Donald Trump

The GOP's Third Party Option

The Libertarian Party is an anti-Trump party.

|

So revolting do many Republicans find the prospect of having Donald Trump as their nominee that three in 10 say they would not vote for him in November, some are now speaking openly about leaving the GOP for a third party. An exodus like that could wreck the GOP. But it might be wrecked already. And at least those leaving could look themselves in the mirror—rather than looking like, say, a horrified Chris Christie, who appeared behind Trump on Super Tuesday resembling Oedipus at the moment he realized what he had done.

But what sort of party would appeal to the GOP's anti-Trump forces? The answer seems obvious: a party that embodies the opposite of Trump.

On the issues, that would mean:

  • A party that does not merely welcome immigration, but celebrates it.
  • A party that treats individuals as individuals, not as indistinguishable sub-units of larger racial, ethnic, or other cohorts (Jews, Muslims, "The Mexicans," etc.).
  • A party that is therefore not "fine" with either bigotry or affirmative action, as Trump is.
  • A party that, unlike Trump, consistently supports the First Amendment.
  • And the Second.
  • A party that would never endorse a record-shattering $5.7 trillion-with-a-T tax hike—which Trump not only endorsed, but proposed.
  • A party that, unlike Trump, doesn't think it's a good idea to go around killing the family members of suspected terrorists. Or torturing people, either.
  • A party that believes in free trade, not 45 percent tariffs on countries that supply goods American consumers want.
  • A party that steadfastly opposes forcing people to buy things they don't want, such as health insurance.
  • A party that finds eminent-domain abhorrent, not a "wonderful" club to bash little old ladies with.
  • A party that, unlike Trump, supports equal rights for the LGBT community.
  • A party that, unlike Trump, opposed government bailouts for the auto companies.
  • And Wall Street.
  • And handouts to nonprofit groups such as Planned Parenthood, too.

It would take a lot of work to launch a third party like that, especially in time for the November election. Fortunately for disaffected Republicans, they don't have to. There already is one: the Libertarian Party.

Granted, libertarians and conservatives disagree as often as they agree. Unlike the GOP, which takes a uniformly interventionist position on foreign policy, the Libertarian Party is decidedly non-interventionist. (But not isolationist—which implies pulling up a drawbridge and severing even peaceful ties with other countries.) The Libertarian Party also prefers to treat terrorist attacks as matters for law enforcement rather than military intervention.

Libertarians are highly skeptical of domestic law enforcement as well—unlike conservatives, who tend to side with the police in debates over unreasonable searches, excessive force, and so on. They're strong defenders of privacy, hence hostile to domestic surveillance and enthusiastic about innovations, such as Bitcoin and encryption, that make government tracking harder.

And libertarians generally think that since you own yourself, you can do whatever you want with your body. That includes prostitution, drug use, and sex acts that are, shall we say, non-Euclidean. Not too many of the GOP's family-values crowd will find much appeal in that. (On abortion, the party says people can have good-faith views on all sides but government should butt out.)

In one realm—economics—libertarians and Republicans both agree and disagree. The former are fiercely laissez-faire, to the point of opposing even minimum-wage laws: If Smith is willing to take a job at two bucks an hour, they say, why should anybody else try to stop him? But unlike a lot of pro-business Republicans, libertarians fiercely oppose any kind of corporate welfare—and some find right-to-work laws, which are an article of Republican faith, an affront to free-market economics because they infringe on the liberty of contract.

On the other hand, you won't find any more fervent supporters of free enterprise and entrepreneurship than within libertarian ranks. As a group, libertarians are less religious than the public as a whole: 39 percent of them profess no faith, compared to 15 percent of the general public. But if the libertarian movement had a patron saint, it might be the small businessman or woman starting a new company—perhaps a marijuana dispensary—against the headwinds of government red tape.

The Libertarian Party's 2012 nominee and a 2016 candidate, Gary Johnson—who was twice elected governor of New Mexico as a Republican before he, too, jumped ship—was in Richmond over the weekend. Asked about the fit between the GOP and the LP, he said Donald Trump "is no small-government conservative. As that reality sets in, more and more Republicans should, and hopefully will, take a serious look at the Libertarian candidate in November. In New Mexico, I proved to a frankly skeptical Republican 'establishment' that governing with libertarian principles not only works, but appeals to a broad swath of the electorate. At CPAC—the Conservative Political Action Conference held last week—"I was definitely received more enthusiastically and more warmly than in years past. I don't think it was a coincidence that, this year, CPAC invited a Libertarian candidate to speak on the main stage."

Thanks to its views on sex and drugs, the libertarian movement has a reputation as rather hippy-dippy. The enthusiasm among some libertarians for Ayn Rand, or Austrian economics, or abstruse philosophical hair-splitting reinforces the oddball impression. And in the U.S., third parties inhabit the fringe almost by definition. So, understandably, many Republicans might think libertarians are kind of weird.

Then again, of those two parties only one of them is about to nominate Donald Trump.

This column originally appeared at the Richmond Times Dispatch.

NEXT: Trump Campaign Manager Allegedly Manhandles Breitbart News Reporter Michelle Fields

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. My folks, one a life-long soft-bellied Republican and the other a late convert to progressivism, are voting Johnson this year.

    1. That is interesting, thanks to your influence?

      Gary Johnson for 2016.

      1. Somewhat. They’re New Mexican, so they know the guy already. But neither has any faith in their respective fields.

        1. Oh. So their support for Johnson will mean Hillary only wins New Mexico by 20%?

      2. #ReadyForGary

        1. #FeelTheJohnson

          1. winnah!!

          2. #BigJohnsonFan

            1. ^this. Ha.

            2. +1 inches

            3. +1 Hulk Hogan

            4. +1 grower not shower (the best kind)

          3. Embrace Johnson 2016

    2. Nice!

      One of my parents is a converted former Democrat, about 20 years now, dedicated Republican. And the other, my dad, he’s 85 now, he gets politics all mixed up but typically will go for anyone who’s not one of those silly libertarians.

      1. typically will go for anyone who’s not one of those silly libertarians.

        He’s into winners!

        1. He watches Foxnews and CNN all day long, takes them seriously, and then gets it all mixed together. Just imagine the worst CNN and Foxnews fans has become the same person. This is why I avoid talking to him about politics whenever possible.

          1. I’m to the point where I talk about politics with very few people, and even with them, at a very abstract level.

            1. I hear ya, RC. I don’t talk about politics with anyone in person (and I include Facebook since there’s no anonymity) unless he or she makes a point of it, and even then I’m reserved.

            2. Yeah, I like the abstract level approach. I was talking to a couple of friends last night who are Bernie fans. The subject of politics came up, so I ended up explaining why, at a very philosophical level, I am not at all feeling the Bern. They were actually pretty interested. And I got at least one of them interested in looking into Gary Johnson (who of course they had never heard of).

            3. It’s amazing how much agreement on the abstract level people have in politics and policy. When your start throwing in policies that may in fact directly contradict that abstract principle, disagreements blow up.

              I keep to abstracts, as well. I’m not sure if I’m full on libertarian — I don’t like labels — but I’m not either side of the Red/Blue split. That confuses people.

              1. In my experience, you can get pretty far as long as you don’t mention either a party or a person. That’s what triggers the primitive, pre-rational, tribal part of people’s brains, and their manners and morals go right out the window.

                1. That’s why Gary Johnson is a good one to bring up. No one knows who he is.

        2. When laws and taxes are repealed, we win. Otherwise, it’s the politicians who win. 5% spoiler votes is enough to repeal the income tax in another decade. Voting for looters gets you what you see in the papers.

    3. Sorry a vote for any minor candidate like Gary Johnson, is a waste of a vote, you might as well just not vote. Also your vote just does not count in States that are overwhelming in the bank form one of the two major parties. The link below is from a 2012 Reason article on why your vote does not count and just stay home.

      https://reason.com/archives/201…..esnt-count

      1. I disagree. Voting for a third-party candidate is not a waste. It sends a very clear message that you find neither major party candidate represents your interests and concerns. If they want your vote, then they would need to adjust their positions to win you over/back. Additionally, a vote for a third-party candidate also makes it more viable to actually having another option besides the two major parties. And if you are not in a swing state, a.k.a. you live in a state that is overwhelmingly in the bag for one party or another, then that would be a perfect opportunity to support a third party candidate to show your disenfranchisement with major parties and also help to make a third party option more viable. You could stay home but that more or less just perpetuates the status quo. Anyway, just something to consider.

        1. This.

          I live in Texas. Voted for Cruz in primary . My vote mattered.

          In the general, I’m voting Libertarian even if Cruz is nominee. Makes them pay more attention to Libertarian ideas.

          PS: it is a logical fallacy that an individual vote does not matter when the winner is decided purely on votes. See Zeno’s paradox .

        2. I would agree only if everyone who is a libertarian would vote third party or abstain. As long as there are libertarians, which seems there is a majority, who will vote for the “lesser” of the two evils, a few to vote third party does “waste” their vote. As long as libertarians go after the dangling carrot these politburo members dangle hoping they actually mean what they are saying, nothing will change, especially when libertarian policy makers do the same. Ron Paul has it right, “They think he’s for the free market, and he’s owned by Goldman Sachs,” Paul said. “He and Hillary have more in common than we have with Trump or anyone else.”

          “…Paul told The Washington Post that Cruz was a “fake libertarian” who did not deserve support from voters worried that Rand Paul was slipping.”

          “He’s associated with the groups we talk against all the time, the neoconservatives,” Paul said. “We believe they’re the ones associated with so much of the killing in our foreign policy.”

      2. “Debunking the Lesser-of-Two-Evils Voting Theory” covers many of the reasons to vote for a third party. The ideas r3450n presented are covered there plus one they didn’t ? voting for a third party helps ballot access.

      3. If voting were about actually determining which candidate would win office, you might as well just not vote since the probability of your vote making that determination is negligible. At most an individual vote contributes (or withholds) a scintilla of legitimacy to the winner. One should never vote for the lesser of two evils; it is much better to withhold that scintilla of legitimacy from both candidates.

        It is also socially irresponsible to vote. The probability of an accidental fatality in traveling to and from the polls is orders of magnitude greater than the probability of affecting an election’s outcome. The effect of one’s death upon spouse, children, and friends is more likely to be greater consequence than the effect of electing one bozo politician instead of his deranged opponent even if one’s vote could actually make that determination. Multiply the probabilities by the likely consequences of voting, and it is clear that one betrays one’s loyalty to family and friends — and the “greater good” utility of civil society in general — when one votes.

      4. If you don’t vote, you’re just invisible to the Big Two and they’ll act like you don’t exist (while claiming independents are on their side).

        And imagine the brouhaha if, instead of a 30% turnout, those 70% who stayed home actually voted for a third party.

      5. The income tax moved from the communist manifesto to the 16th Amendment in 65 years not because the socialists took office, but because they voted persistently and gradually took your freedom. The libertarian party is doing the same in reverse. When a tax or other bad law is repealed we the people win. Republican infiltrators do not see it that way because they are not we the people. They are the looter politicians ordering militariaed armed cops to rob and shoot us and our dogs. So of course they see spoiler votes as a threat to their hand in the till. Looters whine, but will vote our way or the highway eventually.

      6. Quite the opposite: both parties try to split the vote down the middle by carefully selecting their positions. That’s why voting for one of the two major party candidates doesn’t matter: they are effectively interchangeable, by design of the two party system. However, if you vote for a third party candidate, you tell both parties that their political strategy was wrong, and losing votes to third parties is probably the most devastating thing that can happen to either Democrats or Republicans. That’s why a third party vote is actually very powerful.

    4. com,

      Do you think it would be a good idea to soften the Repub vote so as to raise the likelihood of President Hillary?

      1. So far, I don’t see much of a difference between Hillary and Trump; they both seem about equally awful.

  2. This would be an awesome possibility, but I fear it won’t come to fruition. I mean, what better opportunity for Republicans to truly reject the Trump message by all swinging third party. Honestly, I can’t WAIT to watch all the Republicans bitching about Donald Trump get in line after the primaries.

    It’ll make up for my sadness over not getting to see Democrats line up behind Joe Biden.

    1. I’m still hoping for indictments.

      1. There’s a small group of H&R commenters who keep saying that the “net is closing” on Hillary, but I haven’t seen a shred of evidence for it.

        1. I think those remarks are mostly wishful thinking. I have no doubt the amount of dirt on Hillary will increase over time continuously, but it won’t be acted upon.

          1. Maybe President Trump will act upon it.

            1. Maybe Candidate Trump will act up on it.

            2. President Trump will pardon her. He’s a longtime Hillary supporter.

          2. Imagine how much dirt she’ll rack up during her eight years as president!

          3. We’re libertarians. Wishful thinking is kind of essential.

        2. The immunity from prosecution granted gives me some hope, just need something to hold onto here.

          It’s clear this foul women has broken the law, not to mention her numerous bald-faced lies to the electorate.

          1. It doesn’t matter whether she’s broken the law, what matters is whether the political will exists to prosecute her.

            1. She keeps taunting everyone with “No executive is too big to jail”. Let ‘er rip!

        3. sometimes justice is ponderous, but always inexorable.

          -me, just now

        4. The net is being cast by Democrats in the Justice Dept. The holes in the net are huge, by design.

          1. yes.

            it is still possible that while going through the motions of “pursuing justice” that they inadvertently snag someone like Huma or Cheryl Mills in a lie, and end up busting one of them on obstruction/perjury a la Scooter… and that the ensuing heat causes Hillary to abandon the campaign, while never being personally indicted herself. It would be “death by optics” rather than by the direct action of the DoJ.

            ’tis a theory, to be sure.

          2. Well, she is getting kind of fat.

        5. I’m not expecting indictments.

          I’m thinking there is still a serious FBI investigation going on, and that when it becomes clear there won’t be any indictments, there could well be leaks that would be catastrophic for her campaign. It all comes down to whether somebody at the FBI is angry enough at letting her walk scot-free to carry the Hillary Papers to the media.

          1. Share this view, if there is dirt that is swept somewhere out of sight someone will leak the FBI report or even threaten to resign. By all accounts Comey is genuinely even-handed and non-partisan.

          2. there could well be leaks that would be catastrophic for her campaign.

            *looks at watch*

            Well they’re going to have to hurry.

            1. Any time before mid-to-late October would be fine.

          3. Because if proof of Hillary’s wrongdoing were delivered, it would be front page news!

            How naive.

        6. Daily Kos, which my liberal friends are citing, is saying she’s been cleared of all wrong doing.

          1. Lol

    2. Just say hello to your new supreme overlord, the Donald. Ugh, I hate to admit it, but this guy will be president.

      1. Not a chance in hell bro.

        1. No, but here up on the surface, there’s a really good chance.

        2. Just “bro?” Not a retarded nickname, like “High Whore Eon” or something? You’re slipping.

      2. Seems kind of likely right now. I still think there is a possibility that he decides it’s no fun anymore and starts a new season of The Apprentice: Political Campaign Edition, or something.

        I think it would be awesome if he got the nomination and then just dropped out. All I’m hoping for is some entertainment value at this point.

    3. Anyone going against a clinton will lose. No other candidate is bringing in the “reagan democrats.” Take the election from trump at a convention, you will lose the majority of his support. People know the game is rigged, they believe it is rigged against them and for the elite. Right or wrongly trump is giving them hope, screw trump, they will take it as screwing them and the same things will happen that have happened in the past. So, later when a libertarian rises up and proclaims the right message on trade, economy, foreign intervention, etc. (except open borders, you cannot have open borders in a welfare state. The only important thing libertarians are wrong on.) no one will believe him, the establishment elitists will have solidified their power and will have a better plan next time to get these pesky political job threatening libertarians “off their lawn.”

  3. Is Gary the lead singer for “The Swinging Johnsons”?

  4. Every four years we’re told of some new scenario that’s occurring which will allow the LP to get into the double digits, percentage wise. Every four years I’m disappointed. The average person thinks that if they don’t vote for the winner in November, that their vote is wasted. This mindset has always infuriated me, for numerous reasons.

    1. Even worse, they’ll blame us LP voters for why their shitty candidate lost. I’m still hearing that it’s our fault Terry McAuliffe is governor of Virginia instead of Ken Cuccinelli as if I am supposed to care which shitty major party candidate gets to hand away our tax dollars to special interests for 4 years. The good news is that we don’t let any of these shitheads be governor for more than 4 years. Sic semper tyrannis or something.

      1. At least our state flag has mild nudity on it!

        1. Hearing about “seal law” was the most interesting parts of that campaign until I figured out they weren’t talking about hilarious animals.

          1. The only thing that matters is bird law.

            1. Bird law in this country… It’s not governed by reason.

        2. At least our state flag has mild nudity weird fetish shit on it!

          1. A booby is “weird fetish shit” now?

            1. An Amazon warrior with an exposed nipple stomping on a man?

        3. Doesn’t beat the Bear Republic!

          *looks around cautiously for those kinds of bears*

          1. *waves tiny flag with bear paw*

            Hi there…

            1. Nothing worse than a metrosexual tease.

              1. If nightly soaks in a vat of hair renal solution makes me a metrosexual, then I don’t want to be…whatever not a metrosexual is!

                1. [mauls MHV because bears are just like that]

                  1. *giggles*

                    You beard is scratchy on my belly.

                2. whatever not a metrosexual is!

                  Depends on who you ask, but probably retrosexual or lumbersexual. Although I think the consensus is that lumbersexuals are just metrosexuals in hypermasculine drag.

                  In the mid-nineties, the noun metrosexual was coined to refer to a heterosexual male with a strong interest in fashion and appearance. In 2003, Mark Simpson, the British journalist who first used metrosexual, coined an antonym for the term, describing those men who refuse to embrace metrosexual ideals as retrosexuals.

                  1. I hate all those words. None of it has anything to do with sexuality. What’s wrong with “dandy”? Isn’t that kind of what “metrosexual” is supposed to mean?

                    I do like your description “hypermasculine drag”, though. The only masculine fashion choices are wearing a suit or tux, as appropriate, or not giving a fuck. (Yes, this is just me projecting my preferences onto the world).

                    1. I hate all those words. None of it has anything to do with sexuality. What’s wrong with “dandy”? Isn’t that kind of what “metrosexual” is supposed to mean?

                      Dandy (like Macaroni before it) is somewhat time and location bound, but yes but it’s a serviceable word.

                      I do like your description “hypermasculine drag”, though. The only masculine fashion choices are wearing a suit or tux, as appropriate, or not giving a fuck. (Yes, this is just me projecting my preferences onto the world).

                      Kindly step off Zeb’s lawn, Brawny Man.

                    2. The lumbersexual thing particularly annoys me. Now people might mistake my scruffiness and entirely practical style of dress as some kind of fashion choice. And how many of those assholes have ever even run a chainsaw?

                    3. I’ve built furniture from rough cut lumber so think I’ve earned my beard and plaid shirts. Have never wielded a chainsaw, though.

                    4. Now people might mistake my scruffiness and entirely practical style of dress as some kind of fashion choice.

                      Uh oh. You’ve triggered THE SCENE.

                    5. I haven’t seen that movie, but I enjoyed the clip.

                    6. It’s a surprisingly enjoyable film. The end didn’t really ring true though.

                    7. Even I can see that those belts aren’t the same. But all I want to know is whether they will hold my pants up.

                    8. If you have a 26″ waist they will.

          2. *gets rum-drunk, mauls Los Doyers*

            1. I read that the kind of alcohol doesn’t affect your mood. It’s a psychological effect.
              /pedant off

              1. OK, you go give jesse a couple of power rum drinks and flirt. We’ll watch.

                I know better than to do that….I mean, at 6’3″, 222lbs, former rugby player, moderately to somewhat hairy. *bats eyes from safe distance*

                Oh, and why do you hate “Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off”?

                1. Stop that, Switzy.

                2. I would be honored to have drinks with Jesse. Also, I’ve seen girls clothes come off with quite the plethora of alcohols in college.

                3. I know better than to do that….I mean, at 6’3″, 222lbs, former rugby player, moderately to somewhat hairy. *bats eyes from safe distance*

                  Why hello…

              2. That’s a load of crap. Methanol affects your mood very differently than ethanol.

                /superpedant

              3. I read that the kind of alcohol doesn’t affect your mood. It’s a psychological effect.

                Meh, my first sexual experience was after a great deal of 151 had been consumed. I’m fine with assuming that it’s psychological.

                1. Ugh I had a bad night in college once involving a large cup of everclear-laced koolaid drink.

                  1. Ugh I had a bad night in college once involving a large cup of everclear-laced koolaid

                    Is this why you drink cider now?

                    1. Well I make the cider so it means I have lots available for consumption. 😉

                      I mostly stick to wine and cider (good dry cider, not the sugary garbage). No one needs 180 proof alcohol.

              4. I read that the kind of alcohol doesn’t affect your mood. It’s a psychological effect.

                I know that is almost certainly true. But it really seems like some spirits are different. Particularly tequila and gin.

                1. Gin makes me barf. Does that do it for anyone?

                  A glass of cognac or calvados on the other hand… 😉

                  1. Well, last time I drank way too much it was gin. But that was about 8 gin and tonics from a friendly bar tender who must have been giving me like 4 ounces of gin per drink.

                    I try not to do that anymore, but I love a nice G&T on a summer afternoon.

                    1. Gin is my summer go to drink. I think the difference is how you drink. Crushing lagers in the pool, sipping a Rioja with Jamon, shots of tequila at the bar, all are different scenarios with different moods. That is why you have a different kind of drunk, your situation and mood were different. Also expectations of behavior. I’ve been drunk in nice restaurants and I don’t hoot and holler.

                    2. If you bring jamon, I will follow you home.

                    3. I thought a G&T would be perfect with dinner last night only to realize I was out of G and had a surprising excess of T. It’s time to go-a booze-huntin’

                    4. Did you make your own tonic? How hard was it?

                    5. I did not. I have wild cherry bark, but not cinchona.

                      I’ve got vodka a sous vide rig and juniper berries so I’m thinking about making my own gin.

                      A gentleman friend of my acquaintance has been making exceptionally lemony limoncello sous vide in ~3 instead of ~3 weeks.

                    6. I want to try my hand at making my own tonic, but I have a few too many hobbies as is.

                    7. I just don’t want to end up with another 5-pound bag of bark which may or may not produce cyanide if handled poorly in my pantry.

                      Also, I’m currently exploring Yemenite Jew slow-bake breads, which require ungodly amounts of butter and taste like Hawaiian bread had an illegitimate love-child with a toasted croissant. The kubaneh is all consuming.

                    8. That sounds like my wife’s idea of heaven on earth.

                    9. First attempt came out denser than I wanted but really fucking tasty. A couple of my coworkers were giddy and wanted to know when I’d bring more. I’m regretting giving the bread machine that I rarely used away to my sister because it would’ve taken the effort out of mixing, proofing, punching down and letting rise again, but it was definitely not hard to make by hand.

                    10. Environment and expectations seem to make a huge difference. I find I can drink a lot if I’m at a classy event and dressed nicely and it just works better.

          3. Yes, I’m pleased with how I look on the flag.

      2. Don’t accept the blame, Crabby. Remind them that they lost because their candidate was unattractive to the voters. They think they own the votes of certain groups; they need regular, forceful reminders that votes are earned, not owned.

        Also, even a vote for a losing candidate does some tangible good – it can help keep a party on the ballot.

        1. Don’t let the stuff you want be the enemy of the stuff I want!

        2. That was always my response: “It’s not my fault your candidate was a fucking ass hole.”

          1. Is that why Libertarian candidates don’t win?

            Because they are fucking assholes?

            /ducks

    2. Don’t even think about getting into double digits for the LP. First, all a goal like that does is undermine your personal ability to make a difference in retail politics cuz it moves the goal to the wholesale field where only big money matters. Second, it’s not really necessary to achieve that for the LP to come out of the election a winner. Free Soil party destroyed the existing two-party system and realigned both along their main issue (slavery in the territories) with two election results of 10% and far more importantly 5% (after the grand bipartisan Missouri Compromise that was designed to kill off the Free Soil party completely).

      The problem for the LP is that it doesn’t have an overriding linchpin issue (which is ALWAYS gonna have to be economics not social). And it has a serious pro-establishment pro-status quo tilt on the major economic issues which makes it impossible to be an agent of change.

      1. Huh? The LP’s linchpin issue has always been drug legalization, and the nation is slowly moving in that direction after seeing the continued failures and crime of the War on Drugs. And repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing is pretty darn far from “pro-status quo”.

        1. I live in Colorado. Don’t delude yourself for one second that legalization will lead to smaller government. It won’t. And ‘repealing the income tax’ does absolutely nothing to lead to smaller government either – since government can survive and grow very well – while cronies prosper mightily – by issuing debt and/or printing greenbacks directly. Further, repealing the ‘income tax’ is designed solely to appeal to a small wealthy part of the electorate that pays more in income tax than it pays in all other taxes and/or suffers from the economic distortions caused by all those other taxes. And the GOP is already the party of stuck on stupid Lafferian crap for the last 40 years – which is pretty damn establishment to my mind.

          Neither of those issues will get the LP over 1%

          1. Legalization may not lead to smaller government, but it gets rid of a lot of violence and threatened violence against innocent people.

            And ‘repealing the income tax’ does absolutely nothing to lead to smaller government either – since government can survive and grow very well – while cronies prosper mightily – by issuing debt and/or printing greenbacks directly.

            That won’t last too long without some actual revenue stream.

            I think that the biggest reason to kill the income tax is to get rid of the massive invasions of privacy it requires. Even if it were replaced with equal taxes from some other source, it would be an improvement.

            1. Well let me test you on legalization then and all your implied force. The Ohio legalization referendum was also pure cronyism. The LP also says its against cronyism. So if you were in Ohio which way do you vote? Which issue do you prioritize? If you prioritize pot, then you have just condemned the LP to irrelevance cuz the D/R will get the credit for legalization (just like CO) and libertarians will have permanently screwed themselves on cronyism. Prioritize anti-cronyism and you have a serious chance of undermining D/R – cuz people will then exclusively trust the LP on non-cronyist pot legalization AND looking at all the other areas of cronyism will get the attention of 100% of Trump/Sanders/anti-establishment voters too.

              And govt has plenty of revenue streams apart from the income tax. Hell, the dollar is the reserve currency (which means there is a per se demand for dollars) and that is the source of most of the crony deals between Wall St and govt (and that crony well is damn near endless – from ‘free trade agreements’ to TARP bailouts to the Fed manipulation of every economy to half our foreign intervention)

      2. Edit – And I meant to type the ‘Compromise of 1850’ not the Missouri Compromise as the bipartisan attempt to kill off Free Soil.

    3. If everyone knew all of the candidates’ positions and just voted for the best match, the LP would be in double digits every election. But most people don’t bother to investigate, or assume (correctly, I begrudgingly point out) that only the D and R candidates have a chance because the great majority assume they have to vote for one of them if they don’t want to “waste their vote”, meaning vote for someone who will finish a distant third or fourth, no matter how good the candidate is. Top that off with the LP typically nominating unqualified true believers, and you get 0.5%.

      But that calculus really could change this time. The LP could nominate a successful 2-term governor, while the Republicans nominate a reality show host and multiple-bankruptcy/marriage businessman, and the Democrats nominate a thoroughly unimpressive senator/Secretary of State/first lady who nobody trusts, for good reason.

    4. I think there is a plausible scenario for the LP to get 2%. That may not sound like much, but it’s enough to worry the Big Two because they’ve so equally divided the landscape that 2% can swing some elections.

      p.s. Of course, that 2% would need to apply to non-presidential races, and Libertarians are notorious for ignoring non-presidential races. “This year isn’t divisible by four! Go away and let me sleep!”

    5. History proves that small parties’ platforms become the law of the land as Milton Friedman made plain. When altruism was worshipped, communism promised freedom from wantand spoiler votes soon entrenched the income tax and prohibition amendments. Altruism was questioned in 1957 and has been collapsing with socialist genocide, war and starvation ever since. The LP is evidence of that. Communists and christian socialists voted with consistent misplaced integrity, got what they wanted and nearly nuked humanity. We are reversing that process and winning with every repeal and every tax cut. Every 3rd party vote wields 10x the law-changing power, and winning is changing the laws.

  5. “(On abortion, the party says people can have good-faith views on all sides but government should butt out.)”

    If abortion is murder, then how could the government but out?

    As for immigration, isn’t that one of the driving forces making the nation more statist?

    1. Side note I did vote libertarian in both of the last two elections, but that’s just because they were the lesser of three evils…

      1. *Least of three evils

        /pedant

    2. But if you dig deeper it is only misdemeanor murder and the woman (the initiator of the “crime”) goes free.

      That is the real nature of the majority (vast majority?) of anti-abortion sentiment.

      Illogical. Even around here.

      1. Or you set an arbitrary legal definition of how many days/weeks/months after conception it becomes a crime, and go with that (with medical necessity exemptions). Which is where the great majority of the voters are anyway.

    3. Exactly, “government shouldn’t be involved” is the slogan of one side in the abortion debate. I don’t think such neutrality is possible, but that’s the rationale under which the LP wants to remove criminal penalties.

      Unless they also want to remove criminal penalties for such other “culture war” crimes as lynching and honor killings, there’s no way they can defend this as neutral.

    4. If abortion is murder, then how could the government but[t] out?

      This, of course. But, most people are really wary of classifying all abortions as murders. Fortunately the anti-abortion absolutists, especially those who oppose hormone-based contraceptives for women, scare off people who might agree with you on some restrictions.

      So, yeah, good luck with that. Get back to us when you’ve ditched those people and are willing to sit down and have a non-screechy, fact-based discussion. You might find you’d gain some traction. But the moment one of those “fully human from the moment of conception” screechers goes off the rational people get up and leave.

      1. But I want to jump and down and yell because I’m morally superior to all you cretins!!!

        1. I’m morally superior to all you cretins

          You live in Florida, so that path is closed to you.

      2. Get back to us when you’ve ditched those people and are willing to sit down and have a non-screechy, fact-based discussion.

        Both sides have their nutbar absolutists. Both sides have people who are willing to have a non-screechy discussion; I’m pretty sure the plurality opinion is pro-choice in early pregnancy, but only for a narrow class of cases in later pregnacy – which leaves plenty of room for compromise.

        But that non-screechy discussion can only happen when both sides ditch their nutbar absolutists.

        1. The difference is that the anti-abortion side *elects* their “nutbar absolutists”. Or do you think it’s an accident that the various “regulated as a surgical center” laws always apply to clinics that only perform first trimester medication abortions?

          Have you seen anyone, anywhere, pushing or passing legislation to allow elective (as opposed to medically necessary) third trimester abortions?

          1. Have you seen anyone, anywhere, pushing or passing legislation to allow elective (as opposed to medically necessary) third trimester abortions?

            Its legal unless banned. There are plenty of Dems on record opposing partial-birth abortion bans.

            1. Really. Name one. Name one state where a woman can get an elective abortion, absent any medical need, in the third trimester.

              Further, name one bill or law, that passed a state legislature in the last five years, that attempted to make elective abortions in the third trimester legal.

              I can dig up multiple examples of conservative legislators trying to ban (by law or by effect) all abortions. From “person-hood at conception” to “fetal pain” to “you have to be a surgical center and have admitting privileges in order to give a pill”.

              You got anything comparable?

              1. I googled partial birth abortion ban. I saw many votes against it. I count those as supporters of late term abortions. It was a quick proxy for supporters of late term abortions.

                I see here that several states have no third trimester abortion bans as of 2013, anyway. Others have bans of varying validity and effect under current jurisprudence.

                http://www.nytimes.com/interac…..tions.html

                Here’s a story on senate Democrats putting together a bill to override state law banning late term abortions. Does that count?

                http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..latestnews

        2. He is trolling you. The pro life absolutists are just his excuse for being a pro murder absolutist.

          I would compromise with you, but LOOK OVER THERE!

      3. May I – without being a screecher – be someone who believes that legal personhood begins at conception but is willing to compromise because I know most people, including libertarians, do not believe what I believe?

        1. Your willingness to compromise defines you as non-screecher. Your reasons for being willing to compromise are irrelevant.

          You don’t need my permission for anything, of course. Realists do retain the right to walk away from unproductive, time-wasting discussions, and to sanction those who argue in bad faith by refusing to indulge them.

    5. You find a guy hanging on a ledge below a cliff. You reach out and try and pull him up. You realize either you’ll slip or you’ll damage your arm while pulling him up. Is letting go murder?

      You have the only matching blood type for a relative who needs 9 blood transfusions or they’ll die. After the first one, you realize you don’t want to continue. Is stopping murder?

      I am free to do with my body what I want. That includes stopping acting as an incubator. While another person does die in that situation, I’m not sure murder is the right term.

      1. You didn’t put the guy on the ledge in the first place.

        Which is not true in the case of pregnancy.

        1. Which is not true in the case of pregnancy.

          Wrong:

          Per Obama, “You didn’t create that.”
          Per Hilary, “It takes a village.”

          Just think of an abortion as one less vote for Democrats. The GOP being against abortion is sowing the demon see of its own destruction.

          1. That only counts if the chick was gang banged, and they all popped inside her.

      2. Big government is what creates the desire for abortions. In fact, I propose that every birth that occurs under President Hilary Clinton be prosecuted as child abuse.

      3. I am free to do with my body what I want. That includes stopping acting as an incubator.

        Does it include not using your body to care for your own children? I’m just curious as to how absolute your freedom to do what you want with your body really is.

        What the pro-lifers don’t do a good job with is recognizing that pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of certain decisions and actions of the mother. People are generally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. The fetus isn’t a trespasser; its an invitee (barring rape, of course).

        This doesn’t resolve the abortion issue, but it should take one absolutist position off the board.

        1. What the pro-lifers don’t do a good job with is recognizing that pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of certain decisions and actions of the mother. People are generally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. The fetus isn’t a trespasser; its an invitee (barring rape, of course).

          I’m sure this is how women see it when their contraception fails.

          1. Contraception failure is also a foreseeable risk.

            When we have a piece of equipment with a known failure risk, we are liable when it does, in fact, fail and someone is harmed. Regardless of how low that risk is.

            1. Kinda like a strict liability, standard, no?

              1. Not strict liability. The foreseeability takes care of that.

            2. When we have a piece of equipment with a known failure risk, we are liable when it does, in fact, fail and someone is harmed.

              LOL. The person who is harmed when contraception fails is the woman. Do you actually not realize that?

              1. She’s the one who deployed the faulty equipment. She’s still responsible for its failure, and can’t point to the foreseeable failure of the equipment she deployed as a reason why she shouldn’t be responsible for the foreseeable risks of her decisions.

                By analogy: When an airliner crashes, the airline suffers the loss of a valuable airplane and crew. Nobody thinks that gets them off the hook for paying damages to passengers.

                1. That’s because the passengers are harmed during the same event as the airplane and crew are harmed.

                  The woman is harmed at implantation. Her remedy for that harm might harm the fetus, but the abortion itself is separate event.

                  1. Her remedy for that harm might harm the fetus, but the abortion itself is separate event.

                    If she is harmed, its because of a risk she elected to take. The fact that she is harmed does not entitle her to harm someone else in a separate event.

                    I’m just trying to clear out some of the underbrush from the abortion argument, is all. It all circles back to whether/when you think the fetus acquires personhood. Analogies to trespassers and parasites and all that are underbrush, irrelevant at best.

              2. What I never see mentioned in the “abortion wars” is the simple fact that it empowers women against abusive and lying men. It prevents abusive men from passing their abusive genes and/or abusive cultural inheritances further on down the line.
                Given that some substantial fraction of male humanoids are pathetical, sociapathic liars? “Love ya, Babe, Love ya, Love ya, Love ya, now PLEASE can I get into your pants”? ? Then as soon as loved-ya Babe gets pregnant, out comes the abuse, physical and psychological? The female veto of lying bastards is ABORTION! Lying bastard, ya lied, and ya lied BIG-time, to me?!?!? Pass on YOUR genes, and YOUR obviously pathetic potential as a father! Not just NO, but FUCK NO!!!! … I wish we voters had the same power to ABORT the powert of LYING bastards, like Woodrow Wilson, who ran to keep the boys at home, and sent them to war 3 months after taking power! And Bush Sr., “read my lips, gonna tax the HELL outta ya bastards”, he would’ve said, had he been honest. And anti-abortion fanatics are just so many more power-grabbing pigs, take my word please? They desire Government Almighty asserting its power over our collective wombs!

          2. An individual being to lazy to take a pill before or after sex, or telling their partner to wear a rubber, is not contraception failure.

            1. I never said either of those things was contraception failure.

              1. Those are the leading cause of “contraceptive failure” as recorded in trials.

                It is not plausible that millions of condoms rupture every year.

          3. contraception does not fail one million times a year.

            1. Men fail. They lie. See post above…

        2. A fetus has no agency, so it cannot be a trespasser. If there is a trespass analogy, it is that the fetus is an object put on someone’s property. Of course, the person who put the that “property” there – in the vast majority of cases – is the property owner, the mother. And since one can’t trespass against one’s self…

          1. More like a nuisance animal, which does have a limited amount of agency. Libertarians fall flat, repeatedly, with the everything is either a human or an object mindset.

            1. No, because a nuisance animal still has agency, while a fetus has literally none at all. And even if the fetus were a nuisance animal, under trespass law, the tort originates in the owner, not the animal. Since the woman is the “owner,” there can be no trespass.

              Of course, my point is limited to applying trespass principles by analogy to fetuses.

    6. “If abortion is murder, then how could the government but out?”

      The federal government could butt out, states generally handle murder as it is currently.

      1. Pre Roe v Wade, that was how it was handled. If Roe was overturned, we would end up with approximately 56 different state laws. Some more restrictive, some less. Labratory of democracy and all that.

        1. Bingo. And being 2016 and not 1916, it would be legal in some form in 49 states, and “recreational abortions” would be legal in about 45 states.

          1. “Bingo. And being 2016 and not 1916, it would be legal in some form in 49 states, and “recreational abortions” would be legal in about 45 states.”

            Eh, I kind of doubt all of the states would move in one direction if the Fed stayed out completely. I think some states would successfully double down on the keeping the practice outlawed whereas others would be possibly looser as people would move to where their ideological views are most similar. (Plus one could presumably just leave, get an abortion, and quietly return. Letting the status quo remain.)

          2. How many states have already tried to close all their clinics, push person-hood laws, and so-forth?

            “legal in some form in 49 states” seems way too optimistic.

    7. If abortion is murder, then how could the government but out?

      Easy, just but out. Government has no way to determine the correct answer to that philosophical question. You might just as well ask “If abortion is not murder, how can the government punish people for doing it?”.

      As for immigration, isn’t that one of the driving forces making the nation more statist?

      If it is it’s only because of how the politicians play it. One side uses it to create a police state and the other to create a welfare state.

    8. Abortion is not murder, but overpopulation is as deadly as ebola, the black plague or yellow fever. Pregnant women are individuals and have individual rights just like men.
      What the Bible and Constitution say:
      a. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalm 137:9)
      b. …the free exercise thereof; (1st Amendment)
      c. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized… (14th Amendment)
      What fanatical mystics read:
      a. Send men with guns to force women to reproduce. (Robert Lewis Dear)
      b. …the coercive exercise thereof; (Robert Lewis Dear)
      c. Section 1. All ova potentially fertilized… (Robert Lewis Dear)
      There was a time when Civil Service examinations included a literacy test.

  6. Not just for former Republicans! The LP is a natural choice for Dems who support civil liberties don’t want to be stuck with a self-serving, authoritarian, war-hawk candidate like Clinton.

    1. Not enough free stuff. Dems are the party of free stuff first, and civil liberties (for some) second.

      1. Civil liberties are only for when the GOP is in power and often, not even then.

        1. Gun Rights: Never, for anyone, except for current or former agents of the state.

          Free Speech Rights: Only for people they like. Never for corporations.

          Etc.

      2. LP gives all kind of free stuff: free speech, free press, free assembly, etc.

        Oh, you mean free as in beer…nevermind.

        1. [golf clap]

        2. Free beer always is promised…for tomorrow. Along with the free lunch.

        3. You know who else gave free beer?

          1. George Washington.

          2. My frat. By the gallon.

          3. Me at my cookouts?

              1. Central Virginia, buddy. You and Mrs. Switzy are welcome if you’re ever in the area. Do hope to visit Chicago some day and hope to meet you.

            1. Looks like we’re all partying at Tonio’s this year!

          4. Sam Adams (the person, not the has-been brewery)?

    2. Dems who support civil liberties

      Hmmmm.

      1. You can find them hiding in unicorn corrals.

        1. I try to herd them to the exits, but sometimes they end up going down the wrong chute…Accidentally.

    3. The LP is a natural choice for…

      …people who think that Michael Hihn has something to say.

      1. *recoils from thunderous bitch slap*

      2. There’s lots of libertarians out there. Can’t name any them or what these people actually do that makes them libertarian, but I assure you they don’t identify as “libertarians” because of you anti-gubmint goobers.

        /Hihn

        1. 97% of people are libertarian but reject the libertarian label!
          -Cato 1972

          1. When did he say that poll was taken (I think it was the early aughts)? Perhaps the average person polled had never heard of the term “libertarian”? I only became aware of it in the late aughts.

            1. I can’t remember. I just know it is a Cato poll. Also I think the number is 57% or something.

            2. I don’t think the point there says what Hinny ever thought it says.

              “libertarian” is an adjective, as far as I’m concerned, and i think most people in actual practice treat it similarly.

              The reason I “am” probably a libertarian (noun) is because i generally reject being called *anything* (as a noun). I dislike the collectivization of people based on mere coincidental political overlap. People might share very similar libertarian views on X, Y, or Z but otherwise be people that wouldn’t want to be seen in the same room together. I don’t have to “be like you” to agree with you. I don’t even have to LIKE you as a person.

              Thus if 90+% of ”actual libertarians” reject a given label, all it says in my mind is that labels are stupid and policies are more important. If calling one’s self by that label makes it less-easy to convince OTHER people of the merit of those policies… then fuck the label = just focus on the ‘issue’ (e.g. second amendment, ending the drug war, liberalizing trade, etc)

              so there’s that…. and there’s also the fact that the “Libertarian-Label”? the people who really dig being part of the LP? uhm…. well, they’re an odd-sort. Who i like to refer to as the “Bazooka Owners of America / Weasel-Farming Society”. They’re good people! i respect their kookiness. But I aint inviting them over for drinks.

              1. “You left us out?!”

                /Marching and Chowder Society

                1. My two favorite LP candidates this year have been “Joy Waymire”…. who will tell you at length about her personal journey, which started around the time someone murdered two of her cats…. and took a left turn when the glowing-orbs emitted from her palms caused some marital-strife with her first-husband….

                  Then you have “Derrick Michael Reid” = engineer! military scientist! geopolitical analyst! bumper-sticker designer! and cuts quite the figure in his home-made military-dictator outfit.

                  Like i said… salt of the earth! love them. And i wish them the best of luck with their kitchen-top fusion-energy plan, and their cannabis oil-enema treatments.

              2. libertarians suffer from a perpetual loop. people don’t accept the label because there are too many kooks. there are too many kooks, because not enough people will accept the label. imagine if nobody identified as republican, because of the most extreme bible thumpers… they would be nothing but bible thumpers.

          2. 97%? I thought it was closer to 153%.

    4. “Not just for former Republicans! The LP is a natural choice for Dems who support civil liberties…”

      +1000

      I’m sick of the LP being viewed as some sort of purist republican group. Any Dems who actually have some commitment to principle (I know, I’m kidding myself here) should be drawn to libertarians as well. I mean, if they are serious about not indiscriminately droning brown people, warrant-less surveillance, racial RE-segregation efforts, locking people up for freely choosing to use some substance, and the curtailing of free speech — and don’t just care about those things when a guy with an (R) after his name is charge.

      My biggest disappointment over the last 8 years has been how ALL the criticism directed at Boooosh just magically evaporated the moment a Dem took the reins and basically continued or even ramped-up the same crap.

      Libertarian tenets naturally cross the artificial line between Right and Left. It’s time to start infiltrating the other side of the spectrum and argue that it’s really about Statism/Authoritarianism vs. Liberty. Even if only a few come around, it can’t hurt.

      1. Any Dems who actually have some commitment to principle (I know, I’m kidding myself here) should be drawn to libertarians as well.

        Except their one inviolable principle is “free shit”.

      2. Offering free college might help the vote totals….

    5. Politicians come and go. It’s the laws and taxes they leave on your front lawn that stink for ages. Third party voting changes the laws by altering the probable outcomes for greedy hands reaching into the government till. Great minds discuss third-party platforms. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

  7. How about — I shit you not — everyone in our ideological corner with influence band together to form the Alliance to Restore the Republic, and then drive up grassroots foundations for the movement, and when it’s large enough, form an official party? Uh, the Constitution Party? Something.

      1. Again, look at the shitty packaging.

      2. How about the Toga Party? I bet you’d get a lot more recruits.

  8. I’ve pretty much made up my mind that if Trump is the nominee in November, I’ll vote for Johnson (or whoever the LP candidate is). It’ll be my first time “throwing my vote away” (I am anyway. I’m in NY.). I really do think Johnson could pull in a lot of Republicans. Does anyone know what it would take to get the Libertarian into one of the debates?

    I’d pay money to watch the exchange implied by this…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FitCoZ0kGpE

    1. Why? Why waste time that could be better spent doing anything else?

      1. For much the same reason I babble on the internet. It’s an expressive impulse.

        1. You don’t consider not voting a form of expression?

          1. Well, yes, it would be “I don’t like any candidate”. I happen to like Gary Johnson.

            1. Fair enough.

      2. Think if you got in a car wreck on the way to the polling place, and your legs were so broken, you couldn’t even kick yourself a bit, before you croaked…

    2. Polling at 15%, or maybe it is 20%?

      Rules designed to stop Perot.

  9. sex acts that are, shall we say, non-Euclidean

    I?! I?! Cthulhu fhtagn?

    1. I dunno, man, Euclid was pretty freaky by all accounts.

    1. NNEEEEEERRRDDD

  10. An exodus like that could wreck the GOP.

    Close, but not quite. If there is such an exodus it’s because the GOP is already wrecked. Both of the major parties have become complacent about their core constituencies; they feel they are entitled to the votes of those groups. But when you ignore those groups for years, people become discontent.

    1. Yes – but exactly what economic issue/policy does the LP advocate that would appeal to the discontented and marginalized? I’m gonna vote L – but I have no delusions that it has the slightest interest in a broad practical appeal to anyone other than the ‘I’m already in good shape thank you very much’ crowd.

      1. Anyone trying to start or run a small business – “how ’bout those statist hoops to jump through and chains weighing you down?”

        1. Well I don’t see that the LP really addresses much of that stuff at a practical level. Lots of theory – and lots of assumptions about theory. But a lot of silence when it comes to either a)tilting of the playing field between big business and small business (and yes – that means LP has to pick a side and not just bash ‘gummint’ as the problem – and this manifests everywhere) or b)embracing the notion of multiple levels of govt (local is where small business will tend to get favored – for all the reasons that libertarians tend to hate) – and not just anarchism or globalism as some binary option.

      2. Legalization of pot is pretty much the only thing we have that resonates with people.

        Lower taxes should, but I suspect that doesn’t gain traction because people are too used to another party promising to shrink government and lower taxes and never delivering. Also, as much as “less government and lower taxes” appeal, most people have one pet issue that they can’t see getting the government out of.

        1. And one of the mainstream candidates has done a pretty good job of latching on to that issue. Those people who support him for that reason are in for a rude awakening when he doesn’t get the nomination; we know how bad the person who will get that nomination is on this issue.

          1. I agree that most people have one pet issue that they can’t see govt getting out of. But I’d argue that for most people out there that issue is solely the ‘safety net’ stuff – even if they look right now like they are completely dependent on that to survive and thus demonizable as ‘want free stuff’. So make that the LAST priority. Kill off the cronyism (and most libertarians just aren’t very good/interested at identifying it unless they can easily blame a bureaucrat rather than a crony). Raise the cost of future cronyism. Let all that stuff retilt the playing field back to level. And then, hopefully, people will find that they don’t need the safety net as much as they thought. That was what liberty actually did deliver back in the day – benefits to the BOTTOM of the ladder not just the top.

            But libertarians will NEVER succeed at this by mere teaching/preaching. They have to be the ones who people trust will actually kill the cronyism without breaking their promises like the D’s/R’s always will.

  11. Stupid fucking “must vote” zombies.

    1. Brains for all!

      1. “You may not have brains in your heads, but I will make sure you have brains in your stomachs!”

        1. Well-done, Eddie.

          1. To be fair, this is a loose adaptation of a 19th century joke where a guy boasted that he could eat his opponent, and the opponent said “then you’d have more brains in your stomach” etc.

  12. I’m voting Trump. He stinks up the place. With all the pants shitting he is causing.

  13. “It would take a lot of work to launch a third party like that, especially in time for the November election. Fortunately for disaffected Republicans, they don’t have to. There already is one: the Libertarian Party.”

    The reason it takes so much work is the ballot access laws.

    Libertarians have, for years, been very persistent in surmounting ballot-access barriers. Good for them.

    But if someone wants to set up a third party on short notice – eg, after the nomination of an unacceptable Republican candidate – then they may not be able to do so.

    Historically, third-party efforts have often been on short notice, but that was before the political establishment decided that they needed laws to cement the duopoly hold on power. Now, the various deadlines and hurdles in the ballot-access laws make it either difficult or unlikely for a brand-new party to get organized eight months before the general.

    1. Ah, and who erected those barriers in the first place?

      1. Coincidence, they were just trying to make the election system more efficient.

        /sarc

  14. The “anti government Republican” is a mythical beast. They’ll vote for Hillary if they cannot stomache the notion of President Trump.

      1. Are they really anti-government?

        1. No, they are for limited government, but given the current political discourse anyone who believes in shrinking the government even a little bit is a dangerous anti-government militant.

    1. There are a lot of people, in both parties, whose current party affiliation reflects more of a disaffection for their former party affiliation than anything else. A lot of “blue dog Democrats” have gone red and a lot of “moderate Republicans” have gone blue. The fact that the two parties generally have no consistent ideology and are basically just vehicles to get people elected certainly plays a part in this, as does the fact that most voters have no consistent ideology and basically just vote on whims.

  15. Reposted from the Lite thread this morning:

    Cart. Horse. Things never even get to the point of discussion of ideas. The barrier is being heard in the first place and that’s a function of the candidates that the Libertarian Party runs. Gary Johnson? Good guy, no media presence, no charisma. Bob Barr? I’m a libertarian and *I* wouldn’t vote for him. Harry Browne? Basically Michael Hihn, and like Hihney, no one in the world has heard of him and if they did, they’d hate him..

    The breakthrough event would be a media personality running. Stossel, maybe. Mike Rowe would be excellent. Penn Jillette. Drew Carey. Get the ideas coming from a familiar and likable source, get the message carried by the media because what famous people say is newsworthy. It’s a pity that this is what we need, but this is what we need.

    1. Harry Browne? Basically Michael Hihn, and like Hihney, no one in the world has heard of him and if they did, they’d hate him.

      Besides, he’s dead.

      1. So is Hihn, but he keeps posting anyway.

        1. *stands to applaud and throw flowers*

      2. Besides, he’s dead.

        Which means that finally, one of the Democrats largest constituencies can finally cast a vote for one of their own.

    2. I think Mike Rowe only leans libertarian, which is better than someone who doesn’t even do that, but would prove to be disappointing to many of us and would have the purists of one stripe or another writing him off completely in short order.

      Plus, if the man has any sense, and it seems he does, he would not step into the arena. The completely nonsensical things people look for in Presidential candidates are completely antithetical to sane and rational people running for and holding that office.

      1. “Leans” is better than “downright opposes”…

        Point is, name recognition has to precede coverage rather than depend on coverage.

        1. “Leans” is better than “downright opposes”…

          Agreed.

          Point is, name recognition has to precede coverage rather than depend on coverage.

          Agreed again, but name recognition does not win an election.

          1. name recognition does not win an election.

            No, but at least it gets you onto the stage.

      2. I’m writing in Mike Rowe. I love that guy.

        1. Yeah, he’s a would for me, too.

          *slaps FM on the ass*

          1. Wait, MHV is Florida Man? Shit.

        2. Then why would you burden him with the job? Sicko.

    3. Harry Browne was great. Go back and read all his columns. They’re still online.

      1. Go back and read all his columns.

        Even child molesters have feelings.

        1. “Sticky” isn’t an emotion.

          1. No, but it’s a feeling. A delightful, delightful feeling.

    4. The LP doesn’t need a personality. It needs an issue that is both distinguishable AND important/relevant enough to get people to vote for the LP on that basis. Pot ain’t it. Gay marriage ain’t it. Anarcho theory ain’t it. NSA surveillance ain’t it. The income tax ain’t it.

      Here’s the top four issues in the real world (at least according to Gallup which has long polled that question):
      1. The economy in general (too generic unless you have an actual solution)
      2. Dissatisfaction with government (too generic unless you can distinguish yourself from both Trump and Sanders who have now captured this issue)
      3. Unemployment/jobs (better be something beyond trickle-down assumptions – since both Trump and Sanders have ‘solutions’)
      4. Immigration/illegals (LP ain’t on the side of people who think this is an issue – and demonizing them as racist won’t help either)

      Those are the only four significant issues out there

  16. Reason TV needs to hire these chinamen to do their election coverage.
    Christie chained and on all fours. Fucking genius.

    1. Thankfully, you sugarfree’d the link.

      1. Here it is.

        They’re well-known Taiwanese animators and satirists.

        1. It still doesn’t come close to Mr Sparkle.

  17. Mike Rowe would be excellent.

    True, but my high regard for him would be irreparably damaged if he ran for office.

    1. Can you imagine if he did step in though? I agree with you that my opinion of him would suffer but nothing would make me happier than to watch him ask Trump or Hillary when’s the last time they actually drove a car.

      1. Would he have to wear a hat to all of the press conferences and debates and such?

        God forbid we see his balding head.

    2. Why? The ultimate Dirty Job.

    3. Hey, I called for Mike Rowe to be appointed to replace Scalia. Get a non-lawyer common-sense guy in there to read the law instead of this “last antecedent” crap that says if I tell you I like sausage, mushrooms and cheese on my pizza you’re liable to come back with a pound of Jimmy Dean, a basket of portobellos and a cheese pizza for lunch. How the hell can you claim we have any kind of informed consent when the average person has no idea what all that legal mumbo-jumbo fine print means in any of our laws? Give Mike Rowe a three-foot gavel and tell him to start whacking lawyers on the head with it when they stop making sense.

  18. Republicans not interested in Donald Trump could look to the Libertarian Party for other options

    I notice and applaud your holding off on putting any positive adjectives in front of “options.”

  19. “But it might be wrecked already. And at least those leaving could look themselves in the mirror?rather than looking like, say, a horrified Chris Christie, who appeared behind Trump on Super Tuesday resembling Oedipus at the moment he realized what he had done.”

    Isn’t Christie at this point the presumptive nominee for Vice President?

    He has two things going for him:

    1) Christie has RINO status. Trump won’t be going for the GOP base after he wins the nomination. He’ll be gunning for disaffected Democrats–something Hillary doesn’t even realize exists. Hell, Christie all but endorsed Obama in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy–just days before the election. Hello RINO!

    2) Because Christie has no long term future with New Jersey’s political machine, he’s one of the few big name Republicans that would consider tying his “future” to Trump. And let’s face it, Trump will have a harder time recruiting people to staff his administration than Obama is having finding someone qualified that actually wants to be nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama.

    Trump would throw his own daughters under the bus to escape blame and responsibility for something that goes wrong. Working for someone like that in public office is political suicide. When you have no other future, like Christie, suicide is painless.

    1. You’re underestimating how much cretins crave power. When Trump wins, the line will be around the block for positions in the cabinet and bureaucracy.

    2. Plus Christie is exactly the sort of YUUUGE guy who can handle YUUUGE things

  20. The gesture he is making does not mean “peace”.

    1. Hand turned that way is the Churchillian victory sign.

      1. English archer telling Frog knight to pluck yew?

      2. I would suggest you actually look at Churchill flashing the victory sign. He would NEVER have flashed the palm inwards since England is where the insult originated

  21. “…a horrified Chris Christie, who appeared behind Trump on Super Tuesday resembling Oedipus at the moment he realized what he had done.”

    Wait, so are you saying Chris Christie nailed Trump’s mom? I would’ve thought that would have been covered in the debates along with discussions about hand-size.

    1. I think he means Christie is a…shut yo’ mouth!

    2. I think it means he wanted to poke his own eyes out ’cause he couldn’t unsee.

      1. I wish he would cut his tongue out like “old boy”.

  22. Enough about Trump alrea… wait … this story is not about Trump? OMG! Go Gay Jay! Just that photo alone has my vote!

  23. Good concluding sentence!

  24. I suspect most Repubs that didn’t want to vote for the Donald would probably just stay home rather than vote for Johnson. Or, they wouldn’t vote for anyone at the top of the ticket and vote Republican for everything else.

    1. I think the republican neocons are solidly in the Hillary camp, especially the Foxnews crowd.

    2. I suspect most Repubs that didn’t want to vote for the Donald would probably vote for him anyway.

      1. Yeah, as the prospect of a real Hillary presidency looms, they’ll put their quibbles aside.

  25. Come on Reason, more stories about Johnson, please, don’t you think Trump is getting enough coverage aleady?

    1. You know what else the Welsh thought was impossible…

      1. Learning how to tie a tie?

        1. Oh, sorry, I thought you said “Welch”. My bad.

          1. Then it should have been ‘growing facial hair’.

      2. Getting people to stop asking them how many goats they own?

      3. A 26-letter alphabet?

      4. Not making grape juice?

    2. My wife still struggles with saying ‘World’. Ok, she’s not Maori and the word isn’t Welsh, but It comes out like ‘whooorrrlll’, lol.

  26. But if the libertarian movement had a patron saint, it might be the small businessman or woman starting a new company?perhaps a marijuana dispensary?against the headwinds of government red tape.

    I thought our patron saint was Murray Rothbard.

    1. I thought it was Barry Goldwater.

      1. I was always partial to the Stay-Puft-Marshmallow-Man

        1. Too late. The Form of the Destructor is Trump.

  27. I would be more inclined to “waste” my vote on Johnson if his stock photos didn’t have him wearing a peace t-shirt and looking like an idiot. Stop looking like a joke if you want to be taken seriously.

    1. Yeah. Peace. What a joke. It’s almost like he doesn’t want to waste trillions of dollars on dumbshit adventurism in Middle East or something. What a fag.

      1. Well, he can be pro-peace, and still dress like an adult.

        1. Yeah, if he’d only put on a tie and drone weddings like a proper President.

          1. I read this as “drone at weddings” and didn’t realize my uncle was running for higher office.

          2. If your only desire from a candidate is someone who rejects even the pretense of attempting to win or convince others of the merits of their views, and whose only purpose is to provide poseurs their symbolic rejection-of-the-status-quo-vote….. then wearing T-Shirts and talking like a stoner is actually a plus.

            Which is why Vermin Supreme is the far-superior Outsider Candidate. All you Gay-Jay fags are just middle-aged weekend warriors trying to pretend you’re still a little hip. Vermin Supreme never sold out! (puts rubber boot on head)

          3. Like it or not, people draw conclusions from what you choose to wear.

            I would get a different reception if I showed up at a Board meeting in a tie-dyed t-shirt and flip-flops, than in my usual immaculately shined shoes, tailored clothes, and impossibly expensive ties. I could stomp my feet and cry that it shouldn’t make any difference, but it does.

            1. impossibly expensive ties

              Duchamp? Please don’t tell me you deign to wear Herm?s.

              1. I actually don’t remember the brand(s). Not Hermes. Probably not DuChamp, either (doesn’t ring a bell).

                Plus, I only buy them at half-off sales, so there’s that.

                1. I’ve been getting my ties recently at menswear store. They list for $140 – 180? Unfortunately, today I’m wearing a Brooks instead of one of my newer ones, so I can’t get a name for the newer ones.

              2. More than $200 on a tie is silly. And even that is something i think it better as a gift than something to wear yourself.

                the “most expensive” ties i have are some FA?ONNABLE things from a decade ago (one was a gift, another stolen from my brother, another i think i bought at a consignment shop). I don’t think they make them anymore. But most are brooks, Pink, randoms, most of which i think were $100-120 or less. I have some nice ties from england i think i paid 30 quid for and they feel as nice as any others in terms of the silk quality, thickness, weave, etc.

                sadly most of my “Favorite” ties always live a doomed life, because i wear them to weddings. and i have a terrible habit of either getting wine on them, or losing them, or getting caught in cab doors, etc. etc.

      2. If you want to broaden the appeal beyond the converted on this page, get a guy who doesn’t look like a stoned old hippie. Ease the people into it.

        1. The man was a two-term governor and most of his pictures feature him in a suit and tie.

          1. Most of his pictures outside of Reason, that is.

            1. Trying to recall last time I heard about Johnson outside of reason….

      3. If you were to judge him by that photo alone*, it would be fair to conclude that the Federal bureaucracy would eat him alive.

        * = Note the faulty premise

  28. I planned to write in Rand Paul, but I’m amenable to voting for Johnson. Suggestions?

      1. Seriously, I made a Tom Collins last night and put 1/2 shot of St Germains in it. Pretty damn tasty.

        1. When in doubt, drink it out?

          1. I always recommend a drink or two. Life is too short not to.

    1. Write in Ron Paul, so there’s no doubt.

    2. Why would you write in Rand Paul when you could vote for Johnson? Unless there’s something specific about Johnson that makes him a no-go vs. Rand Paul to you.

      1. Well, there is that one photo of Johnson in t-shirt… so Trump it is.

        1. It’s funny you mention that. I sometimes wonder if Johnson’s outward appearance/dress might turn off crossover voters.

      2. Rand more closely aligns with my beliefs on some issues, e.g., from the get go he was against public accommodation laws. But that’s it. How a candidate dresses doesn’t affect my vote. *glares at SF*

    3. Write in your own name. That’s my plan if I vote.

      1. I think they ignore write ins unless it is for a candidate that has registered as a write in.

        1. Well, then what the hell is the point of write in? If you registered, why can’t they just put you on the ballot?

  29. Cue all the “libertarian” Republicans showing up to explain why we “have to” vote for Trump to make sure a Republican wins because otherwise Hillary Clinton will be President.

    As if that’s not the same shit they have been selling us for 30 years.
    As long as libertarians are willing to vote R in lock-step just to prevent a Democrat from winning then the Republicans don’t have to give two hoots about actually implementing any libertarian parties.

    It’s like we’re the Black people of the Republican party. We’re on the Republican plantation.

    1. s/parties/policies

    2. Well, I’m voting for Johnson, 2nd time in 2 years. But Trump will be the next president. It won’t be any of my fault.

    3. No, you don’t have to vote for Donald Trump. In fact, I don’t plan to vote for him myself. If he’s the candidate, I’ll cast my first presidential vote for the LP.

      And I consider myself a Republican. I have little doubt that I’m that exceptional.

      1. Everyone on H&R is exceptional in his* own way.

        *or, hypothetically, here

    4. Cue all the “libertarian” Republicans showing up to explain why we “have to” vote for Trump to make sure a Republican wins because otherwise Hillary Clinton will be President.

      That will never happen and has never happened. I’ve been told all my memories of it happening before was just a form of hysterical recall.

      1. Also, John doesn’t support Donald Trump. He just makes sure to show up in every Trump thread to argue that Trump isn’t so bad, his supporters aren’t so bad, and anyways Hillary Clinton is worse.

        1. Also, John doesn’t support Donald Trump.

          He does.

          1. Huh. The right last name. Attorney in Washington. Seems like it must be our John.

            What I’d like to know is why does he want to bullshit us here all the time? I’m pretty sure he’s still denying being a Trump supporter.

      2. Of course, because no one can be a libertarian and a Republican. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Mike Lee are all just either figments of everyone’s collective imagination or secret statists just salivating at the thought of controlling your life. Hell, Gary Johnson was never a Republican!

        Fuck! I get it that there are a lot of people who put party ahead of principle. But, why the hell can’t people recognize that maybe some conservative-leaning libertarians might think the GOP is a viable vehicle to advance libertarian policy?

        1. I thought Rand invented a new thing called a libertarian republican? Now left libertarian, I have a hard time accepting that one, it’s like a conflict of term, oxymoron?

          1. Actually I think this phenomenon either way can shortly be described in people’s secret thoughts:

            Those on the right: I really want to be a libertarian, I know they’re right, but my friends will accuse me of being a pot smoking liberal.

            Those of the left: I really want to be a libertarian, I know they’re right, but my friends will shame me, call me a republican and down vote all my comments on HuffPo and Facebook.

            1. I think there’s a lot of that to it. Also a good amount of intellectual laziness. There’s a couple of pre-packaged sets of ideological opinions out there. You don’t have to do much examination of your premises or assumptions to go along with them. Now, combine that with a team happy to support you in the package. You wind up with a pretty powerful combination.

              1. The 2 American political parties are like your cable company. You have to buy all the shit you don’t want to get the few things you care about.

            2. Hrm… I think I count as “on the left”. I’d probably be a Libertarian if they had, y’know, a track record of success. That said, I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. And whataya know, there wasn’t a single other Libertarian on the ballot.

              So yeah. The biggest problem with voting Libertarian? Most cases, the Libertarian Party doesn’t even bother trying to give you that option.

            3. Although I dig most of the libertarian ideology, I’ve been told by several self-professed libertarians that I am not a libertarian due to the following three views:

              1) I don’t give a crap about pot legalization. I do agree that the war on drugs is a massive waste of money and resources, and the laws in place do in fact repress minorities, but I don’t smoke the stuff so I don’t care if it’s ever actually street legal.

              2) While I do support gay marriage being legal, (mostly because I think that the government shouldn’t be forcing a specific religious view upon citizens), I’m more afraid of niche special interest groups, such as the LGBT community/movement, getting special government-enforced rights or protections that I don’t have as a straight married white guy. “Equal rights” often times doesn’t mean what it’s supposed to.

              3) I’m pro-life. I don’t want abortion to be illegal, and realize that it must be allowed in cases of rape/incest but I have great love for children, and life in general.

              As a Christian, though, the libertarian views make a lot of sense to me. I’ve taken some of the online political quizzes, which tell me that I’m a right-leaning libertarian. However, according to some I’m not. Whatever. I just know that I strongly agree with what most of the posters on this site say, and I love South Park lol

              1. 1) I don’t give a crap about pot legalization.

                Do you give a crap about people being sent to prison and having their lives ruined over victimless crimes?

          2. Just libertines who don’t froth at the mouth at rich people. But reforming the welfare state is a low (last?) item on the agenda.

        2. Shut up yokel. Your priorities and strategies are not sanctioned.

        3. But, why the hell can’t people recognize that maybe some conservative-leaning libertarians might think the GOP is a viable vehicle to advance libertarian policy?

          No, that’s not the argument. I’d gladly vote for Rand Paul or Massie. But Trump, Cruz, McCain, Romney and all the other losers that the GOP actually put up for President can go suck on a tailpipe of a Buick.

        4. why the hell can’t people recognize that maybe some conservative-leaning libertarians might think the GOP is a viable vehicle to advance libertarian policy?

          They can think that, but any “conservative-leaning libertarian” who thinks Donald Trump is a vehicle to advance libertarian policy would be wrong.

          1. I agree. Except you made a much broader statement:

            Cue all the “libertarian” Republicans showing up to explain why we “have to” vote for Trump…

            No, conservative leaning libertarians and libertarian Republicans most certainly aren’t telling you you have to vote for Trump. There was an article on this website just of couple of days ago of a libertarian Republican specifically saying stopping Trump was important.

            1. Hence the scare quotes around “libertarian”, Bill.

      3. hysterical recall.

        Is that the all female Total Recall remake?

        1. It was just like this

      4. The GOP are going to lose and are desperate. Read the UKLP platform. They call it a Manifesto. They are facing the same issues we are, only without the fanatics pushing to coerce pregnant women. Their looter parties are begging them to sell ou and vote communist, nazi, whatever, but to drop their childish integrity. To fanatics, the other guy’s aversion to genocide, torture and violence is quaintly childish.

    5. But there’s a Supreme Court seat at stake!

      1. I’ll be surprised if there aren’t 3 SCOTUS seats filled in the next term (assuming the Repubs don’t fold on not approving any more Obama appointments).

        1. Kennedy and Ginsburg?

          1. Those are the most likely, but I didn’t have Scalia on my short list of “ain’t gonna make it”, so who knows?

      2. And we want Trump to fill it, why?

        1. Well, we know Hillary will choose the worst possible cronies imaginable. Trump, for the lulz? Because at this point, what does it matter?

    6. I don’t see anyone defending Trump here. I would be onboard with a Cruz general run. If Trump is nominated, I will vote for a 3rd party candidate.

  30. alt text: “Wankers.”

  31. Anti Trump GOP is mostly war hawks.

    1. No – I would say most of his opposition in the GOP are actual conservatives who still want less federal government.

  32. OT: Fellow Reasoniods, I know some have pined for an edit feature, while others have voiced concerns about such a button’s misuse. I was thinking: is there a way to enable an edit option that, once used, indicates that the comment was edited and shows a reader what the unedited version(s) said? I feel like this setup would sufficiently address both points.

    1. *Reasonoids, goddammit!

      1. What you need right here son, is an edit button.

    2. SBNation uses a time-limited edit feature.

      1. I think that makes the most sense. Gives you a chance to fix something that pops out at you when its posted.

    3. Alissi won’t allow us (most) fucking accent marks. You think he’ll ever allow us that?

      1. First you allow, accent marks, then the Mexicans take over! its capitulation to the internationale~!

    4. What you’re asking for, of course that CAN be done. It’s just that it WON”T be done here. We can’t even get an edit feature and you want additional features to go along with non-existing feature? Good luck.

    5. Reading it aloud before hitting send solves the problem. My typos are all my own carelessness in this regard.

  33. Too bad it’s an option almost none of them will consider. No, for all the complaints many Republicans and conservatives are having over Trump, once he gets the nomination, they’ll fall in line and vote for him. Almost every single one of them saying right now they won’t vote Republican if Trump gets the nomination, will vote for him because, Hillary. The ones who do stick to their guns and don’t vote Trump will mostly just not vote for any presidential candidate.

  34. “A party that does not merely welcome immigration, but celebrates it.”

    Whenever I read this from a libertarian I read, open borders. Would be a good thing if we didn’t have a welfare state. Kind of what Friedman said.

    “A party that, unlike Trump, doesn’t think it’s a good idea to go around killing the family members of suspected terrorists. Or torturing people, either.””

    This is true and I find the idea abhorrent. However, if you want to win then you have to do what you have to to win. Fighting a mid east threat with a western mindset will result in defeat, of the west. As Monty Python stated, only the Romans were able to bring order to that area. Hussein was a butcher but you didn’t see then what is happening in that area now. It is ironic that the only ones that can bring some resemblance of order to that region are those we find abhorrent. Should make one wonder why.

    “A party that believes in free trade, not 45 percent tariffs on countries that supply goods American consumers want.”

    That would be good if ever country was on board. Americans don’t want to pay more than they have to to get what they want, smart. Release the burdens on businesses with high taxes, over regulation and maybe some will stay here to be able to keep their costs low.

    1. Good. That means we can dispense with the income tax. It was passed on the promise it would supplant the tariff entirely.

  35. A big problem with libertarians are their open borders ideas and terrorist attacks are acts of war and should be treated as such not as something for your local cop to handle.

    1. That depends on the terrorist attack, I think. 911 was probably properly treated as an act of war. The San Berdino shooting or OKC bombing are definitely a matter for police.

      1. You treat every attack that could be called “terrorism” as an act of war and you end up like France with no real protection of civil liberties.

    2. See? Ron is probably a GOP infiltrator counting on your not having read the LP platform plank on borders. The plank is stupid but ends by contradicting itself: “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.” So Saracen berserkers infected with ebola cannot bring nukes across the border even with the LP running both Hice of Congress. This is another instance of hostile ideologues attacking the Ayn Rand NAP–which they cannot understand but recognize as the inevitable death of THEIR parties. Of course they will make up any idiocy that could possibly sneak by unchallenged just to keep us from getting 4% of the vote and spoiling their burglaries. Deleting that stupid plank and keeping the NAP would close another door of misperception.

  36. I just checked out GJ’s website and read his tax plan, thought he didn’t actually say it it looks like he supports Fairtax.org. That alone makes me want to vote for him. But since the destruction of the republican party isn’t done yet I still may have to vote trump. Only by ripping the grip from the moneyed special interest groups who pay politicians to use gov’t to keep them in power will a Gary Johnson ever be successful. We clamor about “free trade,” we’ll never have free trade as long as big money is in control.

    1. it looks like he supports Fairtax.org. That alone makes me want to vote for him

      Nothing says libertarian quite like advocating for drastically increasing taxes!

    2. Well anyone of us has only one vote so no one is going to “know what you intended.” Far better to aggregate all the libertarian votes for Gary Johnson to – one hopes – make a large enough bloc that one of the big parties in the future will want to capture it.

      1. They have no choice. The spoiler votes will absolutely cause looters to repeal the income tax and legalize gambling so I can fleece the suckers who doubt it.

  37. “three in 10 say they would not vote for him in November”

    Which is why he will never be president.

  38. No sorry the LP is still a time and energy sink and Gary Johnson is still a terrible candidate. Sane republicans will need their own third party guy if Don is the GOP nominee.

  39. OT but relevant: That moment when you realize that Ron Paul was once considered too conservative for the Libertarian Party.

    “When Ron Paul sought the 1988 Libertarian Party nomination for president, many saw him as too conservative and supported American Indian activist Russell Means to run against him.[6][7][8]” -Wikipedia “Factions within the Libertarian Party”

    1. I covered the Russell Means campaign. Neither candidate was libertarian. Means only wanted attention for tribal issues and Ron Paul–an antiabortion violator of female individual rights–was a friend of my old boss and was OK on nuclear safety. I still voted the party line but sent no money and had no fun.

      1. I never understand this. Women have the right to not get pregnant.

        Now that lesbians are legal there is really no need for sperm to block their career aspirations.

      2. Do you think the Libertarian Party has become more libertarian or less over time?

  40. Good article, but in the dark waters ahead lies the iceberg of the Prohibition Party platform and ideology. Its principles combine William Jennings Bryan mystical altruism and the worship of deadly force to compel obedience. They now control the Republican and Tea Parties alike. In all their platforms the State owns your body and mind. A pregnant woman is no longer an individual but must, as under Sharia law, be forced to reproduce, perhaps in order to be stoned to death if the baby is the wrong color or DNA spectrum. Coercing women and shooting people to save them from possession by the Demon Rum Dope has the same fanatical grip on the party leaders as it did on village governments in 1600. Diaphragms and condoms were illegal when my parents were young. Sure, we’ll take their votes, if they decide they want to live. But I ain’t a joinin’ no nationalsocialist fanatics.

  41. In this year of all years, it should be obvious that this Libertarian third party is a total fantasy.

    Many of us in the anti-Trump camp are conservatives. But, we also don’t favor uncontrolled immigration – only Libertarians and progressives go for that. The Libertarians are blinded by principle, while the progressives know that it will lead to an increase in their power, which means an increase in state power.

    But, keep on dreaming. Libertarians have been the party of pipe dreams for a long time, and I don’t expect it to change.

    1. So are you saying that uncontrolled immigration from New York and other ultra-liberal States into California wrecked California? That Oregon and Nevada should actually close the border to fleeing Californians — maybe build a wall?

      Hey, come to think of it, this native son of the Golden State admits you might just have a point.

    2. Nice try, but third-party spoiler votes are what change laws and constitutions. The income tax was a plank in the communist manifesto in 1848. By 1913 it was the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution all politicians swear to uphold and defend when taking office. Did the commies get it passed by telling Republicans and Democrats to support Communist Party candidates instead of throwing away their votes?

  42. “Then again, of those two parties only one of them is about to nominate Donald Trump.”
    ^^^^^ THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!

    I don’t know if it will translate into electoral progress, much less success, but as a long-suffering, long-marginalized libertarian of 36 years’ tenure, I, for one, relish the increasingly evident fact that, in 2016, the Libertarian Party will be the party of SANITY and COMMON SENSE! Is there enough room on the debate stage for those loony republicans? 😉

    1. And the other is about to nominate Hillary Clinton, which I don’t exactly regard as a sign of sanity and common sense.

      1. What are you talking about? Ms. Clinton is by far the strongest Republican candidate.

  43. What if you start a party and no one comes?

  44. Bob Barr will totally let us kick the football this time!!!

  45. If it’s Trump and Hillary, it does seem like Johnson should manage to be the least hated option. And he actually has a record of governance as a governor.

  46. If establishment Republicans and other such cuckservatives find the Libertarian Party candidate to be appealing, what does that say about that candidate?

  47. The problem with these so called “immigrants” is that they will vote in a manner that will totally destroy even the last vestiges of libertarian life in this country. It is THEY who wish to stand apart as a subgroup in order to amass benefits and to suck the blood out of other human beings! The libertarian party better open it’s eyes or it will lose MANY of it’s loyal followers if it keeps encouraging people bent on DESTROYING us into the country!

    PS I have been a member since the ripe old age of 15 when I joined the YAF chapter in my high school in 1968!

  48. I’m going to assume he asked for it seeing as the malfeasant media won’t even say what he did to get clocked.
    Let me spell it out for the really dense among you:
    If you go to a large event, any large event, where the majority of whom is openly friendly to the venue and you go there to start trouble… how can you whine like a baby when you receive the trouble you came for?
    For the really retarded: don’t start trouble a Trump rally unless you want your @ss kicked.

  49. I’m going to assume he asked for it seeing as the malfeasant media won’t even say what he did to get clocked.
    Let me spell it out for the really dense among you:
    If you go to a large event, any large event, where the majority of whom is openly friendly to the venue and you go there to start trouble… how can you whine like a baby when you receive the trouble you came for?
    For the really retarded: don’t start trouble a Trump rally unless you want your @ss kicked.

  50. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  51. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  52. Vote for Gary Johnson, he’ll end Obama’s wars of choice and his racist war on drugs. He also supports the entire US Constitution, not just the parts he likes.

  53. The Center for Disease control is a federal bureaucracy, yet 90% of respondents do not want it privatized. Planned Parenthood allows women to exercise individual rights but also offers the same service as the CDC: protecting citizens from a biological health hazard that population biology studies of the past and mathematical models into the future both identify as catastrophic. The political argument for defunding PP is at best an argument for making it another government bureaucracy surrounded by armed guards with orders to shoot deranged fanatics and lynch mobs. In a heavily-mixed economy our priorities ought to be attracting votes to back a platform for reducing coercion of individuals. Alienating the rights of half the voters–and reducing the life expectancy of the population–to please a tiny band of superstitious bigots is the job of other political parties, not the LP. This is 21st-Century America, not medieval Easter Island or Vatican City.

  54. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  55. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
    this website,
    =============== http://www.PathCash30.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.