Mises Caucus Takes Control of Libertarian Party
Dominating the convention body by more than two-thirds, the Mises Caucus claims to offer an edgier, more libertarian organization. Foes accuse it of right-wing deviationism and racism.
A four-year battle for control of the Libertarian Party (L.P.) ended Saturday in Reno with a victory for the Mises Caucus at the party's national convention. The faction's chosen candidate for chair of the party's national committee, Angela McArdle, won on the first round of balloting with 692 votes—more than 69 percent of the voting delegates.
McArdle's first tweet after winning was characteristic of her caucus' style: It mocked the L.P.'s recent past, quote-tweeting a March 2020 post that mentioned social distancing. She told the convention Friday she would not allow the party to "humiliate ourselves and alienate everyone" when faced with the next COVID-style crisis.
McArdle, a paralegal and current chair of the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County, said in her speech to the convention Friday that the government response to COVID has left many working-class Americans thirsty for personal liberty, and "we don't want to ignore them." They have, she argued, "low-resolution views of freedom…and we need to bring that vision into focus by communicating our message clearly and by supporting our candidates and affiliates."
While McArdle was the Mises Caucus candidate, the behind-the-scenes mastermind of its victory was caucus founder and leader Michael Heise. His disapproval of William Weld, Gary Johnson's running mate in 2016, was an initial inspiration for the caucus' launch. He found Weld painfully lacking in libertarian orthodoxy, especially when it came to issues such as war and gun regulations.
The caucus's official platform is plumb-line libertarian, but its foes say that too many Mises Caucus members and fans downplay libertarian positions that might offend the right, are intentionally obnoxious and bullying, and are often racist. For example, the New Hampshire L.P., a powerful vector of Mises Caucus messaging, tweeted on Martin Luther King Day that "America isn't in debt to black people. If anything it's the other way around." (The tweet was later deleted.)
The sense the caucus is soft on or actively encourages racism attracted the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center just before the convention began, which aired the concerns in a story reported with cooperation from many Libertarian Party members upset with the Mises Caucus.
Both Heise and Mises Caucus stalwart Joshua Smith, who won the vice-chair election Saturday, denied the charges of racism. Heise* said in a phone interview prior to the convention that the basic vibe they are seeking is online youths into edgy comedic podcasts, a new counterculture for whom the old L.P. holds little appeal. Heise believes that the current rumored frontrunner for a Mises Caucus–approved presidential nominee in 2024, comedian and podcaster Dave Smith, is so well-connected to the Joe Rogan world that legacy respectable mainstream media will be meaningless for party messaging moving forward.
In his nominating speech for McArdle before the vote, libertarian antiwar author and podcaster Scott Horton insisted that he's seen thousands of new convention-attending members energized by the Mises Caucus in the last couple of years. (The last non-presidential L.P. convention I covered, in 2006, had only slightly more than 300 delegates and I doubt more than 20 of them were under 30 years old. This convention drew more than 1,000, and while this is only a guess based on pacing around a huge packed room for a couple of days, I'd say one-third of them might have been under 35.)
Meanwhile, during that same period, fierce factional dueling has played out in hundreds of hours of podcasts, hundreds of thousands of words of tweets and Facebook threads, and often on the business listserv of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) itself. One such fight, summed up at length in Reason in June, involved a faction of non-Mises libertarians in New Hampshire attempting to create a new L.P. affiliate so that the national party could disaffiliate the Mises-dominated one and recognize the new one. The gambit, which ultimately failed, led to the resignation of then-national chair Joe Bishop-Henchman and caused one of the party's few elected officials, Dekalb, Illinois, City Clerk Sasha Cohen, to quit in protest as well, saying "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."
Despite bad blood, I detected no booing or walkouts today when McArdle's victory made the caucus' victory manifest. None of the anti–Mises Caucus delegates or supporters that I have spoken to at the convention—including people from Illinois, Florida, Texas, Massachusetts, and even Mises stronghold New Hampshire—said that this takeover would make them walk.
Two former significant donors to the L.P., Kyle Varner and Michael Chastain, both with decadeslong history in the party, did say in phone interviews that the Mises turn, which they see as importing a level of racist edgelording they have no taste for, has made them stop funding L.P. candidates. Such defections are particularly relevant in this environment: The national L.P. has just had three months in a row of spending exceeding income, and the number of active donors has been falling for seven straight months.
Varner and Chastain see a distinctly right-wing culture and policy bent from the Mises faction. The caucus, whose whipping of its team proved very effective at the convention (combining Discord channels and physical signs waved on the floor featuring Ron Paul saying "yes" and Bill Weld saying "no"), wants to eliminate from the L.P.'s platform a statement that "we condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant." (This first entered the platform in 1974, though it has not remained there consistently.)
The caucus also wants to completely eliminate any mention of abortion, replacing a current plank that is effectively pro-choice, though it says in essence that Libertarians can differ in opinion based on when they think a protectable life begins.
A document of internal Mises Caucus strategizing that began circulating before the convention explicitly said—with reference to the plan to eliminate the line about bigotry being irrational and repugnant—that "one of the major goals of the Mises Caucus is to make the LP appealing to the wider liberty movement that is largely not currently here with us. That movement strongly rejects wokeism and the word games associated with it. This along with the deletion of the abortion plank will display that there are serious cultural changes in the party that are more representative of that movement." (The platform issues had not yet been decided at press time.)
Pennsylvania's new Mises-affiliated state chair, Rob Cowburn, insisted in a pre-convention interview that despite rumors otherwise he intends to continue his state's record of winning over 100 local positions in odd-numbered years by hunting for ones in which no other person is likely to be running, generally offices such as auditor and constable. (Disgruntled non–Mises Caucus libertarians in Pennsylvania have left the L.P. and formed the new Keystone Party.)
The L.P.'s most successful electoral project above the local level has been the Frontier Project, which got the L.P. its only currently seated state legislator, Marshall Burt in Wyoming. The project focuses on finding winnable elections, generally with just one major party candidate in opposition, in the West, where libertarian feelings tend to run higher. McArdle, in a May podcast appearance on The System Is Down, while musing about bad financial management and accountability in the L.P., said that while she thinks the Frontier Project is "fantastic," she worries that is "difficult to understand what that money was spent on, where it went, why it took so much money to get him elected." She considers the per-vote cost for Burt's victory overly high, and she wonders about "secrecy" around the funding with no one outside the LNC knowing exactly how the whole project works.
Apollo Pazell, who runs the Frontier Project, said in a phone interview a week before the convention that he was not aware McArdle had concerns about the finances of the project, which gets support from county, state, and national branches of the party as well as from separate funding sources.
The Mises Caucus' foes have accused the faction of planning to stop running candidates against Republicans they like. Heise denied this in a phone interview before the convention. The Mises-run party will continue to try to run local candidates especially, he said, with a preferred strategy of straight-up localist nullification of federal laws. "Decentralization" is a mantra of Heise's, and the caucus's Twitter feed has openly been against the long-held legal principle that the 14th Amendment means that states and localities also have to obey the federal Bill of Rights. Most libertarians might see decentralization as an often useful tool that often can increase liberty, but nonetheless agree that the federal government forcing states and localities to respect rights is perfectly fine. Heise in a phone interview suggested that federal pressure even to honor citizens' liberty is an unacceptable violation of the decentralization principle.
Christopher Thrasher, who has been senior staff on multiple Libertarian presidential campaigns and ran ballot access for Gary Johnson's 50-state sweep, worries that the Mises Caucus troops lacks granular knowledge of the terribly complex regulations surrounding ballot access and running campaigns. This, he says, is especially dangerous for the L.P. as inflation hits the cost of collecting signatures for ballot access.
Heise wrote on Facebook Friday night that his faction already controls a majority of the LNC, having swept the votes for regional representatives to the LNC in meetings Friday night. (More LNC member votes are still ahead in the convention, which does not end until Sunday.) Mises Caucus favorite Caryn Ann Harlos, who was booted by the LNC from her elected secretary position over Mises-related faction fights, re-won her elected position Saturday as well.
The Mises Caucus people often dub themselves the revival or continuation of the Ron Paul revolution of libertarian ideas in the GOP's 2008 and 2012 presidential races. (Paul spoke at a party the caucus hosted Friday night.)
Heise thinks the most important connection between the Ron Paul revolution and his caucus is its interest in uniting excited young activists with a sense of real community, an idea he stressed over and over. His people enjoy hanging out and trying to save/piss off the world together. "If you want to win elections," Heise says, "you better damn well start getting people to think or care about the principles of liberty. And you have to have a home in order to, from that point of stability, build the culture, build the base. And I think we can build that through the party." The Mises Caucus has taken control of an estimated 35 state L.P.s and now the national party as well, so that project now rests in its hands.
In those 2008 and 2012 races, however, Paul studiously avoided anything that might be construed as "anti-woke" and generally avoided talking to his campus audiences about abortion and immigration, where he was at odds with many other libertarians. While the Mises Caucus might argue that the threat of progressive woke thought control was less severe then, the podcaster/memelord edgy-offensive-insult-comedy stance they often embrace is entirely opposite to how Ron Paul presented himself and won his huge audience as a presidential candidate.
The general public will generally never know about LNC chairs or internal factions, but many of them will be aware of who the L.P. runs for president. Former Michigan Rep. Justin Amash was the only sitting federal congressman the party has ever had. (He was elected to the House in 2010 as a Republican, but he switched his affiliation to the L.P. in 2020.)
Amash said in an interview Friday that he has not made a decision to seek the L.P. nomination in 2024, but many assume he will. Amash sold himself in his keynote speech to the convention as proof that someone who presented himself ideologically as entirely libertarian can win federal office. He is not a Mises Caucus guy, and in his keynote Friday he trolled them by reading various quotes—including some opposing anarchism and supporting cosmopolitan international cooperation—to a chorus of boos, only to reveal that the quotes were from Ludwig von Mises himself.
"If you say Justin Amash isn't libertarian enough for you," Amash told the Mises crowd, "then I've got news for you about the rest of the country." Amash summed up the libertarian message as one of the richness and wonders of peaceful cooperation, in markets and all human relations, and said the L.P. must be the party of "democracy, of diversity, of tolerance, of humility."
After his keynote speech, Amash said in an interview that different conceptions of party messaging and mission are "healthy for the party." He has said he does not want to ally with any caucus. That may be the only strategy left for a man who still entertains the possibility of being the presidential nominee of a party now thoroughly dominated by a caucus with which he has documented disagreements about substance, tone, and style. He denied trying to get a rise out of the Mises Caucus with his Mises quotes, saying merely that "it's important that all of us understand the foundations of libertarianism."
*CORRECTIONS: The original article misattributed statements about youth outreach strategy to both Heise and Smith, and erroneously gendered the podcast audience to which the L.P. hopes to appeal. The original version of this article also mischaracterized the affiliations of L.P. candidates in Nevada and New Mexico.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Southern Poverty Law Center was declaring libertarians to be a racist hate organization long before the rise of the Mises folks. Citing them is a mistake, as is echoing their arguments. Libertarians are a contrarian and cantankerous bunch at the best of times. Aligning yourself with race huxtors and Democrat smear campaigns is not going to win any converts to your point of view among real libertarians.
And if anything at all is obvious in politics, the aftermath of Nick and Matt's "Rise of the Independents" libertarian moment has clearly demonstrated that the left is not a place to find allies and converts. They hate libertarians with a blind passion. Almost as much as they hate Black or Latino conservatives.
They literally list us as an exemplar of the deplorable extremist terrorist threat to the nation. I really don't see how you think trying to curry favor by making their arguments against us for them is going to help anyone, anywhere.
Reason is a DNC organ
Like a lady dick?
Go to Google News Archives and check out The Alabama Citizen for insights on how National Socialism rose in America before fissioning into the Southern Poverty Law Center and Trump rallies. The LP has weathered concerted attacks from racial, fiscal and authoritarian collectivists PRECISELY for rejecting the orchestrated initiation of force from which they exact sustenance. But we're still here... just at a more dispersed level than before these two recent coups.
You’re not a libertarian. You never were.
Hank's an old hippie who morphed into an establishment authoritarian decades ago and still hasn't admitted it to himself.
Jews and Nazis working together again.
Like peanut butter and chocolate.
Fuck off, Misek.
Where did all the Jews go?
Read about the transfer agreement.
http://www.targetfreedomusa.com/the-nazi-zionist-connection-shocking-hidden-history/
Your pals murdered them.
What about the other 166 times prominent Jews claimed in the media that 6 million of them were being murdered around the world between 1900 and 1945?
We’re they lying then? Hahaha.
http://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/repeated-claims-of-6-million-jews-dying-decades-before-hitler-vs-ignored-soviet-death-camp-tolls/
FFS, give it up. I would think you would be proud of your Nazi forebear’s genocidal efforts. You certainly want to wipe out the Jews.
But no one wants you here. Even the leftist scumbag here revile you. So stick with your Nazi pals. Thankfully, we got rid of the, around here almost 20 years ago, when Dick Butler lost his court case, and his compound in north Idaho. Then he died a few years later. Hopefully you will join him in hell soon. Very soon.
So fuck you now, and in the hereafter.
How does it make you feel to realize that neither you nor anyone else has ever refuted anything that I’ve said?
Sounds like you’re living in hell. Hahaha.
Yeah, you keep saying that, after you’ve been refuted multiple times. So it’s not us, it’s you.
You’re lying again. Why wouldn’t you? You worship lies. Jews holiest prayer is plainly a plan to lie.
Nothing any liar says needs to be heard by anyone.
Or you could refute me here and now by linking to ANY example, of anyone refuting me.
You now skulk away.
Dude, that video is 2 hrs, 22 min. long. 1st 10 min. didn't have any objective references or even a synopsis of the point. Put up something with objective references that doesn't waste our time. Who the fuck cares about the Jews?
Having the attention span of a gnat is your problem. Are you refuting what you could comprehend or not?
“ Who the fuck cares about the Jews?”
Since Jews in Israel have received more US taxpayer aid than any other fuckwit cause, you do.
Eat shit and die, Nazi scum.
I’ve made so far this year and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. (res20) It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do.
.
For more details visit:>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Sort of OT, I found this site that reposts some of the comments here. I was tickled to see one of my jobs at Jeffy made the cut. Of particular interest to them was our resident Nazi member of the commentariat, Misek.
https://rdrama.net/logged_out/post/68551/hey-fatfuck-how-is-your-leveraged
Report what? That you can’t prove what you claim or refute what you deny.
You’re pathetic.
No faggot, no. That’s why is said “OT”. As in “off topic”. Does a faggot like you not understand that? You are pretty stupid.
Anyway, feel free to get on with your anti Semitic plans for Holocaust 2.0. Of course the first one never happens, but you still go on about wanting to exterminate them again.
Right, faggot?
Hey loser, you can’t prove your claims and I ignore your feeble requests.
Oh come on. They just marry or work for people at Bloomberg or the Daily Beast. SInce they are all in DC and NYC they really have few other options.
That's not fair, some of them are in LA
They're all auditioning for the Atlantic and the New Yorker... except for maybe The Jacket and The Hair who have burned that bridge by occasionally wandering off-message.
Yeah. Nick Gillespie was writing for Reason when I first picked it up in 1990. His resume is ALMOST ready.
Dude's from Buffalo, he knew his chances of making it into those social circles was slim to none from the get go.
"I first picked it up in 1990"
And you still don't know that Gillespie's nicknamed "The Jacket"?
Who is The Hair? KMG?
A flaccid DNC organ.
Your mom is a Dixiecrat organ.
SPLC makes their money by denouncing 'hate groups,' the groups don't have to do anything but be ideologically opposed to progressive authoritarian state that the SPLC and its backers desire.
Hilariously SPLC's black employees sued it for discrimination.
Bunch of uppity dingers.
Call it "urban capture".
Having spent way too long living in cities, the writers literally cannot fathom lifestyles and opinions that exist outside the city walls.
In the state department they call this "Going Native".
More that they cannot fathom why anyone would want to live outside an urban environment. How many times have one of them derided suburban or rural life as "unexciting"?
Reason is upset that libritarian are taking over the libritarian party
Bingo.
^
If this is what it means to be a libertarian, I am out. I will not be surprised if this ends with Trump being the 2024 LP nominee, after he loses out to DeSatanis.
That you "think" this is where it is going says that you were never really libertarian to begin with.
But hey, thanks for your "concern."
We've seen your posts in the past. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Just another leftarian, who bows down to state authority and lords it over those who actually value individual liberty.
Glad to see your backside headed out the door. The far left swing of the LP has disgusted me.
Trump being the LP candidate - and he did tell Laura Ingraham he was "kind of a libertarian" - would finally get them ballot status everywhere.
Exactly.
In fairness, Reason took the name "Reason", betting on the wrong faction. Now they're stuck with it.
Left-wing politics and libertarianism are incompatible.
https://reason.com/2022/05/29/mises-caucus-takes-control-of-libertarian-party/?comments=true#comment-9518923
I believe reason magazine was founded several years before the Libertarian Party was, by Lanny Friedlander, who kind of seems like a crunchy granola Objectivist who was on the spectrum. So it was before there were LP factions.
Exactly. I've watched as the libertarian party turned into a branch of the left wing progressive party and I'm not at all happy about it. Hopefully this can be corrected.
That's been the Cosmotarian thing to do for a long, long time.
Yet The Kleptocracy will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the initiation of deadly force as the panacea for all ills. The Nambla Guy's tarbrushing of the libertarian "movement" (meaning Woodstock Nation, Liberal Party Liberals and Heinlein fans) was the follow-up to Nixon's looter campaign subsidies. Now would be a good time for objectivists to brush up on sigmoid replacement curves and start voting.
No one understands your word salads
So….. you’re the ‘NAMBLA guy’, right? You either want to murder kids or fuck them. Perhaps I’m that order.
Really appalling that Reason would assign credibility to the grifters at SPLC. But not surprising.
"No enemies to the left."
Maybe they should have done what the establishment media do, and say "people are saying" or "anonymous sources."
The SPLC has far less credibility than the ACLU (which was once consistently principled but now seems to be focused on appealing to liberal and progressive donors).
SPLC, like ADL and NAACP, was once an honest anti-hate group, but has since been taken over by the woketard crowd and is now a front group for the racist CRT movement. So long as the LP or anyone in it takes any of those groups seriously, I will not take the LP seriously, nor will most Americans.
We need to clearly reject as racism any group or viewpoint that still wants "affirmative action" or any other kind of race discrimination by government. Only a color-blind state is acceptable.
It’s interesting the article mentions the Mises caucus being racist about half a dozen times, yet it’s only example was some stupid tweet on MLK day.
There's a strong thread of guilt by vague association on that front. They're trying to attract the Joe Rogan type! People have criticized them for having secret right-wing tendencies! That means they must be racists!
It's not so much that they could have tried some other sort of criticism, it's that they fall lockstep into DNC talking points of "dats raciss."
Yep. DNC shills masquerading as libertarians.
There're worse things than being racist. For example, pretending to be libertarian when you're not.
it’s only example was some stupid tweet on MLK day.
it’s only example was a debatable opinion on MLK day.
They also want to drop the statement on bigotry, which naturally makes them racist. If you don't make a STATEMENT against racism, you're obviously racist.
SPLC are the deep dyed Merovingians of the Editorial Collective Left.
No they just whistle antisemitism to raise money from Northeastern NYC liberal Jews who don't know they are being scammed.
I came on board intellectually back in the 90s. And politically with Ron Paul in 07. I kind of lost interest with Gary Johnson and was confused when Nick Sarwark attacked Tom Woods...and the more I listened to the LP National Party the more I got pissed. The party seemed to be a bunch of woke left wingers obsessed with open boards (utopian dreams), pot (ok I'm fine with that), and abortion which honest folks can admit libertarians have different views. Patriot Act wasn't an issue it seemed. Foreign wars for Goldman Sachs and a certain country in the Middle East were just fine, overthrowing countries and killing Muslims was ok. Deficits..all good. The Fed..great guys..and don't criticize Bernanke. The push of the DIE insanity in all aspects of society..great. And using govt to celebrate and push trans in govt schools was insane.
So, you stand up for liberty and you're a nazi now? racist? Really is that the best you have to keep power. There has always been a division with libertarians between cosmo wokie.."I want to be loved by the NYT, WaPo, Salon" folks and libertarians who stand for the Bill of Rights, National Sovereignty, respecting traditional time-tested institutions, and sound money. Go cry with your leftie, blue check, "Ukrainian" flag zoomer/pajama types and leave the party...we are moving on
"So, you stand up for liberty and you're a nazi now? racist?"
If you accept the implicit dogma on the left that minorities are incapable of thinking for themselves (and whites must look after them and tell them what to think and do), then liberty most certainly is racist.
" Citing them is a mistake,"
It's not a mistake, it's a tell.
The only thing the LP is good for is helping to elect statist Democrats. Libertarians should be working with Republicans to stop the Democrats from imposing their statist agenda.
But how about the Republicans' statist agenda?
OK. Then, how do we stop the statist Republican agenda?
Would you rather be shot or hung?
I was a Ron Paul delegate at the 1987 LP convention. Bigoted assholes who had bored into the Paulista operation isn't a new thing, nor is their courting of voters with racial grievances.
https://reason.com/2011/12/25/the-right-way-for-ron-paul-to-respond-to/?comments=true&
As with Elections with both Democratic and Republicsns, I wish like Hell that there was a way that both the Wokeists and the Alt-Righters who aee infiltrating the Libertarian Movement could both lose.
First, the Wokeists could easily be set against each other by instifating some #MeToo/#TimesUp action hetween BLM/Rad-Fems/SJWs/Antifa and the SPLC. It would just be a question of whose Junkyard Dog Lawyers could eat up whose and whoever would win would still be a loser of hive-mind-share and group cohesion.
Then, some descendents of Von Mises could come forward and tell the so-called Mises Caucasians: "Your meth-pipe-burned, blabbering, whore mouths aren't good enough to form the good name of Good Ol' Great-Grandpa Ludwig! Step aside, go slink back to your Klavern meetings and Beer Halls, and let real Free-Market Capitalist Libertarians win this nation from Statism, Collectivism, and Tyranny!"
I'm not sure what point you are making here. The Woke infiltrating the Libertarian party are going to sue their allies in other woke groups? What?
Intersectionality is what will split Wokeism up. Then, with Wokism and Alt-Rightists split up into identitarian Schisms within and without, true Libertarians can emerge triumphant!
So it's true about Libertarians using drugs then?
Time to join the libertarian party again
Q: Why do "progressives" (and "liberals") hate freedom?
A: Because their idea of "progress" entails them telling the rest of us how to live our lives (and taking most of our money because they, supposedly, will use it more rationally).
What a terrible name.
Yes Cyto; "the left" does hate us, if "the left" means the brain-dead war-mongering pro-prison bankster-loving democrats.
If "the left" means people like you can find in 'Fight for the Future' and the Green Party: not so much. Those guys are us, except that most can't balance a checkbook. That's fairly forgivable.
On Sunday, the Feces Caucus erased women's right to body autonomy (the same basic right to decide whether or not to take a vaccine, smoke a flower, or deliver a child). They made us right wing.
The biggest problem with this article, IMHO, is its recognition of the Mises Caucus while everyone else is implied as simply being opposed to that caucus.
It is simply the wrong path to choose what your oppose as a defining principle.
I hope there is more to this than what is being reported.
Exactly, and when it comes to TeenReason there's always more to it than what is being reported.
They have an agenda, and that agenda no longer has anything to do with libertarianism.
That wasn’t clear. Problem with the article itself, or problem with what it describes?
Are you just playing dumb, or are you being serious?
He is seriously dumb.
In case you forgot, Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee, and should be treated as such.
Is that a ‘Sunny’ reference?
Always
Also, as the flagship voice of Libertarian journalism, Reason's failure to jump in with full throated condemnation of the hackneyed and undemocratic maneuvering in New Hampshire and the national LP was not just evidence of intellectual weakness, it was a wrongheaded strategy that shows a stunning lack of ideological backbone.
We win with ideas. Not with slurs, slogans and characatures. The notion that anyone would think that pointing and shouting "racist!!!" was going to galvanize libertarians who have spent decades being called racists for supporting equal rights under the law and living color blind lives shows a shocking lack of familiarity with average libertarians.
The idea that pointing and screaming "homophobe" at people who were loudly advocating equality for all, regardless of sexual orientation decades before the Democrats suddenly screamed "me too!" after a court declared gay marriage to be a thing..... Well.... That idea that trying to shame a bunch of contrarian ideologues who arrive at these position from first principles by proclaiming them to be the opposite of what they are is just plain goofy.
Libertarians don't play by those rules.
I didn't bend when people tried to proclaim that there was something wrong with marrying across racial lines 35 years ago. My wife and I didn't bend when people tried to proclaim that adopting a "baby of color" was racist 25 years ago. None of us were cowed into silence when the left called us homophobic and the right called us heretics and blasphemous for advocating the end of government involvement in marriage and equal treatment under the law for all loving partnerships way back in the 70s.... All the way through the end of that argument with more state involvement.
I don't know who is telling you that shooting DNC talking points on culture war issues is going to win friends and influence people, but the last people you are going to attract with that nonsense is a pack of libertarians.
"We win with ideas. Not with slurs, slogans and characatures. The notion that anyone would think that pointing and shouting "racist!!!" was going to galvanize libertarians who have spent decades being called racists for supporting equal rights under the law and living color blind lives shows a shocking lack of familiarity with average libertarians."
Come on. That very approach let a fringe group take over a major political party, all of academia, and a growing portion of corporate America. Do you want to win or not?
I MAY re-register as Libertarian Party before fall. Hell, I used to donate before 2020, and if the Party stays true to its newfound rejection of "performative anti-racism", I might again.
But Reason re-positioning itself as a sort of pro-drug, no borders SPLC is not going to move me to return to my 20+ year subscription.
Just join the GOP and get it over with.
"The notion that anyone would think that pointing and shouting "racist!!!" was going to galvanize libertarians who have spent decades being called racists for supporting equal rights under the law and living color blind lives..."
No, you see, opposing the CRA of 68 as an affront to the liberty of all people is simply not libertarian. Not quite as libertarian as been sure that abortion has nothing to do with the fundamental right to life.
being, not been.
.... CRA of 1964..., certainly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
CRA of 64, GCA of 68.
Sorry, got confused.
"We win with ideas. Not with slurs, slogans and characatures. The notion that anyone would think that pointing and shouting "racist!!!" was going to galvanize libertarians who have spent decades being called racists for supporting equal rights under the law and living color blind lives shows a shocking lack of familiarity with average libertarians."
THIS!
I'll also point out that Reasonistas missed a massive opportunity to help create a new generation of Libertarians during the last decade with their Libertarian Moment nonsense. Kids needed an alternative message to the Anti-Racism nonsense, and Libertarians failed to distinguish themselves.
Instead, Libertarian Leaders and pundits confused the rise of Identity Politics as the dismantling of old systems of prejudice, rather than what it really was: the replacement of those same systems with an equally intolerant moral culture. If a kid has already succumbed to "Anything less than Anti-Racism is Racist", why would they spend any time with Libertarians who might mouth all the platitudes, but will tend to oppose all the things that Anti-Racism requires (diversity quotas, redistributive policies, anti-capitalism)? The Libertarian message came off as eye-rolling "Pick me too!" bleating to kids in colleges- like the parent at school dance saying, "You know what else is cool, kids? Jesus our lord and savior!"
The cost of this marketing incoherence is that the campuses, and an entire generation, of kids were lost to libertarian thought. Contrary to the author of this article, the Libertarians were being just as "nuanced" in what messages they would emphasize ("Just bake the damn cake!"), while failing to explain the fundamental principles of liberty. Libertarians MADE social issues pre-eminent. If you wanted gay/racial/etc equality, you had to ally with socialist authoritarians. If you didn't like forcing people to bake a cake, Bill Weld wasn't going to defend you, so you ended up keeping your mouth shut or joining with the MAGA crowd. Nobody was saying "This is wrong because it violates Liberty" and so there is now a decade of graduates who do not understand that basic foundation.
And that is the problem here. You cannot have social freedom without economic freedom, and the Woke Agenda- designed by Marxists- is utterly incompatible with it at the core. Rand Paul had shown the country that there was a way to fuse socially-liberal kids with economic freedom. All you needed was tolerance. Yes, that meant tolerating your racist uncle while he tolerated your Gay friends. But it was vital BECAUSE economic freedom is the core of social freedom. If I must get permission to make any economic decision, then I must get permission for all of my social values, because pretty much every economic decision- every subscription, purchase, volunteer work, etc- has some sort of social aspect to it.
The unfortunate fact is that these decisions had a very real impact on the Libertarian cause. I talk to kids coming out of these colleges and they have ZERO appreciation for liberty. They reject whole-heartedly that a person has the right to say racist things, or to engage in activities that might harm them. SMDH.
I think you need quotation marks around that. Kids coming out of these colleges use that phrase to refer to saying something politically-incorrect (which, as they see it, the government must punish).
I can just image how seething, raging, and butthurt Mango, Park Slope Welchie Boy, the Goth Fonzie Woppo, Lizzie the Lezzie, Boehmer MacAdoodle, Bailey, and all the rest of the fugazi libertarians of Reason are right now! Yes indeed, those salty ham tears are flowing copiously, from Los Angeles, to Park Slope, to DuPont Circle!!
I wish Weigel's cock ring was a decoder ring so I could figure out who these references are to.
And Mango? Mango's are sweet. Is KMW? Her hair is usually blue, not orange.
Is Soave in your list? What's your sobriquet for him? Or Tucille? Or that one who looks like he's 16?
Okay...Goth Fonzie Woppo would be Gillespie. See, for him, I would have tried to work in some kind of "Brokeback Post-structuralism" or "Brokeback Baudrillard" ID. Because he just can't quit it.
Mango=Mangu-Ward.
Bailey= ex-scienceist Ron Bailey of course.
Park Slope Welchie Boy=Matt Welch
Dang. I used to have so much respect for these people. Reason was a sunbeam of, well, REASON, coming into my woke-bedarkened world. Now...not so much. I find straight thinkers, or at least people I that I trust to make good faith efforts to think straight, all over the 'net. From Reason? A lot less, starting with their insane obsession with welcoming every non-citizen who can get here in! Have these people never read "Camp of the Saints"? (and yes, it reads horribly racist, but the mechanism of destruction needs to be cooly assessed. God knows fucking Merkel did.)
I like the cut of your jib, Trollificus.
It’s cute when you backwards rubes try to talk down to people who are clearly superior than you.
You’re trash
Says the bigot.
liar
No, by the true definition of the word, you are a bigot.
You’re. Bottom dweller. Like SQRLSY bottom. We’re all your betters here.
I for one can’t STAND the idea that a casual reader here of a libertarian news and commenting site would read the vapid and vile comments, and conclude, “Oh, so THAT’s what libertarians are all about!” No, it’s just that libertarians (and VERY few others) still believe in free speech, so the troglodytes come HERE, where their vile lies & vapid insults will NOT be taken down!
The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!
“Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .
In conclusion, troglodytes, thanks for helping me to prove my points!
He’s actually much worse than squirrel.
Yeah, Sqrsly only calls everyone fascists who disagree with him, KAR is an actual fascists whose called for genocide multiple times and has been banned multiple times.
Best to euthanize them both.
This is lack of self-awareness on a cosmic scale, from which you will never recover. And I don't mean that you're trash, I don't need to stoop to calling you names, you have dug a hole, put yourself in a box and shoveled dirt over yourself without any assistance.
“…..clearly superior than you.”
Haha. Back to 8th grade English class for you, KARen. Maybe you’ll make new friends there who live in “the cool part of…” wherever.
What a doosh.
Election strategy talk:
Ok.. you worry that the far left will use some of the more "colorful" among the Mises folks to tar all libertarians as extremist racist homophobes.
Let me assuage your fears and offer an alternative. I live at the intersection of left and right. I volunteer extensively with kids, and my kids go to majority minority schools in a heavily Democrat metropolitan area. I see where things are on the ground.
My daughter is in middle school. She ran track for the school team this spring. Track in this county is an almost exclusive black thing. Less than 10% of athletes and families were non-black. Meets were usually at least 6 schools, so it brought families from across the area together. And the cultural zeitgeist was easy to see.
The last few years of the national DNC and media banging loudly on the drums of racial division had an effect. But thusfar, not the desired one. When placed in this majority position, the black people we encountered were quite clearly and with great intent reaching out to signal that this woke nonsense is not where they are.
The populist energy that libertarian elites fear so much is opportunity knocking.
That largely poor, almost entirely black crowd was an easy target for a populist libertarian message on civil liberties.
Not a single family at those track meets would have aligned with the "trans women are real women, therefore trans women should compete in sports as women at all levels" crowd. The distance races take quite a bit of time, so several meets saw the boys and girls run the 800 and 1600 meter races together. Despite many if the girls being biologically farther along and thus larger and more adult in their bodies, the boys were a good 25% faster than the girls across the board. Nobody in that crowd is going to align with the "libertarians are transphobic" line. There is an opportunity for anlibertarian voice to capture this populist sentiment.
Jumping up and down declaring your own group to be a hate group is not a way to expand the appeal of the party.
Anti-woke is not a losing strategy. Black and brown and Asian voters are not going to abandon you if you don't bend the knee and proclaim your white guilt. Far from it. They don't want this excrement either.
But if you abandon the field so that only racists or racist-adjacent folks are standing in opposition to strategies and policies of "white guilt", well... You are gonna get woke and you are gonna get it good and hard, and the LP certainly isn't going to swell their ranks. Instead, we are more likely to be branded domestic terrorists and infiltrated by the FBI.
Cyto...I read the official platform that Doherty linked. I believe the term is 'mostly nothingburger'. The Mises group platform is remarkably free of anything remotely actionable. They are vague aspirational statements (like a total of 8) with no promise of specific action by date certain.
Totally agree with your statement: We win with ideas. Not with slurs, slogans and caricatures.
"I believe the term is 'mostly nothingburger'. The Mises group platform is remarkably free of anything remotely actionable. They are vague aspirational statements (like a total of 8) with no promise of specific action by date certain."
So, very "professionally political, then?
Cyto,
I agree that there does need to be an alternative point of view presented that is somewhere between "there are 97 genders" and "there's nothing wrong with racism", and libertarians could fill that gap.
But, take the issue of transgender athletes. Broadly, Team Blue wants to force athletic competitions to accept any athlete identifying as whatever they wish, and Team Blue wants to force athletic competitions to accept athletes only corresponding to their biological sex. Seems to me, a sensible libertarian approach might be, "let athletic competitions freely decide for themselves who they will permit to participate in which events", without taking any formal position on whether trans women are "real" women or not. Why not? Don't be explicitly "woke", but don't be explicitly "anti-woke" either. Just let people decide for themselves.
This is great stuff... and exactly where government should be.
I was more focused on addressing the supposition that the wizened voices at Reason hold - that speaking out against woke ideologies is a political loser. My experience says that this is far from true.
I live in Broward County Florida. It is as solid progressive democrat as you are going to find this side of Portland Oregon. I have been here since 2000. For most of that time, political discussions have been mostly off limits in public. The hate for Bush was hive mind here. This is New York South. So the safe thing at the supermarket has been to lob a hate comment in the direction of a republican.
No more. Black people openly call BS on much of the DNC/TV talking points in the checkout line at Walmart. Inflation. Trans stuff. Immigration. Poor black people in South Florida are nearly indistinguishable from West Virginia country trailer park folk. The only difference is the color of their T-Shirt. The DNC has been keeping that in check by saying "look at those trailer park hicks ... they hate the color of your T shirt!!"
Nobody is on the side of the establishment any more. Everybody seems to agree that something shady is going on and we are getting screwed.
This is why "populism" has become a popular word in the political commentary world.
All we need is a charismatic leader to give voice to that general recognition that everything is headed the wrong way.
It was Trump for a minute... they successfully beat him back.
The next round could be a libertarian. Or a Marxist. Or a neocon.
Someone is going to point out that the e.peror has no clothes. Soon.
The left is playing for their team to get a strong Marxist. The right? They seem go have gotten locked in to Trump or maybe DeSantis.
But a real libertarian could forge a coalition and sieze this moment. They would have to be charismatic to pull it off. And they would have to come through the Republican party. The democrats are locked in with the socialist authoritarian. They are not bending this way.
But a Republican libertarian could peel off more than half of the black vote and maybe 2/3 of the Latino vote.
The question is, who? Not Amash, despite his good qualities. It has to be someone people instinctively like. Then you back it up with facts.
I have no idea who that is. But any delusion that we can make a big tent by centering everything on middle-of-the-party democrats is just silly. They will have to be defeated before they can see their way to common ground with libertarians. Right now, we are the enemy. Evil incarnate. Only after spending some time wallowing in failure will the left be ready to abandon their divisive tactics and authoritarian ways. Nobody gets self-reflective when they are winning
No group that is where the Ds/left are right now has ever been peacefully stopped.
True. They won’t ever stop, and they won’t go away without being forced to go away.
RON PAUL 2024!!!!!
No one's going to vote for a open border position except a chamber of commerce republican and/or the so called intellectual class of democrats. The position of some of the writers here (bake that cake, Say Gay All Day in schools, no tariffs uber alles) is not going to draw many votes either.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/02/open-borders-not-libertarian-long-america-welfare-state/
That sounds quite libertarian.
How would you know?
"somewhere between "there are 97 genders" and "there's nothing wrong with racism", and libertarians could fill that gap."
Somewhere between "there are 97 genders" and "there's nothing wrong with racism", already sits the historical Democratic Party. You've literally described its last 40 years.
Ha! The DNC has always been racist, from slavery days to woke days.
It may be true that the Dems are not as woke as their base, but they are addicted to ruining Americans' lives with the money printer and ending foreigners' lives with the war machine, just like the Republicans. Top it off with the fact that they're ready to throw their woke commie supporters a bone every once in a while to keep them on the reservation, and you've got a hideously destructive wing of the Cathedral to which Republicans are only a close second.
If you cut the RINO out; your statements don't hold water.
The Republican stated platform is actually Libertarian short of Open-Borders and Abortion. What the majority of Republicans have done doesn't coincide with their stated platform many times.
While correctly libertarian, the problem with that approach is that the rules are ALREADY determined via a political and government enforcement process.
There are NO totally private athletic organizations. NCAA is all public universities. Most of these state-level laws being enacted apply to the public high school sports in their state. Those orgs are wholly owned and run by the government. So the rules are set by.. the government.
Obviously the solution is getting the government out of education.
Then get education out of sports.
That too.
Then get sports out of religion. (And then get religion out of politics.)
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1531089090980073477?t=YiI8LYQN9VwIkzRyMA324Q&s=19
This content description for an equity program in Milwaukee public schools looks super duper religious.
[Link]
No, just get government out of education, and let private organizations decide what sports, education, politics, religion or whatever mix they want.
Wouldn't it be easier to just start a new country?
Obviously the solution is getting the government out of education.
Indeed.
One problem with that is the Government's Title IX, and the Government's role in FORCING athletic associations to comply.
^ This
For sports I have no problem taking that attitude of tolerance (though it's obvious which way the market will decide; women's events exist for the same reason there are weight classes in boxing, and opening them to everyone would force women out of competition).
But letting men in dresses into women's locker rooms or bathrooms is not acceptable, it is a rights violation, and the trannies who demand it are usually abusers who intend anything from voyeurism to rape. Their feelings don't matter.
But letting men in dresses into women's locker rooms or bathrooms is not acceptable, it is a rights violation
Specifically which right is being violated?
and the trannies who demand it are usually abusers who intend anything from voyeurism to rape.
This is an insulting fallacy of generalization, not an argument.
"Specifically which right is being violated?"
Actual privacy?
What is the "actual privacy" right that you believe exists for a public locker room?
You can’t be this dense. Which means you’re being dishonest.
Women have a right to associate with whoever they choose in their locker rooms. That is, if they want to exclude biological males, they should be able to.
But, take the issue of transgender athletes. Broadly, Team Blue wants to force athletic competitions to accept any athlete identifying as whatever they wish, and Team Red wants to force athletic competitions to accept athletes only corresponding to their biological sex.
Team Red doesn't want to force anything. Team Red simply wants the rules ALREADY AGREED TO to remain consistent for the players, and Team Blue wants to change them at whim.
It is the 'at whim' part that makes any working with Team Blue or 'The Woke' or whatever name you want to call the Left to hide, just a bit, that it's the same Left it's always been, impossible.
The Left wants to be able to change rules at whim and only let you know they've changed when they suddenly decide that what you've done is forbidden.
A number of years ago, a blogger called Foseti pointed out that anytime an actual libertarian materialized, you could count on Reason to be the first to step up to the plate and call them a racist.
While I quit following the LP yeas ago, I can only be encouraged when Reason produces an article humming "rrrraaaccist!!" like a tree full of cicadas.
Hopefully the LP will finally resume concentrating on issues that are of actual interest to libertarians rather functioning as a social club registered sex offenders and stoners.
I wouldn't worry about the SPLC. When your main claim to fame is having naked fat guys dancing on stage at your convention, it's not like your reputation has much room for further collapse. In fact, getting called out by the SPLC is probably the most attention anyone has paid to the LP for years.
Hmm, isn't there another party that responds to any challenge by shouting "Racist!"?
"rrrraaaccist!!"
I can hear Neal Boortz in my head saying that word like that.
What a sad day when he retired.
“When your main claim to fame is having naked fat guys dancing on stage at your convention”
Don’t forget the guy with the boot on his head.
How dare you presume their gender.
If the naked guy had had a little less belly overhand you would not have to presume.
The fat naked guy was James Weeks, and he was intentionally trying to draw negative publicity to libertarians because he was throwing a temper tantrum. The leftist group he belongs to has spent years trying to co-opt the LP into dropping its support for property rights in order to be more welcoming to communists.
That tracks.
Didn't know he was a lefturd operative, I assumed he was just your garden variety nutjob. What a scumbag.
-jcr
Joe Bishop-Henchman
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!"
I've got just two words to say to Welchie and Gillespie about your life long mission:
You failed.
They don’t care what bigoted trash like you say.
They are better than you.
The more you stamp your feet and whine like a little whine bitch "I, whoops I mean THEY, don't care what you think!", the more comically obvious it is that you're a Reason staffer. Mister sockpuppet!
I'm beginning to think you two should get a room.
Yawn.
Still gonna lose.
Of course they are, the Mises Caucus is the Trump Caucus. They are the less libertarian faction. There have always been Libertarian Party factions that just want to be Republicans, but the Mises Caucus is the most ridiculous because they pretend to be more libertarian while actually being more anti liberty.
Moderates, but moderates in a Trump like Southern Democrat way.
Libertarians will NEVER steal "R" Party votes away from said "R" Party... Till the "L" Party buys (and repeats) the Big Lie (elections STOLEN from Trump!), lock, stock, and barrel! Full stop!
So letting Nixon have the 1960 election after he sued Texas alleging vote fraud would have made everything hunky-dory?
No, sorry... That wouldn't have worked, 'cause Nixon's pussy-grabbing powers weren't anywhere NEAR ass all-powerful ass the pussy-grabbing power of Der TrumpfenFuhrer! ALL HAIL the Pussy-Grabber in Chief!
Libertarians constantly “steal” votes from one party, and it ain’t the Democrats.
(Those votes don’t belong to any party so it’s not really stealing)
Usually they pull from both major parties about equally. That is definitely going to change.
LOL
because they pretend to be more libertarian while actually being more anti liberty.
Why don't you unpack that statement for us.
Explain how they are "anti liberty", because it sounds like cheap bullshit to me.
Because it IS cheap bullshit.
^THIS
No response John Thacker?
Might as well have just called them racist with no evidence while you’re at it.
TDS-addled shit piles provide their own response.
Will have to see if the nominees and platform are better than Gary "I agree with Bernie 73% of the time" Johnson and Bill "gun grabber" Weld and Jo "I support BLM" Jorgenson.
It would be difficult to do much worse, though anything is possible. Regardless of who or what, the allegations of racism, transphobia, etc will be printed here as if they were credible.
Gary was much better than Jo or Bill Weld.
According to Wikipedia, only two Libertarian candidates have ever gotten an electoral vote: John Hospers in 1972 and Ron Paul in 2016 (who wasn't actually running that year). They each got a single electoral vote. No other candidates have gotten any.
By popular vote percentage (value that however you will) the most successful candidate is Gary Johnson in 2016, who got 3.3% of the vote. 2nd Place goes to Jo Jorgeson with 1.2% (2020), 3rd to Ed Clark with 1.1% (1980) and 4th to Gary Johnson with 1% (2012). After that it drops to 0.5% and lower.
So yes. 2024 candidates can easily do worse then the last three elections (Gary Johnson and Jo Jorgeson). In fact, of the 11 Libertarians who have sought the presidency, Gary Johnson and Jo Jorgeson have out-performed every Libertarian that preceded Johnson.
All of which is to say... know your own damn history. I had to look up the rest, but even I --who isn't a Libertarian or a libertarian-- knew that Johnson was the best performing Libertarian candidate ever.
the Mises Caucus is the Trump Caucus.
Stupid lie is stupid. Lew Rockwell is no friend of Trump.
-jcr
Giving people absolutely no reason to vote for them instead of the Republican Party, I see. The Mises Caucus is a pure Trump Caucus, who obviously want to destroy the Libertarian Party because they are so thrilled with the direction of the GOP.
who cares if they like trump or not?
The question is what does their platform look like.
It's more libertarian than the previous ones.
Repeating bullshit doesn’t make it more true.
It makes it more widely believed, and that's good enough.
You got anything other than ranting and raving like a Tony?
Eat shit and die, TDS-addled asshole.
The key to electoral success IMO is to recognize that both Team Red and Team Blue are really coalitions, not monolithic blocs. Team Red has of course the New Right Trumpian Nationalists, but they also have social conservatives, they also have fiscal conservatives (not as many as before, but still there's a few). And Team Blue of course has its ultra-woke progressive wing, but they also have the neoliberal technocratic wing, the old-time pro-union wing, etc.
So focusing on drawing votes away from either The Left or The Right misses the point. We have ideas that can apply to all sectors and all people, because fundamentally they are about letting people be free to pursue their own visions. So we need to craft messages that can speak to all types of people who are fed up with the authoritarianism of both major parties. We have to form our own coalition, drawn from bits and pieces of each component of each of the other two coalitions.
How about you review your list of Red and Blue factions and tell us which ones you think are greater threats to individual liberty, i.e. more authoritarian, to use your discriminator?
The point he's making is that there are people on Team Red and Team Blue who aren't aligned with the respective team's most repugnant ideologies. They aren't forever welded to the "Team" and can be drawn away to a different party that more closely suits their preferences.
Yes. But are there any factions in Team Blue now that are not against most of what we could define as libertarian fundamentals? Ex-Democrats maybe, but card-carrying party members?
Maybe. More than likely, it's simply bs sophism and the typical 'reasoned discussion' one can expect from the radical non-individual.
I would list the Red faction as being more anti-liberty and authoritarian.
That’s because you’re a fucking moron.
So you are just looking the other way at attempting to overthrow an election, to ending reproductive rights, to book burning or banning school curriculum. The how many popular referendum have the Republics just negated and said the people are too dumb to make those decisions, they will make them instead.
You are a frog in the water. The Republican have you focused on CRT, BLM, and LGBTQ and you cannot feel the water warming.
Where's the laughing face emoji? This board is so 20th century.
I second DesigNate's motion, you are not very bright, but can repeat ActBlue talking points verbatim. You are also not, nor have you ever been a moderate in your sociopolitical thinking.
Even if I give you the inch about them trying to overthrow the election, none of that other stuff you copy pasted actually happened or has been perpetrated by both sides.
But at least the majority of Republicans didn’t shotgun the economy in the face, expect you to participate in security blanket theaters or threaten to force people to take an experimental drug.
Let's see.
1. "Overthrow an election". Which was essentially cosplay, and never had any chance of changing the outcome. Unlike the dedicated efforts after 2016 which nearly did change an election outcome that one side could not abide.
2. "Ending reproductive rights". Fuck you and your BS rhetoric. Nobody has been prevented from fucking their brains out. And "reproduction" means producing offspring, the opposite of your abortion sacrament. Are people having to face the outcomes of their voluntary actions? Gee, how libertarian is that?
3. "Book burning and banning school curriculum". Do you really want to bring this up, given how evangelical Democrats have become in terms of ideological education policy?
You committed massive electoral fraud, and you deserve to have your throat cut ear to ear.
Pray you die soon.
Wasn’t it team blue that just literally started a Ministry of Truth to censor speech? Yeah it was.
You’re pathetic.
Mandatory vaccines…
Do you mean the "Ministry of Truth" that was the same idea as the "Ministry of Truth" started by Team Red under Trump? Hmm?
Stop falling for the right-wing media scaremongering tactics.
You keep repeating this and it keeps being pointed out to you that you’re wrong.
What Trump wanted to do and what Biden tried to do we’re not the same thing. You know this is true because if Trump HAD done exactly the same thing that Biden did, the MSM would have been shitting bricks and social media would have been melting down.
I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.
Well, let's see here:
https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas/current-activity/2019/07/22/building-resilience-foreign-interference-misinformation-activities
"As part of the effort to #Protect2020, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is working with national partners to build resilience to foreign interferences, particularly information activities (e.g., disinformation, misinformation). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) views foreign interference as malign actions taken by foreign governments or actors designed to sow discord, manipulate public discourse, discredit the electoral system, bias the development of policy, or disrupt markets for the purpose of undermining the interests of the United States and its allies."
Which is exactly what the "Disinformation Governance Board" claimed it was going to do - look at disinformation coming from foreign governments. Except in the case of Trump, we are expected to take their claims at face value, but in the case of Biden, we are supposed to put on our paranoia hats and declare "what they REALLY mean is to censor right-wing patriotic Americans!"
...And yet; There's a whole clan of Republicans trying to end the Patriot Act of Bush Jr. and a whole clan who despises Bush Jr. almost as much as Clinton.
You know what's fundamentally different.... Generally Democrats are nothing but [WE] mob sheeple followers. They cannot NOT like any animal of their own affiliation.. Republicans will at least acknowledge B.S. handed out by one of their own.
This deserves a repeat...... (+10000)
"fundamentally they are about letting people be free to pursue their own visions. So we need to craft messages that can speak to all types of people who are fed up with the authoritarianism of both major parties",
Ironically I haven't found ANY on the left that craft these messages. But there's Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie and somewhat Ted Cruz all on the Right who generally do.
Real pathetic Jeffy.
That was meant for Jeffy.
Chemjeff- Not even Reason agrees with you on this. You look like a hack trying to defend it.
Who cares? I'm not interested in deciding which steaming pile of shit smells slightly less bad. They're both steaming piles of shit. They are both sufficiently large threats to liberty that I and lots of other people have decided to reject completely the Team Red/Team Blue duopoly.
Right now one party stands clearly for authoritarian overhaul of our government, economy, and society, and it ain't Bubba.
Oh really? Which side is that?
Does AOC want to regulate every facet of American life in the name of climate change and 'anti-racism'? Pretty much, yes. Then again, consider this:
Advancing a substantive account of the true ends of man and of the political community should be the first priority of conservatism today. The new American right doesn’t ask: How would this or that development promote or impede individual autonomy? Rather, it asks whether or not a new development allows man to participate in common goods proper to family, polity, and the religious community. It asks how to sustain the things we share in common as Americans, not the liberties we can enjoy in private.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/10/the-new-american-right
Get that? To the New Right, proper policy should support the family and religion, even at the expense of individual liberty.
I mean it, both sides stink.
Now instead of reading what others *think*... Go read the Party Platforms.... It'll be hell-a enlightening for you.
Only one group (Team Blue) believes that the Government and Big Tech should be more concerned with misinformation than Freedom of Speech. Only one group (Team Blue) overwhelmingly supports the alphabet soup agencies of the government, and believes that the policies pushed by IRS, FBI and CDC (among others) is good.
This is actual polling data. This is the PEOPLE, not some crank on the fringe. And yes, that dude is a crank. And he must be resisted. But it is not what people on the right generally believe, and we have the polling data to prove it.
Both sides have problems, but only one now majority aligns with authoritarianism.
This has all been told to Lefty Jeffy before. He doesn’t care, he’s here to attack republicans.
It's so strange how you compare the very authoritarian stance of an elected Democrat to the opinion piece of a fringe activist as if that fringe activist has the same level of influence as an elected Democrat.
Even more telling is just how far out you had to go to even find ONE fringe activist that's fit your point.
So yeah, Jeff, it's just one, very obvious, even to you, side.
Drawing votes away from both looter factions is the tried-and-true method of changing laws and amending the constitution. "The Case for Voting Libertarian" spells out the mechanism perfectly well-understood by organized Kleptocracy. Anarchist infiltrators into the LP drew on the resources of the entire communist world, just as Ron Paul's Trojan Horse is still supported by national socialist ideologues. Restoring the original platform is the best path between the Scylla of christianofascism and the Charybdis of communism.
"Restoring the original platform is the best path",, +100000000
Where are the examples Ron Paul being supported by Nazis? Don't make up nonsense like that?
It's pretty simple. All Ron Paul supporters are Nazis, there fore Ron Paul is being supported by Nazis.
And Hank is insane.
For the LP to have electoral success, they would need to nominate a qualified and well known centrist who advocates moderate advances toward liberty on multiple fronts (economic and social). Gary Johnson came closest to this standard, and tripled or quadrupled the LP vote compared to any previous candidate, but he was not well known and not well prepared and not well funded.
A libertarian leaning celebrity billionaire like Mark Cuban (who seems to have drifted more left in recent years, like a lot of other billionaires) would probably be the best option. Too bad Elon Musk was born in South Africa, and Peter Thiel has gone full Republican.
Otherwise I sort of agree with Hank -- nominate a true believer, and chip away at both left and right, to pressure the Dems and Repubs to shift toward liberty on various issues.
Shorter Brian Doherty: The Libertarian Party is a joke, just not a very funny one. I'm a Democrat, and I thought my party was dysfunctional.
“I am not a member of any organized political party — I am a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
Nah, you’re just a commie.
And a dick/cunt.
More of a bitchcunt.
People going for the LP now have less excuse for their bad judgment than they did 20 or 40 years ago. Things are finally moving via the GOP, as American libertarians had hoped 50 years ago. Why LP now?
News flash: libertarians are not the same as Republicans
Of course not. The Republican Party is much bigger, so too big to make that generalization about. However, there are now more libertarians in the GOP than there have been in maybe a century. The average Republican is vastly more libertarian, by poll after poll, than the average non-Republican in the USA, and incomparably more so than the average Democrat.
So adding more ku-kluxers to the NAACP would also be a sign of progress?
Ignoring that some founding members of the NAACP were indeed klan members, yes.
Is that Hank? Does he still not understand that prohibition was a truly bipartisan effort?
No, he doesn’t. I’m pretty sure he was always a kook, but now he has mild to moderate dementia.
The failure of prohibition is why FDR chose to start calling himself/the left liberal instead of their previous label of progressive.
But fuck that semantic shit, we're past the point where debate will save us.
Kill, or be killed.
Diversity.
News flash, Jeffy: libertarians are not the same as authoritarian collectivists.
Chem Jeff thinks stateists are proliberty.
Mask makes free!
Huh? The Republican Party has sold out any principles, and any serious intent of providing good governance, to populist pandering, cowardice, and tolerance of grifters.
Just for kicks why dont you let us know which party the 57 no votes on funding Ukraine came from?
We'll wait.
It is bizarre that left wingers, whose party's top priority is getting rich off taxpayers and extortionary grifts like the Clinton Foundation, pretend they oppose grifters. Their unwillingness to scrutinize themselves explains why their governance is so utterly corrupt.
Alinsky approves.
All major parties everywhere sell out principles. In return they actually achieve some of what they set out to. You don't get anywhere without making concessions.
They sometimes hold onto a few principles. Not today’s Republicans.
Again I ask, who opposed funding the Ukraine war with our money?
You don't get there, traditionally, without selling enough access to state power that you get enough donations from people buying access to spend several dollars per vote. Only the best funded libertarians even spend $1 per vote.
Presumably someone saw an opportunity to cater to the Brony vote.
At least it wasn't the Rainbow Brite dude-fans. Those guys are weird.
Yea, but Bronys keep shooting people...
The America that is moving with the GOP is the same as the Germany that moved with the NSDAP in the 1930s. Fueled mainly by Republican prohibition laws exported wherever possible to make trade and production illegal to a degree just short of actual communism. The HUAC then was the Dies Committee investigating a Fifth Column of infiltraitors who, like Roberta, sought to increase the number of American doors kicked in by men with guns bearing no-knock warrants in contempt of Lysander Spooner's warnings.
Lol.
Hank, if you’re not in a mental institution, you should be. I should track down your family and make sure they’re aware of your deteriorating mental state.
LMAO.... So the GOP is the National Socialists????
UR F'En Retarted....
The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945, that created and supported the ideology of National Socialism...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Socialists_of_America_members_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States
This is gibbersh. Americans are suspicious of managed trade regimes that eliminate local industries and of open immigration intended to enslave taxpayers to providing entitlements to anyone who crosses the border.
The Republicans are not beacons of liberty and light. It just seems that way in contrast to the Horde of Darkness that is overtaking the Democrats.
So Rs are like Saruman compared to Sauron?
"to Democrats Sauron"
Saruman took orders from Sauron. Republicans are more like Denethor in this analogy.
'...wants to eliminate from the L.P.'s platform a statement that "we condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant."'
Everyone knows that good Libertarians stand firmly against thought crime.
So the LP *shouldn't* condemn bigotry as "irrational and repugnant"?
Considering the bigots are usually producing better predictions than the economists, yeah, they should probably shut up about that.
I suppose if the LP wants to encourage group think it should.
I see a difference between individuals speaking against bigotry (and the myriad criteria they might apply) and an official party platform that is either facile and meaningless or sincere and doctrinaire.
Since those are not fit matters of public policy, why should they? Government should be neutral regarding bigotry.
No. Free minds unavoidably means that bigotry is as equally valid a view as egalitarianism.
No, bigotry is never valid. Bigotry must be tolerated legally because of the right of free speech, but it is clearly something any ethical person should condemn.
Bigotry is in the mind of the beholder. People can be bigoted about skin color and religion and nationality and sex, those are the usual suspects. But they can also be bigoted about hair color, height, weight, manner of dress, cleanliness, hair length, music, literature, food, cars, houses, location ...
You obviously think bigotry only applies to the characteristics you think are applicable. You are wrong.
Really? So if bigotry should not be tolerated, you support disbanding the DNC and running all democrats out of office?
Leftists are literally nothing but bigotry.
Pure evil.
Cancer.
A political party saying that bigotry should be tolerated legally does not equate to that political party having to tolerate bigotry within its ranks, or not being selective about who can represent the party as a candidate.
Gee, which one belongs in a party platform as its goals should it be elected?
No, it is not equally valid. But - in and of itself and apart from any sort of overt animus - it must be tolerated if not necessarily respected.
The original platform drew voters away from both entrenched parties at 12% per year. Mystical and lay looters desperately infiltrated the LP to add anarchist planks and redefine pregnant women as non-individuals. Our vote share rate of gain instantly dropped to zero point something. Additions to the platform ought to be offset by deletions, because over 3000 words takes over 20 minutes to podcast. The LP has not increased a thousandfold only to be commandeered by girl-bullying worshippers of an Austrian with a toothbrush mustache!
Democrats are the girl bulliers? Now I’m confused.
Bigotry is natural variations by a different name. No, bigotry should not be condemned, any more than different tastes in food or clothing or cars or movies or music.
If some damn fool wants to exclude blacks or whites from his business, that is literally his business, and he will lose profits from his attitude. Freedom of association trumps government thought crime.
What *should* be condemned and fought is government bigotry. Those parts of government which are coercive monopolies have no marketplace to keep their bigotry in check; they must not show any bigotry.
Of course, government should not have created coercive monopolies for all the things it does, but that's another matter.
As an example: government should not be in the marriage business. That is a private matter entirely. One rationalization has been government benefits which vary by marital status; that is the error. Your SS pension should not even exist, it should be entirely a private matter, but if the government is going to create a coercive monopoly out of pensions, then it should utterly ignore marital status.
Marriage is in essence a contract and it's necessary for government to be involved in contracts to be able to enforce them.
Government enforcement of a contract defined after the fact by lawyers based upon disparate legislation to which neither party understood or agreed to the terms. That is what the SCOTUS chose to apply any two people instead of eliminating.
But how can we anti-racist and equity-reparations without official bigotry?
Individually!
🙂 🙂 🙂
So much this^
Bigotry is natural variations by a different name.
No it is not. It is the exact opposite. Bigotry is the generalization of an entire group of people based on superficial characteristics. Bigotry is "Mexicans are lazy" or "Asians are good at math". Bigotry is IGNORING the natural variations of the qualities and talents of individual people and instead judging them based on a group characteristic instead of on individual merit. It is wrong and offensive and it ought to be condemned.
It is wrong and offensive and it ought to be condemned.
Unless the NAP is violated, this is the wrong view.
The NAP does not define all of morality. It only defines what ought to be the limits of government power. There are plenty of activities and beliefs that don't violate the NAP but yet are extremely problematic.
And racism is not one of them.
Racism is not problematic? Why not?
If it neither picks your pocket, nor breaks your back......
Jeffy isn’t a race, at least I hope not.
Do you really have a solid idea of what "bigotry" will be defined as?
We're in times where the definition of "woman" is beyond many Democrats, making "misogyny" kind of amorphous. How much less well-defined can we expect things like "race" (which IS actually difficult to define) and "religion" to be?
Not sure it's a bad idea to leave the thought policing entirely alone.
Aaand here we have part of the problem. Several responses, from self-identified libertarians, trying to argue "well, maybe bigotry isn't so bad after all".
What is the end goal here of such an argument? To normalize bigotry? To "pwn the libs" so hard that it leads to a toxic moral relativism where all ideas are supposedly equally valid?
As CE said, condemning bigotry is not the same as a government ban on bigotry. If a person wants to be a bigot, that person ought to have the liberty of being a bigot. But the rest of us ought to have enough moral sense to say that such actions are wrong.
A political party’s platform is what it would do if it had control of the government dumbfuck.
What is the end goal here of such an argument?
Based upon who is leaving the party over the MC's success (cosmopolitan egalitarians), the end goal is to chase leftist (who overwhelmingly are cosmo egals) out of the party.
the end goal is to chase leftist (who overwhelmingly are cosmo egals) out of the party.
In favor of what?
Themselves?
I mean, cmon. Don't be purposefully more dense than usual.
You want to run the "cosmopolitan egalitarians" out of the party. And replace them with what type of people, who believe in what instead?
It's irrelevant what I want or believe (I'm not a member nor will I be anytime soon).
I'm merely giving you an explanation that the MC wants egals gone, to be replaced with themselves.
The weeping and gnashing of teeth over RACCCISSM tells me that their ideas are in direct conflict over egalitarian viewpoints, and lo and behold, the egalitarians are the ones trying to kick out dissenting viewpoints. They failed.
Why are you so opposed to an egalitarian mindset?
There are some bad parts to egalitarianism, sure, but there are also liberty-affirming parts. Such as, the belief that *all people* are endowed with unalienable natural rights. That is a fundamentally egalitarian viewpoint.
Why are you so opposed to an egalitarian mindset?
Two independent reasons:
I've grown more intolerant of degeneracy as I've gotten older. And I'm sick of those who makes excuses for it.
And those who make excuses for it are flaming hypocrites. They will NEVER humble themselves to live in the messes they make, and they expect the rest of us to accept that their piss is rain from heaven.
Libertarianism doesn't say that "all ideas are equally valid", libertarianism says that the way we oppose bigotry and hatred is via private means: freedom of association, freedom of speech, etc.
If it is in a party platform, then it is.
You can rightly condemn something without advocating for making it a crime.
^THIS +10000000000...
IS the problem with a government TOO BIG!!!
AND a natural side-effect of an ever-growing Nazi(National Socialist)-Regime.
This has always been a problem for the libertarian party.
Their candidates at all levels fall into three categories.
Republican carpetbaggers who couldn't make it in the Republican Party
Democrat carpetbaggers who couldn't make it in the Democrat Party
Nut cases (often with very unlibertarian ideas).
Normal libertarians aren't interested in the power over others that comes with political office at any level and thus get pushed aside by motivated power seekers from the outside.
Sad to say, I have to agree with you.
So where's the fix? How do we deprive the power-mad, of the power that they seek? How do we encourage the NON-power-mad, to seek at LEAST just enough power, to defend our individual rights from the power-mad?
My best stab at it: Try to point out to people that our self-righteousness and power-seeking is USED by the power pigs, to push and shove us around! Give UP some of that crap... Example: "R" party fanatics give up your "punishment boners" about abortions, and "D" party fanatics give up your "woke" boners and make-everyone's-charity-choices-for-them-via-taxation-boners... Let's make a TRADE! You give up your punishment boner, and I'll give up mine! Government Almighty, let's get SMALL!!!
Also let's advance brain scan technology... I won't vote for ANY politician who won't reveal their brain-scan results! Is he or she REALLY public-minded, or just another cruel power pig?
See... The Science of Good and Evil, January 2018 National Geographic, by Yudhijit Bhattaharjee , see https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/08/science-good-evil-charlottesville/ …
We know enough about brain science by now, that we can MEASURE good (empathy) v/s evil (lack of empathy, psychopathy); that we could test for it!
Fixes to what we have now:
All police men and women (TSA agents, border guards, FBI, yadda-yadda) must pass the brain scan test before getting a badge. Period!
So when altruism justifies collectivized murder, the Plucky Squirrel solution is for more altruists to individually hurl themselves onto the grenade or into the line of fire. We now need volunteers to show this theory works in actual practice. Let's have a show of hands, please...
This is war! Sad to say, throughout history, there have been the power-mad who always need MORE power! And the ONLY language that they will heed, is force and violence! So (besides draftees AKA slaves), there HAVE been volunteers that will fight them!
Not an optimal solution at ALL, of course, yes! Sad to say, I know of no comprehensive "fix" for this, as of now. Maybe the Lizard People could install mind-control devices on us all, to make us all behave better? Turn us into a human version of remote-controlled rats? https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3077264 Scientists wire up rats for remote control
By implanting electrodes in rats’ brains, scientists have created rodents that can do their bidding remotely.
"So where's the fix?"
There may not be a fix.
That said, in the past I've suggested the LP adopt a sort of draft system for nominations.
For president, each LP local puts all their members names in a hat, draws one and passes it to the state LP.
The State LP takes the names from each local, puts them in a hat and draws one. This name is sent to the national LP.
At the convention, the national LP takes the 50 names from the state LPs and puts them in a hat and draws one.
"Our Condolences to Bob from Florida who will be the LP Presidential nominee."
As to there not being a fix:
There is likely no way to take someone whose heart isn't into doing the things needed to win conventions/elections because they aren't a power seeker and make them competitive in a convention/election against a power seeker.
Again, sad to say, I have to agree with you!
That…actually sounds like an ideal libertarian solution to the problem.
Which is exactly why the LP will never adopt it.
I still think the best place for libertarian activism is in growing private, voluntary, civil society.
Yes, this! PJ O’Rourke, “Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.”
My longer take on it:
Sometimes we have several ways of putting things (even though the thing described remains the same). Take some important flavors of hedonism, for example: “Wine, women, and song”. Old-time, cultured, almost poetic. “Sex, drugs, and Rock & Roll.” In your face, but humorous to think it is basically the same as the first. “Beer, the Old Lady, and TV.” Again humorous, low-brow, with a twinge of boredom-humor.
OK, different topic, but again, same thing described in different ways: Old-time high-brow: Ralph Waldo Emerson, “All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.” Modern humorous and ALMOST in-your-face: PJ O’Rourke, “Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.” Short generic: “Work is love made visible”. Longer version by Khalil Gibran, “Work is love made visible. And if you can't work with love, but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of the people who work with joy”.
Old-old-OLD-time religious: “You’ve observed how godless rulers throw their weight around, how quickly a little power goes to their heads. It’s not going to be that way with you. Whoever wants to be great must become a servant. Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.” Jesus, Matthew 20
SQRLSY One comments: I shoe-horned this in here, because I started out writing about the rampant poo-flinging (about politics) on the internet (forums, chat groups, etc.). This fits right in! And some things never change!
All the wind-bag self-righteous power pigs imagine themselves passing the perfect laws (and school-teaching rules for another example) in THEIR Holy Images, and all would be perfect! Meanwhile, no one (hardly anyone at least sometimes) is “helping Mom with the dishes”… CRT (“Critical Race Theory”) is a popular culture-politics fighting topic right now (early summer 2021). In this case, working peacefully with, and making friends with, people of other races (religions, political parties, etc.), and teaching all children (whenever you get a chance, and usually by example) to love all of their fellow humans, the trees, the bunny rabbits, and the Earth, and the human future, yada-yada… This is BORING! Akin to washing dishes!
Well, STOP that self-righteous bickering! Let’s all get off our asses, stop being arrogant know-it-all windbags, and go do some dishes!
There is a 4th category, principled libertarians. Harry Browne was no nut case or carpetbagger.
A category of one.
When I quit the Libertarian Party about 7 years ago, I got together some of my fellow members and talked about forming an organization, roughly based on fraternal service clubs like the Elks, that would promote libertarianism by growing civil society and private philanthropy, eschewing politics.
Sadly, even that proposal couldn’t get off the ground because of apathy for doing real, hard work, and ideological quibbling.
You were never in the libertarian party. Please.
I’m sure Mike “Just wear the damn mask and it’s totally okay for the government to force you to get an experimental drug” Laursen is a huge libertarian.
Astronomically large libertarian factor to his support for policies enabling more individual liberties and civil rights. Yuge, even. /sarc
Honestly, what the flying fuck is it w/ the shills and left-leaning cheesedicks? They seem to come from this magical land where someone can say the most outlandish horseshit, and it's simply accepted as fact.
They’re used to posting on r/libertarian, which is really just a bunch of leftist who don’t want to be associated with the icky parts of being a tankie?
I suspect it started in primary school, then you are correct, reinforced by living in a bubble and echo chamber for their entire life.
This is the truth. I spend quite a bit of time teaching my elementary kid not to be a dictator to her siblings as she attempts to silence all sound from them and force them to her way or the highway.
My oldest is experimenting with government and I told him the best way to create problems is having a government that dictates the roles of others instead of letting them freely choose.
Kids don’t need helicopter parents or constant supervision. But they do need to be pointed in the right direction occasionally.
It couldn’t get off the ground because nobody wanted to listen to your squawking.
You’re a pure leftist democrat. No one believes you’re a libertarian. You just can’t stop embarrassing yourself, can you?
What we need is someone with libertarian ideals willing to accept public office as a public service, sort of like someone willing to wade into the sewer to unclog it for the good of the community. Something between altruism and enlightened self-interest.
Just a reminder that is actually is possible to talk about politics with mentioning Trump at all.
Or even "without"
Have none of all the journalists that had to learn to code produced an edit button?
Come on, editing is for simps.
Or, to take a conspiracy view, the Reason comment sections are designed for "gotcha" exchanges, even if induced by typos. (And perhaps there are no such things as typos, just shouts from the subconscious.)
There is no such thing as the subconscious.
Why would you need an edit button if you're right the first time anyway?
Yes, but it is also still valid to discuss Trump. He could well be a Presidential candidate in 2024.
OMG! What then?
If Laursen had any integrity, suicide
His whole party.
Some of them might.
And that should be the libertarian platform- make leftists kill themselves in large numbers
But he won’t be the Libertarian candidate, so it’s completely unnecessary to smear fellow libertarians as being Trump supporters.
Of course, I don’t expect YOU to understand that.
Objectivists took over local Young Americans for Freedom organizations in the 1970s. Nixon's campaign subsidies law blocked media mention of the LP. Ayn Rand fans were able to find, invade and dislodge ku-kluxers, girl-bulliers and John Birch Society nuts from YAF chapters. The solution was for the Christianofascist Central Committee to decertify objectivist chapters and recognize as "real" the ones dedicated to sending men with guns to bully women. Ron Paul's infiltration to turn the LP into a Landover Baptist Tea Party showed that two could play.
All this reminds me of the slam against academics: the fighting is so vicious because the stakes are so small.
https://www.landoverbaptist.org/ ... Yes, they are still here!
"Ron Paul's infiltration to turn the LP into a Landover Baptist Tea Party"
Go fuck your hat you doddering old communist. There's more to libertarianism than ass sex, legal weed and voting for the Democratic Party.
He probably hung out with Will Geer and his boyfriend, Harry Hay.
Ron Paul has done more for liberty than probably any other Libertarian Party member. He hasn't been perfect, but he was elected to Congress 12 times because he was clearly principled and consistent, and understood how to explain things to voters.
I'd say Rand Paul has done more for liberty than the Libertarian party but he's an icky Republican so Reason hasn't noticed. But Amash? So dreamy.
He (Amash) takes that Chinese money without apology. What could more dreamy than the worship of the almighty dollar?
Is Breitbart or Newsmax your source for that?
And supports the IC running color revolution ops on the American people.
So much libertying!
Various strategies have been tried, and largely failed, by the LP over 50 years. I suppose the Mises group is entitled to a honeymoon period to try theirs. The 2024 presidential candidate and campaign will be most instructive.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/shouldnt-hillary-clinton-be-banned?s=r
https://twitter.com/annbauerwriter/status/1470074865285697537?t=YBConich_8PvhjVzCLV4dw&s=19
The lesson of Covid isn't that climate change is a hoax.
It's that today's Left will seize any complex problem and use it as a weapon to gain power, increase the wealth divide and provide luxury to the elite at the expense of everything you hold dear - without solving a thing.
But it is genius to promise salvation through suffering to millions of eager supplicants while the elite wallow in luxury and power. Though it has been done before.
When the SPLC says you're racist, you're probably not paying them enough.
Maybe Musk could threaten to buy the SPLC.
Ha
It would certainly make for a wonderful test payload to Mars.
Also, it's a pretty good indicator that you are not racist.
https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1530922461654462464?t=ljpEXxnRr36Llo6IRKkkzA&s=19
Kids going crazy with anxiety over things that pose zero statistical threat. Yet this is not classified by the NYT as a “misinformation” problem that requires censorship to correct.
Kids acting out more in almost every way except vandalizing school property or having sex.
Anxious, sexless, and deferential to authority is the trend in modern liberalism.
[Links]
Maybe they can start a Junior Anti-Sex League, and wear a red sash to signify membership.
Or wear brown shirts and burn books.
“ Dov H. Levin
@dov_levin
·
2h
Replying to
@RichardHanania
Those one million Americans who died from COVID19, around a tenth of which are believed to be caretakers of children would like to have a word with you. Losing a parent during childhood is a well known traumatic experience. Add the possibility of getting long COVID...”
I love how these motherfuckers are stealing the base of 1 million deaths while completely ignoring that’s over a two year fucking period.
Cute trying to switch from "caretakers" to "parents" like we wouldn't notice.
(to a parent, about their child) "You didn't build that!)
"The sense the caucus is soft on or actively encourages racism attracted the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center just before the convention began, which aired the concerns in a story reported with cooperation from many Libertarian Party members upset with the Mises Caucus.
The SPLC is a demagogic direct-mail racket and a Democratic Party Super-PAC/smear shop masquerading as a human rights organization. It's full of rich, white, rapey lawyers who's sole function is to smear anyone as racist who opposes the Democratic Party and it's policies.
Time and time again the SPLC has been successfully sued for it's various smear jobs, but look at Doherty pretend it's some sort of impartial arbiter of who's racist or not.
Whenever the SPLC is invoked like this, you know you're in for a dishonest fucking hack job.
Did the SPLC say your WEF and Soros conspiracies were antisemitic?
You seriously get upset when people criticize your old Hitler Youth patron Soros, don't you Shrike?
"But-but-but everyone had to join the Nazi party, he didn't have a choice"
Fuck off.
He was just a kid and was trying to not get killed.
You’re fucking despicable dude.
He was an actual Nazi with a Nazi Party membership card.
There were shitloads of other teenagers who risked their lives fighting with the Hungarian resistance, while George was heiling Hitler and helping his Uncle confiscate Jewish property.
You’re fucking despicable for excusing it, dude.
The other option was being killed.
You’re an despicable piece of trash
Killed fighting Nazis with the resistance like thousands of other brave Hungarian teenagers, versus joining the Hitler Youth and stealing from Jewish houses... and you defend the pick Nazi pick, everytime.
We call KKKar an antisemite for a real reason, folks.
He was a collaborator. Like you are.
Now give us your apologia for the hitlerjugend, shitbird.
I know if I wanted to deny I was anti-Semitic, I probably wouldn’t defend Nazis, but that’s just me.
Zackly. I've always figured them to be waaay behind the Better Business Bureau in terms of directly selling their "objective findings", lol.
The ADL, otoh, I've always figured for sincere, supersensitive but totally old and clueless org. But they may have updated to a more modern scam recently. Given the "OK/3 sign" cluelessness, I kinda doubt it though.
The SPLC has led to more killings than the LP.
Just sayin'.
https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1530811326842474496?t=iGUANbNk6_r_YikA8ZWY5g&s=19
The Democratic Party only cares about shootings if it helps them restrict guns.
Dems run the US murder capitals despite gun control. Radical DAs refuse to charge for serious crimes. Mayors let violent criminals out over Covid. They bailed out BLM rioters.
They are con artists.
Black male gang-bangers are not likely voters. Black shoplifters might be.
Whether they vote or not, whether they register to vote or not, their votes will be counted
I'm surprised that this article doesn't explore the claim that Stephen Bannon was involved at some point, and had a meeting with Mises Caucus people. (I was at a Leadership Institute even in Arlington VA 3 weeks ago where a former LP HQ staff person told me that and most of the other stuff in the SPLC article. I then contacted Zaid Jalini, whom I'd met before, to ask him if he had heard that or thought it was an interesting rumor. He said it was but not what he covers anymore.) Why would Bannon want the LP to be more Trumpian or alt-right, since that would take votes away from nationalist GOP candidates? Unless they only ran in races against Democrats and RINOs. This behind the curtain machinations, if they exist, are way more interesting than people screaming "bigot" at each other.
Nobody who regularly votes Democrat is going to alternately vote for an actual libertarian unless they have some sort of road-to-Damascus conversion experience.
And then only if it's not a contested race.
Hell, even "libertarians" like Boehm will vote D if they think it's going to be close
So more likely a "libertarian" will vote leftist than a leftist will vote libertarian
And if a leftist will vote libertarian... what the hell kind of candidate are you running?
Did you hear that the Mises Caucus has a server in their offices that can connect to a bank in Moscow? A bank with 'shadowy' connections to Putin? Eh?
The Mises caucus doesn’t support Ukraine!
Ron Paul wants states to be able to ban guns, so I don't see how that's better than Bill Weld on gun rights.
This new LP seems really bad. Its like the alt-right took over. Hopefully it will pass. Until then though Im out.
It's pretty obvious that you were never "in" to begin with.
with a name like mr_liberal i'm shocked you are "out"
Bye bitch.
Illiberal, if you need to pull out the alt-right canard, it's pretty clear your assertions are full of shit.
4 year battle? More like a 40 year battle.
A little stronger adherence to principle is a good thing.
If you're going to get under 5 percent even with a reasonable and well qualified candidate like Gary Johnson, you may as well sacrifice a few percentage points and go with a candidate who can advocate liberty more strongly.
And the LP dropped the ball on the COVID pandemic related assault on individual rights. It was a golden opportunity to strongly stand up against city, county, state and national overreach.
“you may as well sacrifice a few percentage points and go with a candidate who can advocate liberty more strongly.”
Why? Why bother having a political party at all if you aren’t going to try to break 5% of the vote?
Just because you are a quitter, doesn’t mean everyone is.
Having once been a delegate to a few state conventions, it was clear to me that there were a significant number of dues paying members for which winning elections wasn't even an afterthought. It's not even on their radar. The party is just a huge ideological LARP to them.
Johnson/Weld may not have been purists, but they were in no way a lesser evil. And in no way justified the support of some of these people for Trump/Pence.
Yeah. The LP does fulfill a purpose in that sense, in that it gives libertarians who want to play at debating society something to keep them occupied.
As opposed to Mike who just comes around to concern troll for the left. The last thing mike would ever want is for a consensus message in the libertarian party to emerge. That's why, when people on the Right and Libertarians start to agree on something, he will parachute into the thread to try and jam some wedge issues in there:
https://reason.com/2022/01/07/mandatory-gmo-disclosure-doesnt-sway-shopping-habits-but-will-drive-up-costs/?comments=true#comment-9293589
That's Mike trying to bring up vaccines to start a fight because he can't stand the fact that libertarians and the right agree on GMOs.
You two are fucking hilarious. If, and I do mean if, there is a complaint about the Mises Caucus it is that they are choosing to reduce emphasis on issues that turn off conservatives in order to form a coalition that can stop the marxist creep of Woke politics.
The entire purpose of this coalition is to increase the number of people. Like Doherty you all will talk out of both sides of the mouth. When they decline to shout some Liberal (but also libertarian) issue, they are selling out principles. When they shout some conservative (but also libertarian) issue, you exclaim that they are being too dogmatic and they clearly aren't doing the work necessary to have a working party. It's absurd.
> you may as well sacrifice a few percentage points and go with a candidate who can advocate liberty more strongly.
And if you think that candidate is Dave Smith then you're a fucking lunatic.
Did you see who ran in 2020? Or 2016?
Smith would be a massive improvement.
https://spectator.org/the-long-slow-death-of-espn/
I know it sucks being a Jags fan(and living in shithole Florida), but it’s not ESPN’s fault.
Move to Spokane, then.
What the fuck is going on here? I don't come to Reason Magazine to see articles about *libertarianism*!
Where's the culture war? Where's the Trump? Where's the 'here's why you should support any candidate but one with the slightest libertarian cred'.
How are we supposed to fling shit at each other in the comments if you post stuff that's on-message?
You're saying this about an article that treats SPLC allegations as credible?
Eh, its still sorta *news* about what's happening inside the LP even if its slanted.
I mean, when was the last time? When Reason was supporting Weld's accepting the VP slot with Johnson *rolls eyes*.
Fair enough
Perhaps doherty believes, like all true believers, that all accusations of racism are due to trump's evil influence. He did manage to shoehorn in some culture war 'racism' tweets, while studiously avoiding the Mises Caucus platform. It's what you've outlined, but with more focus on details concerning one event versus simply hearsay.
Where's the culture war? Where's the Trump?
Didn't you read the article?
You read the articles? Nerd!
Trump was literally mentioned in the article, because 2022.
It's covering the important points:
Your shit-flinging skillz must have atrophied or something, man.
https://twitter.com/45LVNancy/status/1530894403820130304?t=d3JVHweaL4StokkmL2fGpw&s=19
White kid, away at college, is executed for being WHITE.
Black executioner pleas to manslaughter
????and the media coverage is zilch
.
.
.
…. But “Fuck that white motherfucker" ????
#GeorgeFloyd
#SethSmithdidntdeservetodieat19
[Link]
Good. There should be fallout from the Johnson/Weld ticket.
Weld is a useful idiot who helped us increase out vote share 328% with strengthened ballot access in 50 States. The "improvement" was Jeremy Cohen, nicknamed after a needle, who explicitly rejected the Libertarian platform and helped saboteurs besmirch it by adding communist anarchist planks. Voter reaction stripped away 8 years of crippled progress, wrecked ballot access and so weakened the organization as to enable an Austrian National Socialist takeover of key functions. Restoring the original 2542-word platform can thwart all such machinations.
At what point does the Mises caucus hold any Nazi position? Either name them, or quit spouting out nonsensical lies.
Foes accuse it of right-wing deviationism and racism.,
Because of course they are.
"Foes accuse it of right-wing deviationism and racism..."
AND?
Is this Reason trying to keep up with the cool kids? Guilt by allegation! Mindless repetition of smears!
If you're not going to deal with the substance, don't report the whispers, you feckless fucks.
It’s midterm season and Reason’s mission is to support the DNC.
tweeted on Martin Luther King Day that "America isn't in debt to black people. If anything it's the other way around."
not everything that is obnoxious is racist.
I can’t believe I had to get this far down for someone to say it.
The first part of the tweet isn’t necessarily wrong. The second part is obnoxious but I’m not sure I see the “racism”.
Obnoxious? Yes. Provocative? Racially insensitive? Yes. Racist? Eh, not really.
The MC is loaded with edgelords who troll to get a rise out of anyone with liberal sensibilities. They aren't themselves, for the most part, racist.
Doherty does seem to be of the sort spring-loaded to assume that anything of which he does not approve must be racist if race is involved. I find a lot of the writing lacks the ability or willingness to consider nuance, context, or any other factor. And, much of the writing is one dimensional for the same reason, it approaches topics from the writer's viewpoint, based on an extremely limited set of experiences.
Find the mass migration of American blacks to Africa and we can call it anything but the truism it is as much as it's impolite to say.
Notice that Reason's argument against the statement seems to have fallen off.
It's the usual Leftist "point and huff". That's all they've got, and all they've had for years now.
Want government of, by, and for the People? "You're a racist!"
If only the Miseian army would takeover Reason.
caused one of the party's few elected officials, Dekalb, Illinois, City Clerk Sasha Cohen, to quit in protest as well, saying "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."
What a pussy.
Not a very smart Cohen there, unless it's just more gaslighting.
He seems to think he knows what is "racist", (which is a binary, either/or thing, apparently, with no nuance or context), he takes for granted that "People of color" are one single thing, and I'm guessing that "transphobe" translates to "anyone who disagrees with the most radical trans activist in any fucking way.
Nope, not very thoughtful at all, sounds pretty...DNC? Because that use of language (which assumes without stating that he is correct in all his beliefs) is used to trip up people who would actually like to solve problems, to the end of gaining power for some set of people.
Well I'm sure Mises caucus will find a ton of true libertarians who can be elected city clerk somewhere.
You'll be surprised.
"If you say Justin Amash isn't libertarian enough for you," Amash told the Mises crowd, "then I've got news for you about the rest of the country."
this pretty much sums up the biggest problem for libertarians and the libertarian party in particular.
Americans are not libertarian. Not even close.
A Purity Party can never win an election. A Purity Party is duty bound to engage in constant purity purges. A Purity Party finds it far more important to root out and expel wrongthink members than to actually win elections. And to the Purity Party, wrongthink means whatever the committee decides it means.
So what? It's not like the LP was spectacularly successful before.
As far as I can tell, it's the leftist people in the LP who have been trying to expel people; the Mises caucus has not. It's the leftist people in the LP who are leaving in a huff because the Mises caucus rejects their authoritarian and racist ideology.
"As far as I can tell, it's the leftist people in the LP who have been trying to expel people; the Mises caucus has not."
This.
It's a Democratic Party tactic that should be one of the Alinsky rules. Accuse those you oppose of what you're doing or plan to do.
It is, and it's excessively deployed by the left
'A Purity Party finds it far more important to root out and expel wrongthink members.' Far beyond the LP, brandy, quite humorously, misses the fact that the policies and laws it supports, the in-group to which it belongs, is the purity culture currently trying to root out and expel on an international level.
Brandy does that a lot.
He/him is a bit of a dolt, and a mental train wreck
You're being exceptionally gentle. Brandy is a fuckwit.
Truth
Again i'm not talkign about being "pure" libertarian.
Most americans are not even in the same ballpark as the basic tenets of libertarianism.
Neither is brandy
But they certainly THINK they are, sometimes.
The number of people who think they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, with no help from filthy government. Who think taxation of THEIR money is certainly theft. Who think THEY can be trusted with full autonomy and a bazooka...that's a lot of Americans, actually.
It's only when they have to confront the actual real-world application of the principles behind such things they start stuttering about "Wasting my vote." and "Oh, but we NEED government regulation for that." etc. etc.
Fortunately Somalians are.
You are mistaken. Read:
https://www.thefreemanonline.org/is-money-an-economic-resource/
Read this too:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/dx5y4/somalia_is_not_a_libertarian_country_stop_using/
Amash sided with the Deep State Coup.
He's no libertarian.
“Mises Caucus Takes Control of Libertarian Party”
If they are like every other faction that has taken over the LP, now that they have successfully fought against other factions, they will start infighting amongst themselves.
Meanwhile, Australia's voting-at-gunpoint, Nixon-style campaign subsidies and girl-bullying laws passed by Trumpista mystical fanatics have crushed all libertarian progress there and restored control to avowed looter socialists. Does anyone here discern a pattern?
Was that comment meant to be on my post?
You're the one who mentioned infighting. Perhaps the idea is to keep the LP from drawing votes away from the Dems, who have at least had the good sense not to try to restore slavery using sex rather than race as the determinant. Tactically the thing could wreak change if it further reduces both LP and GOP vote shares... as in Australia.
OK, I was just asking a simple question because I thought you may have accidentally commented on the wrong topic.
Does anyone here discern a pattern?
Voting is bad?
Orange Man so bad, he fucked up Australia!
How dare he provoke Australian officials into conspiring to frame and coup him!
That's the TRUE test of anyone's libertarian bona fides: How quickly you point at every other libertarian and accuse xem of being unlibertarian.
Hmm, pointing spiderman...
"Edgier"? No. "More libertarian"? Yes.
Just the language alone tells you that those "foes" are radical leftist ideologues.
But the whole thing is pointless anyway: you can't make the country libertarian at the ballot box.
The MAGA heads have taken over. It's not about ideological purity anymore, it's about cultural purity. Celebrate the right to be racist fucks. All hail Hoppe.
So you are saying that the state should promote progressive views on race and race relations?
Huh? You advocate "cultural purity" ("racism is bad and it's the job of the LP to promote that view"), in contrast to "ideological purity" (i.e., "what you believe about other people and how you treat other people is your own business as long as you don't violate the NAP").
Whether you like it or not, the Mises caucus is, in fact, about "ideological purity", whether it's on race, the economy, or foreign policy. And you're right: that makes the Mises country ideologically closer to Trump than either to traditional Republicans or Democrats. Again, how is that a bad thing?
It's the manipulatuon and weaponization of white guilt, the first second, and 52 cards in the Deck of the left liberal playbook.
Where there's superstitious Faith, there's Hoppe! Still, it is difficult to imagine this as worse than the Bevis-Boothead-Henchman regime favoring communist anarchism. If this is the best the combined might of a century and a half of communo-fascist socialism spread over 175 countries can marshal to disrupt the Libertarian Party, it's a Pyrrhic victory.
You're just mentioning a bunch of oxymorons... do you even know what you're talking about?
You’re just babbling incoherently.
You’re welcome to try to answer the questions I asked.
Celebrate the right to be racist fucks.
And what racism is that, you disingenuous fuck? You must have at least one example.
That MLK day tweet!
Nothing racist about suggesting black people owe us whites.
The R stands for racist in R Mac
Okay KKKar. Now tell us again how Greater Israel will control the world.
Where did I say anything like that?
Still lying, huh?
KillAllRednecks
Jun.22.2021 at 6:45 pm
Zionist Jew plotters want to extend Greater Israel across the entire planet using Mormons and the Pope! Only Joe Biden can stop them. Vote Democrat!
It didn’t say they owe whites, it said they owed America. You just conflated America with white people. So you should probably refrain from calling anyone else a racist.
Yeah, that’s what is happening *eyeroll*
Well I’m shocked, SHOCKED!, that Brandy is calling people racist.
Have you, somewhere, perhaps enumerated and/or defined what actual actions constitute "racism"?? Or is it just one of those "I know what it means and I'll tell you if I need to bludgeon you with it."
Because lately I've seen some pretty shit uses of the word "racism". Most recent (and most stupid) example: SF city council moving to remove the word "Chief" from common usage despite it not being an indigenous word, and not being used negatively even towards tribal leaders.
So maybe the accusation in your post is less biting and more derpity-durrr stupid than you think. I've already made my peace with being a "transphobe", maybe it's part of a process, eh?
Brandyshit is on record claiming anyone who’s not for open borders is racist. There’s no other reason.
and especially his #8 gun oil.
"The MAGA heads have taken over"
If only!
I'd be all over a MAGA Libertarian Party like White on rice!
Anyone opposed to anything but a complete and utter submission to the progressive state is, ipso facto, "racist".
The man got it right when he said:
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules…that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist today." [Thomas Sowell]
Brandyshit probably thinks Sowell is racist.
Probably thinks Sowell is a white supremacist oreo.
I doubt brandy knows Sowell is black...
I have no doubt it would be happy to call Sowell an Uncle Tom. Left-leaning/progressive sorts are amazingly fast to pick up and rationalize use of ethnic slurs. Brandy, again humorously, in its mindless assertions about the MC's 'racism,' fails to consider the actual racism inherent in the policies and laws it supports.
They have, and they will certainly do so again. Consider Herschel Walker's campaign in Georgia:
"Herschel Walker's candidacy is a white insult to Black people."
"I make a hard distinction between Black conservatives and these tokens" – referring to Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) and Walker – "who are out here right now, shucking and jiving for their white handlers."
"Walker has positioned himself into being a useful fool for those who don't have the best interests of Black people or this democracy at heart."
"[Herschel Walker's] irrelevant to the Black community, and we should treat him as such."
"Herschel Walker, the football star turned Georgia Senate candidate, is an animated caricature of a Black person drawn by white conservatives."
"Most white people in the South vote 'R' like their entire white supremacist project depends on it."
"Georgia Republicans want Walker because he's Black and Warnock is Black, and they think they can defeat Warnock in November if they can shave just a little of the Black vote..."
Well, good thing that racists and bigots like Sasha are quitting the party then.
Dominating the convention body by more than two-thirds, the Mises Caucus claims to offer an edgier, more libertarian organization. Foes accuse it of right-wing deviationism and racism.
I don't know anything about this kerfuffle, but when I hear those two accusations, it tells me the Libertarian party might just be moving in the right direction, and yanking it from the grubby mitts of the woke, left why-can't-we-be-friends caucus.
I think there is a strong desire for a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And a libertarian party could do well with that message. This seems a step pack. Why go libertarian when a Trump dominated Republican party will offer the same platform? Much like the Tea Party Movement which started out with good ideas and then simply became an anti-Obama movement, the libertarian party may be losing its edge.
a Trump dominated Republican party will offer the same platform?
FWIW no GOP for over 50 years has been fiscally conservative. "Fiscal conservatism" is what they claim to be interested in when the Democrats are in, though as the data show, in practice the Democrats are more fiscally conservative than the Republicans.
though as the data show, in practice the Democrats are more fiscally conservative than the Republicans.
This is what leftists claim to appeal to libertarians, but it's a lie.
The Democrats do have an edge in fiscal conservativism simply because they will pay for their spending. Now that means taxes. Republicans are too often simply adding to the debt. Republicans are not lowering taxes, but rather shifting them to the future.
BTW - it is moderates of both parties that have tried to rein in spending and they are often blocked by the extremes in their party.
“ fiscal conservativism simply because they will pay for their spending.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
That’s shrike levels of bullshit.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Taxes is freedom!
Name 3 fiscally conservative democrats, 3 fiscally conservative democratic laws, and three fiscally conservative democrat policies. And quit huffing that glue while your at it.
The issue is not what Democrats might say, it's what the data show. If you actually bothered to look at the data - widely available - you will see that the GOP are worse than the Democrats when it comes to the deficit and are no better when it comes to spending.
Then show us the data.
Don't make insane and clearly dishonest claims, and then try to handwave criticism by shouting "The data!" without even showing any.
Riiiiiight, So, as ML said, show us the motherfucking data, since we know what the issue is. You are lying, and the DNC are party of grifters.
The Democrats do have an edge in fiscal conservativism simply because they will pay for their spending.
This is a lie. Dems do increase taxes although only on their enemies. But these increases come nowhere near paying for their spending.
More importantly it is not fiscally conservative simply to pay for spending. If it were communism would be considered conservative. In fact Dems spend money just to spend (which generates political loyalty), they don't even give a shit if the spending accomplishes anything as Obamacare showed us.
it is moderates of both parties that have tried to rein in spending
There are no moderate officials in the Democratic Party. There are only people who prefer to reach the same goal incrementally vs those who want to achieve it in one bite.
I am not a leftist, though conservatives who like to think they're libertarians might think so.
But it is no lie as any honest perusal of the data will show. You will not, of course, have actually looked at the data because god forbid your pious faith might be disrupted.
"I am not a leftist"
"How would the Mises Caucus handle the case of typhoid Mary?"
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
But it is no lie as any honest perusal of the data will show.
This is of course a lie. Left wingers misrepresent reality to claim this, but the simple fact is that there has never been a point when the Dems wanted to spend less than the Reps. There have been times they were not able to do so, but their lack of power to achieve their goals does not make them responsible or fiscally conservative.
the data will show...
that the composition of the House of Representatives determines the spending. And that it isn't what flavor the POTUS is, but who controls the purse strings.
And D's held those strings for the 60 years that created the mess we are in and every other period since that had massive spending and Federal Government expansion.
You are a liar, a left-leaning or progressive shill, and an ineffective troll. No data, no argument, thus, you have lost.
How would the Mises Caucus handle the case of typhoid Mary?
"Typhoid Mary was an illegal immigrant so who cares, send her back to the shithole country where she came from, problem solved"
That actually would have solved the problem, but for the fact that Mary Mallon wasn't an illegal. Nice strawman attempt though.
And whoosh, goes the point.
Here is a clue: viruses and diseases do not care about a person's citizenship papers.
You weren't making a point. You were making what you thought was a sly attack on those awful Trumpistas with your little "shithole country" remark.
Lying Jeffy thinks he’s being slick, yet he fools no one. Except Dee.
No, but quarantine and isolation based on country of origin and socioeconomic status are effective, and those are related to a person’s citizenship papers.
But communicable diseases do care very much about border controls targeted at their passage.
Quarantine the sick person and let everyone else go about their business?
She wasn't sick.
She was an asymptomatic carrier. There were plenty of other known asymptomatic carrier's at the time who were equally virulent but not subject to the same strictures as Mary was.
Her treatment when compared to the others was an aberration.
someone who presented himself ideologically as entirely libertarian can win federal office. He is not a Mises Caucus guy, and in his keynote Friday he trolled them by reading various quotes—including some opposing anarchism and supporting cosmopolitan international cooperation—to a chorus of boos, only to reveal that the quotes were from Ludwig von Mises himself.
So the Mises caucus is anarchistic?
Not officially AFAIK. Unofficially, yes.
Heise, D. Smith, J. Smith, McArdle, Harlos are all Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists. Harlos might be the only one of the aforementioned who isn't also a Hoppean, but they'll drop her once they catch onto her enthusiastically pro-open borders position or learn first-hand how utterly obnoxious and histrionic she is. The MiCaucs elected her because (a) the previous LNC couldn't stand her bullying, while they couldn't stand the previous LNC, and (b) she rushed to defend the Mises-owned NH affiliate, and they owed her a solid.
to eliminate from the L.P.'s platform a statement that "we condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant." (This first entered the platform in 1974, though it has not remained there consistently.)
This is stupid. They should have left this in and added a criticism of wokeism's left wing racism.
The caucus also wants to completely eliminate any mention of abortion, replacing a current plank that is effectively pro-choice, though it says in essence that Libertarians can differ in opinion based on when they think a protectable life begins.
This is exactly correct.
In general it makes sense to appeal to the right since since there are no common principles with the left. Reps support many things libertarians oppose. But the left's program is entirely against libertarian principle. Even in the handful of subjects where there seems to be overlap (like law enforcement reform) their ideology prevents them from developing or even understanding effective solutions. All they really care about is gaining control of how to spend the money so they can hire more trans social workers.
In general it makes sense to appeal to the right since since there are no common principles with the left. Reps support many things libertarians oppose. But the left's program is entirely against libertarian principle. Even in the handful of subjects where there seems to be overlap (like law enforcement reform) their ideology prevents them from developing or even understanding effective solutions. All they really care about is gaining control of how to spend the money so they can hire more trans social workers.
NAILED IT!
Oh good grief.
EVERYONE, both in Team Red and in Team Blue, has a basic conception of liberty. The biggest difference, though, from them and us, is that:
Team Blue tends to think of liberty in utilitarian terms, i.e., if a person's exercise of liberty benefits society in some way, then it ought to be protected. If not, then no. So, e.g., hate speech should be banned because it serves no constructive purpose.
Team Red tends to think of liberty in terms of moral worth, i.e., if a person is of sufficient moral character to "deserve" liberty, then that person's liberty ought to be protected. If not, then no. So, e.g., illegal immigrants don't deserve liberty because (in their view) they lack the moral character to follow the immigration rules.
But the seeds of the idea are there in both cases. We just have to craft an argument that appeals to them where they are at, and eventually get them to see to defend liberty for its own sake.
It's so cute when jeffy pretends to be a libertarian.
It amazes me that he still thinks he can trick people.
This. But the model for a third political party requires something very different then. More akin to gardening (using the seed of an idea idea) than eugenics (letting only the already perfected become Scotsmen)
Neither you or Jeffy believe that though. You are left-wing authoritarians.
“Even in the handful of subjects where there seems to be overlap (like law enforcement reform) their ideology prevents them from developing or even understanding effective solutions.”
Almost the entire country was interested in criminal justice reform, and lefties completely sabotaged it.
Almost the entire country was interested in criminal justice reform, and lefties completely sabotaged it.
This happened because their priority is power and money, and solving the problem threatens this goal. That's why they had to make their demands more extreme, so they could not be implemented. If we ever give in to those demands they will develop even more extreme demands. This is their nature.
Intentionally, and enthusiastically at every level of leftist
"though it says in essence that Libertarians can differ in opinion based on when they think a protectable life begins."
Giving them the only sane and honest platform on abortion in America.
Disaffected bigots and antisocial right-wing misfits, unite!
I don’t know why you pick on Democrats so much Artie.
Go ahead and join that group, bigot. We libertarians are not part of what you describe.
Cry more bitch.
Most of the people batching and moaning in this thread are Reason staffers, furiously logging in under their sockpuppet accounts.
The writers at reason don’t care what you slack jawed yokels think.
You’re just a low income nobody.
Who would KKKar be, if he wasn't Shrike? Binion, or maybe Shackford?
Suderman over Shackford, I think. But I think it's an idiot w/ out it being a staffer.
Oh it's definitely Shrike, I was just speculating.
It’s pathetic you think the writers at Reason would care what some trashy rural Canadian rube thinks.
It’s pathetic you think some trashy rural Canadian rube would care what some fat antisemitic pedophile thinks, Shrike.
ENB all the way
Apt
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1530958116107476992?t=jGvnTOmQhiwBV8NHqLe1tw&s=19
The “critics” seek not to critique, but rather to virtue signal. They are out of touch with the people and so lose their credibility with the people.
https://thepostmillennial.com/trans-barbie-gives-girls-new-unrealistic-beauty-standards-to-aspire-to
Mattel, makers of Barbie dolls, have launched their latest aspirational doll of unrealistic physical proportions. The first transgender Barbie doll, based on actor Laverne Cox, a biological male who identifies as trans, is meant to show the importance of "acceptance at every age," says Mattel.
I just assumed Ken had transitioned long ago.
Ken never had any balls.
Ken doll, hasn't got any balls,
They're hanging in the Lincoln Hall,
Mattel, should roast in hell
For chopping them off, when he was just small.
Another potential mass shooting that wasn't, because of a good gal with a gun:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10865783/West-Virginia-woman-praised-using-pistol-shoot-dead-gunman-AR-15.html
The gunman was... a 37-year-old criminal who had already been cautioned for speeding near children when he drove to the graduation party that was being held outside at the Vista View Apartment Complex in Charleston, West Virginia.... He drove away then returned with an AR-style assault rifle and opened fire. The woman was among guests at the outdoor party. When she saw Butler open fire, she immediately pulled out her weapon and shot at him.... It's unclear exactly how many people were there but police described it as a 'crowd'.... The woman then pulled her legally-owned gun out of her purse and shot and killed him. At a press conference on Thursday, Charleston Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett praised the woman as a hero. 'Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,' he said.
And another mass shooting we didn't hear much about, because of a really good guy armed with a chair:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10820965/Hero-pastor-hit-Orange-County-gunman-chair-churchgoers-hogtied-seized-weapons.html
A hero pastor at a Taiwanese church in Orange County hit a gunman over the head with a chair while his elderly congregants hogtied him and confiscated his weapons after he went on a shooting spree on Sunday afternoon, killing one and injuring five.
The story says the motive for the shooting was unclear, but local news media are reporting that it was an anti-Asian hate crime -- perpetrated by a Chinese man because the church-goers were Taiwanese.
More details on the motive in a separate story:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10827993/Roommate-No-warning-signs-deadly-church-attack.html
The man accused of opening fire on a Southern California church congregation because of his political hatred for Taiwan dubbed himself a 'destroying angel' in a seven-volume diary sent to a newspaper before the attack, the paper said on Wednesday.
If by anti-Asian they mean communist sympathizer…
A hero pastor at a Taiwanese church in Orange County hit a gunman over the head with a chair while his elderly congregants hogtied him and confiscated his weapons
Different generation, Christian, and immigrants. Perhaps I should rethink my open border stance for this group.
"America isn't in debt to black people. If anything it's the other way around."
Correct. And libertarian.
What is the supposed debt that black people owe to America?
If they hadn’t been brought here they would still be living in 3rd world countries with failed governments, poor education and a shitty standard of living?
Of course we have places like Detroit so ????♂️
So that’s the code for the shrug emoji. Interesting.
Incorrect.
One of the core idiocies of collectivist ideology is treating groups as persistent entities, rather than accounting the benefits and harms to actual individuals.
The actual accounting here is that if their ancestors hadn't been enslaved, these present individuals never would have existed.
If these present individuals count themselves injured by the fact of existing, repairing that is, of course, entirely within their own power.
So, black people should be grateful that their ancestors were enslaved, tortured, raped and brutalized? This is what you're going with?
And of course you're assuming that even if Europeans hadn't enslaved, colonized, and raped Africa, that the continent would be just the same as it is today, right?
Are you sure this is the argument you want to make?
I didn’t say I agreed with that mentality, but that would definitely be the argument from people that do.
No...but Europeans did not go to Europe and just kidnap folks. They bought them. If Europe never got involved in Africa, there'd STILL be widespread slavery. It's not like they have really done away with slavery in that shithole of a continent.
The solution is to FORCE slaves EVERYWHERE to buy Reason Magazines, right, you totalitarian you?
Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?
Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!
So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!
“Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)
(Etc.)
See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/
Well, Europeans didn't enslave, colonize, and rape Africa, they bought the slaves garnered from the conquered and colonized kingdoms and tribes that were the result of the Islamic rape of Africa.
But hey, since when did you ever have a grasp on history?
If their countries in Africa had not been exploited and colonized for the enrichment of Europeans they would not be 3rd world countries. today. If Africans had been fairly compensated for materials taken from them they would be as wealthy as those that exploited them.
I actually don’t disagree that had they been left to their own devices, we have no idea what some of those people could have accomplished.
But it’s not really hard to understand where some edgelord’s thinking comes from if you stop to think from a different perspective every once in a while.
I actually don’t disagree that had they been left to their own devices, we have no idea what some of those people could have accomplished.
Of course we have an idea. With at least a 70000 year head start, when the peoples finally collided, there was no match between them. Western Civilization, the newcomer, possessed an immeasurable lead in every measure of improved lives.
And it is Western Philosophies that spell success. Perhaps Kunty Kloths are cool, but there is little I've seen of other cultures (political philosophies) that seems to be a winning proposition.
I’d say Confucianism had a good run before communism overran it, but otherwise agree.
Hmmmm...you are assuming West and South Sub Sahara Africa would develop into nation states? I'm not sure..nation states were very European and through Colonization became the standard government unit. You also need to take into account geography and culture. Always fun to do "what ifs". The mistake the Europeans did when they ended colonialism is their focus on their own advantage in creating artificial states...Kuwait and Jordan come to mind. Africa they left as a mess.
My ancestors liberated theirs from slavery.
If we're going to start with historical accounting, let's start there.
Oh, yes, the Stalinist Progressive Libel Commissariat, your reliable guide to libertarian orthodoxy.
I wouldn’t take their word for it, either, but I’ve seen some of the Mises Caucus’ communications with my own eyes. This time the SPLC is not wrong.
Perhaps considering the results of 100 years of Progressive Policies meant to even the outcomes of individuals' lives it may be time to consider rejecting the adoption of those failed cultures.
So, like, our only two choices are progressivism or the Mises Caucus?
No. Progressivism, like Marxism, is a failed ideology and should be rejected outright. I don't know what other isms may arise once those destructive forces are removed
Are we still talking about car insurance, or are we talking about burritos?
We're talking about this, Mike:
Perhaps considering the results of 100 years of Progressive Policies meant to even the outcomes of individuals' lives it may be time to consider rejecting the adoption of those failed cultures.
What part of this do you not understand?
Citing the SPLC is scraping the barrel, but then again, the people who enjoy doing so usually enjoy scraping unborn babies too.
Seems there are still Libertarians that are being actively fooled by the communists' deliberate strategy to foment a class war by disguising it as a race war.
I changed my voter registration from Libertarian to No Party Preference when Jo Jorgenson sided with the openly Marxist, violent (definitely not pro-NAP), and authoritarian Burn Loot Murder, I mean Buying Large Mansions, I mean Black Lives Matter (but don't you dare say "All Lives Matter"). It demonstrated that she was far too naive and ignorant of current events and the political strategies of our diametrically-opposite communist enemies (not just opponents but enemies--the commies literally want us libertarians mass-murdered by the state).
I won't be returning to the LP until it has figured out that the whole racism schtick is a deliberate culture-war strategy and a favorite tool of professional character assassins on the left.
Humorously Female Empowerment was initiated the same way; Coverture was "head of household" for only women consenting to be married and only to the extend of "household" financing. It never held that Female's couldn't OWN things themselves or that females that didn't *CHOSE* to marry aren't entirely equal.. It only held that the male in a marriage contract held the "joint" financial authority..
The bottom-line to all these [WE] mobs is the POWER to STEAL from someone else what they themselves didn't want to EARN.
Do you mean when Jorgensen attended a candlelight vigil to show concern about police violence against black people? That was “sid[ing] with” Black Lives Matter?
What a fucking dishonest moron.
Laursen is literally cancer, and needs to be dealt with as such.
Any truth to rumors that the LP's outgoing chair had to be rushed to the hospital, and that former Chair Sarwark was assaulted on the floor of the convention? What the heck is going on? Event isn't even being held in a beer hall.
The assault looked like to guys bumping into each other as they were walking past. Please excuse the drama. Nick Sarwark stated this whole thing with the smearing of anyone who thought libertarians stood for sound money, free markets, limited govt and peace. If you didn't get on your knees and pledge to the far left you are not a racist..well you are a racist. Funny how the left never says "we believe in equality based on tribe, we believe there is no such thing as sunk cost and you must pay for the sins of your tribe..but we are not authoritarians"...
The LP was a joke the last few years..gravy train cosmo types at party HQ..dying to be invited to a NYT or Wapo or Salon party in DC.
Can anyone explain this? The Mises caucus claims to want to focus on decentralized and local. With the governmental actions re covid being a particularly egregious example of non-libertarian actions taken. Where the person they want to chair the LP is the head of the LA County party.
So - is LA an example of effectively acting decentralized/local? Is LA an example of how libertarian ideas made a real difference in covid there? And if so - was it because of the effective local edgelordery of the LP or because of the traditional and hohum stuff of political parties and getting locals elected?
The now current Chair of the LNC introduced legislation in LA City to remove vaccine mandates. It was a lot of work. She did pro bono work to help businesses shut down by lockdowns. She was in the news several times speaking out against mandates.
So, the LP was active in LA County and did what was possible to do.
The Mises Caucus effectively just became the Libertarian Party, with Michael Heise as its newly unelected shadow chair, which means the LP is now the political organ of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Some (many?) of those that are leaving the party because of this declared their intent to join the Democratic Party. So, in effect, the Mises Caucus is an enema.
Really?
Such as?
The DNC really should be funding the Mises PAC for turning the LP into a right-wing party.
And by “right wing”, you mean “anyone who isn’t a radical neo-Marxist”.
NOYB2, there's quite a bit of political ground between Nick Fuentes or Hans-Hermann Hoppe and actual "radical Neo-Marxism." Don't be dramatic.
Well, yes, there is, but not to demagogues and ideologues like you.
The Mises Caucus effectively just became the Libertarian Party, with Michael Heise as its newly unelected shadow chair, which means the LP is now the political organ of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Why do you care? You're a leftist. What libertarians do is none of your concern.
Sounds like reason is out and ethnic grievance culture and forced gestation by the state is in.
Hard to argue with the claim that that's where the political momentum will come from. Quite a few examples of 20th century movements potently fueled by "anti-wokeism".
gestation has always been within an individual's full control.
We know what causes it and we know how to prevent it.
And how to stop it, which, as you say, should be under the full control of the individual.
Sure. But men won't stop having sex with women that don't want to have children with them.
the Mises Caucus is the Trump Caucus.
Only to the extent that one views adhering to libertarian principle, even when it benefits Donald Trump or his supporters as being pro-Trump.
I believe in the presumption of innocence. Even when it's Donald Trump or one of his appointees I'm presuming innocent. I believe in due process. Even when it's Donald Trump I'm extending that due process to. I oppose the national security apparatus or federal law enforcement interfering with our free and fair elections. Even when they're interfering to stop Donald Trump. I support curtailing our nation's military adventurism. Even when it's Donald Trump doing the curtailing. I oppose the government holding political prisoners on dubious grounds. Even when those prisoners are Donald Trump supporters. I oppose the government and their cronies in private industry collaborating to suppress free speech. Even when that speech is supportive of Donald Trump.
For me, all of this was simply being a good libertarian. Standing by libertarian views regardless of the beneficiaries of the moment. Sadly, for some of the commenters here and for many of the writers here, that now qualifies me as a Trumpista. Well, better a Trumpista than a shill for authoritarians, I guess.
One question: The state of New York is investigating the Trump organization’s alleged purposely misstating the valuation of its properties. Is this also persecution of Trump, or a legitimate investigation?
Caw caw!
The only answer I can give without doing detailed research, wading through accounts from a largely biased and unreliable media is it depends. Is the investigation comparable to that that would be faced by other New York real estate developers? Is the investigation following standard, well-established assumptions and procedures? Or is this investigation being launched against the Trump Organization because it's run by Donald Trump and NY politicians know they can score political points attacking Donald Trump? Is this another of the myriad fishing expeditions to try to "take down" Trump that have proven baseless? Because I know a little bit about the valuation of illiquid assets and I can tell you that valuations in the absence of a sale of that asset, per se, are highly subjective and sensitive to a host of choices in assumptions and predictions of the future. Are the assumptions and predictions being demanded by the NY prosecutors ones that they would be willing to take financial and legal responsibility for being applied across the U.S. financial system? Or is this a one-off because f**k Donald Trump?
No one, including Donald Trump, should be deemed above the law. But, it's just as true that the law shouldn't be wielded as a cudgel to destroy those the people in power wish to impose their will upon. That's something I'd think a libertarian would understand implicitly.
Donald Trump.... the tariff king who thought that Snowden should be executed? That libertarian Donald Trump?
Funny, I never said that Donald Trump was a libertarian. Your comment is sort if a case study in what I'm talking about. I say that libertarian principles should be universally applied, even to Donald Trump. And you respond that Donald Trump isn't a libertarian, as if that should somehow exempt him from those principles.
One question: The state of New York is investigating the Trump organization’s alleged purposely misstating the valuation of its properties. Is this also persecution of Trump, or a legitimate investigation?
Odds are, no.
But it was Trump's fault for doing business in that corrupt city.
Such as...
For example, stating that they don’t welcome bigotry in the Libertarian Party.
I find it odd that the people who never supported bigotry are frequently called bigots by the party that has long supported bigotry.
White Mike, I've never heard you denounce torturing puppies and burning them alive. I guess we should all assume that, since you've never denounced it, you're fully in support of torturing puppies and burning them alive. Or, at least, you don't wish to alienate puppy-torturers.
The purpose of a political party is to govern. What business is it of government to "condemn bigotry"?! If you don't get this, maybe you aren't really a libertarian. Telling people what to think is not libertarian.
The platform plank doesn’t say they want the government to outlaw bigotry. The plank says that they do not want any bigots as members of the party.
Should they also spend time listing every single thing they do not support? And given that "bigotry/racism" has been bastardized to the point of meaningless should not be ignored.
Bigotry is the refusal to consider counter arguments, like yours. Ignore them and reality can be any fairytale in your head.
Sounds like the new LP don’t need no stinking counter arguments. Could it have just become even less relevant?
How many fuckwits here have blocked counter arguments with the bigotry button?
Obviously reason is on board.
You're a racist or a fascist if you don't agree with any proggie.
It's not a logical or reasonable argument, but it's the only one they have.
Both major parties have such tactics. For the Republicans, if you don’t agree with their views, you are anti-God and anti-family.
The Republicans have the advantage that many of their opponents ARE EXPLICITLY anti-religious and collectivist with regard to raising children. No need to put any words in their mouths.
When was the last Republican to discuss how anti-God somebody is?
And saying that parents should have no say in their children's education is definitely not a pro-family stance.
Oh no, somebody claimed I'm anti-god!
It's amusing seeing leftists pretend this matters. They're so ridiculous it's absurd.
Damn Mises Caucus and Trump!
https://twitter.com/activeasian/status/1530956890619817984?t=oQlkVEZ-nKUkKhCq_WP_mg&s=19
A group of men attack a man in a New York subway. The victim looks to be Asian. Asking for the public’s help in identifying the attackers and having them arrested. One man is holding the defenseless man as others punch him. New York subways are not safe. Video sent by follower.
[Video]
https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1531264594383147013?t=ilxdLxundvnRj9ecxYdfkA&s=19
Yes, Merrick Garland, democracy is in danger—largely due to the actions of your department. Garland’s prosecutors are demanding pretrial incarceration for at least 100 Trump supporters, some of whom have been in prison for 16 months awaiting trials…
DOJ continues to delay while withholding discovery including FBI records from defense. Garland wants months in jail for petty offense of “parading” in the Capitol including Americans who were inside for 5 minutes and committed no violence. Garland charged 13 protesters with…
seditious conspiracy, a crime so rare that it isn’t addressed in fed sentencing guidance. No American has EVER been convicted of seditious conspiracy—but Garland and DC US Atty Matt Graves are threatening those defendants with LIFE IN PRISON if they don’t accept plea deals.
Garland’s prosecutors last week unfurled a Trump 2020 flag as evidence against a nonviolent defendant during his trial. Why? Not bc the flag was used as a weapon—didn’t even belong to defendant. Prosecutors used the flag to anger jurors living in a city that voted 93% for Biden.
DOJ still charging people every week for minor involvement in a 4-hour protest nearly 17 months ago. Why? To gratify Biden’s grudge against Americans who didn’t vote for him and do Democrats’ dirty work. His claim that J6 and not his abusive prosecution is a dire threat is a joke
[Link]
As far as Libertarian politicians go, Angela is a smokeshow.
The message of this piece seems to be cautionary about new blood upsetting the LP Applecart. Nothing could be worse than the clown show that was the libertarian party. Plenty of talking heads and theories accompanied by ridiculous presidential candidates. Whatever the libertarian party becomes with this change, it can’t be any worse that what already existed.
And tossing out accusations of racism smells of desperation. This is standard fare for leftists because it’s so easy and free of actual argument that has to be defended. This sort of intellectual dishonesty is par for some people who want their gravy train protected.
Whatever the libertarian party becomes with this change, it can’t be any worse that what already existed.
Be careful what you wish for...
How can you believe that? Explain how the LP could possibly be worse than the presidential candidate supporting the organization behind the Floyd riots.
Yawn. She attended a candlelight vigil. Big whoop.
Quit being dishonest, you know very well that doesn't tell the whole story. Jorgensen endorsed an organization who had several members support the violent protests at several U.S. cities, and didn't do anything to condemn the riots or even distance herself from it.
In any case, neither you or JFree have answered my request.
there are too many people who despise libertarian views that can be offensive to rights, are intentionally hateful and bully, and often racist. helix jump
Remember when it used to begin with Ayn Rand? I miss those days.
Well, it looks like the right-wing, Christo-fascist takeover of LP is complete. It was inevitable since decades of conservatives and Trumpists calling themselves "libertarian" has thoroughly changed how people see both libertarians and the Party.
I first joined LP almost forty years ago but I think that I will no longer belong to, or identify with "libertarian." Instead, I will take advantage of the abandonment of the term "liberal" by statists (in favor of "progressive") and call myself a "liberal" from here on out. It's time for actual libertarians to take back the term "liberal" and to put the Mises cult completely behind us, leaving them to the now hopelessly inscrutable label "libertarian."
"Liberal Party," anyone?
Anyone feel like refuting this guy or should I take the honor?
Fill your boots.
Obviously in 20 years you couldn’t help the libertarian party “see it your way”.
It may take you another 20 to realize the same failure in the liberal party.
What’s with all you two dimensional “joiners” chasing an ideology until it fails you?
There is only one foolproof ideology that can never be refuted and by definition supports civilization, progress, rationality and peace.
It is to value the truth, aka reality, demonstrated by logic and science above all else. Denying it defines irrationality.
Hell, even most Christians, whose god is the spirit of truth, can’t accept the truth that exposes their corruption.
Bigotry, Jews worshiping lies seems to be the direction of at the libertarian party.
Come now, you were never libertarian. You're a leftist.
You 'joined' the LP with a cohort of other leftists and immediately set about dismantling the ideas of individual liberty in favor of 'civil' or 'social' liberty.
Which is not liberty at all.
The LP will never win any high office. Everyone in that organization knows this. BUT they can be enough of a force to play spoiler or become a factor in rank based election or something similar.
To do that, They can't keep on nominating white bread, low energy candidates like Johnson or Jorgensen. It seems like eons ago, but the republican voters used to vote for genteel country club types like the Bush family and Romney. Electability in the general election was supposedly key, and you couldn't risk any wild cards. Then Trump arrived at the scene.
You know what they say about insanity - it's doing the same thing over and over again. I suspect enough LP voters began to tire of the party being at a virtual standstill. At a certain point, they had to make a change. The last LP figure to inspire young people was - Ron Paul, probably. And he was a radical in so many ways.
The last LP figure to inspire young people was - Ron Paul, probably. And he was a radical in so many ways.
LP figure? You mean Republican Ron Paul?
As a independent libertarian minded voter who often votes for Libertarian candidates, I do not feel stress by the so called "Take-Over" of the Libertarian party. The banter back and forth is troubling because the argument is mostly about methods of gaining power and not about the goals.
As a non-party individual, I notice that what the Libertarian party has been doing, really hasn't worked. Probably time to try another approach. If the new approach works then everyone wins, if it doesn't then it will lose strength and a new approach will gain popularity.
The Libertarian party has an opportunity to shift power away from aging members to younger members. In the US Senate the median age is nearly 70 years old and in the US House it is younger, but not much younger.
Boomers (1946-64) may be the majority "Generation", but there are still numerous "Silent Generation" (1928-45) members. "Millennials" (1981-96) for the most part are too young and inexperienced to hold office, although there are exceptions to the rule. "Generation X" (1965-80) are of the age and experience level that they should be the majority of office holders.
Personally I believe that the "Generations" are arbitrary considering that I as a very late "Boomer" have very little in common with early "Boomers". I have much more in common with the early "Generation X".
Both president Biden and president Trump are way too old to be President. Presidents should generally be close to their mid-forties and under their mid-sixties. Same age range of mid-forties to mid-sixties with the US Senate, but the US House should be mid-thirties and mid-fifties.
The "Silent Generation" and early "Boomers" should relinquish office. "Generation X" should step up to the plate and take the reigns of power.
I welcome the new Libertarian movement and wish them the best. I sincerely hope that all the factions heed the wise word of Spike Cohen and accept the change and move forward to achieving our common goals. Become a party that would be worthwhile to actually join.
The important criteria for any leadership depends on the objective.
What is our clearly stated objective, our purpose for being here?
The electorate can’t perceive it and the politicians don’t want to. The masses get lied to, propaganda and knee jerk reactions to emotion. The elite get richer. This is what all politicians manage today.
Libertarian, democrat, republican are just costumes for stupid and phoney people.
Not one of these phoney fucks runs on a platform of valuing and sharing truth, reality.
That's false. The "left libertarians" that used to dominate the LP really are just progressives; they never wanted to create a libertarian society.
"The Mises Caucus' foes have accused the faction of planning to stop running candidates against Republicans they like."
Wouldn't this just make sense? Running against someone with the similar views seems a waste of limited resources.
They self-advertise as being edge-lords?
If that's true, I can see why they're so popular with the Reason commentariat.
Or maybe, just maybe, that their message is actual libertarianism. Is that hard for you to comprehend?
The important criteria for any leadership depends on the objective.
Finally some positive development with the Libertarian party.
Not running candidates against republics that support most of our issues makes good sense. Might help in NOT electing democrats.
Reason used to be great, I wonder if they will ever be a true libertarian magazine again???
I will up my donations, as it seems that maybe "reason" is finally back with the Libertarian party.
GO MISES CAUCUS, GO!!
Since voting is a waste of time, democracy is the god that failed, and America’s failed-fixed system can’t be reformed, what’s the point of all distractions such as these?
One vote for one of a few poor choices is hardly democracy.
We have the technology to develop online voting at all levels of government for all sorts of decisions every day.
Some nations with referendum based governance have realized a decrease in partisan politics.
We could be doing much better than we are today, by expanding it rationally, not discarding it.
Hello Admin
Routed
You fuckers were routed.
Now maybe the Libertarian Party can get back to liberty instead of being a leech on the left's ass.
It sounds like the LP might actually be worth rejoining soon.
“Control of Libertarian Party” = oxymoron
"Mises Caucus Takes Control of Libertarian Party"
is true on the surface. But the complete title should be:
"The scum of the Republican party, mascaraing as the Mises Caucus, Takes Control of the Libertarian Party."
The way our bylaws are written allowed this, but they can't truck their paid voters around to vote in multiple general elections like they did to fake internal Libertarian party elections. All that the Feces Caucus did is to make Libertarianism irrelevant on the national scale.
When I hear libertarians at the national level talk "intersectionality of race and gender...blah blah blah..trans rights...blah blah blah...everyone listen we are the party that rejects racism..blah blah blah" it is pretty pathetic. Sarwark was obsessed with rooting out the "white nationalists"...not sure who they were but had to play the boogieman for cosmo street creed I guess.
When libertarianism is basically woke light it was about over for his regime and the "henches" as well. Economic Liberty is the bedrock of libertarianism..not funding "therapists" to enter govt schools and find kids to experiment on for pedos.
Libertarians don't understand how politics works. That's why they can not win major elections.
Dave sorta hinted on one of his recent podcasts he might run.
Thanks. I now have the image of a turd coming at the camera lens.