Libertarian Party

Inside the Battle Over the Soul of the Libertarian Party

A social media struggle in the New Hampshire L.P. fractured a state party and triggered a national meltdown.

|

Joseph Bishop-Henchman resigned Friday as chair of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), after a controversy that began three months ago with provocative tweets, intensified two weeks ago with an attempted schism of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party (LPNH), and has now turned into a battle for the soul of America's third-largest political party.

Two other members of the 17-person LNC, Tucker Coburn and Francis Wendt, have also resigned in wake of the tumult. The long-influential Pragmatist Caucus, associated with the two presidential campaigns of Gary Johnson, has dissolved as a direct result. And one of the party's few elected officials, DeKalb, Illinois, City Clerk Sasha Cohen, resigned from the national Libertarian Party (L.P.) in protest, saying in an LNC Zoom meeting that "we are a big tent party, but no tent is big enough to hold racists and people of color, transphobes and trans people, bigots and their victims."

A "toxic culture has recently been harnessed in the service of a grouping with a declared goal of taking over the party and making it as repulsive as possible to everyone except themselves," Bishop-Henchman wrote in his resignation letter, referring to the party's ascendant Mises Caucus, which for the past few years has been advertising its intentions to launch a "takeover" of the L.P. to realign it more with the policy and messaging associated with Ron Paul and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. "I will not chair a party that knowingly and has now affirmatively chosen to stay affiliated with the toxic garbage that was being spewed by the New Hampshire party and similar bad actors in other states, the violent threats emanating from these people, and the deliberate destruction of the party's ability to appeal to voters and win elections."

Bishop-Henchman did not detail the specifics of the source or nature of the "violent threats" in his public comments on the LPNH matter and his resignation. He declined to be interviewed for this article, deferring to his public written statements.

The outgoing chair had lost the confidence of many Libertarians, and not just Mises Caucus members, by lending support to a highly irregular attempt on June 12 by the LPNH's then-chair, Jilletta Jarvis, to break away from the existing state L.P. and form a new one, seizing the former's digital assets in an attempt to regain control of a Twitter feed that had since the party's convention in March made headlines by saying stuff like "John McCain's brain tumor saved more lives than Anthony Fauci."

On June 16, the LNC voted 12–2, with three abstentions, to reject a Bishop-Henchman co-sponsored motion to disaffiliate with the existing New Hampshire party, which would have paved the way for Jarvis' rump to be recognized. The other pro-separatist voter, Coburn, the representative for the very region containing New Hampshire, joined Bishop-Henchman in resigning from the board after the vote.

On June 17, Jarvis relented, and returned control of the LPNH website and other digital property back to the existing party.

LNC at-large representative Joshua Smith, a leading member of the Mises Caucus, saw this as a resounding victory for the party's newer members, and for the independence of state affiliates. He says the group has effective control of around 25 state party affiliates now.

The failed New Hampshire coup was condemned by a wide range of non-Mises L.P. factions and figures as well, including 2020 vice presidential candidate Spike Cohen (who called it a "fiasco" that "should have remained an LPNH issue exclusively") and former congressman Justin Amash, who argued that "due process" requires acknowledging that "there's only one legitimate executive committee of @LPNH," while also stressing that "official social media accounts are for advancing the party's mission of organizing libertarians, not for personal experiments in edgelording."

The state party's restored Twitter feed wasted little time resting on its laurels. "The ultimate goal of wokeism is to infiltrate, occupy, and dominate every cultural, political, and corporate institution," the account tweeted June 20. "The Libertarian Party isn't immune to this. It must be identified and stopped immediately."

The "Mean Tweets"

"No one saw this even remotely coming, such a nuclear bomb," says LPNH Executive Committee at-large member Sean Dempsey, a Mises Caucus member. "No one imagined it happening. For my own part I considered myself good friends with Jilletta….We thought she was a true freedom fighter, and this caught us all off-guard. We were very hurt, and still feel stabbed in the back because of the way this was handled."

Jarvis (who declined to be interviewed for this article) and the rest of the six-member state Executive Committee, half of which belong to the Mises Caucus, were elected at the annual state convention March 19–21. While he was not on the Communications Committee coming out of the convention, Jeremy Kauffman was added to the committee in April; by May that committee's chair granted him posting privileges. Kauffman is the founder and CEO of a blockchain-based, censorship-free content-publishing system called LBRY. He is a big player in New Hampshire libertarian politics, sitting on the board of the Free State Project, and he is notorious for highly inflammatory tweeting on his own personal account.

Sean Brennan was elected as treasurer only after the convention changed its bylaws to make him eligible; he had not been a dues-paying member long enough to qualify before.**

The Brennan maneuver raised some eyebrows among those resistant to the Mises influx, and there was a smattering of other complaints about the LPNH's post-convention actions. They booted a long-term activist and thorn in the Mises Caucus' side, Jackie Perry, for allegedly revealing private contact information about Jarvis; Perry insists it was all public, and that it was not clear the ExCom even has the legitimate power to get rid of members this way. One executive committee members' suggestion that they consider not running a gubernatorial candidate if a specific Republican much beloved by the state's larger liberty movement (which in New Hampshire has always been far more geared to the GOP than the L.P., even or especially among Free State Project members) was used to suggest the new ExCom was deliberately taking the L.P. out of electoral politics. A filing with the state as a political committee that Jarvis' new group made and the old one did not was used as evidence the Mises crowd wanted to drive the organization out of legal existence, but Brennan says that the LPNH did not get enough candidate donations to hit the legal limit requiring that filing.

All those controversies swirled in the chatter around the LPNH's misdeeds, but Dempsey believes they all amount to "red herrings." The visceral disgust displayed toward the party by Jarvis, Bishop-Henchman, and other Libertarians comes down to what Kauffman has done with the state party's Twitter feed. The whole kerfuffle was traceable to what LNC Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos, a very loud voice standing up for the prerogatives of the LPNH within the LNC, describes dismissively as "mean tweets."

Among the controversial LPNH tweets attributed to Kauffman was a call to "legalize child labor" because "children will learn more on a job site than in public school," another to keep Gitmo open "so that Anthony Fauci and every governor that locked their state down can be sent there, never again to be allowed inside of the United States," and still another to "Repeal the Civil Rights Act."

Kauffman defended his tactics on the Taking Human Action podcast over the weekend. "I'm a very committed libertarian, and I think this is good for the libertarian movement," he said. "I think L.P. national had been sort of taken over by what I would call, you know, woke neoliberal globalists, and they're not libertarians. Libertarianism is private property, bodily autonomy, voluntary association, right? These are sort of the core atoms of libertarian philosophy. And I don't think that the people who were on the LNC endorsed them."

The child labor tweetstorm in particular was "an absolute win" for the L.P., Kauffman insisted, since the backlash—including from such people as Gary Johnson—only serves to spread radical ideas to those who wouldn't otherwise have been exposed to them. He maintained that the Mises incursion into the LPNH had grown membership from around 60 people last year to around 150.

The debate over "mean tweets" conflated Kauffman as voice of LPNH and voice for himself, in ways that he thinks are illegitimate but that many L.P.-adjacent folk think is perfectly appropriate.

It is Kauffman who Bishop-Henchman referred to, not by name, in his June 14 letter to the LNC when he writes of "an individual who does things like tweet about how black people have lower IQs and murdering trans people would be a good trade-off for lower taxes." Those ideas were tweeted on Kauffman's personal account, not the party's. (Kauffman and his fans stress that he specifically was talking about the superior morality of no taxes to 1,000 murdered transpeople, not just the "lower taxes" Bishop-Henchman wrote.***)

Kauffman insists "if the LPNH is in trouble, it needs to be about things LPNH said, not things I've said," since Mises Caucus folk are "on board with the idea of not policing things people say on private pages." This hits on one of the prime ideological or attitudinal fault lines between L.P. factions: The Mises crowd is far more likely to find only actual physical assaults on people's persons, property, or liberty worthy of condemnation, what they call "NAP violations" (for the "non-aggression principle"), not what they might write off as merely (at worst) bad words or bad thoughts.

Jarvis insisted, in arguing for her move to take the LPNH into her possession, that that messaging strategy "is, frankly, designed to discredit the Libertarian Party in the state and in our nation."

Jarvis continued: "January 6th showed us what can happen when people are riled up into a frenzy and given little direction. For the last two months, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire has been using this strategy, the strategy of riling up mobs to frenzy and giving them no direction."

The Short and Unhappy Life of the New New Hampshire Libertarian Party 

As the LPNH Twitter account continued dropping social media bombs, LNC Chair Bishop-Henchman sent a letter to Jarvis June 7 stating that "the party of which you are Chair is the LNC's sole qualifying organization in New Hampshire" and is "part of the official structure of the national party." Five days later Jarvis announced she was launching the new party.

In a videotaped chat with some LNC members June 13, Jarvis said that Bishop-Henchman knew what she was trying to do when that letter was requested (though she said it was technically asked for by a third party who she wouldn't name), and that she was therefore confident the LNC would recognize hers as the true Libertarian Party affiliate in New Hampshire.

Jarvis had originally been planning just to resign over frustration at the Executive Committee's communication strategy, but unnamed other people told her creating her own new party from scratch was another option.

So was Bishop-Henchman's letter intended to imply that the authority of the LNC was behind the new splinter party? The LNC is in the process of selecting people to form an investigatory committee this week to find out. If so, says LNC Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos, this would count as "corruption"—an attack on a duly constituted state affiliate from the national party. For her raucous role in pushing this investigation, within and outside the LNC, Harlos was hit with a motion to remove her as secretary and from all her other L.P. committee positions, then another such motion when the first one was ruled out of order. That second one was also ruled out of order on Tuesday, so her position seems safe for now. She considered herself targeted as a whistleblower for her attempts to get to the bottom of whether LNC officials were illegitimately targeting a state party.

In his June 14 letter, written partly in response to calls for his removal over his alleged interference in New Hampshire, Bishop-Henchman insisted he did not know what Jarvis was going to do. "Claims that I was some kind of co-conspirator are false," he said. "I do not as LNC Chair tell state chairs and officers what they should do."

But Bishop-Henchman also tried to argue that the last three months of LPNH executive-committee behavior "amounted to their constructive resignation," since it was effectively "little different than if they had all gone out and endorsed Donald Trump or Joe Biden, basically." Thus, Jarvis "felt she had no choice to reconstitute the organization as best she could, with the people she could, who still supported the mission of the party."

Jarvis and 13 other LPNH members during the short-lived rump party wrote up new bylaws and a new platform, and crafted a familiar-sounding Libertarian oath with a new ending: "I will not advocate or endorse the initiation of force as a means to achieve political or social goals. I will advocate for the freedom from oppression and coercion for all New Hampshire residents and affirm that as Libertarians we condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant."

At the same time she seized possession of the original LPNH's digital property.

"When she locked the existing Executive Committee members out of digital assets owned by the party, the website, all the social media accounts, mailchimp, paypal, access to our email account," even membership records, said LPNH Executive Committee Member Sean Dempsey, that amounted to "theft of party property."

The moves shocked New Hampshire Libertarians. Stephen Nass, an at-large member of the Executive Committee, said in a phone interview this weekend that Jarvis was "old school, had been around, knows how to run a party, so she got elected unanimously" by all factions at the March convention.

Caleb Dyer, a former L.P. state legislator in New Hampshire who straddles the Mises/non-Mises divide, says he knows "for a fact" that the separatists' claim that "they exhausted every possible option before going nuclear with this campaign for disaffiliation" is "just a lie."

Dyer does worry that some of the Mises-oriented types care more about radical messaging than they do about winning elections, which to him means "philosophically they are not there to further the interests of the [LPNH]. They are specifically hindering those efforts." But those differences of philosophy are better solved, he thinks, using the available tools of process, negotiation, and management, rather than engineering a radical reorganization on the fly.

According to Executive Committee member Dempsey and current LPNH Interim Chair Nolan Pelletier, if the tweets were a core problem, Jarvis had it within her power all along to keep the keys of the Twitter account out of the hands of the controversial Jeremy Kauffman. As chair, she could have simply issued an order, or changed the password. Pelletier says that Kauffman is not currently one of the people tweeting from LPNH's official account.

What Does the Mises Caucus Want?

Bishop-Henchman's departure is the biggest national victory yet for the Mises Caucus, which functions as a Political Action Committee, one that raised nearly $100,000 in 2019–2020. So what do Misesians want?

The most common policy complaint heard about the L.P. in 2021 from Mises types is that the national party and most state affiliates were not vociferous enough against COVID-related lockdowns, thereby dropping the ball on the most vital liberty issue of the times.

"I felt my voice was not being represented in the party," says the LPNH's Dempsey. "We went through in 2020 one of the worst tyrannical totalitarian regimes in modern history and the national party was tweeting about trans rights. Yes, those are important, but get on the right page" and "know your audience."

Part of that audience is sick and tired of any party or candidate utterance that smacks of pandering to "wokeism," whether it be 2020 presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen tweeting that "It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist" or three-time former LNC chair Nicholas Sarwark serially criticizing the 1990s "paleolibertarian" excesses of people associated with the Mises Institute. Joshua Smith, who lost the LNC chair race to Sarwark in 2018, said: "We [in the caucus] don't message to collectivist ideology."

"I passionately reject the notion that Mises Caucus is completely, or filled with, racists or bigots," Dempsey says. "We just have, probably to our discredit, been so force-fed a narrative about having to virtue signal we probably don't say things enough like 'we reject bigotry' or 'racism is repugnant,' but those are empty words." What's important is making America a nation "dominated by support for freedom, property rights, free association, and due process."

Dyer detects an inconsistency in the Mises Caucus approach. "In broad strokes," he says, "they see themselves combatting wokeness as having infiltrated the Libertarian Party. They claim they don't want to fight the culture wars, while simultaneously picking a side, which I think is disingenuous."

The more Pragmatic Caucus–friendly Libertarians now fleeing the LNC or the party altogether worry that the Misesians consciously attract intolerant (and intolerable) elements.

"When New Hampshire's messaging started getting toxic," Dekalb City Clerk Sasha Cohen said in a phone interview over the weekend, "I got calls and messages from people who supported me during my campaign asking, 'What the fuck is wrong with your party?' A direct quote."

Alexander DiBenedetto, who ran the Pragmatist Caucus until its post–New Hampshire dissolution, warned in a phone interview Sunday that a Mises takeover would likely mean "the majority of the people from the Gary Johnson days leaving the party." (Those campaigns got the party its highest ever national vote totals and percentages.) The L.P. should spend less time and energy perfecting the most polarizing tweet to attract the most hate-retweets, DiBenedetto said, and more time organizing such initiatives as the door-knocking Frontier Project, which actually won a state legislative seat for Libertarian Marshall Burt in Wyoming last year. If a Mises Caucus–style candidate wins the party's presidential nomination in 2024, he said, state parties unhappy with that approach might disaffiliate from the national party.

Francis Wendt, the Region 1 LNC member who resigned June 19, wrote in his farewell letter, "I will give the [Mises Caucus] credit, they have a very active base….However, activists are only part of the equation. You also need candidates, leaders, staff, and donors. Twitter trolls don't do that. Email blasts don't do that. Regurgitated messages from people that only show up for a day (convention) don't do that. Knocking doors does that. Writing checks does that. Making calls does that. Sitting up till 3 AM pouring over research does that."

In his resignation letter, Bishop-Henchman sounded a warning of his own. "Toxic people exhaust or drive out good people," he said. "Our mechanisms for removing such individuals and addressing such bad behavior are designed to be effectively impossible, and culturally, too many people who should know better passively tolerate it rather than confront it. It turns off donors, repulses allies, and makes team projects unviable."

But for the victorious Mises Caucus crowd, it was Bishop-Henchman and the pragmatists who lost sight of basic libertarian respect for property and due process in the New Hampshire battle and are now taking their balls and going home when things for a change don't go their way.

LNC member Joshua Smith remembers when "this [whole Mises Caucus thing] was just me and 50 other people chatting on a Facebook page." Today he finds his faction victorious after a bitterly fought battle over a party already struggling for respectability and vote-share, one in which an affiliate with fewer than 200 members can shake a national political party to the core.

"But now," he says, echoing a common Ron Paul fan meme, "It's Happening!"

 

**The article previously stated, according to sources on the scene, that Kauffman had paid for Brennan's LPNH lifetime membership. Kauffman, and other sources, say that is not true, and Brennan provided evidence it was not. The author regrets the error.

***The sentence preceding the three asterisks was added since original posting.

 

 

 

NEXT: Judge Rejects New York City's Ban on Cops Compressing Suspects' Diaphragms

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. This is why we can’t have nice things.

    1. Do you want ants? ‘Cause that’s how you get ants.

      1. I met a traveller in an antique land who said:
        “Six vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert.
        And upon the pesdestal these words appear:
        ‘My name is Ozymandias, King of Ants!
        Look upon my feelers, Termites, and despair!
        I’m the biggest Ant you’ll ever see!
        The Ants of old weren’t half as bold
        And big and fierce as Me!'”

        –Terry Gilliam as Percy Bysshe (Shelly.)

        1. Oops, that’s “pedestal.” I just finished reading William Wod’s Worth’s pram “I Wondered Lonely As A Crab” while drinking a glass of sherry. 😉

          1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular DDS office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

          2. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular SS office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. In high school we referred to him as ‘Percy BS’.

    2. LOL

      So true.

    3. As it was in the last election, Mean Tweets are preferrable to Wokeism. Mean Tweets, however distasteful and how icky the tweeter, harm no one who can remember a child’s playground mantra. Whereas Wokeism corrupts everything with Orwellian language to mask its Totalinarianism, and is wholly incompatible with Individual Freedom

      1. I agree. The idea that “we are a big tent party, but no tent is big enough to hold racists and people of color, transphobes and trans people, bigots and their victims” is the wrong approach IMHO. It seems far more tolerant, open minded, and respectful to let bigots know we’d like them to join the party but that while they’re entitled to their opinions, libertarians hold the ideas that it’s immoral to initiate force against others, and that all people should be treated equally before the law, close to their hearts and minds. This all in the hope, that the examples libertarians provide in their actions, will help change bigots’ minds about their bigotry.

        In fact, rejecting people for their beliefs and refusing to let them speak, is what’s wrong with the woke. It’s far better for unity that people talk about their beliefs, and leave the initiation of force to criminals which will be dealt with by the government (if it’s doing its job). That “children’s playground mantra” about sticks and stones vs. words is true and part of the reason for the first amendment.

        If one can’t convince a bigot to change their ways, then it’s acceptable to not associate with them, and IMHO not serve them in your business as well (but that would likely result in a lawsuit if not prosecution for violating the Civil Rights Act, which took away our freedom to not associate with those who we find offensive, unfortunately). With the CRA, while businesses found they could no longer turn away customers based on race, sex, and nationality, but also they can’t turn away bigots either without potentially being sued if not prosecuted. But yet again, it’s a better approach IMHO to serve bigots and hope your example will change their ways.

        1. Well said! I completely agree.

    4. That’s why the libertarian party has always been an irrelevant thing.

      “Splitters!”

      1. THE 1972 LP platform WROTE the Roe v Wade decision. Women even voted for us while that plank stood in defense of individual rights. #Spoiler votes matter

        1. Roe V Wade was a bad decision. And we know full well how you get off on infanticide.

          You’re a wacko, and part of the reason that the LP is a joke.

          1. Long time readers of Reason know abortion concerns a conflict between the rights of the mother over her own body, vs. the rights of a child/fetus, and that libertarians.

            I understand people against abortion, believe abortion is murder, but I don’t agree. E.G., I don’t agree a mother should be forced to carry a child to term if she’ll die as a result, in the case of incest or rape, or if the child won’t survive for long. And I’m sympathetic to those who used contraception because they’re not ready for a child, but the contraception didn’t work, in getting an abortion. That’s my position, and I’m OK with the SCOTUS rulings.

  2. “We went through in 2020 one of the worst tyrannical totalitarian regimes in modern history”

    I didn’t know the LP was so critical of communist China.

    1. I assume that he’s probably referring to the overwhelmingly liberal democrat mayors, county boards, school boards, and governors who locked us in our homes, closed schools, shut down businesses, and forced us to wear face panties for over a year, after gaslighting us all that it would only last for two weeks.

      He is exaggerating a little, bit within the context of America, he’s basically right. 2020 and early 202- was the worst extended period of totalitarian rule in this country going back to the days when segregation was still state-sanctioned law in many American jurisdictions.

    2. Pretty sure he was referring to the US, not the world.

      1. If so, he should have said so. What he said was perfectly clear.

        1. Given that we already have 3 different interpretations here, I’m going to say that it is not perfectly clear.

          1. Only because you are being purposefully obtuse.

            1. He was perfectly clear, and so was his conclusion.

              1. Who? The guy who began with “I assume…”?

      2. What’s the difference? It’s true of nearly the entire free world. It was an enormous downturn in liberty worldwide.

    3. Communist China was the regime that covered up and allowed the spread of the COVID-19, which prompted our home-grown totalitarians to lock-down, pilfer medical supplies and delay testing and vaccine research, put the infected in rest-homes and kill elderly, etc. ad nauseum. So it’s all of a single piece.

      1. Well I vote to send the Libertarian party leadership to China to clean that up.

    4. I’m pretty sure he’s referring to both Trump and the liberal governers and mayors. What did Trump do to free the people from the oppression put upon them by their governors and mayors? Don’t act like the Trump and congress weren’t complicit in those lockdowns. They turned their heads and let our businesses suffer, our liberty get trampled upon.

      1. Seems to me “Trump and congress” have no authority or standing to tell States how to run their governments, unless a State is violating the Constitution. I’ll add that neither Trump nor Congress created any laws or rules about locking down businesses due to a pandemic. Trump/Congress have no standing in court because their businesses weren’t locked down AFAIK.

        Government has increased its control over business to such an extent, it’s hard to see how government could argue that state/local governments have no control over those businesses and whether they can open their doors or not.

        Finally, I’ll just point out, it was Trump who first said we need to get back to work and open our businesses, and all he got was pushback from the Democrats, the MSM and Fauci. BTW, did you read that Trump cancelled Fauci’s grant to the Wuhan lab after learning that the virus may have leaked from it, and Fauci resisted that cancellation? That’s motivation to undermine Trump and cover up his contribution to the creation of the pandemic.

  3. The irony being that the toxic individuals are those who support neo-racist belief systems like anti-rascism and CRT. Not those who object to them taking over one of the few liberty minded parties. If you want to support neoracism the Democrat party is right their. If you believe in individual freedom as one of the most core principles, you can’t support neoracism. You got to pick one, and any party dedicated to one didn’t have any business promoting the other to the detonate of its stated principles.

    1. That’s my feeling too. I get the impression that some people decided to pander to the woke fad, which is a decidedly non-libertarian action and deserving of all the pushback possible. But the anti-woke crowd went too far in their own way. It’s like the reaction to the Civil Rights acts, which destroyed freedom of association: the proper response is not to defend racism but to defend the rights of racists to be racist in their private life, but not in government. Of course, that would require principles, and the willingness to take heat for explaining those principles, and that is not something any politician will ever do.

      1. ” It’s like the reaction to the Civil Rights acts, which destroyed freedom of association: the proper response is not to defend racism but to defend the rights of racists to be racist in their private life, but not in government.”

        Out of curiosity, who’s doing that latter? The only active racists in government I’m aware of are Democrats, who call their racism “anti-racism”, in an irony so thick you’d have trouble cutting it with a knife.

        1. Yeah, I am out of date. If you had asked me, even just a couple of years ago, if racism were making a comeback, I’d have been dumbfounded at such a stupid question. But to want to make it mandatory, to berate and insult people for not being racist enough, or properly racist, and to make it official government policy, to teach it in schools and make it part of the military’s training, I would have written you off as more deranged than a KKK wizard running for President.

          1. Yep. Amazing that 2014 was the reversal in a 150 year steady improvement in race relations

          2. The same can be said of the sexism of genderism. The assertion that ones private parts and dress must comport with ones thoughts and feelings is the essence of sexism.

            1. I always thought “the essence of sexism” was discriminating against someone based on their sex or that one sex is superior to the other (in ways other than the ability to birth a child). You seem to be talking about people who believe they were born with the wrong sexual body parts, or are one sex in their head and heart, but another sex in their genitals, which must be frustrating for them.

              1. I’m glad I could set you straight, then. No, the BASIS of sexism is the belief that ones sex determines what is appropriate behavior and appearance for them. Sex discrimination is the enforcement of that belief. To believe that ones body parts are somehow “wrong” because they don’t comport with ones “head and heart” is sexism itself. Those who reject sexism would never find it “frustrating” that their “head and heart” fail to conform to sexist stereotypes about their sex.

        2. “Irony thick and tough enough to require a Ditch Witch.”

      2. I get the impression that some people decided to pander to the woke fad,

        They’re probably university or government employees who see through that lens and can’t un-train themselves.

      3. Sounds like the Mises crowd need to find their own Desantis- strong on the substance, still combative and pugnacious, without the distractions of Mean Tweets.

        Or, you know, support Ron Desantis.

        I literally cannot wait for the Woketarian rationale against Desantis in ’24

        1. He’d Hitler 2.0 who supports literal slavery and murder of trans bipoc’s. There you go. Now you know how it’s going to go. Who he is and what he’s done literally doesn’t matter in how he will be portrayed by partisans.

          1. You don’t the voters, that might improve his status among them!

        2. The “meanness” of the Mises Caucus’ tweets is absolutely overblown. Saying you won’t join onto neoracism (CRT) and doing so in a funny way isn’t mean. CRT neoracism is an abysmal ideology that absolutely needs authoritarianism to survive. It’s not mean to put authoritarian bullies in check.

          1. I agree with you, but the opponents of “mean tweets” or “edge-loarding” have a point regarding recruiting people to support libertarian policies and candidates, because those actions lead a lot of your average Americans (who are neither educated about libertarian ideas, and don’t know what libertarians stand for and why) to just reject libertarians as kooks. It’s better to be respectable and courteous than a verbal bomb thrower when seeking to persuade or recruit. While only speech, verbal bombs leave the wrong impression about the use of real bombs.

      4. I feel that the articles in Reason lost sight of the radical nature of the dangerous cancel culture foisted upon the country by the “progressives” and their Big Media propaganda arm. Just as the ACLU has been emasculated by the fear of truly free society, I wonder if the Libertarian party has been corrupted from its basic tenets of being “dominated by support for freedom, property rights, free association, and due process.” Too bad we can’t reach out to the national majority of deplorables who also stand for those tenets as well. Unfortunately, the intellectuals among us look down their collective noses at common people.

      5. In what way did the anti-woke crowd go too far? This wokeism fad is one that promotes racial discrimination and it absolutely needs an authoritarian government to see it’s objectives met. I struggle to find a rejection of racial discrimination and authoritarianism that is “too mean” in it’s substance.

        1. Well “anti” means “not” and her tweet was “it’s not enough to be not racist, we must be anti racist.” So if we are reading her comments in the plain English she tweeted “it’s not enough to be not racist, we must be not racist.” Seeing as that is an illogical statement, it is therefore logical that Jo was instead using the term Anti-Racist in it’s new context.

          The leading document on this new context for the term “Anti-Racist” is a book which promotes deliberate discrimination on the basis of race.

          Now, Jo is either saying go practice racial discrimination on your own private time (in which case she is advocating her supporters deliberately behave like assholes) or Jo is saying the government must engage in this practice of racial discrimination, in which case she is in fact advocating for behavior that requires government force. Either way, that tweet was an unforced error.

          Leaders also have a responsibility to know what the fuck they are talking about. Jo might claim ignorance for tweeting a call to be “Antiracist” but it would be like Trump retweeting the quote “We must secure the existence of our people”. Sure, Trump might think that’s a good sounding quote about protecting America and not realize it’s the start of a famous white supremacists line, but would he get the benefit of the doubt for it? No. Jo doesn’t get to tweet dumb shit either and just walk away unscathed.

          1. I disagree that “not racist” and “anti-racist” are the same thing in plain English. “Not racist” is just that, not being a racist. It’s about your own behavior. “Anti-racist” is being against racism. In a libertarian context, it would be against racism by the government.

            1. “Anti-racist” means being in favor of giving government unlimited power to impose equality of life outcomes (what they call “equity”) between the “races”.

              1. The incorrect presumption that we should use government force to end individual discrimination (rather than just government sponsored discrimination), pervades the arguments with the woke regarding racism and anti-racism, or more broadly, bigotry. It’s codified in the Civil Rights Amendment that businesses can’t discriminate based on sex, race, etc. Which is unfortunate, because it removes some of our freedom of association. It also leads to unnecessary expense from people suing businesses for illegal discrimination, when they were legally discriminating based on things like skills. Seems to me that under the CRA, a black hotel owner could be sued for refusing service to a White Nationalists convention; thus, losing the benefit of being able to refuse service to a bigot to encourage them to be better.

                When dealing with these issues, try moving the conversation to “use of force” or “initiation of force” examples, and note the distinction between government sponsored bigotry and individual bigotry. Typically this ends up with the woke arguing that conservative speech is initiating violent force that harms them, so they’re right to defend themselves with violence. Then I apply the “shoe on the other foot” test, if I’ve the right to defend myself with violence based on their speech. This also results in arguments about who defines what actions and what speech is bigoted or not.

                At this point one can see the woke believe they’ve the right to jail you for your speech if they don’t like it, while you don’t have the right to jail them for their speech if you don’t like their speech. They’ve basically declared war on you if you don’t submit; thus showing themselves to be the oppressors they really are.

                Allowing people to discriminate or be bigots has two great things going for it. First, the bigots show who they are. Second, no one is forced to do anything. It should be (is?) the libertarian position that bigotry should be legal (except by when the government does it), and that it’s better for you, and a lot nicer, to not be a bigot.

                1. Leftists explicitly reject the “shoe on the other foot” test. They make no pretense about applying the same rules to everyone. Critical theory sees all human interaction as conflict between fundamentally differing identity groups.

    2. Note to foreign readers: The masked identities cluttering the mag are referring to racial collectivism. They reframe it in Newspeak so as to add tu quoque and ad hominem spin to the disadvantage of COMPETING racial collectivists they see as rooting for the “wrong” eugenic variant. None of this is remotely individualist or libertarian.

    3. Concur. I find the Wokeism far more offensive than the purportedly offensive tweets. Child labor laws really *should* be repealed. As well as the CRA.

      1. Yeah, they should be repealed. I hated them when I was 14 for keeping employers from hiring me. But, how will we convince the electorate to favor elimination, or even reform, of child labor laws? How? Libertarians, at least in the LP, are long on pronouncements but short on persuasive argumentation.

  4. I’m afraid this kind of schism will cost the Libertarian party future elections.

      1. #theliberatarianpartydidntkillitself

        1. RIP McAfee

    1. Sadly true! I wish libertarians could be more “Big Tent”. Government Almighty is way too damned large! Individual freedom is way too small! More individual freedom would be good for all of us, individually AND collectively!

      The rest is details, not really worth fighting over.

      1. Libertarian Party should be for libertarians. What good is being “Big Tent”? What is the point of being the Democratic or Republican Party?

        1. All parties and all politicians have to compromise at least a tad. Being absolutely pure and holy gets you absolutely NO power to get ANYTHING done! “Anything done” includes decreasing Government Almighty power, which is sorely in need of getting done these days!

      2. “The rest is details, not worth fighting over.” Wow. This declaration is a detail right there, but I guess we’re allowed to discuss this demand that people not explain what they’re talking about. People who advocate “freedom” often advocate opposite policies. Tere is no evading the necessity and advisability of provide arguments, explanations…details.

        1. Discuss, yes, Fight over, no. All depending on what “fight over” means, yes, sure!

          Successful political parties… “Successful” meaning “actually changing the status quo”… MUST be “Big Tent”, MUST accommodate divergent sub-factions!

          More unity and less fighting, more cohesion over central principles and less nit-picking, and, um… More palatability to the general public? THAT is what is needed for actual success! Libertarian purity? Sure, strive for it! But for real traction in the real world, we have to minimize internal fighting, and concentrate on what matters! For me, what matters, is “smaller Government Almighty”!

          Persuading libertarians of the need for unity is like herding cats, so I don’t know how to tackle that…

      3. The rest is details, not really worth fighting over.

        The devil is in the details.

    2. If the other option is winning elections with in name only libertarians. Who will happily give their stamp of approval on the government using force to remake society in collectivism image. Is that a bad thing? Sometimes the best thing you can do is not give cover to the anti indivualist neoracists.

      1. Anyone displaying a willing to compromise core principles in order to gain power is only interested in power.

      2. Like Jo Jorgensen?
        She managed to both approve government mandated collectivism and lose.
        But hey, no more tweets.

        1. She did? She made comments about being anti-racist, but I didn’t see anything about government mandating it. Do you have any links to back up your claim?

          1. If you understood what anti-racism is, it inherently requires government force.

            Jo pushed out a statement about being anti-racist.

            You can claim she was ignorant, but she pushed an ideal that requires government force to implement.

            1. JesseBahnFuhrer, you are more full of shit than anyone can shake a stick at!

              I am anti-tattoo… I think tattoos are ugly, and defile the human body. But I know that’s just a petty personal bias that I have, and I keep it mostly to myself. NO GOVERNMENT ALMIGHTY FORCE IS INVOLVED!!!

              HOW can one person be SOOOOO full of shit, JesseBahnFuhrer!?!?!?!?

              I am anti-JesseBahnFuhrer-full-of-shit… Does that mean that I just used Government Almighty force to abuse you, whining cry-baby?

            2. That’s a pretty stupid argument. Essentially you’re saying that because Jo used some Marxist buzzword that it’s some kind of Marxist dog whistle. And it can’t possibly be that she is using the plain meaning of the prefix “anti” and the word “racism” to mean what they’ve meant for the entirety of the English language in our lifetimes to simply say she is against racism, and thinks we should all take an active role?

              Repealing mandatory sentences for crack that is different than powder cocaine is both anti-racist and small government. And that’s just an example from today’s articles.

              1. JesseBahnFuhrer imagines that JesseBahnFuhrer has a strangle-hold on the English language… Granted to Him (Blessed Be His Holy Name) by what, Holy Government Almighty Itself? Exclusive franchise on the IP of words and phrases definitions? Who knows?

                “Anti-racist” means Marxist, demonist, coercion and torture! So says JesseBahnFuhrer! All MUST obey the NEW-SPEAK definition of anti-racist, per JesseBahnFuhrer!!! All Hail Der JesseBahnFuhrer!!!

                (If you disagree, you are EVIL, stupid, deluded, ignorant, or all of the above! JesseBahnFuhrer said so!!!)

                1. Squirrelsy, Ya gotta learn how to turn the statist rhetoric against them in favor of us – that is, anti-racism is not possible without individualism. If one is anti-individualist (anti-libertarian) one cannot be anti-racist. Don’t let them define anti-racist, we define it.

              2. Well “anti” means “not” and her tweet was “it’s not enough to be not racist, we must be anti racist.” So if we are reading her comments in the plain English she tweeted “it’s not enough to be not racist, we must be not racist.” Seeing as that is an illogical statement, it is therefore logical that Jo was instead using the term Anti-Racist in it’s new context.

                The leading document on this new context for the term “Anti-Racist” is a book which promotes deliberate discrimination on the basis of race.

                Now, Jo is either saying go practice racial discrimination on your own private time (in which case she is advocating her supporters deliberately behave like assholes) or Jo is saying the government must engage in this practice of racial discrimination, in which case she is in fact advocating for behavior that requires government force. Either way, that tweet was an unforced error.

                Leaders also have a responsibility to know what the fuck they are talking about. Jo might claim ignorance for tweeting a call to be “Antiracist” but it would be like Trump retweeting the quote “We must secure the existence of our people”. Sure, Trump might think that’s a good sounding quote about protecting America and not realize it’s the start of a famous white supremacists line, but would he get the benefit of the doubt for it? No. Jo doesn’t get to tweet dumb shit either and just walk away unscathed.

                1. Exactly this. That tweet cost her my vote.

                  1. #MeanTweets

                2. Trump tweeted absolutely ridiculous statements all of the time. The left often called them dog whistles for whatever straw man they built in their heads at the time. They were stupid for it.

                  So is reading so much into a tweet from Jo who was a pretty good record on promoting limited government, to mean this one time she was asking for government controls of major portions of our lives.

                  If you weren’t going to vote for Trump or JoJo because of tweets then you probably weren’t going to vote for them anyway.

                  1. This! The above statists (Government Almighty worshippers) were just looking for an excuse to not vote libertarian, and they found one!

                    “Anti-racist” simply means “opposed to racism, and willing to say so”. Equating that with “willing to use Government Almighty force to beat you up for perceived or imagined racism” is, itself, a dog-whistle, indicating your willingness to lie, lie, lie, for your own power-grabbing, evil purposes!

                    “All anti-racists are power-hungry statists” is, itself, the lie being told by the statists! Beware of wolves is sheep’s clothing! Just a TINY bit of honest thinking will cut right through their bullshit!

                    1. “Anti-racist” simply means “opposed to racism, and willing to say so”. Equating that with “willing to use Government Almighty force to beat you up for perceived or imagined racism” is, itself, a dog-whistle, indicating your willingness to lie, lie, lie, for your own power-grabbing, evil purposes! All anti-racists are power-hungry statists” is, itself, the lie being told by the statists! Beware of wolves is sheep’s clothing! Just a TINY bit of honest thinking will cut right through their bullshit!”

                      The author of the book on being Antiracist defines Anti-Racism as actively using discrimination to correct past wrongs. He also actively says people of certain races are aliens and that the white man invented AIDs to oppress black people.

                      I can oppose racism without joining the Anti-Racist label brand being promoted by that author.

                      If you want to address Ibram Kendi’s racism and retract your dumbass comment I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

                    2. Ibram Kendi doesn’t own the “anti-racist” term. Period! It is THAT simple!

                      If I write about me being “anti-messy-housekeeping” and I say that Jews are dirty, and should be kept OUT of my house, to keep it clean, does that now mean that all “anti-messy-housekeeping” people are anti-Semitic?

                      Elementary logic fail, liar! WHY are you pushing this lie?

                    3. Ibram Kendi doesn’t own the term “Antiracist” but JoJo tweeted what she tweeted at the same time everyone was shilling Kendi’s book. People with brains can appreciate context. For instance I know that the Swastika is a Hindu symbol for “well being” but I don’t assume someone rocking jackboots and a shaved had with a Swastika tattoo means wishes of “well being” to all.

                      JoJo could have easily said people should actively oppose racism but she said people should be “Antiracist” when the conflicted context of that term was known. My point was that JoJo had a responsibility to figure out what she was saying and how it could reasonably interpreted in a bad way.

                      The possibilities are that JoJo tweeted something that is linguistically incoherent, that she tweeted something she was ignorant about, that she is advocating for people to practice racial discrimination in their personal lives, or she endorsed a term being used by authoritarians to promote a particular preferred type of racism. Which of those 4 possibilities looks best for JoJo? Which of those 4 possibilities has the most to do with advancing the social understanding of liberty?

                    4. Ibram Kendi doesn’t own the “anti-racist” term. Period! It is THAT simple!

                      ^This.^ Exactly. don’t let the left define the term. We seize the term. It’s not possible to be truly anti-racist without being libertarian.

                  2. It’s not stupid to read meaning into someone’s comments at all. It’s what responsible people do. They consider both the text and the subtext of the messages they see.

                    “If you weren’t going to vote for Trump or JoJo because of tweets then you probably weren’t going to vote for them anyway.”

                    Your assumption here is that tweets were the only determining factor against Trump or JoJo. Trump had bad tweets but he also had bad policy. JoJo had bad tweets and was garaunteed to lose. If I’m going to vote on a garaunteed loser than I’d prefer they at least advance the cause of liberty will they match to their defeat at the polls. They should at the very least effectively communicate what liberty is. I was willing to vote for JoJo on her policy positions alone (knowing she was going to lose like all the other LP candidates I’ve voted for in the past) but her tweet muddled the liberty message and actively confused the libertarian stance on racism and race relations and promoted (whether intentional or not) a mentality that loves racism and requires authoritarianism to succeed.

                    So no, it wasn’t just the text of this one tweet that made JoJo look bad. It was her poor messaging overall that hurt her. Still voted for her. Still got friends to the polls who voted for her. But it’s fair to point out she fumbled this one and it was a poor show of leadership for how libertarians should handle racism. I would have also liked to see the LP speak up on the covid lockdowns more and they really didn’t hammer that message at all. Another muddled message and a missed opportunity.

                    1. You voted for JoJo? Whoa, kudos! I take back at least half of the bad things I said about you! Your anti-anti-racist message is still off-putting and warped! A double negative is a positive, you know! The casual reader should be forgiven for assuming that your anti-anti-racism == racism!

                    2. I find it a bit off-putting that you don’t stand by your vitriol if you think I voted for the right person. I’m not sure such loyal support to a politician makes you a very reliable person when it comes to judging authoritarian tendencies and pathologies. How about instead of lashing out at people you assumed didn’t vote how you wanted them to, you just start off with reasonable discussion (i.e. “I disagree with your assessment) or even a question (i.e. “can you explain better what you meant when you argued the term ‘anti-racist’ is being promoted by authoritarian racists and that people who repeat it’s use support racist authoritarianism?”). All I’m saying is maybe address me directly and challenge my views in a reasoned/constructive way rather than just going straight to the personal attacks.

                      “The casual reader should be forgiven for assuming that your anti-anti-racism == racism!”

                      A casual reader that read my actual argument would not have reached that assumption. So no, people who make wildly bad faith interpretations of other people’s arguments don’t get a pass. I explained my reasoning repeatedly and thoroughly and based on the comments you’re making about me and my argument, you are not responding in good faith to any of it.

                    3. Twitter word limit = 280 characters, The Google (which Knows All) tells me. Jojo had no room for detailed nuance.

                      You, however, had no such limit!

                      Instead of going off on “anti-racism” as if you were an anti-anti-racist (== racist), you could have, from the git-go, wrote something like this:

                      “I disagree with Ibram Kendi’s definition of anti-racism, and Jojo, if she agreed with me, could have plainly said the same. Ibram Kendi-type anti-racism blesses so-called affirmative action. Many-many people will look at affirmative action, and immediately, naturally (if not out loud) question the qualifications of the so-called ‘affirmed’ groups, who have thus been given a special pass. Affirmative action has way too much of a backfire potential.”

                      Done! Clarity in writing or speaking goes a long way!

                    4. “Twitter word limit = 280 characters, The Google (which Knows All) tells me. Jojo had no room for detailed nuance.”

                      This assumes she doesn’t know how to create a tweet thread or even just post follow up tweets. You can go on Twitter and find dozens of paragraphs long, nuanced, well sourced arguments being made. The argument that JoJo could only tweet once and only get out 240 characters doesn’t hold water.

                    5. I disagree with Ibram Kendi’s definition of anti-racism, and Jojo, if she agreed with me, could have plainly said the same. Ibram Kendi-type anti-racism blesses so-called affirmative action. Many-many people will look at affirmative action, and immediately, naturally (if not out loud) question the qualifications of the so-called ‘affirmed’ groups, who have thus been given a special pass. Affirmative action has way too much of a backfire potential.”

                      I’m not in the business of assuming other people’s thoughts or making their arguments for them. I’ll admit I didn’t give her the most charitable reading of her tweet, but its still on her to communicate effectively. She didn’t.

                      You took issue with my original comment and I have dilligently and timely responded to clarify, if needed, my views. JoJo did not clarify her tweet and it’s been about a year.

                    6. “You took issue with my original comment and I have dilligently and timely responded to clarify, if needed, my views. JoJo did not clarify her tweet and it’s been about a year.”

                      Kudos to you then! Shame on her!

                      Maybe her lack of clarification is the usual politician’s fence-straddling… Trying to be all things to all people! This is very common in politics, sad to say!

                      Again, my apologies to you for making too many assumptions. Hard-core right-wing war-mongers are all too common around here, and I lump people together too much!

                3. I am anti-divorce, anti-bad-breath, anti-body-odor, anti-bad-diets, anti-sickness, anti-lies, anti-suffering, and MANY more. And I will say these things publicly, and even advocate that others should get on my bandwagon! Does that mean that I advocate the use of Government Almighty to prohibit ANY of these things, or punish ANY of those who indulge in said activities? Absolutely not!

                  Fkthepostoffice, your lies indicate sickness in your soul! You lie for some clearly EVIL reasons, whose details I know not. But you are sick! And the only people who will believe your lies, are your fellow evil people who desperately WANT to believe your lies!

                  To make inroads on curing your illness, getting a good understanding of it, first, helps a LOT! Read this:

                  M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, the Hope for Healing Human Evil
                  https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/
                  People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.

                  1. “I am anti-divorce, anti-bad-breath, anti-body-odor, anti-bad-diets, anti-sickness, anti-lies, anti-suffering, and MANY more. And I will say these things publicly, and even advocate that others should get on my bandwagon! Does that mean that I advocate the use of Government Almighty to prohibit ANY of these things, or punish ANY of those who indulge in said activities? Absolutely not!”

                    I already explained that the leading literature on “Anti-Racism” directly calls for racial discrimination and a government office to see it out. It is possible to oppose racism and not join on to the label of an avowed racist.

                    “Fkthepostoffice, your lies indicate sickness in your soul! You lie for some clearly EVIL reasons, whose details I know not. But you are sick! And the only people who will believe your lies, are your fellow evil people who desperately WANT to believe your lies!”

                    Sounds from the majority of your comments at me that you are deliberately lying about my position. You also call me evil for reasons you “know not” and you reached this conclusion without even first bothering to engage me in honest discussion. Maybe before calling me the evil boogyman you could engage me in honest conversation first rather than doing this shamanistic chant.

                4. No, you blithering illiterate.
                  “Anti” means “against”, not “not”.

        2. By the way, nationalist populism… aka much of Trump’s political philosophy revolves around government mandated collectivism. All of us sacrificing to pay more for goods to protect domestic industry, citizens having collective property rights that they can exercise and expel immigrants from, etc… those are very much collectivist policies.

          1. I’m actually ok with a degree of collectivism that benefits all. For example we all pay for military and infrastructure.
            Personally I would pay more for domestically made goods as I think it is beneficial to ‘the collective’ which in this case would be the country in general.
            As a communitarian, I’m in favour of things that improve the community and that includes collectively determining who can and can’t be in it. Again, things and people that clearly benefit the community are welcome.
            The line I draw is when we start saying we reward individuals at the expense of everyone else. I’m all for welfare as a temporary safety net, but don’t agree we have to pay Jimmy welfare forever just so he won’t go back to stealing cars.

            1. Political McGuffin, thanks for adding some diversity around here! I am temped to argue with you (me being tempted to be all “pure libertarian” at times), but the hell with that for now!

              Here below is how I would state my heart-felt plea for political diversity and tolerance… Fairly SHORT version that is… (We need more than 1 political party!)

              For all ideological hard-core warmongers everywhere…

              So ye lust after the utter, eternal destruction of the “D” team, and the eternal victory of the “R” team? (The inverse kind of ideological idiot exists also, but not so much, on these pages).

              “R” team likes to demonize “D” team? Biden is going to outlaw the internal combustion engine, tomorrow, to “Make American Green Again”? The NEW MAGA? Bullshit, demonizers!

              “D” team likes to say that the next “R” POTUS (Alex Jones maybe?) will outlaw ALL abortion, and birth control? And turn ALL women into enslaved baby-making machines, because every sperm is sacred? Bullshit, demonizers!

              All is for The Hive… The Tribe-Nation… Or, All is for the Individual, and you may NOT (of your own supposed “free will”) join a VOLUNTARY commune?! There can be NO compromise, traitors!!!

              The males must UTTERLY DEFEAT the females, who must NEVER speak again!

              Yin must smash Yang, till Yang exists no more!

              Creation must smash destruction! NO eggs may be broken, for making omelets!

              Life must rule over death, and NO ONE may die, to make room for the new living! No matter HOW old and decrepit they get! YOU MAY NOT DIE!!!

              Do you ideological idiots NOT see that “R” v/s “D” falls into the same category? You would destroy it ALL (multi-party democracy, “balance”) in the name of your POWER PIG FANTASIES!!!

              The ONLY way that ye will get your “ultimate victory” is in the DEATH OF IT ALL!!! The new POTUS, Alex Jones, will declare Nuclear War for the Ultimate Victory… And yin and yang, male and female, “D” and “R”, individual v/s tribe… they all ARE NO MORE!!!

              Are you HAPPY now, ideological idiots and power-lusters?!!?

            2. The line I draw is when we start saying we reward individuals at the expense of everyone else.

              This is literally what tariffs do. Reward individuals in the pet industry at the expense of consumers of that industry, which is pretty much everyone else.

            3. You do realize that a “McGuffin” is a thing, not a person right? That is how Collectivists and Statists regard you.

              Do you seriously think it is you who decides what benefits the Collective?

              And if government can only give by first taking, how can you have Collectivism without benefitting one at the expense of others?

              Instead of identifying as “Communitarian,” why not just skip the bottle and go right for the rock and identify as “Communist-tarian?” Or get the worst of all possible worlds and identify as “Communist Aryan?”

      3. Compromising principles to lose elections anyway is definitely not worth it.

        1. Brian implicitly smuggles in the idea that the election that fails to seat its candidate is lost. The Prohibition Party got 1.4% of the vote in 11 campaigns and injected the Prohibition Amendment while helping Jack London and other communists to add the Income Tax Amendment. Its platform became the law at gunpoint 1919-1933 and its spoiler votes wrecked the economy in 1907-12. Winning is repealing coercive laws, not hiring politicians.

    3. I’m afraid this kind of schism will cost the Libertarian party future elections.

      THIS is what I come to the Comments section for. Funniest thing I’ve read all day.

      1. Watching it sail over Sarc/sqrlsy head was almost as funny.

        1. “And one of the party’s few elected officials, DeKalb, Illinois, City Clerk Sasha Cohen, resigned from the national Libertarian Party (L.P.) in protest…”

          Straight from the article. Libertarians can and do win elections! (That is, when voters are smart enough to distinguish real libertarians from fake-libertarian troglodytes, who do their worst to make the real libertarians look bad). And SMART libertarians can and do actually READ the article, and pay attention to the FACTS!

          1. Doubling down on missing the joke. Nice.

            1. You’re the joker, R Mac! You call yourself a libertarian, while constantly lusting after your Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief, the Great Whitish-Orangish Pumpkin-Father, to come back and nationalize Facebook, Google, etc., you right-wing private-property-hating Marxist you! Just because they might hurt Your Precious Baby Feelings, and take down your post! You WANT to turn libertarianism into a joke, so that you can have it YOUR authoritarian way!

              You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
              https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
              From the conclusion to the above…
              These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.

              SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authoritarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an authoritarian asshole! You do NOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that authoritarian asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!

              1. Gibberish.

                1. ANYTHING that R Mac can’t understand is gibberish! That encompasses most things existing, except for goo-goo-gah-gah!

                  1. Easier to just flag the spaz

                    1. Fuck that, the mute button is a godsend. I don’t even have to flag it.

    4. Hear, hear!

    5. Hahaha BINGO!

      If the complaint is that this will cause issues with winning elections, maybe that’s a GOOD thing based on the LPs past success!

      1. This sockpuppet does not define “winning.” The real Patrick Henry opposed ratification of the Constitution as another ersatz mercantilist monarchy. His opposition caused the backers to deliver the Bill of Rights he wanted. That is an example of winning a victory for individual rights without electing candidate X to office Y.

    6. Does it really cost Libertarians elections? It’s not like they were winning them before mean tweets.

  5. Seems the Mises folks have some points, among them:
    “…The most common policy complaint heard about the L.P. in 2021 from Mises types is that the national party and most state affiliates were not vociferous enough against COVID-related lockdowns, thereby dropping the ball on the most vital liberty issue of the times…”

    1. “freedom, property rights, free association, and due process.”

      Common sense would dictate that the best way to grow the party would be to keep it simple, stick to the fundamentals, and accept the other differences that arise.

      But when one continually hears whining about “toxic” behavior that is nothing more than speech it is clear that those fundamental principles are not the true priority for many.

      1. That word “toxic” is a key hint about what follows. It is, to subvert the new subverted meaning, a toxic indicator.

    2. Yeah. If the LP was good for anything they would have been the loudest voice against all the public health tyranny bullshit.

      1. Not sure about the LP itself, but several candidates in the last election cycle made covid lockdowns a key issue and distinction between them and the incumbents. Donald Rainwater in Indiana most notably. He ended up at 11% in the election. Most of the other gubernatorial candidates polled about where Jorgenson did in their states.

      2. The core problem, that many in this debate fail to recognize, is that most direct party social media accounts intentionally suppressed talk about COVID. They did this after seeing other accounts get suspended/banned. Sure, we could have posted about COVID and get banned. Then be a footnote in stories about social media overreach, but 2 months later we will still have zero voice, and no way to reach out to the community.

    3. I don’t know about the rest of their platform complaints, but opposing the lockdowns and governors and state and county health czars exceeding their lawful authority and infringing on peoples’ freedom to associate and conduct peaceful business should have been plank 1A at the national and state LP levels.

    4. What’s sad about that point is that it wasn’t just the Mises Caucus that hated the lockdowns. The GOP base hated those lockdowns for exactly the same reason the Mises libertarians did – it robbed them of their business prospects and individualism. 2020 was a massive missed opportunity to reach out to disaffected GOP voters and say “hey, we agree the lockdowns are awful, and you know what else is awful? A ton of stuff the government does.” It’s not a garaunteed win buts it’s a foot in the door. The LP didn’t even try. Instead JoJo pandered to the woke crowd, which already had a candidate whose numerous personal shortcomings they already planned to ignore and instead vote for no-matter-what. The LP is stupid to think it can win sympathy and support from the left. The saying goes GOP campaigns like libertarians and governs like Democrats. Democrats by contrast campaign with whatever message they need to and then govern like half-assed socialists. It’s far more logical to appeal to the GOP base which loves the libertarian-esque campaign message. The LP doesn’t understand that the GOP base is made up of voters who love the messaging and hate the actual politicians and often complain they are getting “RINOs” who talk a big game and never deliver. That’s an audience that’s ready to hear something new and the LP doesn’t get that. If some of the “libertarians” would climb down from their Ivory tower and talk to voters they might figure out a useful strategy. Otherwise every election since 2000 has been a huge opportunity and the LP has blown it every time.

  6. This Mises Caucus crowd is the same poo-flinging monkeys as appear on comment threads here. They are nihilists and they will (try to) destroy everything they touch. Whatever or whomever is associated with them will also be destroyed. Their only practical goal is to obliterate the meaning of ‘libertarian’ – which is easy to do and they will succeed at that.

    There is a bit of a problem with the ‘Pragmatist Caucus’ in that there is always a risk that they will compromise basic principles in order to wet their beak with power. But the Mises/radical crowd is not even remotely a ‘keep your eye on the prize’ focus. They are nihilists.

    1. “This Mises Caucus crowd is the same poo-flinging monkeys as appear on comment threads here.”

      Good thing they aren’t the arm-waving, know-it-all, ego-maniac assholes like JFree!

    2. Rothbard himself pretty much admitted that his goal is to obliterate meaning as generally understood. It is why that crowd dog-whistles all the freaking time:

      One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy. Other words, such as “liberal,” had been originally identified with laissez-faire libertarians, but had been captured by left-wing statists, forcing us in the 1940s to call ourselves rather feebly “true” or “classical” liberals. “Libertarians,” in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over, and more properly from the view of etymology; since we were proponents
      of individual liberty and therefore of the individual’s right
      to his property.

      1. Adopting and changing the meaning of one label I wouldn’t really call “obliterating meaning”.

        1. I’d say that one label – and from that paragraph it is both ‘liberal’ and ‘libertarian’ so even there it is two – is fairly key for that political party.

          1. You don’t say!

      2. And of course, anyone who’s been in the party long enough knows full well that it was Murray who wrote those newsletters. It’s an open secret.

        1. Paleo-Rothbard and Lew Rockwell’s attitudes in Jeffrey Tucker’s writing style. Most insiders believe it was Tucker, which is somewhat surprising given that his humanitarian criticism of “libertarian brutalism” turned the LvMI Hoppeans against him.

    3. I get you’re a leftist and prefer the totalitarian woketarians but you already have the Democrats and the green party to choose from.

      1. Why the fuck do you even want a ‘political party’ to wreck? What’s your goal?

        You people are like a dog chasing an ambulance. Without the friendliness of tail-wagging.

        1. Yeah! Stupid libertarians expecting the Libertarian Party to defend things like liberty and property rights!

          1. He doesn’t want you to defend anything. JFree wants you to cower in a lockdown because you might die.

          2. Stupid libertarians expecting the Libertarian Party to defend things like liberty and property rights!

            How do you get from there to – here

            John McCain’s brain tumor saved more lives than Anthony Fauci.

            Is this from the ‘Projectile Vomiter’s Guide to Influencing People’?

            1. Evidently, according to the Mises Caucus, principled Libertarians who affirm property rights and favor bold messaging must also endorse offensive alt-lite edgelord assholes trolling from the party’s social media accounts. You’re a wokertarian if you disagree.

      2. I have never understood why the Odious Misanthrope Caucus doesn’t just go to their people in the white nationalist American Freedom Party. There they could conspirikook together with their like minded anti-immigrant, anti-free-market (but I repeat myself) compatriots.

    4. LOL. People who actually believe in liberty and not just getting slapped across the face are poo-flinging monkeys.

      Keep being you JFree.

    5. The irony of JFree’s statement is of course the fact that the side he seemingly sides with here is the side that “kicked everyone out of the party to unilaterally change the bylaws” while the poo flinging monkeys advocated their positions openly and attempted change through party elections.

      Never change JFree.

    6. Despite her vicious attack on John Hospers and defense of Nixon and continued conscription-fed murdering in Vietnam, Ayn Rand made the LP possible at a time when Ludwig Von Mises was repeating what Nazi war criminals said at Nuremberg. (They whined Hitler NSDAP was better than USSR socialism). But Rand did stick up for women as individuals. Mises and Ron Paul conservatives could form another T-party and hand out Mutterehrenkreuz instead of making the LP seem a YAF subsidiary.

    7. Hey, if you hate principles so much, you might be in the wrong place.

  7. What if I want to vote for property and civil rights, balanced budgets, and also don’t want Twitter slacktivism? Are there any candidates on the ballots that match that?

    1. Is free association a civil right? Which right trumps it?

      1. Freedom of association disappeared with the 1960s Civil Rights acts. It’s not enumerated, unlike abortion, and of course the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated wrongly, so there you go.

        1. The CRA also effectively destroyed right to contract as well.

      2. Of course free association is a civil right. Yes, the CRA is a mistake, no “owning the libs” on Twitter is not the right way to fix it.

        1. Absolutely true. The correct way is to never bring up the issue and cow-tow to leftist desires in the hope they’ll someday see things your way despite never providing an alternate framing.

    2. Ron DeSantis, 2024

      1. I second this

        1. Thirds.

  8. Oh my! I don’t know whether I’m more amused at “destruction of the party’s ability to appeal to voters and win elections” or “the soul of America’s third-largest political party”. Because the Party obviously doesn’t appeal to voters or win elections, and the significance of being Americas third largest party is on par with the goldfish being the 3rd largest fish in the tank, right after the killer whale and the whale shark. Yeah for 3rd largest!!!

    I only had to keep reading to see if Brian was going to include the Star Wars theme song as background music. So much drama!

    1. If you have no chance to win elections (as is demonstrably true from decades of historical evidence), the least you can do is loudly oppose the other parties when they attempt to trample on people’s freedom.

    2. Another competing party infiltrator here to divert attention from how libertarian spoiler votes are THE most powerful mechanism for repealing laws that violate individual rights. That’s what winning is to non-looters. Anyone who imagines that joining the fraternity of professional parasites is more important than repealing bad laws really belongs in The Kleptocracy.

  9. Seems this split mirrors the situation with small l libertarians. The lockstep wokenes we see as editorial policy at Reason versus those that think maybe an unarmed protester being murdered by a federal cop might be a bigger issue than defending the right of Facebook to censor on behalf of the Democratic party.

    1. “murdered by a federal cop”

      We do not even know he was a cop. Remember how much outrage we read when camoed federales were merely arresting rioters?

    2. Racist! Get out of this huge tent!

  10. Chimpanzees murder each other for territory. We evolved from chimpanzees.

    The progress of mankind largely due to our ability to think, reason, and peacefully communicate and cooperate with each other, as an alternative to violence. You can beat a man and take his house, or his farm, but it’s really hard to beat a man until he invents a car, or antibiotics, or new farming methods.

    The degree to which we become impatient and use state coercion to force human progress, is the extent that we still act like chimps. It’s regressive, and, by not only tolerating this kind of societal behavior, but encouraging it, systemize it, and using it as a first try rather than a last resort, we validate this kind of chimp-like ethos, and risk devolving back into it. You can see this in the hostility and resentment in our society that correlates highly with the politicization of everything.

    That’s not a good thing, and we should work hard towards real human progress: peaceful, voluntary cooperation.

    Is there a party for that?

    1. No. But I suspect a party that actually admits humans are mostly animals (not just chimps – also a bit banana and chicken and amoeba) would look very different than any existing party. Let’s face it – political parties are mostly based on the notion of advancing particular ideas. Not on any other non-frontal-cortex part of the brain

    2. Bravo, Brian! Well done, Sir!

      The real libertarian ethos is morally and ethically superior. The rubes, brutes, chimps, and trumpanzees (as well as the hard-core socialists) resent the hell out of us! Not to mince words… There it is! You can see it right here in these comments. The real libertarians draw the ire and the fire of the less-evolved ones.

      This isn’t just blather. It’s backed by science. Sociobiology may not be a “hard” science like physics, but it’s still a science. It tells us that yea verily, the righteous WILL be persecuted! See full details at http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/

        1. Case in point. Ethical-moral-intellectual troglodytes can not STAND those who make them look bad!

          1. You’ve got something brown on your chin.

    3. Observe that the communist anarchists impersonating libertarians NOW believe that the LP has to be a monopoly–but only with their clueless Henchmen, treacherous antichoice Tokyo Rose and whack job, no-borders, Brainless and Boothead in the limelight causing voters to prefer the Kleptocracy to having anything to what they have made the LP. We should have expected no less sabotage after the real LP rerouted 127 electoral votes from 13 states, with our 4 million covering the gap between the 2 looter Kleptocracy factions. Before that, all anarchists believed in institutionalizing war as the alternative to even a partial monopoly on restraint of violent men.

  11. “we are a big tent party, but no tent is big enough to hold racists and people of color, transphobes and trans people, bigots and their victims.”
    So which do we kick out? The racists, transphobes, and bigots, the other folks, or maybe some of each?

    Clarity is important.

    1. The bigots have to go. Except for the anti religious bigots, they are a protected class in the LP.

      1. So does opposing special cut-outs in the law for religion and opposing Statism and Collectivism supported by religion constitute bigotry?

        1. By “Special cut outs in the law” do you mean recognition that legislation alone cannot supersede Constitutionally recognized rights?

          That such impositions can only be accomplished via the amendment process?

          1. Although I certainly agree that the statism and collectivism inherent in the various sects of the Marxist religion remain a serious threat to liberty.

            1. Funny how so many free speech “absolutists” are downright hostile to any notion that religious freedom should have similar scope…

          2. By “special cut-outs in the law,” I mean many things that are in legislation supported by religion.

            For example, why is it that religions circle the wagons if their tax-exempt status is threatened, yet never call for everybody and everything to be as equally tax-exempt?

            Why does The Roman Catholic Church get to gamble, but two old duffers playing checkers for keeps on the front porch can get a visit from the Vice Squad?

            Why does Masterpiece Bakery have a right to discriminate on religious grounds, but no one else has a right to discriminate on non-religious grounds, and indeed, no one could discriminate against religious customers in the way Masterpiece Bakery has done with LGBTQ+ customers?

            Religion either needs to call for freedom for all or stop bellyaching when their own favored freedoms are taken.

    2. Seems like he never heard of the Democrat Party then.

    3. This masked meh has not read the original 1972 LP platform. It defends women, defends America, rejects anarchism, child molesting, surrender, disarmament and calls for the equivalent of the Free Trade and Production Amendment set forth in Atlas Shrugged. Our competitors the Dems are for Communist Manifesto plank 2. God’s Own Prohibitionists are for Comstockism and all forms of violent Prohibition laws. Choose.

      1. Why reject child molesting, and still approve of destroying children before birth? Kind of a mixed message, no?

        1. Hank is barely intelligible, you surely cannot expect him to be rational, or logically consistent.

          1. Slightly better chance than with SQRLSY one.

  12. “John McCain’s brain tumor saved more lives than Anthony Fauci.”

    Fauci’s still around. Give him time.

    1. Only if we develop time travel and send him back to strangle baby Hitler.

    2. Yeah, it was a bit tasteless to say it, but can you realistically dispute the truth of it? McCain was a serious warmonger, among his many defects, and Fauci, realistically, has saved very few lives, may have even net cost lives over the last year or two.

    3. “John McCain’s brain tumor saved more lives than Anthony Fauci.”

      Can I get that on a t shirt?

      1. You can try, but paypal won’t process the payment.

        1. Start your own PayPal.

          1. pressing own t-shirts likely easier

  13. It sounds to me like the state party just escaped a takeover by “liberalitarians”.

    “The state party’s restored Twitter feed wasted little time resting on its laurels. “The ultimate goal of wokeism is to infiltrate, occupy, and dominate every cultural, political, and corporate institution,” the account tweeted June 20. “The Libertarian Party isn’t immune to this. It must be identified and stopped immediately.””

    Indeed, the LP HAS been targeted as part of the left’s “march through the institutions”, and the degree of subversion away from actual libertarianism, in favor of ‘liberalitarianism’ is frighteningly advanced.

    “The Mises crowd is far more likely to find only actual physical assaults on people’s persons, property, or liberty worthy of condemnation, what they call “NAP violations” (for the “non-aggression principle”), not what they might write off as merely (at worst) bad words or bad thoughts.”

    This sounds like a very traditional libertarian position indeed.

    And the way the former chair seized the assets and took over? Yeah, that’s a very natural thing for leftists to do when power is slipping their grip.

    1. Seems that way to me too. I haven’t been an LP member for over 20 years. But in spirit I continued to supported the party. All of the woke shit last year really turned me off from the LP. Glad to see a bit of a reckoning here.

    2. BS. The Mises crowd are like the preachers at a lynching. Rile the crowd up – point them at the target – and then wash their hands.

      1. Who gets lynched in this stupid analogy? Only those who cant keep from clutching their pearls ever tighter

        1. I’m getting a case of the vapors!

          *fans self with bonnet*

      2. And the anti-mises crowd are like the actual lynchers. Maybe look at why your side of the aisle decided to violate the NAP and engage in actual undeniable theft. Maybe it’s because he principles don’t actually prioritize individual liberty and respect for others property. A.k.a. the only things that make you a libertarian.

        1. Well said.

        2. If the rest of the LPNH executive committee had “constructively resigned,” then it wouldn’t have been theft of digital assets. As the LNC doesn’t believe that to be the case, it does constitute a, perhaps accidental, act of theft by Jarvis, et al. But Caryn Ann Harlos has been a crusading, histrionic pain in the ass throughout this whole affair.

          1. Yeah, telling the truth about wokism, et al. is really a pain for those that push it.

    3. Where is their platform?

  14. Business as usual in the Crazy Party. It’s why I’m not coming back. Most people in the Libertarian Party are not libertarian, they’re just contrarian. They knee jerk opposed to anything mainstream. I recall a state convention where the anarchist wing used Roberts Rules of Order to disrupt every motion just because. They could use the rules to mess up the proceedings, and so they did. It’s the core of that faction’s philosophy.

    It’s one thing to dislike the choice of Gary Johnson as their nominee. I mean sure, plenty of Democrats didn’t like Biden, and enough #NumberTrumpers to demonstrate not all of the GOP was on board iwth Trump. But these same people openly declare themselves, literally, “Neo-Confederalists”. That Lincoln was a more evil man that Davis. I was actually at Mises Institute talk where the speaker only declared that slavery was better for Blacks.

    That these fuckers are taking over the party is sad. But not surprising. The LP has been woefully inept at keeping the rotten apples out. Small party doesn’t want to turn anyone away, not even the crazy conspiratoids or the raving racists. Holy shit, the Pennsylvania party once nominated a card carrying Nazi because they neglected to do the most minimal of vetting.

    Ditto at my local level were I used to be on the exec committee. It was a constant battle with the crazies. Convicted child molester was continually on the ballot because no one had to conviction to tell him to get the fuck out. UFO nuts trying to take over county chapter, “you’re not for freedom if you don’t want the trooth!”. Thankfully we’re sort of settled in. But crazy counties all over the map. Just north of me in San Francisco they’re batshit insane, to the point that Starchild is the calm beacon of rationality. There’s a county down south were the LP is just a branch of the Trump Party.

    In the end, this is the problem with political parties. ALL political parties. They are not based on a set of ideas, they are based on very loose coalitions of fallible and mistaken human beings, each faction with its own set of crazies trying to wrest control of the party from the mainstream.

    So libertarianism needs to get away from the idea of a being a party, and get back to the idea of being an idea. Stop devoting itself to being a brand name, and get back to being about the non-initiation of force, limited and severely curtailed government, and unalienable rights of all people regardless of whatever, and freedom for me AND thee.

    1. Yeah, the LP is pointless for the most part. I’d say both sides in this little drama were rife with craziness. Libertarianism does seem to attract a lot of weirdos. Some groups opposed to the public health tyranny of the past year have way too many crazy ant-vaxers and conspiracy theorists claiming the whole thing is a hoax.
      In NH, libertarians ( small “l”) are actually getting some things done as Republicans in the legislature. I don’t love everything they are doing, but right now that seems like the only way to go if you actually want anything to happen.

      1. I got out of the LP back in the late 90’s, due to a combination of realizing that ‘campaign reform’ had closed the door for third parties actually succeeding, (As it was intended to do.) and realizing that the LP was being taken over by grifters and incompetents.

        The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was Jon Coon’s second campaign. Lavishly funded, and flooded with volunteers, we went into election night thinking we had a shot at winning, and were crushed like bugs. So I had a conversation with his campaign manager, and found out they’d made a deliberate decision to only poll on name recognition, not whether anybody actually intended to vote for him. And had been completely blindsided by how badly they were going to lose.

        More resources got thrown into that campaign, (On the basis of his Senate race the previous election.) and wasted, than the LP would typically spend in multiple states, and they had done that to us.

        I walked out the door and turned my back on the party, I was so bitter about that.

        But it was still my first political home, and it has been sad watching it overtaken by left-wingers who really do not have a genuine libertarian bone in their bodies. So I’m enjoying watching the Mises people beat back that takeover, even if they’re not my very favorite people. Sounds like they at least know how to organize and care about the principles.

      2. The Covid thing is over as far as I am concerned. My family are all vaccinated and that is all you can do. Those who refuse, well that is on them.

        There are lots of those deniers and conspiracy nuts but you can’t argue with a conspiracy theorist any more than you can with the people who think Trump won the election.

        1. I certainly hope so. But it’s still very important that legislatures dial back the emergency powers that were so badly abused by governors. And there is some somewhat hopeful stuff going on in the NH legislature thanks in large part to the “liberty caucus”. 2020 has probably been the best election so far for Free Staters and other NH libertarian-leaners.

        2. Almost as tough as trying to listen to a dick sucking leftist simp who insists the “experts” and politicians who have “proper” intentions are completely trustworthy despite an “error” (aka lying) rate well above 50% and the internally inconsistent statistics they provide.

        3. Lots of side effects happening in kids. Might want to get your offspring heart size checked lol.

        4. “The Covid thing is over as far as I am concerned…”

          Try getting on an airplane.

    2. Have no idea what ‘get back to the idea of being an idea’ means now.

      If it means hold events like public discussions and debates about basic ideas – that sounds great. But I believe that window may have closed in this country. Because NOW – that event will attract the public nihilists like flies to shit. The Mises crowd, antifa, proud boys, etc will all see how far they can achieve heckler’s veto – and will carry the heckling into public violence. It’s Weimar all over and they all revel in that.

      That isn’t ‘universities’ causing that problem. Universities are the ONLY place where that stuff has ever happened in this country. There is no tradition of say ‘Speaker’s Corner’. So the failure of that stuff now in universities is simply an indicator that it can no longer happen in this country.

      And realistically – doing that stuff would not preclude doing anything else. Like for example – forming a political party to institutionalize a small subset of activities that can help advance shared ideas. But the latter takes a completely different skill set – more akin to basic management. Not very prevalent among libertarians.

    3. I don’t want to automatically knee-jerk say “Both sides,” but in the case of LPNH, I will have to say it: Both Sides.

      The Woke Faction that presently holds the LPNH in it’s grips is indefensible. Their efforts at by-passing association by-laws, baiting-and-switching on dues-paying LPNH members, and demanding loyalty oaths are unethical, totalitarian, and, if the allegations of seizing control of LPNH financial accounts are true, criminal. They smear the good name of libertarianism with their acts!

      At the same time, what the Mises Caucus members are doing smears the good name of libertarianism and the good name of Ludwig Von Mises, a man who had barely escaped with his life from the Nazis! Ludwig Von Mises was a thoughtful, serious, kind, compassionate man who would not want his name associated with juvenile trolling, with Neo-Confederacy like Lew Rockwell’s, with racism of any kind, or with even the idle, stupid talk of murdering anyone, including presumably transgendered people!

      Yes, these reasons and all the ugly ones you mentioned are good enough reasons for staying the Hell away from political parties! Libertarianism is best promoted 24/7/365 by living the dream in thoughts, words, deeds and Dollars that vote early and often to help liberate both yourself and other human beings you meet in person and interact with online each day.

    4. Brandysot does not know the definition of winning, and is therefore clueless about how spoiler vote clout changes bad laws, amends constitutions and replaces monarchy and junta alike with democracy–albeit not overnight. A longer-range look at history would bring this individual back into the fold as a productive repealer of bad laws–were it not for the preponderant crop of no-borders anarchist child molesters and unemployable caligocephalic cretins.

  15. we are a big tent party, but no tent is big enough to hold racists and people of color, transphobes and trans people, bigots and their victims

    Kind of an odd thing to say. The two big parties seem to do fine and both contain all of those things.

    1. And one of those two big parties is pushing for-real Eugenics and are being cheered on by the media as they do it.

      1. Caught part of that “human engineering” segment on Tucker’s show last night. Inside every bioethicist is a eugenicist screaming to get out.

        1. I have honestly never encountered a bioethicist whose idea of ethics weren’t horrific. The field seems to attract control freak lunatics.

        2. Inside every Eugenicist is a bioethicist trying to get on NPR..

        3. As long as individuals are “engineering” themselves and others consensually (operative term for libertarians) there is no problem.

          In fact, I am waiting for somebody to use something like CRISPR to infuse themselves with chameleon genes. Humans with chameleon genes would put an end to the whole Woke/Anti-Woke/White Supremacist/Afrocentrist/Critical Race Theory horse-shit clusterfuck once and for all!

          With chameleon genes, a Sammy Davis Jr. could join any private club he wanted. A Marilyn Monroe could infiltrate The Nation of Islam. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker would be right at home with each others’ family gatherings. Stormfront and The Root would both be 404 due to lack of interest.

          And if chameleon genes caught on with everyone, either by popular demand or by breeding, judging people “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” would be the default position…forever!

          1. I would totally be involved in biohacking if I had more money, and didn’t have a family who’d be in a lot of trouble if I biohacked myself into disability. I didn’t spend 4 years studying human biology while pursuing an engineering degree because the idea hadn’t crossed my mind.

    2. The two looter parties do exactly that. Whittaker Chambers was the sockpuppet for Soviet agent Jay Vivian Chambers. This was the guy whose review of Atlas Shrugged had Dagny ordering people into the gas chambers. He was ourtaged and shocked, shocked to see parasites who rely on the initiation of deadly force so callously regarded as to refer to them as “looters.” The Prohibition party stood for the initiation of deadly force to ban alcohol, and accomplished that by gaining 1.4% of the vote and destroying the economy.

  16. Oh boy, here we go again with this shit. Mango, GFW, and Park Slope Welchie Boy want to declare on Ron Paul again. Along with anyone else who has the nerve to believe in sound monetary and fiscal policy and not policing the world. Life under Sleepy Joe must be really fucking boring for them or something.

    “I do not belong to the libertarian party.”
    -Park Slope Welchie Boy, on Twitter

  17. 1. This post is longer than the membership roll of the Libertarian Party.

    B. “we are a big tent party, but no tent is big enough to hold racists and people of color, transphobes and trans people, bigots and their victims.”

    I need very clear definitions of all those things. Very clear.

    1. “but no tent is big enough to hold racists and people of color, transphobes and trans people, bigots and their victims.”

      Every party says this, yet if you look at them, they have racists and people of color, etc. The tent is big enough.

      1. Well, when we’ve dramatically defined away almost all of those terms, I simply don’t believe anything they’re saying sans clear definitions of terms.

        Racist: Someone who thinks borders matter
        Transphopes: Someone who thinks young girls (or professional women) who have spent years developing their sport deserve to compete within their biological class without being suddenly blown out the competitive running by a boy or man who “identifies as”.
        Bigots: People who say stuff you disagree with.

        1. but no tent is big enough to hold racists and people of color, transphobes and trans people, bigots and their victims

          Anyone who says this holds identitarian principles as their core belief. Frankly, exactly the type of person I wouldn’t want to associate with.

        2. A “bigot” is anyone who disagrees with their beliefs.

    2. I need very clear definitions of all those things.

      Reading her complaints her definition seems to be “anyone who criticizes wokeism”. Good riddance to her.

  18. Jarvis and 13 other LPNH members during the short-lived rump party wrote up new bylaws and a new platform, and crafted a familiar-sounding Libertarian oath with a new ending

    Uh – She also required every former member to rejoin (and repay), and one of the bylaws was that you wouldn’t be eligible for holding a committee seat for 2 years. She turned LPNH into a dictatorship.

    1. She also required members sign on to an explicitly woke (“victims of oppression”) pledge.

        1. The article?

          1. “I will not advocate or endorse the initiation of force as a means to achieve political or social goals. I will advocate for the freedom from oppression and coercion for all New Hampshire residents and affirm that as Libertarians we condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.”

            Is this what your referencing?

            1. Just more “thick libertarianism”. IOW, collectivism.

  19. Oh, so libertarians have started to reclaim their party?

    What’s Reason going to do?

    Will Reason shed the leftists who have slipped in wearing libertarian skins? Or will they take that circling journey down into the sewers withy the rest of the leftist turds stinking up the place?

    Sadly, they’ll probably choose to get flushed.

    1. It’s kind of to be flushed when you’re not even really floating around in the bowl.

      “I do not belong to the libertarian party.”
      -Park Slope Welchie Boy, on Twitter

  20. Beltway losers are going down, how soon til this rag gets tossed due to being as ineffective as the lolbertarians who are losing the LP?

  21. …in an attempt to regain control of a Twitter feed that had since the party’s convention in March made headlines by saying stuff like “John McCain’s brain tumor saved more lives than Anthony Fauci.”

    Any press is good press.

    1. Doesn’t hurt that it’s true, along with the kids getting jobs instead of wasting time in gov’t schools.

    2. Unless someone writes about you in a Medium article. I’ve lost track of the # of careers that have been ended on that site.

    3. Was McCain the guy who caught on fire while all dressed up to napalm primitive villagers on the other side of the planet who never invaded These Sovereign States?

  22. That me summarize the article for anyone who doesn’t want to read the whole thing…

    The Libertarian Party is a shit show. New Hampshire’s branch is no exception.

    There it is. Nicely summed up and you are not missing anything, unless you happen to live in NH and follow libertarian politics there.

    With the Republicans, they have to deal with both the ultra conservatives religious right, as well as the more socially moderate. But they still pick a side. Pro Life, for example, is a “party position”, even though many of the more moderates don’t agree. The Democrats are same way, Socialist on the far lift and the Blue Dogs toward the middle. Platform wise; however, they pick a position and it (for the most part) becomes Party Line.

    Libertarians, on the other hand, don’t seem to ever know who or what they stand for. Years ago, a professor broke down the parties for our class (I have no idea where this originally comes from):
    Liberal – Equality>Freedom>Security
    Conservative – Security>Freedom>Equality
    Libertarian – Freedom> either Security>Equality or Equality> Security

    While simplistic, it also neatly illustrates The Issue. When your party is made up of right+left leaning folks on Social and right+left leaning folk on Fiscal, it makes your party SEEM all inclusive. The reality though is that without a firm “this is what we believe” platform, you end up with a leaf-in-the-wind party. That, and it doesn’t help it is the official party of , extremists, kooky, and single issue candidates.

    The fact that Libertarians use Gary Johnson’s election numbers as a win (best results ever!) show just how far away from reality or relevancy the party really is. Trump v. Clinton had the two most contentious and hated candidates running against each other in at least in the TV era. 3.27% is an embarrassment and the fact he couldn’t even reach Ross Perot’s numbers (18.91%) should have been the death of both his public career and the party as a whole.

    1. While simplistic, it also inaccurate.

      1. One of the most liberal documents ever written contains this affirmation of the heart of conservatism.

        “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”

    2. “…Years ago, a professor broke down the parties for our class (I have no idea where this originally comes from):
      Liberal – Equality>Freedom>Security
      Conservative – Security>Freedom>Equality
      Libertarian – Freedom> either Security>Equality or Equality> Security…”

      Yeah some prof said it, therefore……….

    3. Rocky Racoco here could benefit from auditing some classes on differential equations. The Fisher-Pry approach to market share shows how a product or ideology captures market share on a curve that accelerates to the halfway point. The second derivative then reverses sign much as it did for population growth after the Pill and LP plank replaced Republican bans on ALL birth control. With Gary and a somewhat originalist platform, the LP was on track for replacing half the Kleptocracy in a couple decades. But antichoice and anarchist host parasites with outside support derailed that. Live and learn.

  23. Seriously this LP navel gazing drama-trauma is a recurring theme. I have some perspective on this as a 2020 Delegate from the Midwest. If I see a silver lining it is that the overall “ignorance” by the general public to the LPs inner battles remains both a feature (lack of exposure) AND a Bug (lack of professionalism and decorum in LNC is nothing new and its stench stays mostly internal to LP members. The unique aspect about this recent LPNH controversy and the fallout is that the LNC had few “adults in the room” and I can cite LNC business memos authored by the MC-aligned Joshua Smith, the Secretary Ms Harlos and the LNC at-large members like Richard Longstreth who simply cannot contain themselves when “staying out” may have served their causes better than treating each other like twitter trolls on official memos. In the case of former Chair Bishop-Henchman he resigned but not for the reasons in his resignation memo, he resigned because he had to have realized that he carelessly overstepped his authority. In the case of MC Board Members like Smith, he seems to relish each communication as an opportunity to “own the prags” and cannot pause to ask what brought them (or other non-MC members) to the party and ask if there is common ground between them. To conclude – The blind spot exposed here in the LNC (as in many past years) is the lens is always – ALWAYS – zoomed in too far. Back that up to a 10,000 ft level, and any remaining adults in the room can see the diverse backgrounds and ideological journeys that brought all these warring factions to the Libertarian party in the first place are the common ground and potentially an organizing and electoral strength for the LP. They won’t tap into that strength until they voluntarily associate as one party for liberty, and thereby avoid making fractious associations like caucuses at all.

    1. Interesting comment.

      I do think that the only window for a political party in this country is a LOCAL focus party. Because we are not really a two-party country but a one party country. Where the local ‘winners’ and ‘unorganized non-competitive opposition’ coalesce at the national level into two national parties – and those national parties are nothing but vehicles for big money, consultants, media manipulators. But if they don’t even compete locally, why do local oppositions coalesce into them?

      Denver – where I live – is a one-party city. Under age35 or so, ‘unaffiliated’ is the largest party by far. D’s second. Everything else is irrelevant with an equal chance (zero) of winning any election at any level. By age-45, D’s are the biggest party, unaffilated are 2nd and falling, R’s are a distant irrelevant third, and everything else is the irrelevant wing of irrelevant.

      ‘Unaffiliated’ IS the ‘opposition’ party here. But it has no voice. Without a local voice, R’s step into the vacuum and appear to look like the opposition party.

      1. The big problem with the L’s is that it attempts to replicate the ‘national’ focus of the D’s and R’s but without the ability to attract big money, consultants, media manipulators, organization skills, coalesce local oppositions, or the savvy to step into vacuums.

        1. P.J. O’Rourke summed up the LIbertarian party… and ‘libertarianism’ in general best: It will never really attain political power because it’s not a political movement, it’s an anti-political movement.

          1. Having the goal of gaining power so that you can ruthlessly leave people alone is a bit different from normal politics.

          2. That’s really the biggest problem, I think. Hard to get most people excited about not doing things.

          3. Doesn’t have to be that way. If ‘libertarianism’ (or whatever) were to be partially defined as ‘advancing negative liberty’, then ‘restraint’ is a hugely valuable political means of framing the issues and advancing them.

            For whatever reason (probably Rothbard), that doesn’t seem to be an allowable option for ‘libertarians’. There can never be any agree to disagree. Everyone must surrender to the proper analytical framework. There is no restraint because there is no understanding of ‘other’. If you disagree, you are a commie statist responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.

            1. We actually were gaining ground. What happened is that we didn’t gain enough of it before the major parties realized the danger they were in, and moved to change the laws and institutions to be more hostile to third parties. Taking the debates away from the League of Women Voters, and creating a bipartisan commission to run them. Changing ballot access laws to require much more effort to get on the ballot, while changing campaign finance laws to starve us of money. Prevailing upon polling companies to omit mention of us, and even display the numbers with the third party support omitted from the totals. Prevailing on the media to report election results with our votes subtracted.

              They hit us from a dozen directions at once, and we weren’t big enough yet to shrug it off.

              At this point successful third parties are effectively illegal, and the only people involved in them are the folks who are either too clueless to realize that, or whose criteria for success don’t require winning elections.

              1. I don’t see how the late-80’s L’s were remotely significant enough to focus on national stuff. The ballot access stuff is a state level issue even if both D’s and R’s cooperate on snuffing it out. The prez debates are for Prez not anything else. They should have focused on local then as well.

                Maybe there was some backroom shit where Koch was going to be the big donor to the L’s after his 1980 run. idk. Big donors certainly require national party. But the fact is that didn’t happen. Koch is an R. Period.

                And the fact is that it was the L’s who switched their convention from odd years to even years – right when the Prez debates were taken over by the parties – thus completely eliminating the L’s ability to sell their ideas to the public during the D/R primaries when ideas are discussed. Having L ‘primary debates’ that involves privatizing roads, yapping about WW2, candidates stripping off to diapers, talking about bake sales, or wearing boots on your head – during those D/R primaries – is – the Monster Raving Loonie Party. And then pretending to have your convention compete with the high-budget D/R convention circus? It’s idiotic and incompetent.

              2. For one thing, it IS history that they took the debates away from the League when the League decided to include third party candidates. That was what prompted it.

                I was a serious LP activist from the late 70’s to mid 90’s, and basically every change they made to election laws made things harder for us. I don’t believe for a second that was an accident.

                1. I don’t think any of it was an accident either. This timeframe doesn’t really address the behind-the scenes agreement allowing Perot to participate in the first all-and-only-CPD debates. The agreement was that Perot had to suspend his campaign from early July on. IOW – you can participate on TV or campaign for office but not both.

                  But the main point of mine remains – focus on local stuff and that national stuff doesn’t matter as much. The weak link of the national parties is not the party control of debates and elected officials. The weak link is the media’s willingness to kowtow to that. But until you can deal with that (which requires a really media/PR savvy candidate/party) – focus on local.

            2. There is no restraint because there is no understanding of ‘other’. If you disagree, you are a commie statist responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.

              Libertarianism, for all its virtues has a streak of utopianism in it. That’s what happens with utopianist philosophies. Any deviation from the core beliefs is seen as betrayal.

              1. I agree that there is some of that. But there is also a large contingent of the Mises crowd that is mentally ill when it comes to interacting with other people.

          4. Political power is the time derivative of the ability to kill. Interesting that the antichoice Trumpista puppet here is fascinated by that, whereas libertarians are keen on using votes to bring about a net reduction in the initiation of deadly force. To republicans like O’Rourke who believe killing is the answer, we who make their candidates lose and thereby make their platforms less deadly are counterproductive, obstacles, not-with-the-programmed or (GHASP) anti-political!

  24. “high school never ends” is axiomatic but this is more like 7th grade.

  25. “One executive committee members’ suggestion that they consider not running a gubernatorial candidate if a specific Republican much beloved by the state’s larger liberty movement (which in New Hampshire has always been far more geared to the GOP than the L.P., even or especially among Free State Project members) was used to suggest the new ExCom was deliberately taking the L.P. out of electoral politics.”

    —-Brian Doherty

    I recently read an article about Jason Osborne, the current Republican majority leader in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. He appears to have come to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. Having a libertarian as the Speaker of a state legislature should be big news enough, but that isn’t the half of it. Take a look at this statistic:

    “Last year, he gave $50,000 to Make Liberty Win, a PAC dedicated to electing libertarian-leaning lawmakers nationwide. That figure is an eye-popping sum by New Hampshire House standards.

    In New Hampshire alone, the group backed 76 candidates in state representative races. Fifty-three of them are now part of the majority Osborne leads. Greg Moore, who runs the state chapter of the conservative group Americans For Prosperity, says these lawmakers are more ideological, with less experience in traditional public service, and they are changing the state Republican Party’s center of gravity.

    —-New Hampshire NPR

    https://www.nhpr.org/post/out-public-eye-jason-osborne-helps-lead-historic-push-gop-nh-house#stream/0

    From punk rock to beer and politics, as things become more popular, their intensity tends to become watered down. That will always remain true for libertarians, no matter the path to influence. However, so long as we have single member districts, our political system will be dominated by two parties, and infiltrating one of those two parties will always be the path of least resistance. Anyone who believes otherwise is wrong.

    The goal always should be to influence the voters to demand libertarian policies and, thus, move one of the two major parties in the direction of libertarian voters. If libertarians on the ground in New Hampshire have already achieved enough influence to elect 53 libertarians as Republicans, then, for goodness’ sake, why the hell would the Libertarian Party run a candidate against a libertarian nominee when they could have a libertarian House and a libertarian governor?!

    If you care about whether the politicians in question are Libertarian, Republican, or Democrat–more than you care about whether their policies are libertarian and capitalist–then you have lost your way. Running a Libertarian candidate for governor, under those circumstances, against a libertarian Republican wouldn’t just be self-destructive. It would also be unprincipled. There isn’t anything principled about fighting against the cause of liberty over allegiance to a label.

    1. “There isn’t anything principled about fighting against the cause of liberty over allegiance to a label.”

      Sure there is: Branding. Right now, I’d wager the vast majority of people in NH have little to no idea of the in of Libertarian influence. Not only would you have to pay close attention to politics, but to individual candidates. Even fewer outside of NH would ever realize that it is a stronghold of LP politics.

      Libertarian influence isn’t some the voting populace at-large is going to be aware of and the LP and LPNH get little in the way of benefit from a brand awareness perspective. So while policy making might be favorable to libertarians right now, branding should be the long term strategy for party growth, fund raising, and influence.

      1. I don’t care about the branding, and electing “Libertarians” would be a bad thing if they didn’t reflect the principles of liberty and capitalism.

        I care about low taxes, low spending, gun rights, an end to the drug war, school choice, deregulation, etc., etc., and if the candidates fighting for those causes were called something other than “Libertarian”, that’s just fine with me.

        If people come to think of the Republican party as being libertarian–because the Republicans become associated with championing and implementing libertarian and capitalist principles, that will be a good thing.

        A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

        P.S. I don’t make the rules. I just account for them.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

        1. This. I don’t care about helping the LP get more fundraising. I want a lawmaker who will vote to expand my freedoms and cut my taxes. I don’t want a lawmaker at all but having one on my side is of more value to me than pouring money into a party that perpetually fails to deliver winning candidates.

      2. “Even fewer outside of NH would ever realize that it is a stronghold of LP politics.”

        Why should this matter to people in NH?

      3. Branding doesn’t lead to influence (except among those associated directly with the brand), it actually tends to lead away from it, because then people become distracted by the brand itself. This is true whenever an innovative product brand becomes associated with the innovation itself. People then get confused by the short-cut of looking at the brand, instead of the features, and eventually the innovative brand stops being innovative at all.

    2. This is a story thatshould get more attention. They are still a minority, but liberty minded republicans did amazingly well in the 2020 state elections. The Senate is still a problem, but they have a lot of power in the house now, including having the majority leader. It’s a shame the former speaker Hinch died last fall. He was a lot better than the current one.

      1. This can’t be true. Justin Amash isn’t a rep anymore!

        1. I’m talking about New Hampshire.

    3. Readers will observe that, to Ku-Klux Ken, “anyone who believes otherwise is wrong.” Mystical girl-bullying conservative are really big on beliefs and parables, rather than facts about how the laws change.

  26. The party isn’t splitting apart, it’s growing by leaps and bounds solely due to the Mises Caucus. The current leadership has been a complete failure. Pandering to the left has never worked. The former chairman was for Covid passports and we ran Bill Weld as VP. There’s energy in the party for the 1st time since Ron Paul and people should jump on board or they can go join the Green Party.

    1. Bill Weld, lobbyist for Raytheon.

      Fuck that guy.

  27. also what life did Anthony Fauci ever save?

    1. He’s stretched his political life beyond what any reasonable person would have expected.

      1. fair enough. the cartoonish mountain of skulls he sits atop is a sight.

    2. Probably fewer than his preferred policies killed, anyway.

  28. “‘…and murdering trans people would be a good trade-off for lower taxes.'”

    Interesting. I went to read the tweet because I thought that it would be crazy to call him a libertarian if he was advocating murdering trans people for lower taxes. Here’s the tweet:

    “if 1,000 transpeople were murdered every year but there were no taxes, we’d live in a substantially more moral world”

    It seems like there was some woke spin put on the framing of this tweet. Yes, edgelordy simply because of the use of transpeople, but people moralize all the time: “Hey, inner city blacks, if a few more of you are killed in crime-ridden neighborhoods because we defund the police, well, that’s too bad, but we’ll all be better off because we won’t have police killing unarmed black men.”

    I’m curious how others interpret this.

    1. Huh. I knew I should have read the original tweet to ensure I had better context. Seems Bishop-Henchman is a full-on wokie. Hope he felt the kick in the ass.

    2. It is a pretty fucked up thing to say.

      1. I agree. If he was trying to make a point, he did it the wrong way.

        People who hold liberty as the highest ideal usually recognize that a dangerous world that’s free is better than a safe tyranny.

        But you see what I did there? I said essentially the same thing without calling out the “murder of trans people” specifically. It seems like an oddly specific way of saying what I said above.

        1. Yeah, a political party needs to be somewhat aware of politics. Which includes being careful about how you say things.

          1. Yes, but it was on his personal account. And it was clearly intended to provoke the woke who would simply take the bait here and not actually engage in the moral calculus argument.

      2. Right, we should totally give all we earn to the State so they can rid of us of the tiniest bit of risk and agency. Glad to see you’re on board.

    3. If by “woke spin” you mean pejorative misrepresentation then spot on.

    4. ““if 1,000 inner city minorities were murdered every year…”

      Oh, wait.

    5. I mean it’s an odd moral calculation he’s got there. Even if you believe taxes are theft, I would say murder outweighs theft.

    6. I’m curious how others interpret this.

      I have an annual limit for how much manure I have to sift through in search of a pony. Exceed that limit and a group becomes merely a poo-flinging monkey. That’s usually a one-way ratchet. That caucus far exceeded the manure limit last year – and I don’t see a pony in this tweet either.

  29. And one of the party’s few elected officials, DeKalb, Illinois, City Clerk Sasha Cohen, resigned from the national Libertarian Party (L.P.) in protest, saying in an LNC Zoom meeting that “we are a big tent party, but no tent is big enough to hold racists and people of color, transphobes and trans people, bigots and their victims.”

    The Dems find room for the LGBT community and Louis Farikan.

    1. The Dems have rapist elected officials and feminists, and feminists who apologize for the rapists.

      The Dems have elected officials who talk about blacks being clean and speaking with no black accent, and NAACP flunkies, and elected officials who belong to all white clubs.

  30. The way things are going this might have been the last election I ever vote in.

      1. Do you think not voting is preferable for voting LP?

        1. Either way, you get fascism.

        2. I voted and paid dues to LP because they best represented my political views.

          For now I do not know what the party stands for.

          I would rather support none of the above than something I do not believe in. But that is just me.

  31. Yeah Johnson/Weld was the end for me. I was actually pretty jazzed up about the Ls finally getting on the map and had conversations with quite a few people who seemed ready to go third party considering the choices. But aside from legal MJ, which had plenty of support without the Libertarians, Johnson distinguished himself not at all. And Weld was a total disaster. Voted Libertarian since Harry Browne. And now it looks like the party has been taken over by Reason style leftists. I’m done with these clowns.

    1. Exactly. The LP and reason have been taken over by regressive leftists.

  32. If I were the executive of a company and I donated the assets of the company I was an executive of to a new company I was forming without informing the board of my current company, I’d very, very quickly find myself the recipient of a visit from police officers conducting an investigation for embezzlement. And rightfully so.

    1. Yes, you’d think she’d be in for some legal consequences, not just political.

  33. The Libertarian Party makes the Greater Pittsburgh Area Trotskyite Workers Party look “Big Tent”. (I was not a member but lived downstairs from several who were.)

    1. “Lived downstairs from [Trotskyite Workers Party members]” is a great euphemism for the modern Democratic Party.

  34. I remember as a young man of 10 or 12 I was looking for alternatives to the Baptist upbringing I was stuck in and I found the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. As I was reading it, I noted that ole’ Anton here never had one single original thought. His entire book was a repudiation of Catholicism. If the Catholics said one thing, he simply said the opposite.

    It dawned upon me at that point that to be “anti” anything is to pidgeonhole your brain into an unwinnable situation where your every thought is dictated by your adversary.

    Anti-racism can only be defined by racists…

    “Bitterness keeps you from flying.”. -Lori McKenna

    1. I remember as a young man of 10 or 12 I was looking for alternatives to the Baptist upbringing I was stuck in and I found the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. As I was reading it, I noted that ole’ Anton here never had one single original thought. His entire book was a repudiation of Catholicism. If the Catholics said one thing, he simply said the opposite.

      You haven’t read the Satanic Bible. Or, if you did, you did so at 12, sans understanding –possibly because you thought it was ‘cool’ and have, in later life decided to twist that lack of understanding on your part into a lack of creativity on Lavey’s part to bolster your repudiation of his arguments.

      It is not a repudiation of Catholicism at all. It is a repudiation of blindly following the current cultural zeitgeist.

  35. This is silly. Party members should have just waited for the guy’s term to expire and then elect someone else. I remember something similar happening over someone’s online posts a few years a go. We need to learn from this.

    At a state party convention, we take 5 minutes to elect a slate of party leadership without any prior debate or campaigning. Then we throw a shitstorm to oust leaders we don’t like. It’s the same problem with nominating candidates. We need to put names out for these positions at least a month before the convention to give people time to do research so they can make an informed choice at the convention.

  36. But Bishop-Henchman also tried to argue that the last three months of LPNH executive-committee behavior “amounted to their constructive resignation,”

    This is a bullshit rationalization and therefore a confession the separatists were in the wrong.

    Dyer detects an inconsistency in the Mises Caucus approach. “In broad strokes,” he says, “they see themselves combatting wokeness as having infiltrated the Libertarian Party. They claim they don’t want to fight the culture wars, while simultaneously picking a side, which I think is disingenuous.”

    This is bullshit too. They claim we can’t fight infringements of liberty if they’re “cultural”? Aren’t they just about all cultural?

    I’d label myself pragmatic just based on the brand. But the way the Pragmatic Causcus works to protect wokism from criticism and calls critics racists and transphobes they sound more like leftists posing as libertarians than anything else.

    1. They claim we can’t fight infringements of liberty if they’re “cultural”?

      No. Dyer is misrepresenting their position. For the Mises caucus, libertarianism means standing up for libertarian principle regardless of which cultural message is being conveyed. In that sense, they’re not fighting the culture wars. But, for the woke, not picking a (their) side is picking a side (“the enemy”). So, if you’re like, hey, racists have a right to air their dumb ideas like everyone else, you’re on the racists’ side in their minds.

      And the whole problem with this goes back to when people were proposing “thick” libertarianism. Even then, many of us said, this is taking the liberty out of libertarianism. If libertarianism only stands for liberty as one of a set of values, then any one of those competing values can, and eventually will, start taking precedence over liberty.

      1. No. Dyer is misrepresenting their position.

        That section of my comment summarizes the Dyer position, not the people he’s criticizing.

        1. Ah, my misunderstanding. My apologies.

    2. So racists do not exist? They are mere critics. The charge may or may not be justified but to dismiss it out of hand as wokeness does not seem right.

      1. So racists do not exist?

        The only evidence cited that these people are racists is that they are criticizing wokeism. Anyone using this definition can and should be dismissed out of hand, regarded as illogical, and therefore all future assertions by these people should also be regarded as inherently suspect.

        It’s similarly illogical to conclude recognizing this stupidity is claiming racists do not exist.

        1. I don’t know all of the facts and cannot judge based on an article here with a few select quotes. Especially here which is an opinion blog not a news site.

          Calling someone a racist is inherently a subjective opinion as is calling something wokeness. Racists rarely consider themselves to be one.

          1. Again though, criticizing wokeness does not, in itself, constitute racism. If those claiming the Mises Caucus people are racists have nothing more than their criticism of wokeness to base their claims on, they have nothing substantive to base their claims on.

          2. I don’t know all of the facts and cannot judge based on an article here with a few select quotes.

            Interesting you feign this restraint even as you mischaracterize others as claiming “racists do not exist”. So you attack without all the facts but when defending allies pretend more information is necessary to reach any negative conclusion. The double standard is revealing.

          3. No, there is an objective definition of racist, and if you’re going to call someone racist, you should stick to that definition.

            Making racism subjective is what progressives do.

      2. “Some critics of wokism are racists” =/= “All critics of wokism are racists”.

        If someone is saying “Even racists have a right to free speech”, there’s exactly zero basis there to call the person a racist. No more than there is to conclude that any critic of Joe McCarthy must have been a dyed-in-the-wool communist. If someone is a racist (it’s a separate question as to whether that, in and of itself, means he can’t be a libertarian) then make the case on its merits. Show where the person is a racist. Don’t just say that, because he opposes the “anti-racist” nonsense, he must be a racist.

        1. Even racists do have a right to free speech but not in my kitchen. It is really up to the LP how to frame a stance on it. Outright racism is certainly not compatible with libertarian principles.

          What I am seeing is a party in chaos and am not renewing my membership.

          1. ” Outright racism is certainly not compatible with libertarian principles.”

            Sure it is, so long as it’s outright racism that expresses itself without violating the non-aggression principle. Which is not logically impossible, after all. You could think a race were inferior, without being committed to violating their rights, just as you could be committed to violating rights impartially, without regard to race, creed, or color.

            1. My version of the NAP is broader than physical aggression. It includes written or verbal expression. Racism is not harmless and has resulted in more harm than almost anything else in history.

              So to me aggression is not limited to direct actions to one individual. When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf it resulted in the death of many millions by presenting an ideology. It did not directly advocate violence. That came later.

              1. So, what kind of verbal expression would you consider a violation of the NAP? Can you provide an example? I find that kind of hard to swallow, but you may have something in mind I am not thinking of I suppose.

                1. I gave you an example of one above. The Nazis were not physically aggressive at first but presented an ideology that was inherently aggressive.

                  1. So then your version of the NAP is against all proponents of CRT and other forms of Neo-Racism as adherents have dropped the mask and shown to be extremely serious about advocating violence as a means of spreading their Neo-racist beliefs in the past two years? Because somehow I think your going to claim that that is somehow different.

                    1. Nope

              2. “My version of the NAP is broader than physical aggression. It includes written or verbal expression. Racism is not harmless and has resulted in more harm than almost anything else in history. ”

                Your version of the NAP isn’t an NAP anymore. It’s just an excuse to order people around while pretending to be a libertarian.

                1. ie. Standard issue proggressivism

                2. Do whatever you want. I have not ordered people to do anything.

              3. Words are violence?

                1. Your speech is violence, buy MY violence is speech!

              4. Reading your badly thought out gibberish harms me.

                This means I have the right to eliminate you.

              5. Agree. I’ll go further.

                Racism in the public sphere in the US now is almost always about one person using ‘liberty’ for the purpose of restricting the actual liberty of another person. It is about power not ‘thoughts’. The liberty of the powerful over the powerless. That is not at all the same as the words/thoughts/arguments that you ‘woke’ and ‘antiwoke’ clowns like to engage in. Those are entertainment – shooting the shit at a bar in hopes of getting into a fight.

                It is the difference between classical liberals and specifically Mises Caucus libertarians.

                Liberals understood that power exists and it is not just gummint and not just physical force. The individual – the powerless – the minority of one – is always going to be the one impaled on the pointy end of power (to use a physical force metaphor). So liberals developed/implemented the ideas of trying to reduce that – checks and balances, separation of powers, devolution, the very idea called ‘free market’, etc.

                NONE of that matters one whit to the Mises crowd. They say it does. But in fact everything that classical liberals sought to limit, to compete away, to hold accountable, to set against itself – is, for Mises crowd, to be eliminated entirely. And (entirely ignored) – the reality that into that vacuum will step an unlimited private entity accountable only to itself. It is one reason that crowd instead engages in the Kabuki bar fights of facebook/twitter. I’d argue that is the reason for ‘bold messaging’. To avoid actual discussion – in order to be public poseurs in the bar fight.

                1. You know less than nothing of the Mises Caucus, its members, or beliefs, i.e., what you think you know is clearly wrong.
                  Everyone here is stupider for having read you.

          2. Even racists do have a right to free speech but not in my kitchen. It is really up to the LP how to frame a stance on it.

            But, we’re talking about people who believe they have a right to free speech within the LP, which is definitely not “your kitchen” and not the racist themselves. And the point is that someone taking that libertarian position may or may not be a racist. You have no basis to claim they are or not from that stand.

            Outright racism is certainly not compatible with libertarian principles.

            So, let’s do a little thought experiment. Let’s say you have a Nation of Islam member across the street. Now, he thinks white people are devils created by a mad scientist. But, he’s fully committed to not initiating violence against white people and has no intention or interest in having the government initiate force to infringe on anyone’s rights. How is his stance incompatible with liberty?

            1. Let’s tag this Exhibit #8544 on why echospinner is a progressive

            2. As I said above it is up to the LP to determine and I have not judged this particular case. The party, platform, and policies are their kitchen.

  37. Among the controversial LPNH tweets attributed to Kauffman was a call to “legalize child labor” because “children will learn more on a job site than in public school,” another to keep Gitmo open “so that Anthony Fauci and every governor that locked their state down can be sent there, never again to be allowed inside of the United States,” and still another to “Repeal the Civil Rights Act.”

    Aside from maybe keeping Guantanamo open, nothing here is particularly at odds with libertarian principle. Do libertarians now believe it is the proper role of the government to intervene in voluntary labor contracts? Is it libertarian belief that the government now properly has the authority to determine which customers a private business will serve which ones it won’t? If so, Reason might want to rethink its stand on regulation of social media censorship.

    I can see the response now. “Oh, that might well be true in principle. But, libertarians have to be practical in what stances they take.”. Okay. But, why is it that libertarians only need to be “practical” about stances that offend the sensibilities of the left? If we’re being “practical”, shouldn’t libertarians adjust their positions not to offend the sensibilities of millions of patriotic Americans who wish to see their country honored? If “practicality” is such a concern, should libertarians tone down their church-and-state positions to avoid putting off the country’s Christians?

    Sadly, I think we know the answer. Because Kauffman’s comments about the LP being taken over by woke globalists are not hugely wide of the mark. When it comes to satisfying the sensibilities of progressives too much of the libertarian leadership is all too happy to compromise libertarian principle. And if I’m going to have to compromise my principles, I see little reason to compromise them with progressives rather than with conservatives whose values I more closely share.

    1. I see little reason to compromise them with progressives rather than with conservatives who are more likely to leave me the Hell alone.

      1. Well, I’d rather not compromise my principles with either. As much as I might share values with the conservatives, I think they’re wrong to try to enforce those values. And foolish to try to enforce those values while supporting a welfare state that incentivizes tossing those values aside.

    2. Actually, I don’t think Reason has a ‘stand’ on anything but generating clicks.

    3. My dad put me to work interpreting when I was nine. My second company is over thirty, degree earned, mortgage paid off and 5-star ranking by my customers. Everyone else’s “sensibilities” are worth as much to me as they are to the bank. I seek out and support county LPs that are not like the Kleptocracy or its minions.

  38. LP’s refusal to combat bigotry has led to its demise. Mises Caucus will no longer enjoy the legitimacy conferred by non-bat shit crazy LP members.

    Reason’s kowtowing to the guttural elements found in the comments section will also lead to its demise.

    I stopped being sad about this long ago. I’m happy to see this all go down the drain.

    1. I’m sure the Party of Eugenics will welcome you with open arms. You may commence to while away the hours with your calipers, measuring forehead height, nose width and skin color on a Pantone scale to determine if the cast member was Hispanic-passing-for-white and thus inferior.

      But for all of the film’s themes of diversity and identity, In the Heights noticeably lacks dark-skinned Afro-Latinx performers or characters in any of the film’s major roles, of which there are many. The only Black character in the main cast, Benny, is played by non-Latino actor Corey Hawkins, and in the musical, his character is non-Latino and viewed by Nina’s father as an outsider. Meanwhile, all of the main Latinx characters are portrayed by light-skinned and white-passing actors, which viewers have pointed out on Twitter makes for an incomplete and inaccurate depiction of the Washington Heights neighborhood in New York City.

      1. This sentence was actually written. This combination of words and syllables were collected into a group, and arranged into an article:

        “As a Black woman of Cuban descent, specifically from New York City,” León, who is a Black New Yorker of Cuban descent

        1. Given who the Veep is now, if you say you are of Cuban descent people might think it means you went down on a Cuban.

    2. Is it really a legitimate function of government to combat bigotry? If you just mean within the party, then sure. But it’s not just right-wing bigotry that needs to be kept out, but also the new “Woke” racism and bigotry.

      1. “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – Thomas Jefferson

        Woketarians? Notsomuch.

  39. I am sure the party does not have a soul.

  40. First of all, I gotta say this: With names like Bishop-Henchman and Sasha Cohen, I feel like I’ve landed in the middle of a Steve Ditko comic book about Borat and Brüno.

  41. “a Mises takeover would likely mean “the majority of the people from the Gary Johnson days leaving the party.” ”

    OH NO! Then we could get back to fighting for LIBERTY instead of AUTHORITARIANISM! THE HORROR.

    1. Yeah, but so many Rothbardians are so fucking tediously apoplectic and dogmatic about it with no view to reality. And I’ve already seen that snake eating it’s own tail.

      Like the time I argued with a bunch of “libertarians” who essentially supported smoking bans in cars because smoking in a vehicle with your kids there violated the NAP.

      Right now my vote is for the WE ARE SO FUCKED caucus.

    2. Here we go again with the Odious Misanthrope Caucus and their oft stated “freedom” to ban immigrants from the USA because “brown people can’t understand liberty…”

      Go to your people in the American Freedom Party…

      1. I don’t think your lies will persuade anyone.

  42. Meh. How long has the factions in Oregon been going at it?

    1. Decades. Let that be a lesson to NH.

  43. It’s obvious the LP (including reason) has been pushing wokeism, and that many people have already left the party because of it. I am one of those people. I canceled my subscription to reason a few years ago because of that.

    I didn’t vote for Gary Johnson in 2016 because he was sooo offended by the term “illegal immigrants.” Sarwark and those idiots keep repeating how successful Johnson’s campaign was, when it should have pulled in at least twice the number of votes as it did, and in actuality was a massive disappointment.

    Similarly with B.J. as she was pushing anti racism, which is total BS.

    The 2008 Ron Paul campaign was the best thing to happen to the LP, maybe ever, and the party squandered that capital.

    1. And since then, ironically, trumps presidency was 2nd best but they squandered that too. If only amash wasn’t cucked by the Russia hoax. Thankfully I think rand Paul at least took it upon himself to get trumps ear and influence some policy. Other libertarians could have easily done the same if they werent caught up in the leftist/deep state hoaxes and mean tweets.

      1. Never take seriously anyone who uses “cuck,” or any version of “to cuck.”

        1. Hits a bit too close to home for kevrob I guess

        2. Seriously, is Sullum a cuck?

      2. I agree, Trump should have appealed to libertarians, or more libertarians. Amash is another good example of the woke idiocy infecting the LP.

        1. To me Amash was more financial interests trumping all.

        2. The anti-immigrant, anti-freedom of movement, anti-free market, contract breaking, private property thieving, “Who-the-hell-cares-about-budgets” Trump should have appealed to Libertarians…? Lololol. The Republican Edgelord Caucus slays me.

          1. Trump wasn’t anti-immigrant. He married one. He is against illegal immigration where violent criminals and welfare dependents are encouraged to relocate into the U.S.

    2. Readers will observe that Ron Paul is a lifelong, girl-bullying republican who cross-dressed as a libertarian in one campaign much like William Jennings Bryan dressed up with lipstick for the income-tax Populists.

  44. Bottom line. Why I still refer to myself as a “small L libertarian”

    Not ready for prime-time

  45. I formally asked Henchman to resign 2 years, 4 months and 3 weeks ago and am disappointed it took the infiltrator this long to realize the jig was up. Since then, Henchman and Tokyo Rose Harlos saddled us with communist anarchist Spike Cohen as a candidate-impersonator, and helped no-borders anarchists endorse vigilante murders in the platforms AFTER Gary got us the 328% vote increase (now lost). Antichoice infiltrator Brian Doherty mentions none of this, but neither does any other GOP-backing host parasite.

    1. “Bishop-Henchman” sounds like a minor villain in The Three Musketeers.

      1. As I alluded elsewhere on the comments, Bishop-Henchman sounds like a villian from Steve Ditko comics.

    2. I’m the first to admit I never should have had the faith I had in Johnson/Weld in ‘16.to get even halfway to the 5%. I was deluded., And I won’t try to make excuses for their shambolic abortion of a campaign.

      But I still think they were the better choice than some no-name, no-charisma robot spitting out platitudes about principle when nobody gives a shit.

      Anyway, I’m in the LP should concentrate on local elections anyway. I know that sucks for fundraising but so does throwing it all at the 1% vote presidential nominee.

      1. Actually I think he did get half way. But, youkniwwhutImean

      2. That’s all very true.

        Though the real problem of the Johnson/Weld campaign was not realizing that the media would assassinate them the moment they looked like they were taking votes from Hillary, and not studying and being prepared for that.

        The LP people resigning are the same types who think victory lies through getting along with the mainstream media.

  46. “ transphobes”

    Shaming people for phobias is not libertarian.

    1. Yeah. Some people never get a chance to associate with different race candidates and have been media-drilled until the ether rather leaks. Naturally there’s a social program for that. And when government runs it, they call it affirmative action.

  47. “…returned…back….” Returned back? Are there no editors?

    1. No. There are no editors.

  48. I had no idea the Libertarian Party was this ridiculous. No wonder almost all Libertarians are actually Republicans.

    1. No, its just the Odious Misanthrope Caucus (sometimes referred to as the Mises Caucus) who are Republicans. They even vote Republican. Note how they parrot Trumpublicans in accusing Libertarians of being Democrats and communists…? Listening to a Mises Caucus rant is like listening to a Trumpster Fundamentalist in their endless stream of moral panics. Satanists are running daycares! Joooz are controlling Hollywood! Democrats are eating children! The Libertarians seek to be respectful of other people and their rights. That’s communism!

      1. Trump’s daughter is Jewish as are his grandchildren.

        This kind of smear merchantry is why the Mises Caucus gains influence.

  49. A forthright and candid “Libertarian Party Statement Regarding Chair Bishop-Henchman’s Resignation,” authored by Staff, says nothing about the resignation or the reasons for it. It happened, and Bishop-Henchman will be replaced.

    https://www.lp.org/libertarian-party-statement-regarding-chair-bishop-henchmans-resignation/

    1. Apparent victim to a suicide cult.

  50. John McAffee is dead. Found in a Spanish jail awaiting extradition for tax evasion.

  51. Ken Moellman carefully elided “individual rights” from the list of things he wants you to believe the hulk of the national LP values. Observe he thinks electing one politician is a win. But our authorship of Roe v Wade, nullification of conscription, steady repeal of violent prohibition laws via spoiler vote clout–these are not concerns worth mentioning.

  52. The LP has been exploited by Marxists, but is too autistic to see it. That is the issue with libertarianism in general—some of the policies it advocates are easily exploited by bad actors to harm the country.

  53. I’m a small “l” libertarian and do not side with either side of the Mises/non-Mises divide. The political maneuvers in PA and NH recently by Libertarian office holders including Bishop-Henchman are disgusting and anti-libertarian.

    The Mises, the Pragmatic and even the Waffle house caucus should attempt to take over the LP. This should be in according to the rules of the LP and not through nefarious methods.

    The issue as I see it is that the influence in PA and NH were tilting towards the Mises side of the divide and Bishop-Henchman disliked it. Bishop-Henchman abused his power as chair and attempted to game the system.

    If the LP wants to be taken seriously then the LP executive committee needs to be above board and stop acting like the Democrat and Republican officials.

    Both sides of the Mises/non-Mises divide have lost sight of basic libertarian respect for property and due process. Both sides have more in common than differences. Get people elected and after the LP holds enough power in elected offices, then you can pick apart each other. At this stage in history we need allies, not enemies within the LP.

    Bishop-Henchman should have resigned due to abuse of power. I would not recommend expulsion from the party. The LP needs members and needs a large tent. Purity tests are counter productive.

    All caucuses should strive to gain power and influence to set the LP party platform. Pick out the common goals and leave the individual caucus differences for later.

  54. Just saw that New York yanked Guiliani’s license to practice law there because of his false and misleading statements about the election.

    1. Woo-hoo! Cause enough to celebrate!

  55. What a clown show. The Libertarian party allowed the repiglicans to take over years ago and help elect shit for brains. Now you are whining about it? Bwhahahahahaha,

  56. Will be interesting to see how this works out for LPNH. I am not sure social media edgelording is the best strategy but it sure is the most fun!

  57. I had to laugh at the reference to the Libertarian Party as “third-largest” in America. That’s like calling Danny DeVito the third tallest person in the group when he’s standing next to Shaquille O’Neil and Kareem Abdul Jabbar. It is just calling attention to his small size compared to the other two, not distracting from it. Might as well refer to him as “vertically challenged” instead of calling him short.

  58. “The most common policy complaint heard about the L.P. in 2021 from Mises types is that the national party and most state affiliates were not vociferous enough against COVID-related lockdowns, thereby dropping the ball on the most vital liberty issue of the times.”

    No, the most vital liberty issue of the times was that shooting unmasked people dead was not seen as legitimate self defense under stand your ground laws. In this state I could shoot someone pointing a gun at me. I wouldn’t need to know if the gun had bullets. Why couldn’t I (before vaccinations) shoot someone pointing an unmasked mouth at me? It too could have killed me.

  59. The group of very careful, professional, “let’s not frighten the ‘liberals'” libertarians who have had control of the LP, as well as reason and CATO, for some years, apparently are having their asses handed to them by insurrectionist libertarians who have been joining the LP and taking over local and state chapters.
    They are now tweeting about how they must resign from their posts controlling things because these bad people are joining who aren’t as woke as they are.
    I’m sure some of these insurrectionists say odious things etc. But they are just like Trump, a reaction to Obama and the evils and lies of “progressive” fascism. And the insurrectionist libertarians are a reaction to the intellectual dishonesty of the Beltway libertarians who were unwilling to criticize COVID lockdowns, regurgitated every now discredited talking point from the “public health” bureaucracy, always defend SIlicon Valley multinationals that obviously coordinate with government to censor speech, and insist that using taxpayer money to import foreigners who then impose tax serfdom on American taxpayers is “libertarian.”

  60. As a long time successful NH Libertarian (grew up here, former LPNH Vice Chair, been registered to vote LP any time it was possible on the ballot, coordinated LPNH efforts to convince the Free State Project to pick NH to move to, authored the state constitutional amendment to restrict eminent domain, etc etc etc) and who has espoused a *practical* approach to politics: coalitioning with other parties on specific issues or as blocs with in the state legislature, proposing eminent domaining of SCOTUS justices homes in NH, etc rather than absolutist ideological pontificating, litmus testing etc of people who cannot comprehend the distinction between “is” and “ought”, I firmly oppose the so-called “pragmatic caucus” and its pandering to the woke SJW/CRT/BLM leftist revolutionary movement going on in America and their Alinskyist tactics in smearing Misesians as “racist bigoted sexist etc” simply because they oppose the tactics of the woke left.
    Ron Paul, Von Mises, Thomas Sowell (I notice you leave that influence on the MC out because it conflicts with Reason’s narrative) have been the biggest influences growing the LP for the past half century. Anyone who denies this is a revisionist and did not get here to the LP by honest means.
    Jackie Perry, who you mention, I am very aware of. She’d previously been driven out of being a guest host of the Free Talk Live radio show because she felt FTL should not actually be about the freedom of speech with anyone, on any topic. She has gone on to be a bugaboo of LPNH politics, with the support of her mainly marxist-left supporters and fans on the west coast who consistently operate as a droog gang of woke thuggery on social media against anyone who challenges Perry. She has called me a ethnonationalist despite a complete lack of any such evidence, simply because I point out the inherent contradiction of espousing open borders as if borders are imaginary lines instead of real property lines of the Country Clubs known as countries, big Home Owners Associations, while at the same time opposing interventionism as if those borders suddenly become completely impermeable barriers to defending peoples rights even though core Libertarian philosophy is that the natural rights of the self owning sapient person are universal, and FURTHERMORE at the same time she denies the assertion of her alleged hero Martin Luther King who said, “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.”
    So, for all my outlining the inherent and many contradictions of these self conflicting policy positions, I am somehow an “ethnonationalist” for playing devils advocate to her complete inconsistency of philosophical character at the same time she resorts to personal attacks typical of Alinskyite radical leftists.
    Given all this, I completely support the MC’s campaign to return the LP to sanity, because sanity is what most voters are looking for from the LP, not woke “pragmatism”.

  61. Having spent many years in Oregon and observing the Burke-ite destruction of the Oregon party and years and decades of factional fighting, I feel for the NH party. If Oregon is any example, NH has a long bumpy road ahead.

    I’ve been an LP member off and on for four decades, and held the occasional local party office. I’m not an activist and sadly, I’ve never been to a national convention (mostly because of timing and job and cost). So I definitely don’t have too much room to offer an opinion – but I will say that during the entire 2020 pandemic period, I kept wondering “Where’s the Libertarian Party on this? Why nothing on the destruction of our freedoms and the insane deficit spending?” It felt like a totally lost opportunity and that’s why I was supporting Arvin Vohra for the Presidential ballot in the party – he was just about the only one out there speaking the truth, uncomfortable as it was to hear. But we nominated Jo the Librarian, a perfectly nice and perfectly respectable candidate, who said nothing and did nothing to rile the powers that be. In the midst of the bellicose Trump-Biden race, we needed a bomb-thrower to make ourselves heard – but we nominated a mouse.

  62. Inside the Battle Over the Soul of the Libertarian Party

    Soul? What ‘soul’. Soul is for people who believe in some sky-fairy deliverer.

  63. I’ll take mean tweets over mealy mouthed race baiters.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.