In Arizona, Libertarian Party Senate Candidate Polls at 15 Percent
Marc Victor is gaining ground with a “live and let live” message.

Are Americans getting tired of the "choice" between dictatorial Democrats and control-freakish Republicans? Many of us would like to think so, and evidence from the crucial Arizona U.S. Senate race suggests that at least some voters are looking for an option that doesn't represent a competing brand of authoritarianism. In that contest, Libertarian Party nominee Marc Victor is polling at 15 percent and may get a further boost from his appearance in a well-timed televised debate.
"Live and let live. That's my position on every issue," Marc Victor introduced himself during his opening statement at the October 6 debate, which was broadcast by PBS. "Live your life however you choose, just let other people do the same thing. My name is Marc J. Victor, and if you're tired of the same old politics, I'm your guy. I'm a proud Marine Corps combat veteran, and for the last 28 years, I've been thinking outside the box as a criminal defense attorney."
In a phone conversation this week, Victor expressed disappointment that he didn't get as much airtime as incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly (the Democrat in the race) and Republican challenger Blake Masters. But his appearance was enough for The New York Times to note "he held his ground Thursday night, insisting that the moderator allow him to answer all the same questions as Mr. Kelly and Mr. Masters."
"There could be a receptive audience for that message," Jennifer Medina and Jack Healy added for the Times. "Roughly a third of Arizona's voters are not registered as Republicans or Democrats, and many view themselves as moderates or describe themselves as leaning libertarian."
In appealing to those voters, Victor, who also represented the Libertarian Party in the 2012 Senate race ultimately won by Republican Jeff Flake, emphasized the inclusive "live and let live" message with which he opened. By comparison, Kelly and Masters spent much of the debate redefining their political identities: Kelly, by trying to distance himself from his party's positions on immigration and border policy; and Masters, by attempting to put some daylight between his campaign and his earlier support for a national ban on abortion and his party's claims of a rigged 2020 election.
Victor is adamant that his approach contrasts well not just with the messages of Republicans and Democrats, but with ineffective messaging by libertarians in the past.
"We have the best message," Victor told me. "There's absolutely no question in my mind that if you are interested in freedom, in peace, in raising standards of living, we have the right message. So, I sit and scratch my head and say I've been a libertarian 30 years, why are we still in the minority?"
"We start by saying 'I'm for legalized meth' and 'fuck the government,'" he continued. "Things that just turn people off. So, my mission, as a libertarian, has been to reboot the libertarian message. And I've done that, I've reformatted it into what I call the live-and-let-live message."
Ironically, one prominent Libertarian Party figure was turned off anyway. During the debate, Victor complained that "our big problem with voting is that everything is up for a vote" and pointed to age of consent laws along with legislative representation as examples of the few issues that should be subject to political decision making. In response, Dave Smith, widely considered a contender for the 2024 Libertarian Party presidential nomination as part of the now-dominant Mises Caucus, endorsed one of Marc Victor's opponents.
"JFC," tweeted Smith. "This guy is a clown who has absolutely nothing to do with us. He went outside the party and got the signatures to be on the ballot. Stupid AZ laws. I support Masters."
"If you want to see what's wrong with the Libertarian Party, look at what's going on now," Victor told me of Smith's attack, and the prominent Mises Caucus figure's support for the very unlibertarian Masters (at last month's National Conservatism Conference in Miami, Blake Masters sniped "Libertarianism doesn't work"). "This is the kind of chaos that we need to get away from, and it only makes me want to separate from the Libertarian Party."
Victor isn't alone in his doubts about the Libertarian Party. The Mises Caucus takeover prompted New Mexico's state Libertarian Party to break away from the national organization, and the Virginia chapter moved to dissolve itself after the state central committee complained that the national organization was "functionally indistinct from other alt-right parties and movements."
But, while Marc Victor is concerned about the political party, he hasn't lost faith in libertarian ideas.
"I'm putting out a very hardcore, pro-libertarian position in a very agreeable, non-threatening kind of a way," he told me of his efforts through the campaign, which he intends to continue with a separate Live and Let Live organization. "I think the future of this movement, whether you want to call it classical liberalism, the enlightenment, libertarianism, voluntaryism, anarcho-capitalism, whatever, I think it will be live-and-let-live-ism and that's what I'm trying to promote."
Arizonans, at least, seem receptive to that message.
"If the elections were held today, incumbent Democrat Mark Kelly sits at 46% support among likely voters, Republican Blake Masters at 33%, and Libertarian Marc Victor at 15%," reports the Arizona Public Opinion Pulse Poll conducted by OH Predictive.
"Victor's 9% jump from the previous poll in early September, highly driven by Republican support, could be due to Blake Masters' struggle with his candidate image among likely voters," add pollsters.
The latest poll was conducted from October 4–6, mostly before the televised debate took place. That means we'll have to wait for the next poll to get a better idea of the debate's impact on the Senate race. The appearance should raise his profile, but third-party candidates tend to show up better in polling than they do on Election Day. Still, ballots are already being mailed to voters, and 89 percent of voters chose to vote early during the 2020 general election. That means Marc Victor may be gaining prominence at just the right moment to maximize support in a race that could decide control of the currently evenly divided U.S. Senate.
Beyond the election, while he's unlikely to take his message to that legislative body, Marc Victor intends to keep promoting live-and-let-live as a value long after the votes are counted.
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
Would it be worthwhile for the non Mises Caucus libertarians to rebrand?
Democrat is already taken.
Cucks might be available. But best hurry before Kinzinger takes it.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this site.. http://www.Profit97.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a (ad-11) lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [res-29] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://workopportunity23.blogspot.com
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [res-22] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE........>>> OnlineCareer1
MC will flush the 'libertarian' brand name down the toilet. But a)not sure the brand is worth much anyway and b) libertarian was associated with and derived from left-wing anarchism before it was big-L.
Is it because they don't push mask, vaccines, and denial of medical care if they don't comply??
A lie, unless the child is too young to remember the 1972 Libertarian Platform (https://bit.ly/3PPpvBW). Before 1972 ALL anarchism had for 200 years meant violent communism with assassinations. To discredit the LP, mystical bigots at YAF and God's Own Prohibitionists and communists alike began calling us anarchists, even invented mixed-economy anarcho-mercantilism to further the fraud, culminating in Credere Obbedire Combattere fascisti using Lootvig Fon Austrian NSDAP as a stalking horse.
"b) libertarian was associated with and derived from left-wing anarchism before it was big-L"
And "liberal" was associated with increased freedom at one time too before it was taken over.
Going to place this necessary correction (here) to Ludwig Von Mises Business Cycle theory as the cause of depression...where we are today, just before 2022 mid-term elections. Mises definition..."As the founder of the "neo-Austrian School" of economics, Mises’s business cycle theory, which blamed inflation and depressions on inflationary bank credit encouraged by Central Banks, was adopted by most younger economists in England in the early 1930s as the best explanation of the Great Depression.(end of definition). There is no "live-and-let-live" theory in Von Mises Institutes strict economic theory...and current US administration thwarts key principles contained in Mises Institutes Economics as does politician "Live-and-let-live" candidate in Arizona. Surprise, because two of the leading (top two) states with best marks for education are: 1)Florida and 2) Arizona. Pray. Amen. God Bless America. Read a Bible. KJV. Psalm 128. 10 Commandments everywhere. Study economics the Von Mises way. God Bless.
Positive Christian National Socialists have a huge investment in pretending that laws making production and trade a felony HELP the economy. This lie is exposed in "Prohibition and The Crash." It was also exposed in "The Economic Results of Prohibition," with the result that the prohibitionist narco-state made Clark Warburton an unperson and sends agents to libraries to destroy existing copies of his book. The Jones Five & Ten law made beer a felony in March 1929. The Atlantic Highlands bust that October CRASHED stocks, already falling since late August. Hoover looting did the rest...
The proper libertarian message is "Live and kill Democrats." Duh.
Geiger is right though, youre coming across like a dumb adolescent who is starting to explore the proper use of higher communication techniques like sarcasm.
Didn't Oscar Wilde say sarcasm is the lowest form of humor? Aw, who cares what he said. He was a faggot. Right?
See, youre really bad at this you fucking idiot xD
You missed the joke. A week doesn't go by without GG calling me a faggot. As if that's an insult or anything. So I figured he say sarcasm is the highest form of humor, being that OW really was a faggot.
He may be referring to the whiny little bitch energy you radiate. I would call you a pansy for that, but faggot can be rebranded to be less homophobic that way.
I mean i generally don’t have a problem with gay folks. You’re a faggot, though.
Hurr durr, I bet you scored some points with that one. *yawn*
You should come back 9 hours from now with your SQRSLY sock and post your 8 paragraph copypasta, that'll really show him.
It won’t show me. I’ve had SQRLSY on ignore for month.
It's funny because you gleefully yuck it about an unarmed Republican woman being murdered in cold blood by a racist, incompetent cop.
Whenever I read of Democrats and Republicans actually killing one another, schandenfreude and joyful hope for a better future result.
He isnt at 15%. Barely anyone know who he is. I've asked many people I know their thoughts and they don't recognize his name. Whatever poll this is is wrong.
I've been interacting with Victor's campaign since he was trying to get on the ballot. I've had multiple back and forth with his team. Through writing he seems fine. There are areas I disagree with him. As libertarians are bound to have disagreements. His debate was a literal clown show. Bringing up age of consent laws needlessly. Victor came across as a caricature rather than an honest person.
Their poll shows Masters at 33% which is an extreme outlier.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/az/arizona-senate-masters-vs-kelly-7390.html
So no. Victor isn't at 15%
Because people are more interested in smiting the other tribe than in living together in peace. We're three steps out of the cave with a bunch of toys.
Typical low iq individuals’ generalized scorn for people: “People are so stooopid, I am the wise, inert, irrelevant bench sitter, look at how cool I am talking all wise and stuff!” 😀
Talk about missing the point.
Whoosh!
The fact of the matter is that we have caveman brains. We're wired to be tribal. Some of us are not part of a tribe for whatever reasons. Left on purpose, got kicked out, can't find a tribe we want to be part of.
(this is where I plug the political orphanage https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/)
Sure we've got smart phones and nukes, but we've still got tribal brains. These brains see "the other" as a threat. Which is natural when tribes compete for limited resources.
Cooperation and trade with other tribes are very recent phenomena on an evolutionary scale. Our brains haven't caught up.
Lmao youre so stupid its insane.
You don’t even realize how using that “caveman brain” argument to point out mans stupidity is exactly what irrelevant bench sitters like to do to show everyone how much more insightful they are and how they hope to elevate themselves over the rest. When in reality their problem is their low iq. 😀
Lol, youre such a clown.
You're saying that I don't understand my own argument and that makes me stupid?
I think it's the other way around, bub.
Yeah, it takes a great deal of stupidity to not understand the implications of your own drivel.
I've always found it humorous how people call me stupid when they don't understand what I'm saying.
You see, unlike you I'm not here to score points. Heck, I don't know why I'm here. Maybe I like the abuse.
Anyway, that means that when I post a comment it's not a snide attack on the other team. Probably because I'm not a team.
You, however, are on a team. So you perceive every comment that's not an attack on the other team to be an attack on your team.
Don't feel bad. It's a tribal behavior that is very common in these comments.
Sure “our brains havent caught up” 😀 Lol, dumb 16 year old finds ways to lament about the evil world and evil humankind while trying to look smaaaht simultaneously.
Our brains are working on 50,000 year old technology. I say "our" because I've got the same caveman brain as you. Well mine is a bit larger and gets more use than yours, but it's still based on old technology. Tribal technology. And that's what I see playing out in politics. People are scratching their armpits and throwing sticks at the other tribe. I'm sure there were people on the sidelines then as I am now.
Jesus Christ, this faggy moral high ground take “waaaaaaah, we’re all cavemen, were all so baaaad, im the only one between the tribes and everyone hates me because im better, waaaaaah!!!!”
Furthermore, brain size in humans is very weakly correlated with intelligence. And forgive me for not using my brain a ton when I talk to someone as dumb as you.
That's a wonderful interpretation, and it sheds light on the many electoral races I track in different countries and languages. ALL without fail rely primarily on the flinging of excrement, waving of sticks, shouts, curses and imprecations. I was wondering what the teevee does to make them imbeciles, but obsolete wetware, superstition, ignorance and social pressure could possibly explain the lamentable phenomena we see before us. Good post, thanks.
Lamentable would be irrelevant, moral-high-grounding, human rounding errors aka Libertarians. If their whining about "muuuh evil world, evil people, CAVEMEEEEENNNN!!!!!" wouldn't be so delicious, that is.
"Live and let live. That's my position on every issue," Marc Victor introduced himself during his opening statement at the October 6 debate, which was broadcast by PBS. "Live your life however you choose, just let other people do the same thing. My name is Marc J. Victor, and if you're tired of the same old politics, I'm your guy. I'm a proud Marine Corps combat veteran, and for the last 28 years, I've been thinking outside the box as a criminal defense attorney."
Oh my god, that's so vapid. That's the pull out quote you highlight at the top? "Choose a third way, think outside the box like me?"
You don't win by being milquetost, you win by making good arguments and having salient points and being authentic. And his response to the voting question was...weird. "Not everything should be up for a vote," when you rush through that point in 20 seconds, it sounds very authoritarian. I'm not sure your standard, non-libertarian minded audience can even parse that he's saying that you can't force government into everything, that most things should be in the private realm.
All I know is the country sUrE Is dOiNg GrEat with the Dems in charge of everything.
And those voting machine that got purchased in 2018 by a big ol' hedge fund?
They failed at a 3% to 7% rate in 2020, depending on how many “non-eligible to register citizens” were alive on Election Day 2020.
So rather than a six sigma accuracy, the dominion machines have a raw tabulation accuracy of 93.0000 to 97.0000 (which means roughly as many as 12 states had tabulation outcomes that were “fundamentally unknowable” in 2020 as the fail rate in those states exceeded the statewide margin of victories (in some cases by 10,000x).
What do you call a country where that happens and no journalist covers it? Is that "Live and let live"?
We call it utter bullshit.
They had many, many court cases to prove issues and guess what? They had JACK SHIT.
STFU already and get over LOSING snowflake.
You mean the more than a dozen court cases including a recent USSC ruling about illegal election changes in 2020?
"The election was stolen!"
"Trumpista!"
"No, from Hillary!"
"Oh, carry on then."
Tell us about how Mueller proved Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election again, shreek.
Republican soft machines are willing and able to monkey-wrench the economy the way Cooledge did on 02MAR1929 and his victim Bert Hoover did on 13DEC1932. Their actions make it clear they will impose any burden, commit any treason, engage in any sabotage to keep marijuana from competing with Coors and Budweiser and to riddle with bullets every women's clinic until personhood and individual rights are denied and every fertile female is enslaved in the production of Hitlerjugend and Bundes Madschen Silver Shirts.
I saw about 10 minutes of the debate and the annoying thing about Reason-approved Libertarian candidates like this guy is they go on for 5 minutes about the greatness of immigration and essentially espouse open borders with a vaguely-defined-minimally-invasive security check and then, out of the side of their mouth, quietly say for 7 seconds that we shouldn’t have all of the social programs. The open border dreams that they really care about are real, the social program removal preference they don’t actually care about are…a longshot. That leaves them the functional equivalent of Democrats.
A large part of that I think is convenience and social pressure. Attacking Trump and “insurrectionists” is easy. Attacking the left is a lot harder. That’s why Reason barely reacted when the PRIVATE COMPANIES! argument fell apart regarding big tech censorship. It’s why Trump’s tariffs were a HUGE deal (did you know tariffs are a tax increase? If you didn’t, Reason let you know 12 times) worthy of outrage and teeth-gnashing but inflation is only worthy of muted, scholarly tsk tsk.
essentially espouse open borders with a vaguely-defined-minimally-invasive security check and then, out of the side of their mouth, quietly say for 7 seconds that we shouldn’t have all of the social programs. The open border dreams that they really care about are real, the social program removal preference they don’t actually care about are…a longshot.
This is exactly right.
Spot on. A parallel with most every other Federal overreach could likewise be drawn - e.g. the CRA and all it's various permutations.
Reason's idea of 'libertarianism' effectively being nothing more than soft statism imposing a preferred set of outcomes.
A Trumpanzee with an average IQ is indeed helpful in pointing out to the pathetic that no borders does mean no government. A child chasing a butterfly across a border is an invasion, just as a woman terminating a pregnancy is an individual right. nothing in the original platform said to welcome invaders, suicide-vest terrorists, Nazi frogmen with dynamite or Ebola vectors uninspected. Helping either half of the Looter Kleptocracy only injures the Original libertarian message and invites added infiltration by hopeful fanatics.
I have to agree with Smith. If you're a Libertarian and you're putting yourself in the position of having to explain, "No, I'm really not in favor of f**king kids", maybe you shouldn't be lecturing all the other libertarians about their problems with messaging. When you're faulting because he wasn't able to retain David Petraeus because he wanted to get out of the Syrian civil war, maybe you've lost track of the libertarian argument.
Reason of course was too lazy to listen to why Smith supports Masters. Largely it is Masters has a long background in libertarianism. He wrote articles for Lew Rockwell as well as supporting antiwar.com. he has libertarian views. He has changed a bit the last few years, but he has a libertarian background for most of his background. But it fall closer to the Mises Caucus form of libertarianism. Which is why Reason is so against him.
Meanwhile Victor is a caricature of a libertarian without deeply held or explained positions.
An example.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/02/blake-masters/the-lusitania-is-down-orhowtosellawar/
So he's libertarian because he's really into alt-right conspiracy theories.
Reason of course was too lazy to listen to why Smith supports Masters.
Too lazy, or just not interested?
I would love it if Reason did an actual, in-depth analysis, issue-by-issue, between a competent MAGA and/or Mises guy and the Reason establishment-types (Robbie, ENB or whatever). They could discuss, for example, if there is a difference between removing a Buttplug-endorsed graphic novel showing children sucking cock from a school library and a giant private-partnership between the current party in power and several multi-billion dollar tech companies that encompass essentially the entire public square for the purposes of censorship that is already extending to financial institutions. These real issues seem to always be dodged in favor of ZONING! and BAD DeSANTIS! and INSURRECTION!
Honestly, the regime libertarian (i.e. Reason establishment-type) position isn't all that interesting anymore. I can get it from a host of other regime publications. Just add hipper circuses to the bread dole. Personally, I mostly still come here for the commenters. That said, a discussion between a MiCauc type and a MAGA type probably would be interesting. I think there's areas where you could see some interesting agreements and some interesting disagreements.
Same here on being here for the comments. As bad as most of the articles are with their “both sides” gymnastics and selective depth of analysis, it is one of the few sites out there with a free comment section and the generally poor articles do present topics for discussion. As a long-time libertarian-leaning thinker (and Libertarian party member in the early 2000s) it’s just perpetually perplexing how the exponentially more dangerous progressive left is intentionally minimized by supposedly a supposedly rational publication.
As I stated it before, Reason has gone pretty hard in the so-called 'left-libertarian' spectrum, or as I sometimes more hyperbolically state, the Libertarian Marxism direction.
They have remained fairly good on the "Hey man, do what you want, live your own life, man" but have become frustratingly bad on the collective being required to not only support, but affirm and participate in your personal choices. As you said above, that's the 7 seconds of mumbling out the side of their mouths about maybe curbing the social programs.
Socially and culturally left, to a certain extent, but they have been for quite a while. When those issues come to the fore, the divisions within libertarianism become more tangible. In the neocon phase of the GOP, Reason/Cato libertarians and LvMI/paleolibertarians had much the same outlook and priorities.
Left-libertarianism specifically refers to economic philosophy, with a spectrum ranging from pro-market views, such as Georgism (center-left) and mutualism (hard-left), to anti-market views, such as anarcho-communism (far-left). I don't think any Reason writer is actually a libertarian Marxist.
"Meanwhile Victor is a caricature of a libertarian without deeply held or explained positions."
They're pretty deeply held, and he's been at it a long time.
https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/news/judge-pro-tem-kicked-off-bench/article_f22cc576-b935-5a20-a5f9-6571f8e9effc.html
We could do far worse than having the Republican and Libertarian parties flip in terms of popularity.
Some are out there but at least they believe in democracy (for the most part- some of this guy's diatribes are out there.)
Like what specifically?
Coming from a guy who got banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography, his diatribes must be really out there.
>>"I'm putting out a very hardcore, pro-libertarian position
the brand is dead go with pro-liberty ... people still hear liberty
Agreed. Many modern conservatives are, at this point only conservative of the classical liberal notions enshrined in the founding principles of this country. You know, the very things the modern left has wanted to tear down since the late 19th century.
All of which places those liberty minded people at odds with the entrenched bulk of the GOP, who are quite happy to perpetuate their nest feathering bureaucratic state. Even as it makes the GOPe bedfellows of those who would turn the state ever more against the people it ostensibly represents.
It is well past time to draw a clear distinction between those who truly do support personal liberty vs the Utopian and Utilitarian collectivists pervading libertarianism.
There are very few American conservatives now who can claim any connection with 'classical liberal'. It may have been a thing when 'liberal' first morphed but not anymore.
>>liberty minded people at odds with the entrenched bulk of the GOP
how I ended up here.
Me too.
"live-and-let-live" is just a nicer way of saying Mind Your Own Damn Business.
> He went outside the party and got the signatures to be on the ballot.
That's how the system works. That the Mises Caucus doesn't understand this and want to control who can run for office just shows how un-libertarian they actually are.
They completely understand it and commented on it you retarded fuck.
Here in Arizona, the state party has zero input on who runs under the party banner. The secretary of state "decides" what party you were in by how you registered yourself, and the signature requirements are set by the state. We've had total wankers run as LP candidates and the state LP could do nothing about it other than issue denouncements that only the high choir ever got to read.
Victor has been a leading AZ libertarian for decades, not a wanker. That being said, stalwarts are required to qualify in exactly the same way the wankers do.
Yep.
Smith makes it sound like Marc Victor is some random dude who got on the ballot. He's well known to the AZLP.
The best endorsement possible is for an illiterate girl-bullying Republican Grabber Of Pussy like "Dave Smith" or "Joseph Smith" to denounce the Non-Anschluss Libertarian. Fake Smith slit his own throat by endorsing God's Own Prohibitionists in the enslavement of women as involuntary breeder dams and threatening physicians at gunpoint. Let this be a lesson to future National Socialist invaders like Old Sparky was to the Austrian Corporal whose agents infiltrated These States in 1942. 13A applies to women too!
What the hell are you on about?
The party is not as helpless as you say. We were successful in getting a crackpot to withdraw from a race when we confronted her with petitions she circulated as a Democratic candidate and used white out and the typed Libertarian on the ballot.
Our primary was closed for many years until GOP rigged ballot access laws.
Victor has not been active with the LP for decades. Not that it matters.
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Donald Trump
Fuck Dave Smith
Fuck Brandybuck.
Not even with sarcasmic's flaccid microchode
Finally, we almost agree on something. Er... you first, by all means.
I wouldn't expect irrelevant, impotent Libertarians to go first on anything, let alone something that requires an erection 😀
I'm for legalized meth and fuck the government.
Fuck Brandyshit with Tony's dick
Given Reason’s past crush on the milquetoast Jeff Flake, I’m not surprised by their antagonism toward Blake Masters. However, given Masters’s past libertarian stances and the support he’s received from the “libertarian-leaning” Peter Thiel, it would be nice if Reason made an actual compare and contrast breakdown between the candidates.
If Blake Masters is more of a Rand Paul-type Republican rather than a Marco Rubio or a Liz Cheney then it makes little sense for libertarians to not support him. Hell, if Blake Masters manages to win in spite of losing the support of libertarians in his state then what incentive does he have, other than personal principles, to pursue limited-government/libertarian solutions in the Senate?
Funny you should ask.
There's a cadre of libertarians who believe that an LP is futile by definition, because politicians *govern,* and the LP philosophy is to govern as little as possible. They maintain that the LP's ideal is to do what the Socialist Party did during the WWII era -- gadfly one of the major parties into adopting all their planks, even though they win next to no real seats.
Victor has an open offer to both Masters and Kelly: hold a televised/streamed meeting (so no renegging) where they compare and contrast their policy similarities and differences, and if either candidate is satisfactory enough to Victor, he will withdraw and endorse them. The first reaction is that they'd never agree to do that, but if it's really for 15%? I bet they would.
This is a pretty clever way to achieve the above goal.
If the LP was actually what it purports to be it would have only one plank, stop government from initiating force.
Yes, if looters were honest this trick would have every change of working. But when was the last time you tried to reason with folks who can't read a word of Aramaic, have never even puzzled over the original scrolls, yet firmly believe the Immaculate Birchin' raised a boy to shake the maggots out of dead bodies and restore rotted corpses to life while walking on water. YIP-brainwashed commie Dems are no less superstitious and credulous. Kleptocracy Looters will compete as honestly as National Socialists competed with Jews.
That cadre is otherwise known as the Radical Caucus.
Fifteen percent? Wow! That's loser first class territory!
Almost half as much support as the guy who is going to lose to Sen. Kelly.
Carry on, clingers.
In another poll that was released the day after, Masters and Kelly poll much closer to each other. Don’t get the viagra out just yet, old man. 😀
I am content with 538's analysis -- Kelly a 75 percent or so likelihood of victory, which seems about right.
The Republicans helped Kelly by nominating an insufferable asshole.
Thanks, clingers!
Poor artie. If you had completed 8th grade before your bucktooth cousin started fucking you on the ass full-time, retarded poseurs like Nate Silver wouldn't seem so heroic to you.
538 predicted Hillary’s landslide victory if I remember correctly. Stay content. I will stay in reality.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Because I thought I might as well look it up and get back to you.
538 looks almost as credible as the CDC.
"...The Republicans helped Kelly by nominating an insufferable asshole..."
No, you keep popping up here.
1.4% of the vote got the 18th Amendment into the Constitution.
2.4% of the average vote imported the 16th Amendment from the Communist Manifesto, after TR got 27% in 1912.
3.28% of the vote united the Commie Dems and Grabbers of Pussy to do whatever it takes to help the Anschluss Caucus get rid of the LP. Never underestimate the law-changing clout of Libertarian spoiler votes. Your Looter Kleptocracy sure as hell doesn't!
In what parallel universe did these things happen? What do I have to take to experience that universe?
That poll is very dubious as all other polls here in AZ show him between 1-2%, which is still more than he'll get on election day.
Yeah, chances are Libertarians will stay as irrelevant as they have been.
If jumping on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon didn't help them, I don't know what will.
Lol
See Johnson/Weld pre election polling vs. actual vote count. If I lived in AZ I'd vote the MC endorsement which might have an actual chance of winning. I have much in common with anybody who writes for or even reads Antiwar.com.
Masters does not have an MC endorsement. Dave Smith was only speaking for himself.
He's a MAGA republican who might have been libertarian some time in the past. He ain't one now.
Libertarians need to focus on one issue, stopping government from initiating force.
“‘(at last month’s National Conservatism Conference in Miami, Blake Masters sniped “Libertarianism doesn’t work”)”‘
Well, at least as far as satisfying the desires of most politicians, this statement is accurate, given that most politicians seek power, and libertarian philosophy seeks, in many aspects, to dis-empower, or, at least, severely limit, the power of politicians.
"After a recent candidate debate, Mr. Victor addressed calls for him to step down in a video he released on social media. “If either one of those candidates, either Senator Kelly or Blake Masters, wants to talk to me about stepping down and endorsing them, I am absolutely willing to have that conversation and I will bring an open mind to the conversation,” he says to the camera. His one condition: The meeting must be videotaped, unscripted, and released to the public.
“If I’m convinced that it’s in the interest of freedom and peace and civility for me to step down and endorse one of them, that’s exactly what I’ll do,” he tells the Sun."
https://www.nysun.com/article/surge-of-support-for-libertarians-could-be-a-spanner-in-the-republican-race-for-senate-in-arizona
An amusing idea for a political stunt. Either candidate would be a fool to take the bait of course, as it would only give Victor more media exposure. Though given Victor's slip-up on the whole "age of consent" thing, I could easily see Masters quickly slipping him up and/or taking Victor's support away from him.
Everyone's in favor of "live and let live", until they realize it means letting other people live as they choose too.
"...until they realize it means letting other people live as they choose.."
THE HORROR!!! THE HORROR!!!
Marc Victor is a non-voting, anarchist libertarian. He can try to deliver a different marketing message, but he doesn't believe in it at all. His race is nothing more than a way to self-promote and gain publicity. He has spent years decrying government and voting but yet takes time and effort to run for office. He is a contradiction in terms and not serious in the least.
If the Anarcho-Anschluss girl-bulliers hate him, that's an endorsement his Kleptocracy adversaries can never equal. Listen to what THEY say about EACH OTHER.
That is how we roll. Our candidates tell the people directly their vote does not matter because the game is rigged and they still vote LP. We "spoil" elections which is why AZ GOP rigged ballot access requirements.
The fact that someone thinks libertarianism doesn't work doesn't make hir anti-libertarian or even unlibertarian. It's just a recognition that if you want more individual liberty, pushing it as an -ism per se is counterproductive. The Republican nominee may be the most libertarian candidate in this contest.
.
What the Hell does that mean? And how's that J. Wellington Wimpy Full Nourishment Act working out, Slaver?
Europeans, especially German Big Pharma, believed National Socialism was more libertarian than the Social Democratic Party in 1933. Of course, it never occurred to any of them to read and compare the platforms until the gas started coming into the enclosed spaces.
Blake Masters sniped "Libertarianism doesn't work"
Of course not...for Totalitarians. (Looking at you, Misek, Nardz, Goldie, Tony, AmSoc, and mtruman.)
And speaking of Totalitarians, here's another one:
Marjorie Taylor Greene defends the right to mock dead kids while her intern calls for blasphemy ban
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/10/marjorie-taylor-greene-defends-right-mock-dead-kids-intern-calls-blasphemy-ban/
Fuck Off and God Damn You, You Closet De Sade! And your Greene-Teeth Bitch too!
And Long Live the Charlie Daniels Band!
Govt. is a disease disguised as a cure. Capitalism, i.e., the free market, doesn’t guarantee 100% protection, just your ability to exercise your disgresion, your “due diligence”. Socialism, it’s opposite, guarantees economic chaos from coercive centralized control, no choice for you. With capitalism you chose who to give your money to. With a mixed economy, you get to choose sometimes, but not always, e.g., in the “public sector” (the govt. sector). Compared, the private sector is subject to “market democracy” and the public sector is subject to chaotic laws, chaotic bureaucracy, marked by suffering, discontent, without recourse, ZERO accountability (for the system).
Bottom line: Do you want the freedom to choose for yourself and no one else (live & let live), or do you want bureaucrats to force their choice on you? Don't vote, defund the govt.
Government is the means by which we place the retaliatory use of force under objective law. It's proper function is to defend liberty. To achieve that function it must be prohibited from initiating force thereby granting it no power.
Dave Smith does not speak for the AZLP or the AZ Mises Caucus.
Grabber-Of-Pussy Smif sure as hell speaks for The Looter Kleptocracy, just as Jeremy "Pinhead" Cohen and Das Boothead Vermin did before his clown act replaced theirs.
So he’s going to get socialist gun grabber Kelly re-elected. Mission accomplished
Awwww... It's soooo cute when a Grabber Of Pussy helps defeat God's Own Prohibitionists, then cries like it wasn't his fault. BUA HAHAHAHAHAHA! Heavy on the schadenfreude, please!
Meh, so the Libertarian is gonna give a little extra margin to the winning Democrat. What's new there?
Masters will perform about as well as the other Trump-endorsed nominees, which is why we will still have a Democratic senate after November. Worse, we will have a Soros-dominated Arizona.
Blake Masters is precisely the kind of candidate the Mises PAC (a Republican "infiltrate and neuter" operation which recently took over the Libertarian National Committee) was formed to protect.
The Mises PAC's raisson d'etre is to ensure that if a Libertarian candidate gets on the ballot at all, he or she delivers such a toxic message that "liberty-leaning Republican" voters take one look, recoil in horror, and say "shit, even Trumpism is better than THAT."
No wonder they hate Victor. He upset their apple cart in a key/swing state, probably resulting in a woodshed moment with their GOP handlers.
Great, this will help the unDEMOCRATIC Socialists to win the seat. I can only hope they put the libby nut jobs in a re-education camp and then graduate them to a forced labor camp for the collective good of all.
Looky there! ANOTHER Grabber-Of-Pussy sockmasque whining after his superstitious clique helped convince women voters to tar, feather and railroad the MAGA Trumpanzee ticket back to the Beatles-albums bonfires of Wallace Alabammy. PLEASE cry into my chilled mug... pretty please?
Thank RAH Arizona--not the Anarcho-Austrian Anschluss--is a better judge of libertarian candidates than Snuffy Smif, Tokyo Pink, Das Boothead or Pinhead Cohen. YESSS 17%... that could be 65% by simply refusing to let suicide vest jihadists, infected herds and random invaders sneak across the border uninspected. Mark could possibly be the candidate whose spoiler votes restore individual rights to the female half of Arizona's voters. THAT's a victory for the legacies of David Nolan, John Hospers and Nonie Nathan!
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [res-22] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE........>>> OnlineCareer1
GOOD
Marc Victor is well known among libertarians and Libertarians in Arizona. He was around before Dave Smith and will be here after Dave Smith. I was a fan of Smith until this. He can go pound sand. He is now supporting the party that rigged ballot access laws to keep Libertarian Party off the ballot.
This is all great. But if, on election eve, reliable polls show he can't win, don't vote for him. Purpose of elections is to make collective decisions. If someone can't win, the collective decision as to that person has been made; that's what "can't win" means. If there's a collective decision not yet made, have your vote reflect your preference on that decision.
Ah. The silliness of the 'strategic voter'.
First - even if the notion of the 'every voter is obligated to vote strategically', the prescription for action is meaningless. Why should the third party be the one obligated to change their vote? Why shouldn't the second party change to the third party? Why shouldn't everyone just switch to the winning party so the victory is unanimous and everyone will be satisfied that they voted for the winning side?
Second, one vote doesn't matter. Even if you get a little sticker that says "I voted therefore I matter", it ain't true. The closest Senate race in history was 1974 in New Hampshire. The final results show the election was decided by 2 votes (which is NOT one vote). But in fact there were two previous recounts - one of which was 355 votes and the other was 10 votes in the other direction. So the election was NOT decided by one vote. The outcome was merely within the margin of counting error. Elections are not certain. They are probabilistic - as are virtually all human actions made quantitative.
In that circumstance, the proper thing to do is - to hold another election. Not to sit and count chads forever to pretend that each one matters. Which is what NH did and the result was a 27,000 margin. Conclusive. And the ideal place of power in that second election is the THIRD party and those who chose not to vote. In NH, the only third party then was George Wallace's - but a whole bunch of voters didnt vote the first time. The second election turned out to bring out those who didn't vote the first time - and all three parties increased their absolute vote a bit. If an election is truly highly competitive, then it should be demonstrated by an outcome not a poll. And all voters should be aware of that before election day.
Third - stop with this arrogance of the strategic voter. Even if one vote mattered, NO ONE KNOWS how you voted except you. It's a secret ballot (as it should be). Now maybe you will actually be a voter in a one-voter election - but in that case, millions of morons will march around chanting 'My vote is the ONE that mattered' totally un-self-aware that there are millions saying the same thing who are all 'correct'. IOW - does your vote actually matter in some rational way or are you just being manipulated?
"Why should the third party be the one obligated to change their vote" -- because it got many fewer votes in the "preliminary voting" (aka reliable election-eve polls)? The situation isn't symmetric.
"does your vote actually matter" -- you do plenty of things daily that don't "matter", like post here. You don't need a world-changing justification to do something. Voting third-party likely won't "matter" either. But if you're going to choose among several non-mattering alternatives, might as well consider things like purpose of elections.
Nope. I vote for the best candidate. Period. Your argument is a diluted "lesser of two evils".
"...Your argument is a diluted “lesser of two evils”."
If you live where your vote might make a difference, and you do not vote for the candidate who can win and is closest to your views, you own droolin' Joe.
"I vote for the best candidate" -- which would matter if the purpose of elections was to accurately record everyone's truest wishes. But the purpose is to make collective decisions.
'Your argument is a diluted “lesser of two evils”' -- well yes, if the country has make a definite (if unwise) collective decision to narrow its choice down to two evils, you should help it avoid another bad collective decision (choosing the bigger evil). It's still your country, even if it does something stupid like rejecting a good candidate outright.
"This is all great. But if, on election eve, reliable polls show he can’t win, don’t vote for him. Purpose of elections is to make collective decisions. If someone can’t win, the collective decision as to that person has been made; that’s what “can’t win” means. If there’s a collective decision not yet made, have your vote reflect your preference on that decision."
This assumes there is a value to your vote as regards electing someone; in CA, that is simply not true. It is false regardless of your preference; the "D" candidate will win, period.
So my votes go to the "L" candidate, just to let 'them' know there are those not at all pleased with the current conditions.
That's why I said "_If_ there’s a collective decision not yet made". If there isn't, as in CA, then what I wrote doesn't apply.
To say that a choice between a typical Republican and a typical Democrat constitutes consent is like a rapist saying the victim consented because he gave her a choice: in the mouth or between the legs.
Are the Democrats pumping money into Libertarians candidates hoping they will take away conservative votes? Also other than the one issue of abortion how are the Republicans control-freakish? While we know the Democrats are dictatorial on every issue, lie about the current state of the Union and want to re-write the Constitution and Bill of Rights to “fundamentally change America” and that fundamental change is sure to be for the worst.
I don’t think it will work, I am a libertarian that has always voted for independently, often for the Libertarian candidate, but the Democrats are so dangerous I will vote a straight Republican ticket for the first time in my life this mid-term, Even bad Republicans are better than the terrible Democrats. I usually like to vote for the best, but now I am happy to choose the lesser of two evils, as the Democrats are so evil.
Well, at least then ENB will defend his right to work in that profession here on Reason.
When has it ever been tried?
You mean his job as glory hole attendant at his local Transit Authority hub?
That's a long story, being that my parents are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Maybe that's why I'm stuck in the middle without you, with dickholes to the left and asshats to the right.
I've got an idea. Why don't you act like a little kid and call me names instead of responding to what I said? Oh, whoops. You beat me to it.
So do I.
And if any of that was true you might be right.
I'm sorry that you have such a low self esteem that the only way to boost it is to insult strangers online. You should seek help.
Libertarians have guns. When government is prohibited from initiating force it doesn't matter what kind of spirit a person has.
I think you're being gaslighted.
It's being tried all the time, and it doesn't get enough traction to have substantial influence.
Just like Marxism, it's never been tried according to the developmentally disabled paint chip eating retards who espouse it.
When has government ever been prohibited from initiating force?
If it wasn't true you probably shouldn't have spent the last 8 years drunk-crying about it on here every other week and then claiming you were hacked.
Your moral high ground shtick might play a little better if you didn't flip flop positions within 20 minutes in the same goddamn thread. Go sleep it off you child molesting drunken piece of shit.
Never because that would literally violate the definition of government. Even your god-queen couldn't make that Randroid fantasy work in her fiction. What's it like to be as stupid as a Marxist?
Lmfao, say hi to Garrett Foster for me you LARPing faggot.
Your libertarian utopia arrives on the same day that the state withers away after the proletarian revolution you fucking clown.
It's eutopia. Utopia means "no place" while eutopia means "ideal place". The proletarian revolution is the former and Libertopia is the latter. Revolutions are never from the bottom up. They're always lead by a small cadre of the intelligensia using the proletariat as pawns.
LMFAAAO
Except Sarc’s is pickled.
Cite any definition of government that requires initiating force.
So you agree it's never been proven to not work.
The deontological ancaps claim that even a government that prevents other entities from operating alternative, for-profit criminal justice systems, private agencies set up to inflict violent retaliation upon alleged offenders of an alternative set of laws within the same territory, is a monopoly that unjustly initiates force. They would rather treat justice as a commodity to be sold on the market, accountable to no one but its paying customers, than have a uniform libertarian legal system accountable to the voting public.
I guess that's the difference between an ancap and an orthodox libertarian.
Brain dead means brain dead.