[Lnc-business] LNC Member Blogging

[Arvin Vohra]

I may have misphrased that one. Within the boundaries I was suggesting, we
wouldn't be able to have headlines like "Regulate and Tax Marijuana!" or
other highly counterproductive ones. However, we could certainly support
legalizing recreational marijuana, including saying "This amendment is a
step in the right direction. We don't need the new department of _____, and
we certainly can do without any new taxes, but this is a solid step
forward. In the next step, let's work to eliminate _____, _____ and ____,
which will help Colorado by _________. In fact, Libertarian candidates for
___________ have already pledged to sponsor legislation to do so!"

For same sex marriage, "Eliminating the same-sex marriage ban is a step in
the right direction. We can also end all marriage license requirements in
_______, and stop wasting resources by prosecuting any other consenting
behavior between adults, including _______, _______, and __________."

Perhaps the word "inadvertent" was ill-chosen (inadvertently chosen?). What
I was specifically referring to was the addiction to presenting purely
procedural bills that don't actually reduce government spending or meddling
at all, except as a possible tenth step in some master plan vaguely related
to it, but do add more rules and agencies immediately. Examples of such
programs that I see suggested a few times a week:

1. Fair tax
2. Congressmen must read bills
3. One subject at a time
4. Bills must be written in plain english

All that kind of overcomplicated dancing around the subject confuses our
message and dilutes our brand.

Legalizing anything is something we should always advocate.

-Arvin




On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Evan McMahon <indyliberty at gmail.com> wrote:

> Arvin,
>
> Under your guidelines, we would not have been able to write in support of
> Colorado's amendment to legalize recreational marijuana. As it not only
> created new government agencies, but also created new taxes.
>
> We would not be able to write in support of the overturning of same-sex
> marriage bans, as that can be an inadvertent expansion of government.
> That's just two examples of items, I think we would like to support (as a
> national party), that wouldn't qualify for publication under those
> guidelines.
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Evan McMahon
> At-Large Representative
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> evan.mcmahon at lp.org
> On Jul 30, 2014 1:33 AM, "Arvin Vohra" <arvin at arvinvohra.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all - this was something I advocated for last term, before I properly
>> understood the ramifications. At this point, I am much more hesitant.
>>
>> If we can set very clear guidelines, that keep this on message, I'm for
>> it. Those guidelines, in my mind, would be basically similar to Who's
>> Driving.
>>
>> 1. Must at some point bring up cutting/repealing/dismantling existing
>> government structures. Not just blocking future increases, dismantling
>> current structures.
>> 2. Must at least state the advantages of those cuts.
>> 3. This one is obvious. A post should not, even for a moment, even
>> inadvertently, advocate for more government.
>> 4. Recommended: show that this differentiates us from the R's and D's.
>>
>>  Our blog is a marketing instrument. Any marketing instrument must make
>> sure the clients (voters), at the very least,
>>
>> 1. Know what we're offering
>> 2. Understand why it's good.
>>
>> And we aren't offering Hayek, our own personal life experiences, or an
>> edgy brand. We are offering less government and more freedom. We are
>> offering to downsize, dismantle, cut, abolish, and repeal. At this point,
>> most of the country Does Not Know What We Are Offering. Most of the
>> information being shared is flat out wrong. Some if this is because of D
>> and R misinformation, but most of it comes from our own uncontrolled,
>> constantly off message, presentation.
>>
>> Most of the country believes the Libertarian tax position is Fair Tax,
>> not eliminating the income tax. Most of the country understands us in terms
>> of our beliefs (Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative), not in terms
>> of what service we are offering (cutting government.) Many of the people
>> who do vote for us are not voting because of what we're offering, but
>> because of irritation with our opponents.
>>
>> Anyway, I know we have an amazing talent pool on this LNC. I agree that
>> using it on our blog has great potential. But used in an off-message,
>> undirected way, I believe it will do more harm than good. Thus, I would
>> strongly support this with the above guidelines, or an alternative set of
>> guidelines that makes sure that we are marketing effectively by putting our
>> unique selling proposition front and center of every post.
>>
>> -Arvin
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>> Is there interest from LNC members in publishing articles on the
>>> official Libertarian Party blog?
>>>
>>> My understanding is that LNC members had done so in the past, but the
>>> policy had been changed for a number of reasons and that was stopped.
>>>
>>> If there is interest, I would be inclined to open it up to LNC members
>>> to post, within certain guidelines, e.g. directly applicable to the
>>> Libertarian Party, and in line with our overall messaging, positive,
>>> etc.  Posts would be subject to APRC review as well.
>>>
>>> -Nick
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140730/eef6c312/attachment-0002.html>