Libertarian Party

Read Austin Petersen’s Goodbye Note to the Libertarian Party

Second-place finisher in 2016 presidential primary will run for Missouri Senate seat as a Republican.

|

Facebook

Austin Petersen, the second-place finisher [*] for the 2016 Libertarian Party presidential nomination, is running for the U.S. Senate seat in Missouri currently held by Democrat Claire McCaskill. But he's running as a Republican and explains his decision below. For an exclusive, in-depth interview and podcast with Petersen, who also worked as a producer on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Fox Business show, Freedom Watch, go here.

Dear friends in the Libertarian Party,

For the last eight weeks, I've spent six hours a day calling my supporters to ask them their thoughts on how I might best advance liberty. I took the time to listen to every single persons' opinion about a potential opportunity to seek a seat in the U.S. Senate here in my home state of Missouri.

Of the thousands of people I spoke to, all encouraged a run, hundreds donated, and the vast majority offered their opinion regarding which party I should align with. Over 98% of them, including registered Libertarians, independents, Republicans, and even Democrats, said to run GOP.

For that reason and others, I have chosen to listen to them, as they are the lifeblood of all efforts that I will make to advance our common cause. They are the people whose time, energy, and money I will need to bring our movement a victory that we desperately need. Without the grassroots, I am incapable of action on the field. I feel I must act as a good representative and steward of their hopes and dreams for a better future.

I have served the Libertarian Party in nearly every capacity, at every level, from your humble volunteer coordinator at your national office, to one of your top contenders for President of the United States. Any future successes I may garner in the realm of politics will come in large part because of the experience and opportunities you gave me to advance American freedom, and for that I thank you.

Sadly, I must depart for now. I go with no ill will, and wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

Best Wishes,

Austin Petersen

For Reason's interview with Petersen, go here.

[*]: The original story mistakenly reported Petersen finished third at the LP National Convention.

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.

169 responses to “Read Austin Petersen’s Goodbye Note to the Libertarian Party

  1. Good. Rand Paul needs help.

    1. Exactly, I don’t care what label is used. I care about the policies.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

      2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

  2. the point of running for office is to win. Right or wrong, it’s easier within the framework of one of the parties. Things are more easily changed from within than without.

    1. More libertarian/conservatarian in congress is a good thing. If he’s got to do it as a republican to win, then so be it.

      1. Woo-Hoo, Yeah Man!!!

        Now we can (collectively) criticize him for being Glibertarianishly Impure ***AND*** Repugnantishly Impure!!! Have it BOTH ways; eat our cake, and have it, too!

    2. At a time when unaffiliated voters are growing at the expense of both parties, now is a better time than ever to force systemic change. The Prohibition Party got what they wanted without any major success. First past the post is indisputably archaic, all we need is to get the American people to understand the alternatives.

      1. all we need is to get the American people to understand the alternatives.

        Yeah!! And I want a pony!

      2. Great in principle. But practically speaking if he ran for that office as an (L) what would happen is someone else, somewhere between he and McCaskill (i.e. someone more statist than he) would run on the (R) ticket.

        The net result would guarantee a win for someone more statist than him.

        1. That is a very short-sighted goal. Knowing Petersen’s past, I imagine that his ultimate goal is to improve the state of libertarianism, not simply winning a seat for the sake of having a seat.

          1. No, it is a long sighted goal. Not an impatient and unrealistic one.

            The more libertarian leaning people actually in office the more viable a Libertarian party becomes.

          2. That is a very short-sighted goal. Knowing Petersen’s past, I imagine that his ultimate goal is to improve the state of libertarianism, not simply winning a seat for the sake of having a seat.

            And yours is very narrow-minded. Plenty of pragmatists, anarcho-capitalists, utilitarians, and other non one-true-Libertarians wouldn’t mind if the Libertarian ideal wholly subsumed the party such that it was Republican in name only.

            The worst possible thing that could (and possibly has) happened to the libertarian party is that it becomes a pure, one-party ideology. I’d much rather have the LP and the libertarian-heavy GOP arguing about how to make people free-er than pretty much any alternative. President Gary Johnson with a libertarian-packed congress would be a fucking nightmare. Literally. You’re going to have to dream up enough libertarians to pack congress, and the majority of them are going to be left-leaning ‘libertarian’ ex-RINOs like Bill Fucking Weld.

            1. What is narrow-minded about being realistic? I agree that it would be nice if the Republicans adopted a libertarian platform, but that is never going to happen. People who think that libertarianism can infiltrate a catch-all operation like the Republican Party have no understanding of basic political theory. Unless you believe that libertarianism can somehow become broadly accepted by a majority of the electorate, the only hope for libertarians is to encourage political change through their own distinct infrastructure.

              1. What is narrow-minded about being realistic?

                There are more libertarian-leaning Republicans in Congress, right now, then there have ever been Libertarians in any Federal-level elected position in total. A libertarian-leaning Republican won an electoral vote in the presidential election without even running while the LP candidate couldn’t even get in the debates and your ‘realistic’ assertion is that the LP, as the LP, is *the* way to effect change.

                Libertarians nominally cleave toward classical liberalism. Of the three parties, GOP, Democrats, and the LP, none have exclusive license to it and to assume that one or more does, because of their name, is plain-old, non-political cluelessness.

                You’ve got a pet theory, it plainly doesn’t work, and you’re acting like the masses of idiots who don’t agree with you or perceive your wisdom have no clue. Enjoy the Libertarian Party that you so richly deserve.

                1. Brainwashed!!!!

                  There are more libertarian-leaning Republicans in Congress, right now, then there have ever been Libertarians in any Federal-level elected position in total.

                  Bullshit.
                  Reagan brought a lot with him. You confuse anti-gubmit goobers, extreme socon statists like Rand Paul, wirh libertarians.

                  A libertarian-leaning Republican won an electoral vote in the presidential election without even running

                  SUCKER! John Kasich also got an electoral vote!

                  while the LP candidate couldn’t even get in the debates

                  Who are YOU blaming for a corrupt election system … the victims!

                2. Brainwashed!!!!

                  There are more libertarian-leaning Republicans in Congress, right now, then there have ever been Libertarians in any Federal-level elected position in total.

                  Bullshit.
                  Reagan brought a lot with him. You confuse anti-gubmit goobers, extreme socon statists like Rand Paul, wirh libertarians.

                  A libertarian-leaning Republican won an electoral vote in the presidential election without even running

                  SUCKER! John Kasich also got an electoral vote!

                  while the LP candidate couldn’t even get in the debates

                  Who are YOU blaming for a corrupt election system … the victims!

                3. Brainwashed!!!!

                  There are more libertarian-leaning Republicans in Congress, right now, then there have ever been Libertarians in any Federal-level elected position in total.

                  Bullshit.
                  Reagan brought a lot with him. You confuse anti-gubmit goobers, extreme socon statists like Rand Paul, wirh libertarians.

                  A libertarian-leaning Republican won an electoral vote in the presidential election without even running

                  SUCKER! John Kasich also got an electoral vote!

                  while the LP candidate couldn’t even get in the debates

                  Who are YOU blaming for a corrupt election system … the victims!

                4. I understand that Austin Petersen has a better chance of winning a seat as a Republican. But by choosing to run as a Republican, he is discarding what is best for libertarianism to instead pursue what is best for Austin Petersen. The “infiltrate the Republican Party” strategy only works in a world that you can imagine libertarianism becoming mainstream. Your post is so polluted by ad hominems that I cannot really tell what you are trying to say, but it sounds to me that you believe libertarianism has the potential to be a popular enough ideological approach to become mainstream. That makes me question your understanding of the reality of American politics.

                  Instead of your “pet theory”, I think that it is a much easier to battle to win if we sought to convince the American public that two-party politics is inherently pernicious to a healthy democracy, which is a belief that is already more popular than libertarianism is. Austin Petersen is potentially a strong candidate who could have done great work for the Libertarian Party by showing the American public that ideas outside of the Democratic and Republican platforms exist. If more strong candidates worked at decreasing the draconian ballot access laws and archaic first-past-the-post seat allocation in this country, I think that libertarianism will have greater long-term success as a minority ideology rather than trying to convert enough people to libertarianism so that it will become present in one of two big tent parties.

              2. it would be nice if the Republicans adopted a libertarian platform, but that is never going to happen.

                Hell, the Libertarian PARTY doesn’t have one! And I was on 4 or 5 National Platform Committees.

                Unless you believe that libertarianism can somehow become broadly accepted by a majority of the electorate

                Has been for over a decade! 59% would label themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal .., in 2005. (Cato)

                The REAL problem — 91% of libertarians REFUSE to be called libertarian. The problem is not the electorate. The problem is the libertarian movement, which is a zombie apocalypse for decades … no longer pro-liberty, now anti-gubmint which is NOT the same.

                At least 60% of voters are pro-liberty, both fiscal and personal
                Fewer than 10% hate gubmint, and most of them are EXTREME socons (authoriarian)

          3. There is no ‘state of libertarianism’ .

            Government is not about what party one belongs to–it is supposed to be about governing.

            Governing in a manner compatible with liberty is what we’re after–not party loyalty.

    3. How’s that working out for you?

  3. Don’t let the door hit your ass. Unless you’re into that. There’s nothing wrong with that if you are. Really.

    1. Rule 34. I’m sure there are videos of it somewhere.

  4. I hope he at least talks up the LP angle instead of running and hiding from it. The GOP doesn’t seem to have an opponent strong enough to take on Claire McCaskill, a stupider, more repulsive version of Hillary Clinton? How pathetic is the freaking GOP in Missouri that they’re worried about their ability to outwit a retard and how can an association with the LP be a liability in that case? Grow some balls, you people, stop being such damp-sponge squishes and dare to get in-your-face about your sticking up for the right principles.

  5. I’m rooting for you Austin

  6. Anyone seeking public office, or even just to be taken seriously, is wise to distance themselves as far as possible from GayJay.

    1. He’s history’s greatest monster.

      1. Hitler can finally rest easy and there will be a new standard response when some asks “you know who else _____ ______ _ _____ ?.

        1. Wants to fuck the rabbit?

    2. Yeah, a 2-term governor with a great record who earned 3 times more votes than any other Libertarian ever. Huge embarrassment.

  7. The ISideWith thing said Austin was my top match last year. I sometimes find his style a bit annoying but, whatever, dude is clearly all about Liberty.
    Here’s hoping he’s ready for the endless accusations of sexism for daring to challenge a female Democrat incumbent.

  8. Might as well try to elect more republican libertarians, like Rand.

    Good luck with trying to convince the SJW party to adopt any libertarian position

  9. What a delusional idiot. Libertarianism will never succeed without a discernible identity, which requires a separate party without the institutional weight of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Popular opinion already attempts to conflate libertarianism as an appendage of the Republican Party and we need to explain why we are different, not pretend that we can operate from within their framework.

    1. Continuing to try to get the LP off the ground when it clearly has failed is delusional. Ron Paul showed us what and how we could advance liberty through the RP. Besides the RP is supposed to be for smaller government so it should naturally be libertarian in the first place. We need to take it back and people like Petersen will help restore our freedoms

      1. “Besides the RP is supposed to be for smaller government”

        They aren’t.

        1. “Besides the RP is supposed to be for smaller government”

          They aren’t

          Good point, Even Rand Paul has traded his soul, REJECTING free market outcomes in healthcare …. flip-flopping on his original “repeal and replace” version that was briefly endorsed by Trump.

        2. sup?posed.

          [s??p?zd, s??p?z?d]

          ADJECTIVE

          generally assumed or believed to be the case, but not necessarily so:

          “people admire their supposed industriousness”

      2. “We need to take it back”

        It was never ours in the first place.

        1. Well then we need to take it front.

          1. Dude, you never go from back to front.

        2. Actually, if one goes back to the basics of the GOP, back when it first started, then yes, back then it would have easily passed for much of what we call ‘libertarian’ today–and the things that it would have been in conflict with are those same leftist intrusions that vex real libertarians to this day

      3. Look at every other civilized country on the planet; they are all governed by more than two parties. The only hope that libertarians have to make their ideology stick is to force a system that is more friendly to fringe parties. And the only way to do this is to maintain the Libertarian Party as a cohesive unit. There hasn’t been a political environment to achieve this since before World War I, and Petersen is clearly willing to throw that opportunity away. Big tent parties have no incentive to adhere to any ideology, and the approach of the DP/RP is diametrically opposed to the basic principles of libertarianism.

        1. Look at every other civilized country on the planet; they are all governed by more than two parties.

          It’s called the parliamentary system.

          1. But we already have a partly mental system!

        2. And look how well it’s working out for all those other countries. Bastions of liberty and freedom, let me tell you.

          More political parties is not a virtue unto itself. It’s the quality of the participants that matters.

          1. And look how well it’s working out for all those other countries. Bastions of liberty and freedom, let me tell you.

            Let me guess. You’ve never lived anywhere else in the world have you.

            1. Let me guess, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

              Please show me where, exactly, a multi-party political system has actually made people more free — economically and culturally — than they are here, with our two-party system.

              I’ll wait.

              1. There’s quite a few. The most obvious is Switzerland – has 10 parties in its legislature, 5 in its ‘presidential council’ (their equivalent of our executive cabinet and presidency). That multi-party system has ensured that it remains decentralized, that politics is not viewed as a way to smote internal enemies, and that govt actions are both minimal – and when not minimal, astonishingly pragmatic, effective, and anti-corrupt.

                Estonia is now comparable to the US in freedom – but 25 years ago it was a Soviet satellite with complete central planning and a large transplanted Russian minority that is subversive of independence itself. The 6 parties in its legislature are what have enabled them to dismantle the previous state without creating cronyism or rent-seeking. Their govt now spends less as a % of GDP than we do – with virtually no public debt and a very prosperous economy.

                There are probably a dozen or two that are as free or freer than we are – more if you only measure freedom for the marginalized – and all are multi-party. But these two I can specifically identify ‘multi-party’ as a CAUSATIVE factor for them remaining free (Switzerland) and becoming free (Estonia).

                But hey – slink back to your fucking Republican overlords and their ‘libertarian-wing’ that doesn’t have the balls to even allow political competition to their good/evil binary world view.

          2. Right, because entrusting monopolies with protecting your freedoms is an awesome idea, and there is no relationship between the quality of a service and the strength of a monopoly.

            1. Where did I say anything of the sort? I said that the number of parties is irrelevant compared to the quality of the participants. And if you have shitty political actors, it doesn’t matter if they’re confined to two parties or spread across fifty.

              Embracing multiple political parties as a virtue unto itself is idiotic, and has not proven to increase anyone’s freedom anywhere.

              European nations have two dozen different leftist factions, all with some manner of political power; are they better off for it? Would we be?

              Libertarians who lament ‘the two party system’ don’t like to be reminded that multi-party systems are rarely any better in practice.

              1. Embracing multiple political parties as a virtue unto itself is idiotic, and has not proven to increase anyone’s freedom anywhere.

                So competition works in the private economic sphere – but in politics a duopoly that uses its power to suppress competition and uses its elections to rent-seek is no problem at all.

                Do you actually claim to be a small-l libertarian?

              2. You repeatedly ignore the Parliamentary system, which makes your claim a false equivalence.
                Still confused? The CONSTITUTION of the United States accounts for the differences.
                And, in other countries, their form of government is freely chosen by their citizens, and who are you to deny them that right?

        3. This is patently untrue. In fact virtually every “civilized” country has a de facto two party system. Germany has SDP and CDU, the UK has Labor and the Tories, Canada has the Conservatives and Liberals. Some countries have more successful third parties than the US, but even then they’re basically just minor coalition partners a major party (Germany’s FDP, for example).

          The US’s system may be more punishing of third parties, but the tendency toward a duopoly is inherent in democracy.

          1. I did not say that the United States is the only two party system, but that it has the only government that entirely comprises two parties.

            On the other hand, your comment regarding the tendency of democracy to create a duopoly is “patently untrue.” Germany was very influenced by the Anglo approach to party politics, but many countries consciously avoided it and do not have the same discernible dominant parties in the way that CDU/SDP are in Germany.

            1. But what does it matter how many parties there are, when in every system coalitions are formed that narrow the sides down to effectively two (the government and the opposition)? Coalitions will be formed one way or the other, and in the US we merely form our coalitions prior to the elections rather than after them. Even if you got your dream of the US switching to a system in which minor parties were represented, your Libertarians would still have to join the Republicans in coalition or accept a position of powerlessness, just like now.

              1. No we don’t form those coalitions prior to elections. Our two-party system is NOT a consequence of the normal post-election division into govt v opposition. It is a consequence of the harshest (by far) ballot access laws in any democracy – and at the national level (where the ballot access laws are lenient compared to state races) the least representative legislature in the world. Which turns our system itself into insiders v outsiders – and it also turns each party into insiders v outsiders. All of the outsider stuff in each party (identity politics in the Dems and ideology politics in the GOP) is pure cookie crumbs.

              2. If you want parties that represent ideologies rather than special interests, it matters very much how many parties there are. Two-party systems have no ideological basis for their parties, because it would be suicidal to confine themselves to a minority of the electorate. But when parties are separated by ideology, of which there would be at least five in a healthy democracy, public discourse moves away from discussion of people in favor of discussion of ideas. See every presidential debate in this country. When there are only two parties there is no incentive to distinguish oneself on political substance because it is so much easier to talk shit about your opponent’s past mistakes.

            2. There are, almost without exception, two reasonably stable systems: 1 party system, and 2 party system; and it is absolutely inherent to democracy.

              No matter how many parties you start out with, they will tend to coalesce into two coalitions, because ultimately the tacit assent of a majority (meaning at least 50.01% of the country hates you less than the alternatives) is necessary to win. So political parties seek to broaden the appeal of their platform, or broaden their coalition, just enough to capture a majority, and no more (lest they make unnecessary compromises to voters they don’t need to get over the finish line).

              If you look at election trends in most western countries going back decades, you’ll consistently see two major parties or coalitions of parties that consistently align with each other and rarely or never with other parties. Sure, some parties disappear and others spawn, but almost invariably the new ones are just reincarnations of old ones that participate in the same old coalitions.

              1. two major parties coalitions

                We appreciate your correction.

              2. So I guess according to you the United States is a one party government because opposition parties don’t count for anything? Thinking of a coalition as a “party” overlooks many behavioral features of these multi-party governments. I think it is very important to look in this in terms of monopoly behavior. There is no incentive to be accountable to the voters in the eternal pendulum of two-party politics. The success of En Marche this year should be an example of the virtues of having an outlet for voters to dismiss traditionally popular parties.

          2. This is patently untrue.

            Uhhh, no. Don’t read much news?

            In fact virtually every “civilized” country has a de facto two party system.

            TOTALLY false. In partiamentary systems,. minor parties have IMMENSE leverage, when the plurality party needs to broker a deal with even a tiny party to control a majority of seats. Ummn, May just did it in England a mere month ago. She cut a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party to combine with their seats for a majority. QUITE common in parliamentary systems when … it’s called a “hung parliament.”

            In France, the new Prime Minister (Macron) had launched am entirely new party. Oops.

            Some libertarians support a multi-party system here, so libertarians could have the same leverage as the DUP. But when 60% of the voters are libertarians, just cut the bullshit of running on :”ideas” (slogans) and get some fucking policy solutions … of which the libertarians establishment has NONE. (I’m still waiting, 9 months now, for you to explain how “simple” YOU say it would be to privatize Social Security)

            1. “She cut a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party”
              Which is a conservative party that would never form a coalition with the Labor party, nor would the Labor form one with them. They are an obvious choice for a conservative coalition. Much like in Germany the Left (Die Linke) and the Greens would only coalesce with the SPD to form a majority, never with the CDU; or the CDU consistently forms coalitions with the CSU and (if necessary) the FDP; neither forms coalitions with the SPD.

              Two consistent coalitions; sure, if a single party can avoid needing one of the lesser ones, it will gladly cut them out; but ignoring demographics not necessary for winning the election is also a theme in US elections. The point being, nearly every minor party *consistently* forms coalitions with one of two major parties, or several minor parties consistently form coalitions with each other; hence the term *de facto* two party system. Do I need to explain to you what de facto means?

              1. Do I need to explain to you what de facto means?

                https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de facto

            2. “In France, the new Prime Minister (Macron) had launched am entirely new party.”
              And? Until ~1920s the UK had a de facto 2-party Tory vs. Liberal system; afterward there was a realignment, and until today, it has consistently had a de facto 2-party Tory vs. Labour system. I didn’t say realignments never happen; it’s merely one 2-party system being exchanged for another.

              In France, in the next few years, one of two things will happen: Macron’s party will persist a major party and either La Pen’s party will be the other one or the Socialists will prevail and be the other major party, and they’ll have a Liberal vs. Populist or Liberal vs. Socialist dynamic; or, Macron’s party will collapse and they’ll return to a Conservative vs. Socialist dynamic. I guarantee you though that it will converge to one of these dichotomies. It always does.

              1. “In France, the new Prime Minister (Macron) had launched am entirely new party.”

                And?

                You’re wrong.

                I didn’t say realignments never happen; it’s merely one 2-party system being exchanged for another.

                Which requires at least three parties.There will always be two parties with the most seats, which nobody has disputed.

            3. “(I’m still waiting, 9 months now, for you to explain how “simple” YOU say it would be to privatize Social Security)”
              I explained it to you nine months ago, but your dementia seems to have robbed you of the memory. People invest their money into low-risk securities or commodities of their choosing instead of sending checks to the government and getting paid 50 years later through a check some young person wrote to the government. Try and remember this time.

              1. Marklastname — goes goes off the rails.
                NINE MONTHS OF STALKING
                NINE MONTHS OF SHITTING ON THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE
                (vomit in mouth)

                “(I’m still waiting, 9 months now, for you to explain how “simple” YOU say it would be to privatize Social Security)”

                I explained it to you nine months ago, but your dementia

                Fucking piece of shit. (Proof follows)

                People invest their money into low-risk securities or commodities of their choosing instead of sending checks to the government and getting paid 50 years later

                ONE MORE TIME: WHERE DOES THE MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR LOST REVENUE COME FROM? (bwaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaa)
                YOU SAID IT WAS SIMPLE!
                SAID YOU’D SHOW ME.
                I JAMMED IT UP YOUR ASS (LIKE NOW)

                WHY DO YOU SHIT ON THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE?
                WHY STALK AND BULLY ME, BLOWHARD?
                HAVE YOU NO SHAME AT ALL?

                Cont’d

                1. Part 2
                  Jammed up your ass here, BULLY 8/19/2016

                  MarkLastname
                  And actually privatizing social security is perfectly viable. I’ll provide reasons when you actually start to do so.

                  BEND OVER! APPLY LUBRICANT
                  All documented at this link. Cato’s privatization hustle for anti-gubmint goobers

                  Workers would keep and control their 6.2% FICA contribution. Michael Tanner says (page 10) the transition will be costly, but “a one-time event”
                  (? a one-time event lasting over 30 years, declining from $410 billion 1st year!!.)

                  Also Page 10 “Simply restraining the projected growth in nondefense discretionary spending by 1 percent would generate more than $20 billion per year.”
                  Versus $410 billion! (OMG)
                  And how to pay for it is not Cato’s job anyhow!

                  “There are short-term costs that will require the president and Congress to make tough choices.” Page 6.

                  STILL confused? ….
                  $410B = is 50% FICA revenue paid to benefits. Page 102
                  Loss declines as seniors die off.

                  Link to the answer you LIE about now
                  STOP STALKING ME

                  1. Part 3 (defense of repeated aggression)

                    Marklastname
                    I explained it to you nine months ago, but your dementia seems to have robbed you of the memory. People invest their money into low-risk securities or commodities of their choosing instead of sending checks to the government and getting paid 50 years later through a check some young person wrote to the government. Try and remember this time.

                    Shame on you.
                    Ant-gubmint goobers … eager to be manipulated … unwitting puppets. aggressors, liars and stalkers. True Believers

                    Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
                    -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

                    Throughout human history, True Believers have bullied and assaulted, even murdered … manipulated to BELIEVE they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.
                    -Mike Hihn (1994)

        4. Big tent parties have no incentive to adhere to any ideology, and the approach of the DP/RP is diametrically opposed to the basic principles of libertarianism.

          As any libertarian should know and recognize, this is more of a problem with big tents rather than any specific ideology.

          1. Yes – and the solution to a problem with big tents is to leave them. That makes the previous big tent smaller. It allows one to set up a smaller tent without the baggage associated with the previous big tent. And if that new tent becomes a new big tent – well deal with that problem of success when it happens.

            The problem with the LP is that it has a slew of people (read anarchos) wandering around arguing about whether ‘tent’ is a fatal compromise with the state and trying to disrupt/exclude people who actually want to focus purely on building another tent.

            1. Yes – and the solution to a problem with big tents is to leave them. That makes the previous big tent smaller. It allows one to set up a smaller tent without the baggage associated with the previous big tent. And if that new tent becomes a new big tent – well deal with that problem of success when it happens.

              So, drive people from a(n ideological) tent (or tents) en masse and, once your ideological tent gets too full, then decide how to adapt your ideology to larger tents?

              Sounds like it’s tents all the way down to me.

        5. The Tories are running England right now, sometimes Labour does.

          The CDU has been running Germany for quite some time

          And the GOP is running the US right now, sometimes its the Democrats.

          There are lots of other parties in most countries–including the US. In some other countries one party fails to get a majority, and thus must build a coalition–but this is far from optimum.

          But the fact is that every country is governed by one party at time–even coalitions have their dominant member.

          In the US, our process attempts to force everyone to the center–the place that kinda works for everyone. In other countries, there’s no push towards the center, and wide flung parties can maintain their odd stances in the hopes that they’ll get to implement them as part of the need to build a coalition. Which happens with surprising regularity and often disastrous results.

          1. That “force everyone to the center” idea has broken in the most profound manner over the last 5 presidential elections. Starting with Bush v Gore and up to Trump, well-funded ideological forces have created a centrifugal effect: spinning things to the edges, creating a void in the middle. No end in sight. End the madness of two-party duopoly!

            1. It is very focused on the center. With the exception of guns and immigrants, Clinton and Trump were indistinguishable.

          2. The Tories are running England right now

            Umm, common knowledge that they HAD to deal with a minor party. The Tories lost a TON of seats (MAJOR news) … leaving a hung parliament …. forcing a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party to form a government. A critical distinction, regarding multi-party systems.

      4. Ron Paul showed us what and how we could advance liberty through the RP.

        Which was zero. But we’re talking about libertarians. Ron is a fascist – lying about the Constitution — promoting the KKK version of states rights and calling it federalism.

        ONLY a cult could believe that states have undelegated powers, with NO limits, and the people have NO protection from abuse. (shudder)

        1. Is this like a ‘god must exist because everything has a cause and god is that cause’ argument?

          Because

          a) Nobody believes that about Federalism. Not even Libertarians.

          b) So 50 states competing with each other is not enough to secure liberty but *one massive State* apparatus is?

          1. (boldface in defense of SEVERE assault on individual liberty

            Nobody believes that about Federalism. Not even Libertarians.

            It’s at the very core of Ron Paul’s cult. Yes, he’s no libertarian.

            So 50 states competing with each other is not enough to secure liberty but *one massive State* apparatus is?

            Ummm, NOW you DEFEND that states have undelegated powers, with no limits, and the people have NO protection from abuse.

            Because YOU say states “compete” for which fundamental rights are secured.

            Like Ron Paul, and the KKK., you believe fundamental rights are NOT unalienable .. NOT inherent to mankind .. NOT protected by the Constitution … that Natural Law is a statist plot ,,, You believe POWER is superior to RIGHTS, because Ron Paul says so … and, like Ron, you lie about the Tenth amendment, which is SEVERELY limited by the Ninth .. and you have no need to ever READ the Constitution, because Ron Paul!!

            The Ninth Amendment incorporates the Declarations unalienable rights, forbids ALL levels of government to deny or disparage ANY fundamental right.

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            Tell us WHAT those “other” rights are … not listed in the Constitution. OH WAIT, Ron’s cult says GOVERNMENT is superior to rights, and YOU just defended that.
            .
            THANK YOU!

            1. I think somebody needs a hug.

              1. Depends on your gender.

          2. “Is this like a ‘god must exist because everything has a cause and god is that cause’ argument?”

            Just an FYI, there is no “everything has a cause” in that argument for God’s existence.

        2. Michael Hihn wants to give the federal government the ring of power to protect our freedoms.
          Ron Paul wants to throw the ring of power into the volcano so no one has that much power.
          Which option do you think will work better?

          1. Michael Hihn wants to give the federal government the ring of power to protect our freedoms.

            You lying piece of shit

            Ron Paul wants to throw the ring of power into the volcano

            (puke) Precious snowflake eager to be brainwashed,.

            Ron Paul says states have powers NEVER delegated, and without limit … and SCOTUS has NO power to defend our rights from abuse by states … because he FUCKING LIES about the 9th Amendment.

            Why does Ron Paul defend States Rights over individual rights? EXACTLY LIKE THE KKK!, snowflake

            Ron says “rogue judges” overturned DOMA … SHITTING on balance of power, checks and balances among THREE co-equal branches

            The motherfucker BRAGS (to his cult) that he sponsored a bill to FORBID SCOTUS from heating ANY appeals to DOMA … would be the first group FORBIDDEN to defend its UNALIENABLE rights since emancipation — merely fuckjing ni**gers.

            EXACTLY like southern racists. “We have the POWER to deny rights to negroes, and NO cabal of unelected judges has ANY power to interfere”

            Replace negroes with homosexuals, and what do YOU get?

            Anything else, sucker?

    2. I completely agree that as long as libertarians try to achieve anything within the GOP they will achieve nothing. The term will be turned into whatever strawman the establishment/media/etc want to punch. They will carry all the baggage of the duopoly with them – and burden every other libertarian .

      But the Libertarian Party has got to get off the focus on national ideology/principles and identity and that other top-down exclusivist shit. Hell the Nolan Test (though very outdated) captures all the ‘ideology’ that’s needed.

      Build an actual party organization at the county level – and even the district level. Copy the D/R structure (whichever one is successful in your area). Talk to a PoliSci professor at a local uni and ask them about Local Politics 101. This ain’t rocket science – but it does require a core of people locally who are willing to do more than meet for drinks and bitch about the world outside Libertopia occasionally. Once the organization is there then it will be SEEN as the channel to get libertarian stuff done. If the LP leaves this stuff up to ‘candidates’ or their ‘campaigns’; then it all disappears every election and is owned by the CANDIDATE not the party. And 99% of candidates can’t really do this – which is why they join the D/R instead.

      Organizing around a mission of actually accomplishing something (even step 1 of just building the damn organization) is how you win. And for the LP that means start as small and local as can be accomplished.

      1. “I completely agree that as long as libertarians try to achieve anything within the GOP they will achieve nothing.”
        The likes of Paul, Massie, and Amash have accomplished more for libertarian ’causes’ in a few years (and done more to stand in the way of encroachments on individual freedom) than the LP has in its entire history.

        The LP may serve a purpose as a signal to the major parties as to the electoral viability of libertarian ideas, but it is never going to be a real force in national politics. Never. Trying to bring about another realignment is futile.

        1. Politics is about ideas. Just because you cannot see the progress of the Libertarian Party in terms of Congressional seats, does not mean that they have had no influence on public opinion.

          Of course realignment is futile, but with the growing popularity of both Greens and Libertarians, the coming decade is the best time that the United States has had since before World War I to force a multi-party system, which will benefit everyone in the long term.

          1. I am very skeptical of the conventional wisdom that the two major parties are losing ground. I don’t doubt that it’s becoming more fashionable to identify as independent, but I would argue that a higher fraction of the population (including most independents) fits neatly onto one party’s side or the other than in the 1950s or 1960s. A dyed in the wool Republican fitting in ideologically just fine with (and by some accounts, dominating) idealistic Democratic Kennedy Administration, that’s something that couldn’t happen today, IMO. Back then the parties had broader membership but also less ideological difference from each other.

            The third party performances in 2016 were, IMO, at most, the parties being slightly behind the times with their constituents. The Dems lost votes because they nominated a tough-on-crime warmonger, while the core of their base has moved against that; the party will adjust and go full SJW to respond to their base in good time, I expect. And while Trump’s populism may create a small opening for libertarians, I expect (pessimistically) that, party because of an increasingly radical Democratic party, this populist shift will simply drag more Republicans away from free market, libertarianish views than it will it will repel toward the LP.

            1. I am very skeptical of the conventional wisdom that the two major parties are losing ground

              It’s been a known fact for over a decade.

              In a 2005 survey commissioned by Cato, conducted by a top pollster (Zogby) 59% of voters would self-describe as as libertarian, defined by Cato as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. (Obviously much higher now)

              Zogby report noted that they “don’t fit well with either party.” The fit would be even worse today,as both parties have shifted to the very far right or left — to align with their now-more-fanatical base — thus creating a death spiral, driving away more of their base — so that, with partisan primaries, we are increasing governed by a shrinking majority that’s increasingly dominated by zealots and fanatics.

              1. And fact that the zealots and fanatics are the ones gaining dominance should tell you something.

                Sorry, but reports of the death of the two party system have been greatly exaggerated.

                1. And fact that the zealots and fanatics are the ones gaining dominance should tell you something.

                  (laughing) Assume 100 members, 20 are zealots and fanatics.
                  40 of non-wackos leave the party. Zealots increase from 20% to 33%. YOU call that “gaining dominance” … by repelling people out if the party!

                  I’m afraid to ask what if all 80 of the non-wackos left, would you celebrate that your group has “gained TOTAL control” of the entire party?

                  Sorry, but reports of the death of the two party system have been greatly exaggerated.

                  Sorry, but what part of 59% confuses you?
                  That’s ALMOST like the goobers who SCREAM that proggies have taken over Reason (or libertarianism) — totally clueless that libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 50 years. And since when are proggies fiscally conservative?

                  Also still true for 50 years: Left – Right = Zero.

            2. I agree that most independents likely lean to one side more than another, but that is only because most people do not see any other viable options so they feel stuck with the Democratic or Republican Party. The growing percentage of unaffiliated voters is a sign that additional parties are in demand if only our electoral laws would allow them to exist.

        2. The likes of Paul, Massie, and Amash have accomplished more for libertarian ’causes’ in a few years (and done more to stand in the way of encroachments on individual freedom) than the LP has in its entire history.

          I think the “’nuff said” argument is; Ron Paul got more electoral votes than Gary Johnson and he wasn’t even running.

          1. Name one thing they’ve accomplished. REAL, not slogans and soundbites.
            P.S. John Kasich — the Ohio governor who supports Medicaid expansion – got the same number of electoral votes as Ron Paul. But Ron’s cult is larger and more eagerly manipulated.

      2. Some states have strong LP organizations. They still get 2 percent of the vote.
        Organization isn’t the problem, it’s inertia overcoming the 2-party system, and an ideology that few people understand.

        1. Can you name them? Seriously – I’d like to contact them to see what sorts of stuff I can copy for my county

        2. I am very skeptical of the conventional wisdom that the two major parties are losing ground

          DUH. Is THAT why 60% of voters self-define as libertarian … but 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label … while libertarians blame everyone but themselves?

          The movement is a zombie apocalypse … killed by anti-gubmint goobers … NOT ALLOWED to catch up with voters.

  10. His chances have gone from 0% to 0%.

    1. Curb your enthusiasm

    2. His chances of getting a party nomination have gone way down.

  11. I am disappointed, but not terribly surprised. Missouri is a fairly red state. It’s just a lot easier to win with the Red Tribe than with any other tribe. All that’s left to see is if he will pretend to be a Trump clone or if he will actually forthrightly stand up for libertarian values and beliefs.

    1. Unlike libertarian purists like Gary Johnson. Haha. If he opposes socialized medicine he’s already more libertarian than the party’s senate nominees in Virginia and New Hampshire.

      1. What’s your alternative? Is it as fascist as Rand Paul’s?

        1. How to spot a left winger? Everyone is a “fascist”. Don’t ask how a small government libertarian or Republican could possibly be a fascist. They will respond, “But, no, well,…You’re a fascist, too!”

          1. Or when they call Medicaid “free market healthcare”.

            Micheal is not good at words, best to just leave him be and let him tire himself out.

            1. Or when they call Medicaid “free market healthcare”.

              PATHETIC FUCKING LIAR

              https://reason.com/blog/2017/07…..nt_6891729

              ABSOLUTE VIDEO PROOF … Rand Paul’s shameless Obamacare FRAUD …. so he can pull the strings of his witless puppets .. even a Fox political hack, KENNEDY

              We PREACH that the private sector IS better — never that it WAS better .. because anti-gubmint goobers have NO CLUE how to do it any better the state — and actually REFUSE to RESTORE the private sector. When Rand Paul says JUST REPEAL MEDICAID — DO NOT shift the money back to private charity — do what HE wants with the savings, that’s AUTHORITARIAN …

              … in February. President Trump initially supported “Repeal an Replace, in the same day”. Who proposed it … wait for it …..

              RAND PAUL … the fraudulent bullshitter that Mark NEEDS to hide

              For the mentally challenged: Transitioning ALL Medicaid funding back to private charity would FULLY RESTORE private charity care … and FULLY REPEAL Medicaid. Anti-gubmint goobers would repeal PART of Medicaid … just enough to offset tax cuts for the riich … while refusing coverage that AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS FREELY FINANCED.

              1. Part 2 defense. Marklastname has been stalking me for 9 months. Here’s why. (lol)

                PROOF (remove blank spaces) htt p://bit.ly/2tL0kct
                8:22.16 @ 7.08am
                MarkLastname
                And actually privatizing social security is perfectly viable. I’ll provide reasons when you actually start to do so.

                Here’s MY proof! (lol).

                Cato’s privatization hustle
                Workers would keep/invest their 6.2% FICA share. Michael Tanner says (page 10) the transition will be costly, but “a one-time event”
                ? Yeah, a one-time event lasting over 30 years, declining from a first-year cost of $410 billion.

                “Simply restraining the projected growth in nondefense discretionary spending by 1 percent would generate more than $20 billion per year.”
                … Versus $410 billion!

                And how to pay for it is not Cato’s job anyhow!
                “There are short-term costs that will require the president and Congress to make tough choices.”

                Repeats short-term transition costs bullshit
                $410B loss is 50% FICA revenues Page 10 All revenues are budgeted to benefits, losses decline as seniors die off..

                STILL your turn, Mark. PUT UP OR SHUT UP

                He never did. But stalks and punishes me for calling out his aggression … 9 months later.

                As he SHITS on NAP.

            2. Damn. You set of a hihnsplosion.

              1. I can’t be bullied.
                And what kind of sick fuck stalks somebody for NINE MONTHS — which is indeed shitting in NAP.

                1. We all know you shit during your naps, no need to remind us.

                  1. As he (Marklastname) SHITS on NAP.

                    We all know you shit during your naps, no need to remind us.

                    I said YOU shit on NAP … which you just CONFIRMED with MORE aggression!

                    (Added to nine months of stalking

            3. Who lit the goddamn Hihn Signal and can we please garrote them that do?

              1. MORE AGGRESSION!
                SHOUT DOWN VIEWS I DISAGREE WITH.
                SUPPORT NINE MONTHS OF THUGGISH STALKING
                BECAUSE GOOBER

          2. NO ALTERNATIVE!!!! AGGRESSION!!

            Don’t ask how a small government libertarian or Republican could possibly be a
            fascist

            Your confusion comes from ass-uming Ron Paul is small government. (lol)

            Why do you stand with Ron Paul, Orval Faubus and the KKK? Why are these mere spew on your planet? Why do you brazenly DEFY the Constitution?
            1) Judicial Review?,
            2) balance of power?
            3) separation of powers?
            4) equal and unalienable rights?
            5) 9th Amendment?
            6) 14th Amendment?
            7) THREE co-equal branches of government?

            Why do you swallow TOTAL nonsense that states have undelegated powers, with NO limits, and SCOTUS has NO power to defend our UNALIENABLE rights, leaving us defenseless?

            How to spot a left winger?

            (snort) ONLY rightiwingers deny the existence of fascism … and what it means. Prepare to be humiliated (FOR YOUR AGGRESSION)

            1. Defense From Aggression. Part Two

              1)http:/libertyissues.com/archive.htm – Web archive of my published political writing. Pick any link especially Taxes, Healthcare or Governing. (smirk)

              2) Wiki entry cites me as a source on the history of the movement. I was Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of WA. Mine was one of the most cited source on anarchists vs minarchists, when it was still a topical issue. An excerpt from that source was published by the Center for a Stateless Society

              1. Defense from Aggression. Part 3

                3) Media response as LIBERTARIAN candidate for WA State Insurance Commissioner.

                Campaign theme: Freedom works!

                1. There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but why must we elect him first?

                2. Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated – but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

                3. Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage.

                Your turn. What have YOU done?

        2. Yes, its so fascist to let people choose their own health care.

          1. Cult follower brainwashed on Rand Paul’s health care .. or a liar … or screwed up the issue.

            Patrick Henry, the 2nd|7.5.17 @ 11:57AM|#
            Yes, its so fascist to let people choose their own health care.

            ABSOLUTE VIDEO PROOF … Rand Paul’s shameless Obamacare FRAUD …. so he can pull the strings of his witless puppets .. even a Fox political hack, KENNEDY

            We PREACH that the private sector IS better — never that it WAS better .. because anti-gubmint goobers have NO CLUE how to do it any better the state — and actually REFUSE to RESTORE the private sector. When Rand Paul says JUST REPEAL MEDICAID — DO NOT shift the money back to private charity — do what HE wants with the savings, that’s AUTHORITARIAN …
            … in February. President Trump initially supported “Repeal an Replace, in the same day”. Who proposed it … wait for it …..

            RAND PAUL … the statist flip-flopper!

            For the mentally challenged: Transitioning ALL Medicaid funding back to private charity would FULLY RESTORE private charity care … and FULLY REPEAL Medicaid. Anti-gubmint goobers would repeal PART of Medicaid … just enough to offset tax cuts for the riich … while refusing coverage that AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS FREELY FINANCED.

        3. Because the 10-term Congressman who voted against government power at every opportunity is clearly a fascist. I think the word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

          1. Precious snowflake eager to be brainwashed,.

            Because the 10-term Congressman who voted against government power at every opportunity is clearly a fascist. I think the word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

            (smirk) Wait for it …

            Ron Paul says states have powers NEVER delegated, and without limit … and SCOTUS has NO power to defend our rights from abuse by states … because he FUCKING LIES about the 9th Amendment.

            Why does Ron Paul defend States Rights over individual rights? EXACTLY LIKE THE KKK?

            Ron says “rogue judges” overturned DOMA … SHITTING on balance of power, checks and balances among THREE co-equal branches

            The motherfucker BRAGS (to his cult) that he sponsored a bill to FORBID SCOTUS from heating ANY appeals to DOMA … would be the first group FORBIDDEN to defend its UNALIENABLE rights since emancipation — merely fuckjing ni**gers.

            EXACTLY like southern racists. “We have the POWER to deny rights to negroes, and NO cabal of unelected judges has ANY power to interfere”

            Replace negroes with homosexuals, and what do YOU get?

            Anything else, sucker?

  12. …. Unless you’re into that. There’s nothing wrong with that if you are. Really.

    Vernon D,

    I don’t think that you intended this, yet your comment reminded me of video that contains rather odd lyrics (and an even odder reaction by the young women the lyrics were sung to).

  13. BYE FELICIA

    1. exactly, the only libertarian candidates running were Perry, McAfee, and Feldman

  14. WOW! I relish the thought of seeing him getting crushed in the primary.
    And that he won’t disgrace the libertarian brand any further — a brand that even Cato says is rejected by 91% of libertarians.

    1. Why do you care? I mean, you’re not a libertarian. So why is the ‘libertarian brand’ so important to you?

      1. (boldface in defense of aggression by Ron Paul’s cult.

        Why do you care? I mean, you’re not a libertarian

        (snort) HE is a libertarian and does not care that 91% of libertarians REJECT the brand.

        What do REAL libertarians like you believe? Ummm … you already disgraced yourself here!
        https://reason.com/blog/2017/07…..nt_6892106

        Now he INVITES me to do it AGAIN!
        With pleasure
        In Part Two

        1. Part two

          1) See the web archive of my published political writing. Pick any link especially Taxes, Healthcare or Governing. http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

          2) Wiki entry cites me as a source on the history of the movement. I ran the Washington Statr LP as a PAID Director. At the time, mine was one of the most cited source on anarchists vs minarchists, when it was still a topical issue. An excerpt from that source was published by the Center for a Stateless Society

          More …

          1. Part Three

            3) Media response as LIBERTARIAN candidate for WA State Insurance Commissioner.

            Campaign theme: Freedom works!

            1. There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but why must we elect him first?

            2. Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated – but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

            3. Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage.

            Your turn. You’ve already said that states have undelegated powers, and we have NO defense to state-level abuses … because each state “competes” for which unalienable rights to secure.

  15. Dear Libertarians,

    I decided I wanted to be a Senator more than a libertarian.

    It’s not you; it’s me.

    Love always,
    Austin

    1. You’re going to put on a Meg Ryan or Jennifer Aniston movie, slip into some PJs, cry yourself to the bottom of a bucket of ice cream tonight aren’t you?

  16. The libertarian party ran to leftist democratic candidates.

    1. Ummm, we usually hear that from Paulistas who believe that gay marriage is supported by only proggies, that states can do whatever they please, and SCOTUS has no power to defend us … because “unalienablle rights” are a proggie myth. All of these originated with the KKK, and endorsed by the Paulista Cult…

      If so, do you deny that “libertarian” has been defined as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” — for nearly 50 years now,

      1. Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I’ll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics. Maybe we can even arrange one with a Hit & Run logo.

        1. Here’s the question

          If so, do you deny that “libertarian” has been defined as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” — for nearly 50 years now

          Here’s the evasion (typically childish)

          Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I’ll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics. Maybe we can even arrange one with a Hit & Run logo.

          AND, dumbass says I’m a lefty! TWO fuckups!!!
          EVERYBODY is a socialist who challenges extreme socon authoritarians!!!
          I’ll go slowly. (snicker)

          1) See the web archive of my published political writing. Pick any link especially Taxes, Healthcare or Governing. (smirk)

          2) This Wikipedia entry cites me as a source on the history of the movement. I was Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of WA. Mine was one of the most cited source on anarchists vs minarchists, when it was still a topical issue. An excerpt from that source was published by the Center for a Stateless Society

          Cont’d

          1. Educating Dick Puller, Attorney At Law (Part 2)

            3) Media response as LIBERTARIAN candidate for WA State Insurance Commissioner.

            Campaign theme: Freedom works!

            1. There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but why must we elect him first?

            2. Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated – but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

            3. Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage.

            Translation: I’ve ACHIEVED a lot more than a babbling cyber-bully.

            xoxoxoxo
            The Socialist (sneer)

  17. What McCaskill did last time was to campaign for the Republican opponent she could actually beat (Todd Akins).

    It will be interesting to see which Republican she will do that for this time. The leading candidate that would have won the primary and completely stomped her has decided not to run. So it will be interesting. She might keep it yet.

  18. Anyhoo, the problem with him is going to be that Missouri might have voted for Trump, but it’s a pro-Union, pro-protectionism, socially conservative state.

    They likely won’t vote for a libertarian who is basically against everything they are for.

    1. Ah, that explains how they got McCaskill.

      1. Seriously. If he gets the nom, I think he could easily win. His moderately pro-life position, while obviously controversial among libertarians, could help him beat McCaskill alone.

        1. “Moderately” Pro-life is controversial among libertarians? No, only among Republicans posing as libertarians.

          What is “moderate” about forced pregnancy anyway?

          1. Yes, both libertarians and conservatives can be manipulated by the Christian Taliban (libs mostly via Ron Paul)

            The major bullshit is the denial of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

            ALL unalienable rights are co-equal. because NONE can be denied or disparaged for ANY reason. A key tenet of Natural Law tracing to Locke. For this and other reasons, the gullible are tricked into DEFYING the will of God, in the NAME of God. But True Believers have been manipulated by faith and power for millenia.

          2. Um, no one forces you to become pregnant. You can not have sex. You can use contraception. Libertarians do not dismissively scoff at the notion that viable fetuses deserve protection. They allow individual choices tip the scale. In this political climate that’s arguably moderate.

            There’s at least one pro life writer in this very magazine. There was another but he or she’s not here anymore.

            1. Um, no one forces you to become pregnant.

              Relevance to God-given rights?

              You can not have sex. You can use contraception.

              Relevance to unalienable rights?

              Libertarians do not dismissively scoff at the notion that viable fetuses deserve protection.

              We’re NOT monolithic, unlike the Christian Taliban. The difference is whether one seeks to impose their own views by force ? as we see in both extremes, pro-life and pro-choice.

              They allow individual choices tip the scale. In this political climate that’s arguably moderate.

              Yeah, but many DENY that choice — the Christian Taliban that I referenced. Shitting on individual rights is never moderate.

              Historically, there are only two purposes for government.
              a) Defend individual liberty — generally defined as Natural Law, since we trace to classical liberalism
              b) Mandate and impose one universal set of values, fascism, state communism, Inquisition

              There’s at least one pro life writer in this very magazine. There was another but he or she’s not here anymore

              I don’t know them enough to know if it’s relevant. Many confuse the libertarian movement with libertarian positions, the non-monolithic thing. Libertarians can (and do) support abortion bans, but that POSITION is obviously not libertarian. God-given and/or unalienable rights prevail. And the Constitution

  19. I’ve always though that the notion of ‘party loyalty’ was a rather unlibertarian concept, so I don’t think there’s much credibility in Libertarians having a fit over someone leaving the party and joining another one. Principles, not principals, right? And its not like the LP candidates hold fast to libertarian principles anyway, so Petersen’s not exactly defacing the tabernacle or anything.

    1. The whole idea of libertarianism kinda teeters on this concept. The whole thing, IMO, kinda portrays libertarianism in the David Murphy (Woody Harrelson’s) role in Indecent Proposal. Which is exceedingly weird because the GOP is supposed to be the party of both evil, wife-buying billionaires and marriage-purist ideology.

  20. Never thought he was really “Libertarian” but whatevers. If he wins, maybe he starts off better than the typical elephant. Give it a few years and he’ll be just as bad.

  21. I’d rather see Libertarians getting elected as Republicans than Bloomberg-style “moderates” losing as Libertarians.

  22. good riddance

  23. representing Missouri seems punishment enough.

  24. Petersen is a clown. His high school AV Club conservative act is like nails on a chalkboard.

  25. Austin can’t win. He has no resume. He should start local, prove he can be a politican and actually change things. If he really wants to change things don’t waste time in us congress. Change the local and then state GOP. Run for their offices.

    1. So he was experienced enough to deliver the nomination to …Johnston?

  26. Best of luck to him, but why not start at a lower tier office, like House of Representatives, or state legislature? Being a medium fish in a tiny pond doesn’t qualify someone to go swimming with the sharks in the ocean.

  27. I’d give it a three for mostly correct grammar and spelling.

  28. I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

    follow this link?..????????????

    Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

  29. He’s a professional politician. He should do well with the establishment, probably where he belonged from the start.

    1. Precisely.

  30. Makes sense. Seems to me that that this is a natural,,,,, True the Republicans are more conservative on some Social issues but they only care locally about most of them, they are still faithful to the idea of Federalism and they Democrats are not…. So if you Reason Folks could join and change the Republicans,,,, it might be a good thing…

  31. Makes sense. Seems to me that that this is a natural,,,,, True the Republicans are more conservative on some Social issues but they only care locally about most of them, they are still faithful to the idea of Federalism and they Democrats are not…. So if you Reason Folks could join and change the Republicans,,,, it might be a good thing…

  32. Makes sense. Seems to me that that this is a natural,,,,, True the Republicans are more conservative on some Social issues but they only care locally about most of them, they are still faithful to the idea of Federalism and they Democrats are not…. So if you Reason Folks could join and change the Republicans,,,, it might be a good thing…

    1. Bullshit!

      Republicans are socially conservative and fiscally reckless. They blame the Democrats of “tax and spend,” and forget that they are worse: “borrow and spend.” Borrow to give the rich gubmint contracts and projects, while cutting their taxes and running up debts.

      Libertarians moving to the GOP are honest, unlike the cock holsters for the GOP posing reason.com libertarians.

      1. You were doing so well ,… until you parroted the hustle of extreme socons
        Both tribes lost federalism decades ago, swallowing the same bullshit spewed by Ron Paul — which is really the KKK version of states rights.

  33. Makes sense. Seems to me that that this is a natural,,,,, True the Republicans are more conservative on some Social issues but they only care locally about most of them, they are still faithful to the idea of Federalism and they Democrats are not…. So if you Reason Folks could join and change the Republicans,,,, it might be a good thing…

  34. I don’t see why this has to be an either-or proposition. I thought the whole ideal of thoughtful libertarianisn was you looked at situations on an event-by-event basis, and responded *as appropriate* for each specific situation? Only Sith (or Republicans and Democrats) deal in absolutes.
    Attacking from only one angle will guarantee failure overall. Instead, we should be approaching every campaign, every political seat from the tack that best fits that particular campaign. Here is one that will work best with Peterson as a Republitard. The Presidential election was best approached as a Libertarian ticket.
    Of course, the failure of thoughtful action is why I quit the NY LP (and eventually the US LP) anyway.

  35. I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

    follow this link?..????????????

    Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

  36. Anyone seeking public office, or even just to be taken seriously, is wise to distance themselves as far as possible from GayJay.
    My recent post: Mobile Video Boss Review
    My recent post: Video Ad Mastery Review

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.