying it would simply infiltrate through the non-secure, non-securable border.
Therefore, checks for communicable disease beyond simple, non-intrusive visual checks for symptoms are nothing more or less than:
a) a 100% waste of taxpayer time and money involved; and
b) a false justification for spending even more taxpayer money in a futile effort to secure the non-securable border; and
c) an unjustifiable imposition on the 99.99% of immigrants and travelers who are not going to (for example) test positive for TB after sitting in some hellhole customs building for 48 hours while the lab work is done.
Similarly, “necessary” implies that A is required to either facilitate or stop B from happening. Charles Manson was never in a position to secure a nuke. Charles Manson was never going to be in a position to secure a nuke. Therefore, any quacking about “necessary monopolies” to stop him from securing a nuke are pure nonsense.
Tk, didn’t say MNR’s opinions ARE part of CLiPs’s review standard. Many of MNR’s ideas I do, as you know, find loopy, based on far-fetched constructs. I enjoy examining his premises, for they seem to hold sway for many in the L community. As you know, I’m a philosophical radical, which often leads me to moderate applications.
Personally, I support the current platform language, and am on record suggesting the LP’s swine flu release was “ill advised.” In a world with nation states, checking for communicable diseases and terrorist threats at the border seems wise to me, apparently not to you. (When and if nation states wither away, we can have another conversation.) I am also for using monopolies — if necessary — to stop Charles Manson from securing a nuke! 😉 Seems contra-indicated, don’t you know?
Bob,
The writings of Murray N. Rothbard aren’t part of CLiPr’s review standard. In terms of ideological content, that standard is based on the LP’s platform — including the parts of it that some of us might not like. We’re going to do our best to represent the Libertarian Party positively — and accurately.
The LPHQ release on “securing the borders to stop swine flu” cited 20% of the LP’s platform plank on Free Trade and Migration, ignoring the other 80%. In crafting our release, we emphasized that other 80%, but felt duty-bound to acknowledge the 20% as well.
I personally hope that the problematic 20% will be excised from the platform in 2010, of course, and may work to help achieve that — but while it’s in there, it’s in there.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I think your first release if good. I found Sundwall’s quote clever:
“Border restrictions beyond the exclusion of obviously symptomatic sick people impede that ability and do little or nothing to actually stop the spread of disease.”
I can’t say I 100% agree, but that sure sounds like an opening for checking people at the border. Lawyers can parse what “obviously symtomatic sick people” actually means. It sounds to this non-lawyer as “visibly ill.”
I’m pleased to see this release doesn’t claim a 100% absolute right to expatriation or even visitation. Would Murray be spinning in his grave over this deviation?
Progress!