Ron Windeler of Alaska has made a specific proposal for dealing with party membership growth in the form of a proposed use of the Right of Petition that would be a good thing and incidentally advance the party’s membership. He writes:
“Harry Browne and Project Archimedes caused the greatest growth streak in our history. At its zenith, just after the scandals broke, we had almost three times as many members as we do now. Because the project was so over promised and the scandals so embarrassing, we have avoided any action resembling it ever since. If we continue this irrational avoidance of success, in another decade or two, the last two members of the national party may get married in your home state, with both geeky guys carrying M16s.
“I don’t think that direct mail is completely obsolete. We could probably dig out the old records and take back up where we left off with the project and double our membership in a few years. But with all our nerdy computer professionals, why can’t we come up with a digital virtual modern version of Project Archimedes? Ron Paul, an older fogey than you or me, came up with “money bombs” in 2007. Maybe we could organize flash mobs, with a thousand young people showing up at a street corner, taking the Nolan quiz, making a donation to the party with their smart phones, and then dispersing. (after taking a selfie of the scene)
“You are right that the best way to attract new members is for the party to do things that interest them. I don’t think that you are thinking big enough with a blog discussing controversial issues once a month. There are about ten million of those already in business.
“I have noticed that one part of the Constitution has not been neutralized, probably because it has never been used effectively yet. I’m referring to the right of the people to petition our government for the redress of grievances. One of my many political inventions is just such a petition. I suspect that, if our party circulated this and got a few million signers, we could change the world for the better, and end up with a few million new members. (have I over promised it enough yet?)
“I hope that the catch-phrase “end the fraudulent war against our American values” will have more appeal than your marryin’ and carryin’ ditty; do have other items of similar stature for the second and third months of our new campaign of action.
Whereas The Congress of the United States has not declared war or issued any letters of marque and reprisal since December 8, 1941, And, whereas the Authorizations for the use of Military Force passed in 2001 and 2002, are not declarations of war, and only authorize the use of “necessary and appropriate” force. Therefore, we, the people of the United States of America, are at peace with every nation, organization, and person in the world. We are at peace with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Egypt, Ukraine, North Korea, Cuba, and all other nations on Earth. We are at peace with ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Baath party, “radical Islamic Jihadists,” “insurgents,” “enemy combatants,” all accused terrorist organizations, the Tea Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, and all other organizations on Earth. We were at peace with Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Moammar Gadhafi before they were murdered. We are at peace with Bashar Assad, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Castro, and every other person on Earth.
And therefore, we demand that our government stop murdering people, anywhere, for any reason. We demand that our government stop waging the fraudulent “War on Terror” against falsely accused and manufactured enemies. Every act of our government since 1991 related to that war has been a criminal, immoral, un-American act against international laws, American laws, and our American values. We demand that those responsible owners of for these crimes against humanity be brought to justice and restitution be paid to all victims around the world.
Major topics:
Hayekian Libertarianism
A Declaration of Peace
Good News from Around the Country
National Party Continues to Decline.
A Thought To Consider
Hayekian Libertarianism
A truly radical alternative…Hayekian libertarianism. It’s an opposite to Randian Social Darwinism. It neutralizes the main complaint of left non-libertarians against our party. You may find it too radical a change.
With a tip of the hat to google.com and Nicholas Wapshott for letting me find the quote on line in a reasonable time:
Here is what Hayek actually wrote in his book The Road to Serfdom, pp 148-149
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. …. [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. … Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
“Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
“To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
“There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not — or at least need not — require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.
“Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.
“In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.”
Guest Editorial – A Declaration of Peace
Ron Windeler of Alaska has made a specific proposal for dealing with party membership growth in the form of a proposed use of the Right of Petition that would be a good thing and incidentally advance the party’s membership. He writes:
“Harry Browne and Project Archimedes caused the greatest growth streak in our history. At its zenith, just after the scandals broke, we had almost three times as many members as we do now. Because the project was so over promised and the scandals so embarrassing, we have avoided any action resembling it ever since. If we continue this irrational avoidance of success, in another decade or two, the last two members of the national party may get married in your home state, with both geeky guys carrying M16s.
“I don’t think that direct mail is completely obsolete. We could probably dig out the old records and take back up where we left off with the project and double our membership in a few years. But with all our nerdy computer professionals, why can’t we come up with a digital virtual modern version of Project Archimedes? Ron Paul, an older fogey than you or me, came up with “money bombs” in 2007. Maybe we could organize flash mobs, with a thousand young people showing up at a street corner, taking the Nolan quiz, making a donation to the party with their smart phones, and then dispersing. (after taking a selfie of the scene)
“You are right that the best way to attract new members is for the party to do things that interest them. I don’t think that you are thinking big enough with a blog discussing controversial issues once a month. There are about ten million of those already in business.
“I have noticed that one part of the Constitution has not been neutralized, probably because it has never been used effectively yet. I’m referring to the right of the people to petition our government for the redress of grievances. One of my many political inventions is just such a petition. I suspect that, if our party circulated this and got a few million signers, we could change the world for the better, and end up with a few million new members. (have I over promised it enough yet?)
“I hope that the catch-phrase “end the fraudulent war against our American values” will have more appeal than your marryin’ and carryin’ ditty; do have other items of similar stature for the second and third months of our new campaign of action.
Ron [email protected]
Declaration of Peace
Whereas The Congress of the United States has not declared war or issued any letters of marque and reprisal since December 8, 1941, And, whereas the Authorizations for the use of Military Force passed in 2001 and 2002, are not declarations of war, and only authorize the use of “necessary and appropriate” force. Therefore, we, the people of the United States of America, are at peace with every nation, organization, and person in the world. We are at peace with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Egypt, Ukraine, North Korea, Cuba, and all other nations on Earth. We are at peace with ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Baath party, “radical Islamic Jihadists,” “insurgents,” “enemy combatants,” all accused terrorist organizations, the Tea Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, and all other organizations on Earth. We were at peace with Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Moammar Gadhafi before they were murdered. We are at peace with Bashar Assad, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Castro, and every other person on Earth.
And therefore, we demand that our government stop murdering people, anywhere, for any reason. We demand that our government stop waging the fraudulent “War on Terror” against falsely accused and manufactured enemies. Every act of our government since 1991 related to that war has been a criminal, immoral, un-American act against international laws, American laws, and our American values. We demand that those responsible owners of for these crimes against humanity be brought to justice and restitution be paid to all victims around the world.
Major topics:
Hayekian Libertarianism
A Declaration of Peace
Good News from Around the Country
National Party Continues to Decline.
A Thought To Consider
Hayekian Libertarianism
A truly radical alternative…Hayekian libertarianism. It’s an opposite to Randian Social Darwinism. It neutralizes the main complaint of left non-libertarians against our party. You may find it too radical a change.
With a tip of the hat to google.com and Nicholas Wapshott for letting me find the quote on line in a reasonable time:
Here is what Hayek actually wrote in his book The Road to Serfdom, pp 148-149
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. …. [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. … Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
“Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
“To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
“There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not — or at least need not — require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.
“Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.
“In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.”
So wrote Hayek.